Hollywood's WWII US Generals--)))

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
OSCSSW	Hollywood's WWII US Generals--)))	Lead	[-]
Posts: 2359 ( 1-Apr-2008 00:23:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I was watching Tom Sellcik in Count Down to D-Day last week. I liked Tom's Portrayal of Ike very much. I could not help thinking about George C Scott's Paton and Gregory Peck's MacArthur. For my money, Sellick's Ike was by far the best of the three. AND marvelous Kiwi that portrayed the turd eating toad DeGaul, was the best performance in the movie. I really hated that frog--))) Was it true he refused to address the French people to cooperate in the invasion as protrayed? Full disclosure. I had an uncle, now past on, who was in the Paton's 3rd army and he absolutely loathed the man. My uncle was an AT gunner during the Bulge. He was wounded and left for dead. His uncle, a senior MP Sergeant, went out and not only found him but got him to an aid station in time for them to save his life. No %%@*. OK here are the questions for those who have seen all three movies: 1. Which did you like best? 2. Which one do you think most accurately portaryed it's general? 3. Which general do you most admire, if any? 4. Which one would you choosed to serve under? 5. Which one did the most to win WWII? I Like Ike!
NoOneFamous		#1	[-]
Posts: 1145 ( 1-Apr-2008 01:33:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	1. Patton 2. Scott did the best job. 3. The 3 generals I most admire are Wendell Fertig, Jonathan Wainwright and Matthew Ridgeway. 4. Ike, Patton or Mac? Ike 5. Ike - he held the coalition together. Last Edited By: NoOneFamous 1-Apr-2008 01:47:12. Edited 1 times.
emc		#2	[-]
Posts: 3621 ( 1-Apr-2008 01:37:17) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	In answer question 5? Eisenhower. In answer to 4? I'd join the Navy, so I'd not serve under any of them. In answer to 3? Probably Eisenhower. He certainly had the most admirable post-war career of any US general of modern times. In answer to 2? George C Scott was probably a more impressive Patton than Patton, who was reputed to have a rather high, reedy voice, and swore like a schoolgirl. In answer to 1? I didn't see the movie with Tom Selleck.
BenRoethig		#3	[-]
Posts: 1742 ( 1-Apr-2008 04:04:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I personally liked Jimmy Stewart's portrayal of himself.
flyingdutchman1980		#4	[-]
Posts: 45 ( 1-Apr-2008 15:49:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	OSCSSW wrote: I was watching Tom Sellcik in Count Down to D-Day last week. I liked Tom's Portrayal of Ike very much. I could not help thinking about George C Scott's Paton and Gregory Peck's MacArthur. For my money, Sellick's Ike was by far the best of the three. AND marvelous Kiwi that portrayed the turd eating toad DeGaul, was the best performance in the movie. I really hated that frog--))) Was it true he refused to address the French people to cooperate in the invasion as protrayed? Full disclosure. I had an uncle, now past on, who was in the Paton's 3rd army and he absolutely loathed the man. My uncle was an AT gunner during the Bulge. He was wounded and left for dead. His uncle, a senior MP Sergeant, went out and not only found him but got him to an aid station in time for them to save his life. No %%@*. OK here are the questions for those who have seen all three movies: 1. Which did you like best? Patton. Although I haven't seen Countdown to D-Day yet. 2. Which one do you think most accurately portaryed it's general? George C. Scott. 3. Which general do you most admire, if any? Ike. Sympathetic general like just like Bradley AFAIK and the only president. 4. Which one would you choosed to serve under? Not Ike or Patton please. In Italy Patton's troopers didn't much like him for wasting their lives in a race with Montgomery and Ike didn't have any tactical experience above battalion command (?). I'd go for Bradley or Montgomery to be honest. Not that Montgomery wasn't a $%$##, but at least he was carefull with his manpower. 5. Which one did the most to win WWII? Ike again. Without him the coalition USA/UK could have fractured. In his place I would have shot guys like Patton and Montgomery eventually. I Like Ike!
seasick		#5	[-]
Posts: 4557 ( 5-Apr-2008 06:12:38) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I saw Tom Selleck as Ike and he did a good job. He didn't get his facial expressions very well but aced the rest. Scott was a better Patton than Patton. A better protrail than Patton deserved. Gregory Peck made MacArthur look better than he should of. The more I learn about MacArthur the more of an arrogant ass I realize he was. I have come to support Truman for Firing him. Ridgeway did a better job. I saw Peck's potrail of MacArthur in the movie Inchon, it was awful, its the first time I ever walked out of a movie because it was bad, not a good bad, an awful bad that churns your stomach. The movie never came out on VHS or DVD, poor Mr. Moon.
tfsmith		#6	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 1 ( 6-Apr-2008 04:14:57) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The film was a terrible portrayal of Patton; much more nuanced and honest accounts of him as a man, a commander, and a soldier are Carlo D'Este's "A Genius for War" and Martin Blumenson's edition of the Patton Papers. GSP was, at heart, much more humane and human than the cartoon presented in the film. D'Este's opinion, and that of more than a few others who are in a position to judge, is that GSP was the foremost combat commander at the army level for mechanized/mobile warfare to be found in the US Army during the Second World War, and, by exension, among the Western Allies. GSP was also, arguably, among the top five mobile warfare commanders in the US Army at the corps level, as well. DDE was, in many ways, indispensable during WW II; probably the only man who could have done what he did and as sucessfully was GCM, who was needed elsewhere, obviously. Finally, MacArthur was an excellent combat commander in WW I and a reasonably capable COS in the 1930s, although his political leanings and actions during the Bonus Army incident were an embarassment to all concerned; he was an outright failure in the Philippines in 1941-42, and his leadership of the SoWesPac Theater in 1942-45 was capable in some ways, but deeply flawed in the others. His leadership during the Occupation was exemplary; that during Korea was terrible. All in all, very much a mixed bag. V/R
stanger69		#7	[-]
Posts: 15 ( 7-Apr-2008 00:23:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Can't pick between Scott and Peck. Both were awsome performances. I think I saw Sellick as Ike, but can't really recall.
NoOneFamous		#8	[-]
Posts: 1169 ( 7-Apr-2008 03:12:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Mac should have had a court martial for the Philippines not a Medal of Honor
Dcnwilltex		#9	[-]
Posts: 1244 ( 7-Apr-2008 15:16:25) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Mac should have had a court martial for the Philippines not a Medal of Honor That was a political decision, to help bolster the morale of the nation. What president is going to confess that they made an awful decision in selecting a man who lost an island campaign to smaller force. Neither Homma nor Yamashita were executed for war crimes, they were hung for humiliating Doug and the Brits. The War crimes courts were all farces anyway. Perhaps we should consider giving Westmoreland an MOH for his failures in Vietnam. B.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Hollywood's WWII US Generals--)))

Hollywood's WWII US Generals--)))

Quick Reply