Was the reason they portrayed the yanks as murderous savages who raped German women and shot POWs so that they could...

Was the reason they portrayed the yanks as murderous savages who raped German women and shot POWs so that they could point out that the Germans were the actual good guys or because they were trying to give the whole "war is hell" angle to whitewash American war crimes

Other urls found in this thread:

historynet.com/fury-a-tankers-eye-view.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=MZ1lc6KASWg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

hot tip

America didnt commit any crimes during the war

nobody commits crimes during war

Except the evil Nazis, of course.

I can't come up with one ww2 movie that doesn't show the allies committing war crimes as well. Even the spielberg ones are filled with that shit.

That film was so fucking shit. The tank "fight" was shit. The final stand in the sherman would have lasted no where near that long and probably have ended in them all burning to death.

>That scene where they head shot the German officer on the top of the tank
>With a tank shell
How did this war take so long when American tank gunners were fucking aces?

Its simply a poorly written movie which is a shame because I LOVE TANKS. This was a cheap propaganda film that retards ate up with extra shit on the side.

if the sides were switched you'd just complain the opposite, so fuck your shit faggot

Neither. It was just meant to be a gritty, war-themed action movie. Yeah there were some cheesy movies ("ohhh I can't bring myself to shoot people" and "wtf how is she dead I just fell in love with her"), but it was meant to be different from the yankee doodle dandy type movies that glorify the service and uniform and all that other altruistic crap

This is not correct. Only the losers can have committed war crimes.

Be older than 14 youngfag. A broad majority of war films produced from WW2 to Vietnam where propaganda.

>portrays Americans as flawed, loyal to a fault, and weak willed
>doesn't portray Germans other than the youth at the end
>propaganda

It's more of a character drama than a straight war film. Don't know where you're pulling the propaganda from.

America's biggest crimes were against it's own people and allies.

>American Freedom Fighters joining the Canadian and British armies before America officially entered the war were mailed letters that their citizenship was invalid and they would not be allowed back in the country
>"Arsenal of Democracy"
>Waited to enter the war until after it hit close to home
>Operation Neptune
>Stole private Uranium research (to use to bomb civilian cities no less)
>Utilized propaganda to dehumanize the Japanese people
>Utilized propaganda to cover up the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings from the American people

there was that SS guy who was hanging children because they wouldn't fight

very sorry you were born in america so think there has to be a good guy and a bad guy in any given conflict

when did anyone get raped? was it rape?

historynet.com/fury-a-tankers-eye-view.htm

>The movie also gets the emotions of combat right. I was in another Sherman with heavied-up armor when an 88mm crew a few hundred yards away fired at us. Their round hit but bounced off, which I’m sure surprised the Germans. Inside, the spot where that shot struck glowed red. The guy on the .30-caliber turret coaxial machine gun had seen where the round had come from. He laid a tracer onto the 88 and aimed our 76mm cannon and fired and that was that. I was watching through my periscope and saw the explosion and the bodies flying, the way they do in the movie. None of that affected me. You would have thought we had won the big game, yelling and screaming, until we reached the wreckage and saw the real horror of what had happened to those men. All of a sudden we were exhausted, same as the actors playing the crew.

>In the movie a GI shoots a POW, and soldiers watching clap and laugh. I did see a mean little infantryman guarding some Germans hit and punch a prisoner, and when the prisoner ran that GI shot him. But no one clapped or laughed.

Just a single anecdote but it was clearly swinging hard for what you didn't expect Americans to be like in a war movie, so far that it was a bit silly.

It was rape-y.

Spoils of war type shit, I guess.

What movie did you watch? The young german girl was completely hot to trot. How is it rape when the girl is a willing participant?

Because a white man had sex with her, it must be rape

Of course. How silly of me to forget this.

both

Mainly the way Wardaddy talks about the whole situation.

You realize she and her older counterpart had already been fiddled and diddled by every soldier, German and American that had come through that town, right?

It's the implication of what would happen if they didn't. Why do you think Norman was hesitant? You're supposed to relate to the (at that point in the movie) borderline civilian that is Logan Lemur.

OK. I must be dense. All I saw was a couple of young people having a moment in the middle of a shitty situation.

I mean you're not wrong. The way it plays out it genuinely appears Emma is at the very least attracted to Norman, but that's half the point. They're young and in a beyond shitty situation.

The main point of the scene is the parallel between Emma and whatever her cousin was and Wardaddy.

There is no relationship, there is no attraction. Whatever Norman saw in Emma and vice versa will fade, as it symbolically does when Emma bites the dust 5 minutes later.

The next town Norman stops at, he'll find an Emma, fuck her, and have her cook some eggs.

...and "Emma" will, or would have anyway, become like... Irma, that's her name. Irma. So the question is was Irma attracted to Wardaddy? Was Wardaddy attracted to Irma?

I personally don't think so, given the nature of their dialogue. It's not rape strictly speaking, it's just two people in a shitty situation not exactly doing anything to better their situation. The only thing rapey about it is the power complex, "the implication"

Video related:

youtube.com/watch?v=MZ1lc6KASWg