Patton with his 3rd Army had to march in snow for almost forever ( I spoke to a vet who did that, he hated snow and Patton, but God, he would fight for him!) The 3rd army did proceed the advance into the Ardennes to relive the 'Battered Bastards of Bastogne' -101st Airbourne as well as many wounded. Much to the chagrin of the 101st, quote from one of the soldiers "we didn't need him" Air power really was important The 8th US Army Air Force /also 9th Tactical Air Force/ RAF etc. dropped much ammunition and supplies to the men holding Bastogne when the weather cleared. -This fact was not portrayed in the film. Robert Shaw's character, (Martin Hessler) aide (Conrad) was actor Hans Christian Blech who was a veteran of WWII and also starred in the film 'The Longest Day'. - a far more accurate film of D-Day than 'Saving Private Ryan'
Oh, dear, the Battle of the Bulge (or the what the Germans called the Ardennes Counteroffensive) was certainly not the biggest and bloodiest battle of the Second World War. Those were on the Eastern Front. And the Germans were not within months or even years of developing an atomic bomb. To do that they would have needed their own Manhattan Project, and that was beyond the capabilities of the German war economy. They got as far as building a reactor, and that was it.
What I was taught is that Hitler thought if he made it to Antwerp he could split the front in two and sue for pease. But even if he did that the western Allies wouldn't be accommodating as it was already realized Nazi Germany couldn't be left to exist.
The point of this movie was never to be a documentary. It was an exploration of the mindset and experiences of the soldiers and generals on both sides. People lately have gotten used to too much special effect and explosions while tuning out when there is actual ACTING going on.
'The V-3 rocket designed to reach New York'. The term Vergeltungswaffe-Drei or V-3 actually applied to a planned series of very long-range artillery gun emplacements that featured extremely long barrels. They were designed to rain down High Explosive shells on London in mass quantities, both day and night . Their breeches were placed deep underground, in heavily-armored, "bombproof" bunkers in northwestern France. These bunkers were destroyed by Allied bombers flying multiple, Classifed missions in which very large, specially-designed, "bunker-busting" bombs were used. These missions occurred in the summer of 1943, long before the June 4 D-Day invasion. The multi-staged, ICBM versions of the Medium-Ranged V-2 were known as the A-9/A10. Officially, none were never built, although some meager and fragmentary evidence suggests that one prototypw was actually built and test-launched in either late-February or early-March of 1945...
"biggest and bloodiest battle of WW2" .... er,no.I can think of a number of battles on the Eastern Front that put this one in the shade - Stalingrad,Kharkov,Kursk,And there are plenty more. What could be said about the Bulge was that it was one of the worst for US casualties approx 70,000 wounded or killed.The US military never sustained anything like those losses in any single battle of the Pacific theatre. The one redeeming feature was Robert Shaw's portrayal ( based on a real German panzer General).
The Germans were not "only months away" from a nuclear weapon. Your analysis is flawed. "Bloodiest battle of WWII"? Not even close. The Battle of Stalingrad had 7 to 10 times as many casualties. According to militaryeducationdotorg, The Battle of the Bulge was the 9th bloodiest.
You missed the point of the movie. It was not meant to be a documentary but an exploration of the mindset and human experiences of the soldiers and their generals. The movie had superb acting without the need for all the technological enhancements Hollywood relies on today. If you only focused on the names/places/equipment then you really missed out on watching the movie.
@@pop5678eye Yes, all movies are for entertainment, not an accurate historical document as such. -Although 'Battle of Bulge' portrays some of the many battles that happened in that area (I have been there) around Belgium/Luxembourg/France region around Bastogne, there were too many battles that were fought to even fit in a movie 3 hours long. Robert Shaw's character -Martin Hessler ,was awesomely portrayed and I absolutely love Charles Bronson's / Major Wolenskis' verbal attack at Robert Shaw in the the mobile command vehicle after he was captured and heard about the Malmedy massacre. -fantastic! Also Bronson was a WWII veteran, same as Hans Christian Blech (Conrad) and many others too. An awesome line up of actors, Henry Fonda, etc.... And to think Eisenhower tried to get this film stopped????? Despite the inaccuracies, with vehicles etc. It is a fantastic film. -oh and as Sgt. Guffy says to Pier Angeli "Don't forget to feed the chickens, huh"
Obvious Patton tanks painted to look like German armor looks laughable nowadays. Seems like that was pretty common in WWII flicks back then, with Kelly's Heroes being a rare exception.
The problem with armour in these period films is unlike today where along with CGI there are a relatively large number of restored period correct tanks and companies that specialise in providing period correct vehicles even going so far to make accurate looking replicas of tanks that are not available in those days a film producer had to rely what with whatever was available to national armies to use instead. Hence lots of WW2 films with Patton tanks masquerading as Tigers. Kellys Heroes is an interesting exception, by filming in Yugoslavia the film producer had access to the equipment of the Federal Yugoslav Army. Owing to its geography, direct fight against Germany in WW2 and a policy of neutrality (well playing the West off the East) the Yugoslav army used a mix of new and surplus American, German and Russian equipment. The Yugoslav Army used everything from German small arms and half tracks through to American Shermans. Even better for the film producer the Yugoslavs had recently filmed a grand WW2 war movie the "Battle on the river Neretva"meaning there was lots of period correct German uniforms (a great proportion original) vehicles correctly painted and even some T34 converted to look very accurately like Tiger I. There some odd historical inaccuracy's in Kellys Heroes due to filming in Yugoslavia and not being able to source some correct weapons locally. So for example rather than Colt 1911A1 the American soldiers are carrying the similar looking Polish Vis wz. 35 Radom in 9x19mm, rather than BAR rifle they carry the Polish wz.28 a Polish version of the BAR in 7.92x57 and most famously Pvt. Gutkowski uses a PU scoped M91/30 in 7.62x54r.
From the perspective of historical accuracy, "The Battle of the Bulge" is a mess. Sadly, there was a better Bulge movie in pre-production at another studio, a project that was endorsed by Eisenhower and other senior participants, but was ultimately canceled when this movie sucked all of the oxygen out of the movie-going public's demand for Bulge movies.
I believe we've reached the time where the definitive movie depiction of this battle could be appreciative. The real problem would be to keep the project out of the hands of people such as Michael Bay and similar CGI-junkies. I have no doubt that some CGI would be needed, but in no way should it be expected to carry the film (rather than depending on a decent script and competent acting).
A totally engrossing commentary. I have seen the movie and little did I realise that the British were in fact involved in the Battle. I was born on the 18th December 1944, completely ablivious to the horrific events of the time. Lest we forget 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
Check out Ty Hardin's website. From what I've read, he didn't want to do movies with a lot of violence so he may have denied himself a career like Clint's.
I remember this movie coming out and Dwight D. Eisenhower publicly protesting of its inaccuracies. Great movie, though, with plenty of riveting performances.
Interesting bits of information and misinformation . . . 1) Nukes? Not at all. It was an attempt to buy six months to a year on the Western front by dividing the American armies, destroying two of them, and also destroying the British and Canadian armies in Northern Europe. 2) The "biggest battle" glitch. It was the single biggest battle the Americans fought in World War II, allowing for Normandy and the final drive into Germany being campaigns rather than battles. 3) Patton vs Montgomery . . . Not this one. This was Montgomery versus Omar Bradley, at first, then Montgomery versus Dwight Eisenhower. This was not Bradley''s best battle at all, he reacted too slowly and showed his temper too often. Montgomery did a competent job sorting out the northern flank of the Bulge, particularly since Courtney Hodges seemed to have had a nervous breakdown during the first week. Montgomery then bungled his chances for a bigger part in the final invasion of Germany by picking a fight with Eisenhower. Eisenhower had to threaten to ask the Joint Chiefs to sack Montgomery him to get him to shut his insubordinate mouth. 4) The standard British jab at being left out of American war movies gets tossed into the narration. British participation in the Battle of the Bulge (other than Montgomery) was trivial. A couple of recon battalions skirmished with German patrols out past the western fringe of the battlefield. There were more Americans participating in the Battle of El Alamein (bomber squadrons) then British troops participating in the Bulge. 5) As an addenda, most of the movies about Eisenhower focus on his personal issues and the Normandy invasion. As Rick Atkinson and Max Hastings point out, Eisenhower did an excellent job getting his army in order after a massive surprise attack of the kind that, on the Eastern Front, would have destroyed whole divisions, corps, and armies. He kept his head, made sure all the prima donnas who worked for him knew who was in charge, and maneuvered his divisions quickly and decisively. The German plan assumed the Americans would need a week to pivot their armies around to block their attack. Eisenhower gave the necessary orders in hours and divisions were moving by the end of the first day.
Maybe in European Western Front. There were much bigger and bloodier battles in the East - Stalingrad, Kursk? In the Pacific, Iwo Jima and Okinawa were much bloodier than the Battle of the Bulge.
Johnny correct the offensive was designed to split the us and anglo-Canadian army groups and inflict enough casualties for a negotiated surrender with the West, so Germany could concentrate on the Soviets. fanciful plan in the extreme
outstanding video....except that nuclear-tipped V-2 being months away crappola. the germans had only gotten as far as heavy-water before they gave up completely. by running the Hebrew team that designed the "gadget" out of the fatherland, hitler stood no chance of an A-bomb for at least another 10-years, neither could the german economy sustain such a venture that nearly bankrupted the U.S. when the "Manhatten Project" was combined with B-29 production. few agree they could have even produced the materials needed to do the job either.
It easy not Tigers, but King Tiger tanks... heavier, better armed and with thicker armour... a hand full could have raised a town to rubble... but who’s picking details... the film was brilliant
There are some writing into the blogs to the movie aboout HOLLYWOOD BULLSHIT - but to me reading a lot up on it there was to much truce in this movie for such a mean statement But there was a third big bloody battle offensive of the Germans next to Arhheim ( A BRIDGE TO FAR ) nd THE BOTTLE OF THEBULGE as Churchill had dubeed the German offensive in the Ardens that was the Battle at the Hürtinger Forrest, still you find there at the German border area lots of ammunistion and cartridges from the War. mehntioned for example in the rebooted Pilot to the never realised modern series TIME TUNNEL in 2002 also on RUclips in complete form
Also history is not written by the victors. I fucking hate that meme. Its not true. Its a generalization. Its false. History is written by objective historians. And its subject to peer review. You are confusing PROPAGANDA with History.
It's false because in modern times at least, history is written by the losing side as well. That is why we continually hear of problems with Japanese schoolbooks. And what else is "Gone with the Wind" but history written by the losing side?
A few months away from a missile delivered atom bomb???? That's complete bullshit!!! The nazi's were YEARS away!!! Brian you need to go back to history class. Also, the battle of Kursk was the largest battle of WW2. This movie (like your review of it) is entertainment!!! Little or no historical substance.
Robert Shaw almost saved this movie. He was riveting. Even as a youth I was impressed by him.
Saw this as a kid when it premiered on network tv. It was great for its day. But what's the Bulge without Patton? Robert Shaw's aide was excellent.
Patton with his 3rd Army had to march in snow for almost forever ( I spoke to a vet who did that, he hated snow and Patton, but God, he would fight for him!)
The 3rd army did proceed the advance into the Ardennes to relive the 'Battered Bastards of Bastogne' -101st Airbourne as well as many wounded.
Much to the chagrin of the 101st, quote from one of the soldiers "we didn't need him"
Air power really was important
The 8th US Army Air Force /also 9th Tactical Air Force/ RAF etc. dropped much ammunition and supplies to the men holding Bastogne when the weather cleared.
-This fact was not portrayed in the film.
Robert Shaw's character, (Martin Hessler) aide (Conrad) was actor Hans Christian Blech who was a veteran of WWII and also starred in the film 'The Longest Day'.
- a far more accurate film of D-Day than 'Saving Private Ryan'
'This was the biggest and bloodiest battle of world war 2...' I can't even....lol!
The Eastern Front was canon discontinuity in the Euro-Atlantic democracies back during the cold war.
Oh, dear, the Battle of the Bulge (or the what the Germans called the Ardennes Counteroffensive) was certainly not the biggest and bloodiest battle of the Second World War. Those were on the Eastern Front. And the Germans were not within months or even years of developing an atomic bomb. To do that they would have needed their own Manhattan Project, and that was beyond the capabilities of the German war economy. They got as far as building a reactor, and that was it.
right. we bombed the crap out of their heavy water operation in Norway
@@bobgroble6970 Dramatic license.
What I was taught is that Hitler thought if he made it to Antwerp he could split the front in two and sue for pease. But even if he did that the western Allies wouldn't be accommodating as it was already realized Nazi Germany couldn't be left to exist.
not the biggest and bloodiest battle of WWII, but for sure the battle in which US were caught with their drawers low.
The point of this movie was never to be a documentary. It was an exploration of the mindset and experiences of the soldiers and generals on both sides. People lately have gotten used to too much special effect and explosions while tuning out when there is actual ACTING going on.
My neighbor was in the battle of the buldge. Not the movie; the actual battle.
'The V-3 rocket designed to reach New York'. The term Vergeltungswaffe-Drei or V-3 actually applied to a planned series of very long-range artillery gun emplacements that featured extremely long barrels. They were designed to rain down High Explosive shells on London in mass quantities, both day and night . Their breeches were placed deep underground, in heavily-armored, "bombproof" bunkers in northwestern France. These bunkers were destroyed by Allied bombers flying multiple, Classifed missions in which very large, specially-designed, "bunker-busting" bombs were used. These missions occurred in the summer of 1943, long before the June 4 D-Day invasion. The multi-staged, ICBM versions of the Medium-Ranged V-2 were known as the A-9/A10. Officially, none were never built, although some meager and fragmentary evidence suggests that one prototypw was actually built and test-launched in either late-February or early-March of 1945...
"biggest and bloodiest battle of WW2" .... er,no.I can think of a number of battles on the Eastern Front that put this one in the shade - Stalingrad,Kharkov,Kursk,And there are plenty more.
What could be said about the Bulge was that it was one of the worst for US casualties approx 70,000 wounded or killed.The US military never sustained anything like those losses in any single battle of the Pacific theatre.
The one redeeming feature was Robert Shaw's portrayal ( based on a real German panzer General).
Underrated movie. The gas /diesel plot hole inconsistencie aside.
Good to see Brian mention "Attack".
Sorry but the Battel of the Bulge WAS almost an all-American affair. Churchill even said so.
I love how Brian sets up a historical context for the film's story. Bravo.
But he fucked it up..the Ardenne's offensive was not to "buy time" to "produce nukes"...where the hell did he read that? in some sci-fi comic?
Remember seeing the movie when I was just a boy. What was kinda corny, was the use of model trains in the movie. Over all the movie was very good.
“This is the biggest and bloodiest battle of WW2” … right………
The Germans were not "only months away" from a nuclear weapon. Your analysis is flawed. "Bloodiest battle of WWII"? Not even close. The Battle of Stalingrad had 7 to 10 times as many casualties. According to militaryeducationdotorg, The Battle of the Bulge was the 9th bloodiest.
E Smidt: With all due respect, I am not incorrect as to how close Germany was to having the bomb.
E Smidt: The Germans? Absolutely, positively they did not.
You have to be a troll or a conspiracy wacko to believe such nonsense. Therefore, I will no longer respond here.
The concept of an atomic weapon mounted on a V-3 rocket is absurd. The Germans were never close to achieving a nuclear device.
This is a reminder of how close this business was.
The Battle of the Bulge was the absolute most inaccurate movie made.
Yes and no,
Did depict a certain part of the battle which was accurate.
Depleted Bastards of Bastogne, 101st Airbourne
Thank you 8th Army Air Force
You missed the point of the movie. It was not meant to be a documentary but an exploration of the mindset and human experiences of the soldiers and their generals. The movie had superb acting without the need for all the technological enhancements Hollywood relies on today. If you only focused on the names/places/equipment then you really missed out on watching the movie.
@@pop5678eye Yes, all movies are for entertainment, not an accurate historical document as such.
-Although 'Battle of Bulge' portrays some of the many battles that happened in that area (I have been there) around Belgium/Luxembourg/France region around Bastogne, there were too many battles that were fought to even fit in a movie 3 hours long.
Robert Shaw's character -Martin Hessler ,was awesomely portrayed and I absolutely love Charles Bronson's / Major Wolenskis' verbal attack at Robert Shaw in the the mobile command vehicle after he was captured and heard about the Malmedy massacre.
-fantastic!
Also Bronson was a WWII veteran, same as Hans Christian Blech (Conrad) and many others too.
An awesome line up of actors, Henry Fonda, etc....
And to think Eisenhower tried to get this film stopped?????
Despite the inaccuracies, with vehicles etc. It is a fantastic film.
-oh and as Sgt. Guffy says to Pier Angeli
"Don't forget to feed the chickens, huh"
Obvious Patton tanks painted to look like German armor looks laughable nowadays. Seems like that was pretty common in WWII flicks back then, with Kelly's Heroes being a rare exception.
The problem with armour in these period films is unlike today where along with CGI there are a relatively large number of restored period correct tanks and companies that specialise in providing period correct vehicles even going so far to make accurate looking replicas of tanks that are not available in those days a film producer had to rely what with whatever was available to national armies to use instead. Hence lots of WW2 films with Patton tanks masquerading as Tigers. Kellys Heroes is an interesting exception, by filming in Yugoslavia the film producer had access to the equipment of the Federal Yugoslav Army. Owing to its geography, direct fight against Germany in WW2 and a policy of neutrality (well playing the West off the East) the Yugoslav army used a mix of new and surplus American, German and Russian equipment. The Yugoslav Army used everything from German small arms and half tracks through to American Shermans. Even better for the film producer the Yugoslavs had recently filmed a grand WW2 war movie the "Battle on the river Neretva"meaning there was lots of period correct German uniforms (a great proportion original) vehicles correctly painted and even some T34 converted to look very accurately like Tiger I. There some odd historical inaccuracy's in Kellys Heroes due to filming in Yugoslavia and not being able to source some correct weapons locally. So for example rather than Colt 1911A1 the American soldiers are carrying the similar looking Polish Vis wz. 35 Radom in 9x19mm, rather than BAR rifle they carry the Polish wz.28 a Polish version of the BAR in 7.92x57 and most famously Pvt. Gutkowski uses a PU scoped M91/30 in 7.62x54r.
Kelly's hero's are actually t34's with bits added on you can tell by the turret position and the track layout
That is what I said
Michael Carney Yeah, they are the same ones they used in 'Night of the Generals'
From the perspective of historical accuracy, "The Battle of the Bulge" is a mess. Sadly, there was a better Bulge movie in pre-production at another studio, a project that was endorsed by Eisenhower and other senior participants, but was ultimately canceled when this movie sucked all of the oxygen out of the movie-going public's demand for Bulge movies.
I believe we've reached the time where the definitive movie depiction of this battle could be appreciative. The real problem would be to keep the project out of the hands of people such as Michael Bay and similar CGI-junkies. I have no doubt that some CGI would be needed, but in no way should it be expected to carry the film (rather than depending on a decent script and competent acting).
I remember location scouts where I lived, the movie was going to be filmed in upstate New York, they said John Wayne was Patton
A totally engrossing commentary. I have seen the movie and little did I realise that the British were in fact involved in the Battle. I was born on the 18th December 1944, completely ablivious to the horrific events of the time. Lest we forget 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
Check out Ty Hardin's website. From what I've read, he didn't want to do movies with a lot of violence so he may have denied himself a career like Clint's.
BTW, the V3 was not a rocket but a supergun. Someone clearly needs to do abit of recap on their history
Great movie, great cast....not the most historically accurate but gets the general story across to someone that wouldn't know or care otherwise
I remember this movie coming out and Dwight D. Eisenhower publicly protesting of its inaccuracies. Great movie, though, with plenty of riveting performances.
Interesting bits of information and misinformation . . .
1) Nukes? Not at all. It was an attempt to buy six months to a year on the Western front by dividing the American armies, destroying two of them, and also destroying the British and Canadian armies in Northern Europe.
2) The "biggest battle" glitch. It was the single biggest battle the Americans fought in World War II, allowing for Normandy and the final drive into Germany being campaigns rather than battles.
3) Patton vs Montgomery . . . Not this one. This was Montgomery versus Omar Bradley, at first, then Montgomery versus Dwight Eisenhower. This was not Bradley''s best battle at all, he reacted too slowly and showed his temper too often. Montgomery did a competent job sorting out the northern flank of the Bulge, particularly since Courtney Hodges seemed to have had a nervous breakdown during the first week. Montgomery then bungled his chances for a bigger part in the final invasion of Germany by picking a fight with Eisenhower. Eisenhower had to threaten to ask the Joint Chiefs to sack Montgomery him to get him to shut his insubordinate mouth.
4) The standard British jab at being left out of American war movies gets tossed into the narration. British participation in the Battle of the Bulge (other than Montgomery) was trivial. A couple of recon battalions skirmished with German patrols out past the western fringe of the battlefield. There were more Americans participating in the Battle of El Alamein (bomber squadrons) then British troops participating in the Bulge.
5) As an addenda, most of the movies about Eisenhower focus on his personal issues and the Normandy invasion. As Rick Atkinson and Max Hastings point out, Eisenhower did an excellent job getting his army in order after a massive surprise attack of the kind that, on the Eastern Front, would have destroyed whole divisions, corps, and armies. He kept his head, made sure all the prima donnas who worked for him knew who was in charge, and maneuvered his divisions quickly and decisively. The German plan assumed the Americans would need a week to pivot their armies around to block their attack. Eisenhower gave the necessary orders in hours and divisions were moving by the end of the first day.
"Biggest and bloodiest battle of WWII"? Not by a mile.
Maybe in European Western Front. There were much bigger and bloodier battles in the East - Stalingrad, Kursk? In the Pacific, Iwo Jima and Okinawa were much bloodier than the Battle of the Bulge.
Gen. Patton's brought me here 🇺🇸
Great commentary, Mr. Trenchard-Smith. Please pitch your Montgomery-Patton idea to NetFlix.
Yes this was not historically correct but it was a great movie
No, the germans were not trying to "Buy time to produce nukes"...thats silly and unhistorical. Gj on the trailer tough.
Johnny correct the offensive was designed to split the us and anglo-Canadian army groups and inflict enough casualties for a negotiated surrender with the West, so Germany could concentrate on the Soviets. fanciful plan in the extreme
3:23 This was NOT the biggest nor bloodiest battle of WWII. Compare the scale and numbers with the Eastern front!
is this guy Ichase
The movie we loved to hate.
operation grief within the big german military offensive
Maybe just watch Band Of Brothers...they nailed it.
It was not the biggest battle of WWII. It was the biggest battle the Americans fought.
Montgomery was put in charge of the operation .
outstanding video....except that nuclear-tipped V-2 being months away crappola. the germans had only gotten as far as heavy-water before they gave up completely. by running the Hebrew team that designed the "gadget" out of the fatherland, hitler stood no chance of an A-bomb for at least another 10-years, neither could the german economy sustain such a venture that nearly bankrupted the U.S. when the "Manhatten Project" was combined with B-29 production. few agree they could have even produced the materials needed to do the job either.
is this guy have history correct? German having atom bomb within few months?
Negative. I don't were he's getting his information, but he's coming across like a damned fool...
3.25 the biggest battle of world war2? No! The biggest battle was Kursk 1943!
Yes, but it was the largest land battle the US Army ever fought. EVER, so he was sort of correct.
Bloodiest battle was at Stalingrad
It easy not Tigers, but King Tiger tanks... heavier, better armed and with thicker armour... a hand full could have raised a town to rubble... but who’s picking details... the film was brilliant
Patton Montgomery fewd was shown in the big red one and in longest day bridges too far good films too see too
*notices your battle of the bulge* OwO
There are some writing into the blogs to the movie aboout HOLLYWOOD BULLSHIT - but to me reading a lot up on it there was to much truce in this movie for such a mean statement
But there was a third big bloody battle offensive of the Germans next to Arhheim ( A BRIDGE TO FAR ) nd THE BOTTLE OF THEBULGE as Churchill had dubeed the German offensive in the Ardens that was the Battle at the Hürtinger Forrest, still you find there at the German border area lots of ammunistion and cartridges from the War. mehntioned for example in the rebooted Pilot to the never realised modern series TIME TUNNEL in 2002 also on RUclips in complete form
Robert Shaw with his hair dyed blonde looks about as German as Harry Belafonte. It's ridiculous.
I thought Shaw did an excellent job.
The real fighting is in the eastern front, get that in your amazing heads...
Also history is not written by the victors. I fucking hate that meme. Its not true. Its a generalization. Its false. History is written by objective historians. And its subject to peer review. You are confusing PROPAGANDA with History.
It's false because in modern times at least, history is written by the losing side as well. That is why we continually hear of problems with Japanese schoolbooks. And what else is "Gone with the Wind" but history written by the losing side?
sorry this is historical BS
A few months away from a missile delivered atom bomb???? That's complete bullshit!!! The nazi's were YEARS away!!! Brian you need to go back to history class. Also, the battle of Kursk was the largest battle of WW2. This movie (like your review of it) is entertainment!!! Little or no historical substance.
Uh . . . no.
Arizona Patriots was not an anti-Semitic group...
Arizonians love Jewish people.
"biggest and bloodiest battle of world war 2 " ..............what planet are you on ?