Holy shit this is fucking Kino!!!

Any other films like this?? Epic bios of military men?

Late

Lawrence of arabia

not a bio, but you should watch bridge on the river kwai

this desu

Already seen these, sorry lads. David Lean is great

theres not many others unfortunately

Cross of Iron, Peckinpah's controversial pro-German movie is kino

its anti-war, not pro german you brainlet

At the very least, it's German neutral. And neutral on WWII which is oh no no no in Hollywood. Think: a Peckinpah masterpiece never shown on TCM, or mentioned in war retrospectives, so remove your goddamn Twizzler sucking face with a grenade.

>Mongol
The Asian equivalent of Patton is insanely epic, and a must see

>Big Jim McLain
John Wayne's anti (((Communist))) movie has been nearly erased from history. I wonder why.

>Das Boot
Not a biopic, but pro-German and better than Patton

There's also the obscure sequel to Patton, same actor, detailing his hatred of (((Commies))), explains why Patton fans don't know about it. It's not the best production values, Hollywood tried to keep it from even being made.

Great soundtrack too.

its not a masterpiece, just kind of an oddity

The actor looks more like Mussolini than Patton

...

stupid american war propaganda?
more like brainletkino

kek

>military men
>sand nigger sympathizer
>faggot

na

...

still military last time I checked

it's just guys driving a jeep, with a wikiquotes page for the dialogues.

>doesn't know who George C. Scott was
get out underage

>but pro-German
Every fucking time.

...

you must be British

you must be white trash

kek, i knew it

...

When I found out General Patton's voice was actually very tame compared to Scott's, I was dumbfounded. Guess he changed it to a harsher tone to better portray Patton's aggressive and boastful demeanour

wait, Patton was real?

...

why'd they leave out the reason for his death?

He wrote way more about the Jews and shit than just a little piece about how stinky they were. Someone post the better shit

kys worthless scum

>Pampered Amerifat soldier is offended by the lack of fresh clean clothes amongst an impoverished people who have been hunted refugees or prisoners for five years in a wartorn continent

And Americlaps wonder why they're the most despised nation on the planet.

hate us cause they aint us, faggot

Patton was a fucking idiot who only got as far as he did because Omar Bradley was a pushover and Eisenhower didn't give a shit as long as nobody interrupted his presidential campaign plans back in his French chateau.

>boast about how “Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man.”
>get bogged down in Metz for 4 months because nobody in your staff can read a map

this is what soyboys actually believe

Soyboys fall for propaganda. I bet you think Rommel was a strategic genius too.

Is Patton the peak soyfilter?

wow

Not him but he is vastly overrated in pop culture. He was a middling general at best, largely carried by his nation's overwhelming advantage in men and equipment.

If he'd been on the eastern front, he'd have gotten a lot of men killed in his egotistical adventures. The Wehrmacht invariably punished overconfidence when they had the capability. Hell, even in Italy his methods would have resulted in massive casualties against Kesselring's defences for little gain.

alright WW2 expert, who was a good commander then?

>Sup Forums tries history

Nope. Patton was a lunatic, but he was a born leader with an instinct for maneuver warfare, which is why he was so good at commanding the 3rd Army.

The truth is that neither Monty nor Patton were relevant to the outcome of the war, seeing as the Russians were the ones to break the German army over 4 long years of brutal warfare in the East.

Patton at least managed to break through Normandy, Monty couldn't even get Market Garden right. Omar Bradley was more a logistics manager, than a general. His job was to support his troops, not devise grand attack plans.

By the time the US set foot on Normandy, the war was long over.

>with an instinct for maneuver warfare
Thats why he got bogged down in a fortress-city for 3 months.

>read

>All kino is fleeting

Russia won because of overwhelming numbers and lack of consideration for their own casualties. Its hardly impressive strategy wise

>jews
>impoverished people

Imagine not being able to enjoy good films because of your political views. Must feel bad

Its completely pointless comparing Patton and Montgomery. There was no real rivalry compared to the shit like Marshall and Brooke had or Nimitz and MacArthur fighting over strategic resources.

Market Garden was a war winning strategy and should've been pursued further as opposed to Eisenhower's retarded 1917-tier Broad Front strategy that wasted already bottlenecked resources that trickled in from a few coastal ports.

sums up the modern left and Sup Forums

russia has no comeback for this

>overwhelming numbers
>the decisive first 6 months of Barbarossa the Germans and their allies outnumbered the Russians by over a million men
really makes me think.

It's a great movie and a classic, don't be obtuse.

>The Amerifat's media-courting general was better than the Bong's media-courting general ergo he was a good general.

Both Montgomery and Patton were overrated by their respective nations, they were acceptable generals in armies of citizen-soldiers that otherwise struggled to produce decent soldiers, men whose only really exceptional talent was managing their own public images and sucking up to their superiors. There's a reason they both hated each other, they knew each others game and recognised a rival.

Britain's best general was Slim, the USA's was Truscott. Neither of them will ever have a movie dedicated to them.

your willingness to believe any graphic someone puts words to on the internet makes me wonder if you're surprised everyone insults you for being a dumb fucking retard

Montgomery was a much more experienced commander than Patton was so there's no point in comparing them as I said in Monty's beef was with Eisenhower not some junior officer like Patton.

is this the movie where they used M60s as german tanks?

thats at the beginning of the war. from Stalingrad on the germans were heavily outnumbered in every eastern front battle. Russia won because they could throw 100 % of their troops against the germans who were fighting on 2 or 3 other fronts at the same time. also the horrible winter in 42/43 saved their ass

still waiting for an answer

June through December 1941 is the only part that matters because thats where the war was lost. Germans took a million casualties in 6 months and they outnumbered their opponents.

didnt see your post
>Britain's best general was Slim, the USA's was Truscott. Neither of them will ever have a movie dedicated to them.
summed it up.

Best German general is a tossup between Kesselring or Model.

I don't think Market Garden ever would have worked. It was down to the quality of the forces involved, the Allies just couldn't advance fast enough, their soldiers (overall) weren't good enough.

1st Airborne Division (despite being dropped directly onto an SS Panzer Division) was still holding at Arnhem when the operation was abandoned due to the Germans moving reinforcements into place, so it wasn't that they weren't able to secure the bridge, it was that Monty accepted the relief forces had no hope of reaching them. The Allied armor moved too slowly and the Germans responded with their normal speed and professionalism to block them.

Patton goes really well with all the best WW2 european and african theaters movies.
So basically, if you want to have another point of view on most of Patton's operations, you have A Bridge Too Far ("it was all Monty's fault 2" : parachute boogaloo), Band of Brothers ("we didn't need to be fucking rescued by Patton"), The Longest Day, Cross of Iron and The Big Red One

>>sand nigger sympathizer
>"yo maybe we shouldn't make ourselves to be lying fags to the arabs, cause you know, it'll be harder to rule over them if they think we took this land unlawfully?"
>a hundred years into the future, some retard calls you "a sand nigger apologist"
Hmmm.

Pushing through the Netherlands and Belgium into Germany when your supply lines are coming in through the coast of France is a much better usage of said supplies than dispersing over a broad front like its the last world war when you have mechanized, armor and air superiority over your opponent.

I absolutely believe the war could've been ended 6 months earlier if it weren't for Eisenhower's retarded strategy and Lee's mismanagement of supplies.

Im German and he's right. Whats your point though? Did the Soviets lose?

But they won. And furthermore I won't get into the intricacies of the Russian "wear out the German offensive for while, then counter-attack in full force", because you clearly lack any real understanding of the tactics and strategies involved in WW2.

Majority of German troops were in the East and combat death ratio was 1.3 to 1 in Axis favour you retarded brainlet.
Reason why you see insane casualties in battles is because of flawed outdated data and different method for counting casualties and equipment lost.
17 million of Soviet victims were civilians, and 3 million were POWs slaughtered in extermination camps.
Soviets lost about 7 million in combat, while Axis lost around 5 million.
After the loss of Ukraine and Belarus and parts of Russia during Barbarossa, USSR had around 100 million people, while Germany at that time had 80.
Go spread that retarded HC-tier shit on Sup Forums.

>>overwhelming numbers
Two-to-one ratios up till the end of Bagration, and three-to-one after that. It's an advantage for sure, but nothing like the "hurrrr 10 Russians for every 1 German" shit people post peddle on here.

Youre confusing things m8. It was Churchill who insisted on a broad front strategy and Eisenhower who wanted to use as little men as possible.

Furthermore, Market Garden was the dumbest plan in the war, which in fact COST the Western Allies "Berlin by Christmas". If they hadn't dont MG, they might have gotten over the Ruhr sooner.

Lastly, Ill point out that Patton and Monty did have to compete for resources non stop, but again, Sup Forums is worse than Sup Forums when it comes to history.

Im out.

I'd say Kesselring because he wasn't such an arse-kisser to the Nazi party, Model would have jumped off a cliff if he thought Hitler would give him headpatts for it and continued to suck up even when it became clear Hitler was doing more damage to German military fortunes than the Red Army was.

>ratios
Means nothing when you hold the strategic initiative over your enemy. Germans suffered atrocious casualties with initiative against the Russians at their apex in 1941.

>3 million were POWs slaughtered in extermination camps.
I agree with you, but slaughtered is too strong a word. They were prisoner camps, and where it gets eerie is that were left in the cold to freeze or starve. The German army wasn't wasting bullets on them if that's what you mean to say.

boohoo
hurt your feeling there macburger?

We're on the same side aren't we though? And like you said, the Germans outnumbered the Russians when the fighting broke out.

I answered him in this post History "buffs" like him don't understand that Soviets were simply better at concentrating forces and deploying more men than Germans (though logistical disadvantages played a part in that, namely huge distances and partisan activity).
Not to mention the catastrophe that was Barbarossa, and the fact Stalin purged like half of their officer corps few years before the war.
Soviet recovery was impressive. EF was a true battle of titans.

Is this the 1970 version?

Churchill didnt even want an invasion in France dude, he wanted to waste time and resources in Italy.

Marshall was the one pushing for French landings from 1942 onward.

Market Garden was a failure because of the reliance of Paratroopers, if they had decided to thrust through the low countries with their overwhelming superiority in tanks, mechanized infantry, artillery and air support they could've cut right into North Germany and rolled the whole line up like a carpet.

WW2 was won with well supplied mechanized divisions, armor and air support not WW1 tier broad front slowly creeping strategies.

thats the only version

>They were prisoner camps

There was instances where tens of thousands of Russian POWs were just left out in the open on the eastern European steppe to die of exposure and/or starvation.

It was an extermination.

Yeah the "Russians charging at machine gun barrels until they melted" and "One man gets rifle one man gets ammunition!" is just American historians accepting German propaganda at face value since we didn't have access to soviet archives.

Soviets evacuated their factories halfway across the country and still had better production than the Germans.

>Market Garden was a failure because of the reliance of Paratroopers

The airborne were the only forces that achieved their objectives.

you know that the majority of german soldiers didn't strangle little jewish babies and puppies and kittens on a daily basis?

Its pretty hard to trust anything the Russians claim in all honesty. freedom of information, press and speech arent hallmarks of their society

>Soviets were simply better at concentrating forces
Well not to joke each other off, but yes, this is why Russians jokingly will say that Americans trucks were the best things lend-lease ever brought them since they were able to perfect maskirovka with it. Bagration was that on a scale never before witnessed, trying to feint something into the Carpathians and Eastern Poland to lure out tanks, and then trapping the entire army group Center in Bielorussia.

>Not to mention the catastrophe that was Barbarossa,
>mfw Jdanov getting boozed up in Leningrad while the Germans are shelling the city
>mfw Vorochilov getting lost trying to find his respective army
It was pretty hilarious all in all.

well this turnerd
/his/ thread fast, better than flick at least

Oops, well I guess. It was deliberate for sure, but in saying extermination, I thought you meant the Germans brought their deaths about sooner by gunning them down or such. I didn't disagree with you though about the freezing and starvation though.

What's ironic is that Soviets lacked some things early on due to displacement of industry, but they literally never lacked rifles. They had insane stockpiles of rifles.
>and still had better production than the Germans
Yep.
Of course, American and British aid helped, but Soviets outproduced Germans despite having quite lower workforce, and massive disadvantage in terms of crucial resources like steel, coal, aluminum.
Soviet war effort (read again brainlets: WAR EFFORT, not tactics) was far superior to German.
These aren't ''claims'', these are explanations by qualified people after Soviet archives were finally opened.
Qualified people, not buttdevastated German generals who after the war blamed everything on Hitler and pretended they only lost in the East because of ''Slavic hordes''.

Churchill wanted to push north through the Balkans to Germany to stop the Soviets claiming most of eastern Europe. Turned out to be prophetic. The USA needed the BIG WIN though so huge resources were devoted to a massive amphibious invasion of a continent they already had a foothold on.

Then for good measure, they further esmasculated the remaining forces in Italy so they could mount Op. Dragoon whose chief benefit seems to have been that a lot of American officers got to swan around in the south of France for a few months because there certainly weren't any significant German forces there.

The Italian offensive ground to a halt but hey, at least the generals got to shout TOUCHDOWN on June 7th 1945 and some of them got a nice tan.

if the germans needed oil why didnt they attack british Iraq and instead of russia

didn't this also happened during WW1? Too many prisoners, almost no food.

>quite lower
Obviously quite smaller workforce.
Imagine having German workforce, qualified people, experienced workers, SAME NUMBER of slave laborers, and still they were outproduced by fucking Soviets who industrialized at breakneck speed in 20's and 30's.
Nazis were such a joke it's insane.
Every element of German society where Nazi influence permeated was crippled.
Luckily for them, Wehrmacht as whole held out until late war, and that's why Germans performed so well.

>calls his men cowards
>never goes near front line

No, it didn't happen in WW1.
Conditions were rough but there was mass mortality of Russian POWs.
Because Imperial Germany didn't engage in a war of extermination. Nazis did.

>Churchill wanted to push north through the Balkans to Germany to stop the Soviets claiming most of eastern Europe. Turned out to be prophetic.
I mean they handed the Cossack refugees over to the Russians at the border to be shot so its not like the British gave a shit.

>hating on based operation Dragoon
While I'll not pretend it won the war or anything, but the thought of Allied troops riding them down from the south (because like you said, it would be deserted and filled with French people who'd help the troops) that a lot of them retreated into the Alsace area where they had less chance of getting trooped from both sides.

>Operation Dragoon was considered a success by the Allied forces. It enabled them to liberate most of Southern France in a time span of only four weeks while inflicting heavy casualties on the German forces. However, the Allies failed to cut off the most valuable units of the retreating Army Group G, which retreated over a distance of 800 kilometres (500 miles) in good order, into the Vosges mountains on the German border, with the capability of continuing the fight.
So all in all, good operation but didn't work as well as meant to.

Also this. Only conflict where he smelled the gunpowder was Mexican expedition.

Problem was the 1933-1939 buildup still wasn't enough for Germany and they had to pull factory workers off the lines as reservists for Barbarossa and then demobilized them only to call them up once again.

You can appreciate Nazi aesthetics all you want but their ideology and economic practices were byzantine and retarded compared to the Soviets.

>Nazis were such a joke it's insane.
Don't mean to defend Nazis, but you have to remember they hadn't urged their economy into total war yet (Hitler's autism about "n-no this won't be like WWI, we'll win quick promise!") so it's expected they wouldn't outproduce Soviets.

Not that they did even when they entered total war economy.

Yes. Even though they spent more than Americans, Japanese and British COMBINED.