Professor David Peimer
Representations of D-Day in Film: a Re-Imagining or Historically Accurate?
Professor David Peimer - Representations of D-Day in Film a Re-Imagining or Historically Accurate
- Okay, today, going to dive straight into the anniversary. Obviously, I’m sure everybody knows the 80th anniversary of D-Day, 6th of June, 1944, the crucial day that naturally altered history of the 20th century, and, well, our times completely. Okay, I’m going to show two movies. I’m going to show clips from, what for me, to the most interesting films about D-Day. Specifically “Saving Private Ryan,” Steven Spielberg. And “Ike: Countdown to D-Day,” which is an underrated, in my opinion, underrated movie, really, it’s a movie made for TV, but I think it is so good, so well-written, so, well, and it captures the nuances. And what I like between these two is that Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan” captures it from the ordinary soldier’s point of view. And he tries to get into the ordinary soldier, to the ordinary private corporal, you know, the one captain, the Tom Hanks character. To sort of every man that Tom Hanks is, and the others. And he tries to tell it from the ordinary combat soldiers’ perspective. The other movie, which is Tom Selleck playing Eisenhower, tells it from the leadership Supreme Allied Command in England at the time. Obviously a combination of Eisenhower as the Supreme Allied Commander together with Montgomery, the British, the main general who was in charge of the Land Forces. Air Vice-Marshal Tedder, who was in charge of the Air Force. Bradley, the American General, and so on. So, what we get, and we see clips with Churchill, the English King, King at the time. We get the sense of the leadership and the politics, in times, the petty politics of the leadership of Supreme Allied Command Britain at the time of primarily of the Americans and the British. There’s some clips with de Gaulle and a couple of other characters.
But we get the leadership, we get the politics, we get the intrigue, the petty politicking, and we get the brilliance of Eisenhower, in my honest opinion. And compared to the other, which is much more of an every man movie, the, and huge adventure story of Spielberg, and yet so accurate to history. So, I want to look at those two perspectives, the leadership and the ordinary soldier. And secondly, the idea of the visceral way that Spielberg makes his film, which is with a handheld camera. And you know, you’ve got in 28 minutes in the beginning, which is just storming the beaches, in particular Omaha Beach, but the other beaches as well. The first nearly half hour is almost entirely that. And it was an extraordinary attempt by Spielberg to try and capture something of the historical reality. And that brings the question of, you know, these are all fiction films, of course, but they try to capture as much of the historical reality as accurately as possible. And that’s a fascinating debate on how fiction can try and mirror reality or capture it, or can it or can’t it. Because of course, in the end, it’s got to have dramatic story structure for emotional impact on the viewer. So, I want to include that a little bit as well in the discussion as we go along today. I want to, and also the, I want to show how images have become obviously so powerful in our times. You know, in our times, we talk about, let’s go and see a play. Let’s go and see a concert. Let’s go and, you know, perhaps let’s go and even see the opera, whatever it is, or see the exhibition.
In, you know, if we go back a couple hundred years, people would say, for thousands of years, let’s go and listen to a play, or let’s go and hear a play. So, obviously the focus on the visual and the image, and obviously with the phone, the internet now, everything is communicated through the visual impact. And Spielberg understands it completely. And what I like with the Eisenhower film is that it understood, but understated, because he’s looking at the, in political and the intrigues between the pretty egotistical generals and how they’re jockeying for position and glory, let’s be honest, at some point. And Eisenhower was almost the brilliant diplomat who has to find a way to get all these disparate leaders to work together under him. Right, now I’m going to start with something quite surprising, and some of these figures may shock people, but I would like to start and come back to it at the end. What is it about D-Day that we really should remember today? Given what happened, obviously October the 7th, given what’s happening around the world, an increasing sense of vulnerability. Pardon me. An increasing sense of anxiety, which obviously Jewish people in Israel and Jewish people in the diaspora, and, you know, people around the world, the Western world in particular, are feeling a, I think, an increase in vulnerability and anxiety, I think, to put it mildly.
For a whole host of reasons, which we all know very well. This, the foundations of security are shaky, you know, and we all don’t know, is it going to go this way or that way? Different ways, it’s difficult to predict. And I think D-Day, given that today is the 80th anniversary, is an important reminder on what on earth this is all about. Not only the words democracy, freedom, human rights, but a way of living, a way of structuring a society, the values in a society, the values which are social and moral and enshrined in a type of society, one might choose that one wants to live in, where at least is a degree of tolerance or understanding, at least an attempt, you know, where opposition is not just killed or imprisoned and so on. So, and D-Day, for me, captures that huge reminder. Of course, there are many other examples from the Second World War, you know, and for us as Jewish people, we know, of course the obvious ones. Not just Auschwitz, many, many others. So, I think it’s not only a warning from history, it’s not only a reminder, but it’s a sense of who are we? What are our values? What do we want to make our identity now, given these shaky foundations 80 years later after the massive and huge sacrifices made by so many? So, to start with that, leads me to a couple of interesting polls that have been done very recently, and I would like to share that because it’s a, I was shocked in preparing for today. I wanted to look at what does D-Day mean to people today? Living in particular, I looked at Britain and America, and I looked at recent polls, young people, and of different ages. So, the question was sent out to British people fairly recently, a couple of years ago, in a pretty, in a big, these are all big polls.
Who were the Allied forces fighting on D-Day? Who were the Allies fighting on D-Day? If we have to imagine how many chose Germany, 57% of Brits said Germany. 28% of Brits said the British were fighting the British Empire. 24% said the British were fighting America. Then another question was asked recently, who could they say what the term D-Day usually refers to in history? Only 50% could answer the question with the given answer, it was the beginning of the Allied liberation of Europe. Only 50% of Brits. Jumping to America for a moment, looking at millennials and Gen Z, 18 to 24, maybe up to the late 20s. What percentage did not know that 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust? 63% of millennials and Gen Z did not know that 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. Over 50% of those 63% who didn’t know said it was definitely under 2 million. That’s in America. In Britain, how many Brits did not, and this is of all generations. How many Brits did not know that 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust? 50%. Then the number of students in Britain who did not know what anti-Semitism really is, they were given four option answers. Each of the four would’ve led to an understanding, basic understanding at high school level of anti-Semitism, very basic. 68% did not know what anti-Semitism is. In Britain, one in eight people believe that Jewish people use the Holocaust to gain sympathy. In Britain, 25% of Brits believe that Jews chase money more than any other group in Britain.
Those, and then they looked at a further poll, those who voted for Brexit. Of those who voted for Brexit, 39% of participants believe that Jews chase money, inverted commas, more than other British. A very recent poll, which has come out in the last few months. The number of young Brits that’s generally the 18 to 24 age group who blame Israel for the war in Gaza is 50% blame Israel for the war in Gaza. The number of Brits in a very recent poll, which I actually read last night, and it was given out on one of the news channels in Britain last night, and shocked even the news reader. The number of 18 to 24-year-old British who agreed with a statement, quote, the state of Israel should not exist. The number of British 18 to 24 year olds, I’m going to say it again, who agreed with a statement that the state of Israel should not exist, is 54%. That’s from a poll released last night. 21% disagreed and said the state of Israel should exist. This is a huge poll of Brits 18 to 24. The last figure I’m going to give is that with artificial intelligence, some of you may know this, but on TikTok, Instagram and other things, there has been a massive amount of video material coming out anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, and there’s one in particular called “All eyes on Rafah.” It’s graphic, it has already had just in the few weeks, 44 million viewings on Instagram alone. You don’t want to know how many it had on TikTok.
There’s a debate about whether Chinese media has been pushing for that as well, because Chinese media linking to TikTok, et cetera. Okay, so I want to share those because these to me are quite shocking and yet important to know figures from polls and recent polls to share together. Not to be alarmist, not to be suddenly scared or anything like that, but just to get a sense of reality, not fantasy. Particularly the young generation, you know, and I’m looking obviously as the two countries, you know, there is two English, main English speaking countries at the moment. I will do more research on other countries as well. So, in answer to the question, what does meaning does D-Day have today? I think we have to take this into account, and we have to find ways, and I’m sure that we will, I’ll talk to Trudy and we’ll be talking to, you know, faculty and Wendy of course and others, ways to try and think of, there’s a whole new reality going on, which I’m sure everybody listening knows only too well, whether through children, grandchildren, friends, wherever, family and so on. There’s a whole new reality which these polls are obviously pointing to. Okay, if we can go on to the next slide, please. So, I want you to go onto D-Day itself, just a very quick, a quick, if you like, overview, just to remind us of the essence of it. It was called Operation Overlord, and it involved about 150,000 Allied troops on the first day alone, who stormed the beaches of Normandy.
And of the 150,000 odd, around about 4,000 Allied soldiers were killed on the very first day. About 2,000 of them on Omaha Beach alone. Okay, the planning began in 1943, and a big part of the planning, which is interesting, was the military deception, the ancient Trojan horse idea. And this was called, code named Operation Bodyguard, to mislead the Germans with two aims, the date and location of the landings. And of course, the two big debates were whether it was going to be Portucale, which was the Port of Cale, obviously on the French Coast, which is the closest port to the English Coast, I’m sure many people know. Or Normandy, which is further south. And the all reasons why they chose Normandy, not Cale. Hitler, of course, and a lot of the generals were convinced it was going to be Cale, because it was the closest. But what also helped to convince them was the deception campaign, which was huge, led by Eisenhower and many of the other leaders of the Allies, Operation Bodyguard. In it, they set up fake rubber tanks, fake rubber aeroplanes , a huge thing around closer to the southeast of England, rather than right at the bottom of England, where they were really preparing for the invasion. And it had hundreds and hundreds of these fake, you know, rubber tanks and weapons. And because the had to fly quite high to not be shot down, they couldn’t tell if they were real or not. And Eisenhower sent Patton up, and it was as if Patton, and he made sure that the Germans knew, of course, that Patton was up there with his fake deceptive army, and massive preparations. And of course, you know, Hitler and all the generals thought, well, if it’s Patton, he’s the best general, he’s the most famous, whatever.
He’s like, there Rommel, so, in their mind. And so, it must be there. Part of the of the huge campaign of deception to get this happening. Rommel, of course was in command. Sorry, these here are some of the badges that were put on the shoulders and sent out, and they were sent through various channels of intelligence. So, the Germans got to know, these are all fake soldier shoulder patches of fake army divisions and units and platoons. So, they went to the level of the detailed level I wanted to show, of planning, to even have fake badges on the soldier’s arms and on their jackets, as if they fake units. That’s the level of detail they went and letters. There’s so much that they did brilliantly from 1943 to the middle of 1944. Rommel, of course, is in charge of the German forces, he’s in charge of the Atlantic Wall. If you could show the next slide, please. So, this is the Atlantic Wall, which is built between ‘42 and '44. If you look at all the yellow, that’s what Hitler and Rommel, Rommel was in charge of it once he was brought back from North Africa. So, this is an extraordinary thousands of kilometres length of concrete, fortifications, everything, all the way down Norway, all the way down the French Coast, you can see, et cetera. You know, so you had these huge concrete fortifications built primarily, obviously, by the millions of slaves that Speer and others have brought in to build all these concrete fortifications. We can imagine the conditions they did it in. Okay, at the bottom, is the coast of Normandy, I’m sure everybody knows, which was approximately a 50 mile stretch of beach. And of course, all the machine guns, all that were overlooking overhead.
There were about 49,000 German soldiers at Normandy at the time to shoot down and just, you know, massively slaughter as many of the Allies coming on the shore as possible. It’s reckon the German casualties dead between four and 9,000. The Allies, 4,400 odd. Churchill had wanted to go up through the Mediterranean, through Italy, but Roosevelt and Staler had pushed for the Western for France to be invaded. Okay, these are some of the main facts that we can all remember and some of the main ideas. The very important thing, of course, was the weather. And I’m going to show a little clip in the Eisenhower film as well. The Germans had 50 divisions in France. It’s a huge number of soldiers, Panzer tanks, everything ready to counter the invasion, which they obviously knew was coming, but not where or when. 50 divisions in France, 18 divisions in Denmark and Norway at the top there, and 15 divisions in Germany to be sent quickly. Hitler only decided, only realised by nine o'clock in the morning, hours after the invasion had started already, and the other beaches had been close to being cleared, Omaha took longer for reasons we know. Only then did Hitler give the okay for the Panzer division to be sent in. Too late, because he was convinced it was going to happen at the Portucale, at the town of Cale. Interestingly, the had 815 aircraft. The Allies, nine-and-a-half thousand aircraft. Albert Speer wrote in his book, “Inside the Third Reich.” He wrote, “In Germany itself, we scarcely had any troop units left. If the Allies had gone for the airports of Hamburg and Bremen, even taken by parachute divisions. And the ports of those cities seized by small forces. The Allies coming out of the ships from those ports would’ve met no resistance and would’ve been occupying Berlin and the whole of Germany within a few days.”
That’s with the benefit of hindsight that can write this. Of course, there’s no way the Allies could know it, if they’d taken those two ports, the war would’ve been over within a couple of months of the middle of 1944. Okay, I want to go onto the next one, please. “Saving Private Ryan,” we all know the story. In essence, the film is basically Tom Hanks and a couple of other young recruits, young soldiers who haven’t had much combat experience. But he’s the captain of the small group of eight, and they’re given the missions, go and look for Private Ryan, part of the American Army, and when you find him, you have to send him back to America because the policy was, if all the brothers in the family have been killed, one brother must be sent back to the family. So, at least there’s one surviving boy that can go back. And it’s based loosely on the factual experience of the Niland brothers. If we can go to the next clip, please. These are the Niland brothers. It’s based loosely on the story of these four brothers. And that if one of them, if three of them are killed, one must be found and sent back. And it’s a fascinating idea that Spielberg took because he’s going for the every man experience, and he’s also going not to say, right, we’re going to show how many Germans are killed. We are not going to show even how clever the Allies are, like “Where Eagles Dare” or you know, some of the great adventure Hollywood type movies and others.
We are not even necessarily, we’re going to show a different kind of heroism. We’re going to show that these soldiers are going to put their lives at risk, the eight of them, under Tom Hanks character, we are going to put their lives at risk to find one American corporal, 18, 19, 20, so that he can be sent back, so there’s one brother that survives in the family. They’ve been trained to kill Germans, they’ve been trained what Nazis and means and what all of that is, but they’re going to have to find one. And they’re not happy, they don’t want to do this, give their lives to find one kid to send him back? It’s a fascinating moral dilemma that Spielberg is setting up by adapting, loosely adapting the story from loosely from the truth. And it’s a fascinating moral ambivalence because why should they give their lives to save one kid? Eight boys are going to have to maybe give their lives for one to go back, and we see some of them being killed during the course of the movie. Should they? Shouldn’t they? But if you don’t have that principles, you know, what moral high ground does one have in an army, this kind of idea that was in the American Army at the time. So, it’s a fascinating set of there aren’t any wrongs or rights, of course, a set of moral ambiguities that Spielberg, for me, is dealing with in the film. Part of what makes it such a brilliant film. Not only the first 25 minutes, which is showing, you know, the beaches and the horror with a handheld camera, but also this fundamental idea, where is the morality in all of this, what the soldiers have been trained for? There’s something of a sense of what is patriotism? What kind of soldiers, but they’re going out to find one of their own, to send him back, and that’s their job.
They might all die for that, 841, maybe, without, they might even kill many Germans. Who knows? Okay, so at the end of the film, the dying Captain Miller, which is the Tom Hanks character, he calls Private Ryan over, when they finally find him, he’s the Matt Damon, and he simply says to him, earn it. And then, Hanks, Tom Hanks character dies. And what he means, earn it? Interesting, those two words are given at the end of the film. Well, live a life worthy of the sacrifice that all these guys have made to find you and send you back home. Live a life that’s worthy. What does that mean in any way? Well, that’s for the young Private Ryan, to decide. So, that’s what the whole film is leading towards that final moment, for the young Private Ryan. It’s a different sense of patriotism, a different sense of understanding of sacrifice, a different understanding of war, even, for that matter. And I think all these ideas are there and they are complex, there’s no easy answer, I’m not going to try and go into it now. But Spielberg is really taking on something profoundly complex, in my opinion. It is of course, a Second World War blockbuster, it’s loosely based on the Niland brothers, as I mentioned, but, and the stagger, the battle sequences are brilliantly done, especially with the handheld camera, the sounds, the images, you feel you’re not just an observer or a spectator watching a movie, you feel, and I’m going to show it in a second, you’re right inside these battle scenes. It’s very different, we’re not watching or heuristically almost, or as an observer, we are feel right inside.
Is he sensationalising violence, glorifying it? I don’t think so. I think he’s showing the horror, the grim reality of mud and sweat and tears, and the totally unromantic ways of dying of these soldiers. But he’s also showing that they, all eight soldiers, together with the Hank’s character, decide they are not going to duck out of the fight. They’re not going to shirk it, they’re going to go ahead and do it even though they’re completely reluctant. And the bottom line is that these traumatised young boys are going to go out and do the one thing, even though they really don’t want to necessarily. Okay, we can show the next clip, please. So, this is from the opening, on the beach.
Go!
Captain, if your mother saw you do that, she’d be very upset.
I thought you were my mother.
Oh my god, .
On my strength, .
Okay, if we can freeze it there please. Okay, thanks. So, I wanted to show just a little bit from the beach, goes on for nearly half an hour. But that shot of, you know, the Germans up there, machine gun nests, it gives you absolutely the ideal picture, and the sniper shooting up. Spielberg himself said that he wanted to show, let’s get the exact quote here. He wanted to show it as close to real life as he felt it was. As close to what we could call an authenticity in fiction film. What was it really like? The experience, again, that we are inside the experience, we are not just watching it as spectators. And that is also achieved so much by the handheld camera. So, it’s almost like moving, you know, the cameramen are moving around these actors and these extras with a handheld camera. And you get 10 of them, 20 of them, and you get all the footage together and edit out and choose what you want. And he was quite spontaneous about, in the filming of it like that. And that handheld camera is precisely what gives that technique of what I said, that you feel you’re part of it with them. It’s also interesting that we don’t really meet eye to eye with any of the Germans up there, but they’re not just the classic sort of Hollywood B grade movie image of, you know, sort of obvious evil Germans and, you know, the goody, you know, cowboy and Indian stuff. These guys were in a desperate battle for life and death, and that’s it. And we get that completely through the images. Okay, he also said that he was influenced, of course, by “All Quiet on the Western Front,” one of the great, great movies of all time, in my opinion. And where you get such a visceral sense of that lived internal experience of war itself. Okay, if we can go onto the next one, please. This is also on the beach in a different type of filming. If we can freeze it there, please, Hannah.
Okay, so I wanted to show just a little clip because we need to, he, Spielberg is so good. He takes the sound out, you just have this almost wind, slight wind sound, and we go, ironically, we go deeper inside the individual soldier, the Hanks, Tom Hanks character, deeper into his perspective. And through his perspective, we experienced the battle on the beaches. And it’s actually more eerie, more haunting, more scary by taking that sound out from the first clip, for me, in the second clip. And we experience it like that. It’s even more haunting and so evocative, emotionally. Because we’ve seen too many movies of gunshots, bullets, tanks, you know, blowing up things, dynamite. But when you ironically take out the sound and you just see the image with that handheld jerky, haphazardly moving camera, it’s a very different experience for the audience. And the irony is that less sound, more emotional impact in the viewer. Okay, I want to show the next clip, please, which is where finally, after many crises, they meet up with a Matt Damon who plays Private Ryan.
Our orders are to bring you back.
Bring me back?
Corporal Henderson, I don’t mean to leave you even more shorthanded, but orders are orders. Any communication about when you’re going to be relieved up here?
Sir, there’s no way to tell. I mean, we have no idea what’s happening in south of us.
I have my orders too, sir. They don’t include me abandoning my post.
I understand that, but this changes things.
I don’t see that it does, sir.
The Chief of Staff for the United States Army says it does.
Sir, our orders are to hold this bridge at all cost. Now, our planes in the 82nd have taken out every bridge across the Merderet with the exception of two. One of Valognes and this one here. We let the Germans take them, we’re going to lose our foothold and have to displace.
Private, your outfit wants to stay, that’s one thing. But your party’s over here-
Sir, I can’t leave until at least reinforcements-
You got three minutes to gather your gear.
Sir, what about them? I mean, there’s barely hardly enough-
Hey, asshole! Two of our guys already died trying to find you, all right?
Sir?
That’s right.
What were their names?
Irwin Wade and Adrian Caparzo.
Can we freeze it there, please?
Wade and…
[Person] Caparzo.
We can freeze it there, please, Hannah. Okay, thanks. So, I wanted to show that clip because the whole film is building up to that moment where he doesn’t want to go back, of course not, he’s with his group, you know, he’s, the heroism, the patriotism, all of that is coming through. But when he hears, hang on, two of the eight of us have died looking for just you, and now you say you don’t want to go back, that’s the, for me, the moral climax of ambivalence, of uncertainty, what would we do? How would we feel that Spielberg leaves open for us? This is the clip, this is the scene that, for me, the whole play, the whole movie has been built in towards quite brilliantly. And it’s the moment of the choice where we would be faced with a choice if we were in a similar situation. I didn’t feel for a second that Spielberg glorifies violence, that he sensationalises it, even by having nearly half an hour of the beach, the beach battle scene of D-Day. I think it’s the opposite because we know there is a mission that these guys have to go out and do this, as opposed to just going in and liberating Paris, getting to Berlin and going and fighting in the war and so on. It’s an entirely different approach to telling the D-Day story. And I think that’s not only his filmmaking of Spielberg, but I think the idea behind it is so brilliant and evocatively done, that it remains a moral quandary and a set of ambiguities for us as well. Of course there’s courage, of course there’s total sacrifice, and of course there’s heroism and a little bit of romanticism, but not the predictable type and not the usual.
And that’s, for me, why it’s one of the great films, and voted one of the great films by the American Film Institute and many, many others. You know, is it over sentimental? Is it manipulative? Which is of course being accused of. It’s a valid accusation. For me, not, you know, it does have a redemptive, if you like, perhaps a little bit sentimental ending that he does go back, you know, Matt Damon looks like, you know, the all American, every boy, you know, sort of school or just out of school. But because of everything else I’ve said, I don’t think it is, in my opinion. What it is ultimately is a film about the every man, the ordinary every man, who has to do a job that they don’t want to do, he doesn’t want to go back either. And it’s the vulnerability, there’s a weariness, there’s an exhaustion, there’s a rage, there’s a fear. All the ordinary feelings of these guys are felt in this film through the ordinariness of the characters. And like “All Quiet on the Western Front,” it’s one of the very few films of the Second World War in particular of D-Day that evoke these kind of moral questions and these kind of conflicting emotions in viewers, in my opinion. It is sentimental, but I don’t think that sentimentality ultimately rules. I think all these other questions do, as I was saying. And in the end, what is courage? What is sacrifice? And what is it if we don’t try and get, you know, whether it’s the one guy or bring the soldier back home, you know, of all great armies in human history? We will not leave a wounded or even a dead soldier on the field. We will bring them back, we will bring the living or even the dead back as much as we can. Without that, the moral fibre, the moral commitment of soldiers is cut in half, I would suggest. It’s crucial, because then they know they’re going to fight and they’re going to be wound, injured, but they have a good chance of being rescued.
Okay, there’s fear, there’s bravery, there’s courage. All of these things are of course part of it as well. Okay, so there’s different kind of heroism for me in the film. Okay, I want to go onto the next slide, please, which is on Eisenhower. So, Countdown, “Ike: Countdown to D-Day.” Very different picture, Tom Selleck, this is the Supreme Allied Commander who, in my mind, a brilliant diplomat and leader for that matter. You know, who, as we all know, organised D-Day, pulled all the egos. We can imagine how huge these egos are of the Allied generals together, including even de Gaulle and Churchill. Pull them together to go with one mission, one aim, one idea. So, the enormity of D-Day, biggest land invasion from sea invasion that we ever in human history as we all know. But it took a real strength to combine it and put it off together, from the deception to the planning, to the organising, to the logistic. Everything ultimately was on Eisenhower’s shoulders as he knew only too well. This is a fascinating film for me, very underrated and under viewed, which is why I chose it, because it shows the leadership, the elite. Okay, the first one is Eisenhower with Churchill. We can show the next clip, please.
[Announcer] Now, the A & E original movie.
I’m not sending a bunch of fresh young kids to die for people they know nothing about. I’m asking them to die for freedom, and they’re ready to do it. And that’s why they’re heroes.
[Announcer] Tom Selleck, “Ike: Countdown to D-Day.”
Let me put this another way. If I am not given complete and unfettered command of this situation, you can, if I may put it politely, sir, take this job and put it where you choose because I’ll have damn well quit.
[Churchill] My other generals say it is unwise. Too much responsibility for one man.
Then find other generals.
[Churchill] Even your other generals say the same thing.
Then I’ll also find new ones. I know who we’re talking about here, prime minister, your Air Marshall Harris, my General Jimmy Spaatz. The RAF and the US Eighth Air Force want to fight their own war. When it was strategic bombing, they think-
I know what they think, general. And it is very seductive. Continue the saturation bombing of the continent till the enemy has lost his will to fight. Leave him defeated and dispirited before your invasion force even sits foot ashore.
If there’s a shore to set foot on. That kind of bombing would turn Paris into a soccer field, Holland, into a swimming pool. You were an infantry officer, prime minister, we both know could only be won on the ground. America did not send a million of its finest men to stand by. While faceless aircraft destroy the Europe they’re willing to die to save. And I don’t believe you rallied the British people to fight on alone all these long years to bear so much, only to see the great cities of Europe become heaps of rubble. We have to do more than liberate Europe, we have to save it. We’re soldiers, you and I, there can only be one commander, one conductor of this orchestra.
One supreme commander in the air, on the ground, at sea.
Or face, interservice bickering, clashing egos, conflicting operational deployments. One invasion, one commander.
A sampling of this morning’s editorial contribution. As the Allies prepare for our greatest challenge of the war, our leaders must not lose sight of the true measure of military leadership. The victories of General Montgomery at El-Alamein, Sicily, and every campaign he has undertaken deserve prime consideration. His hand is never far from such forward momentum as we have enjoyed in this war. No other general can make that claim. I could go on, but they’re all much of a muchness.
I don’t deny Monty’s achievements as a field commander.
Whilst you can make no such claim. Oh come, come general. Don’t take offence, we’re too close for that. Monty’s not the man for this, and we both know it, far too in love with his own image. There is no shortage of men who would write the title, “Supreme Commander,” or even a part of it. And I, we must identify each man and decide whether or not he’s fit.
Harris.
Not oblivious to destruction.
Certainly not .
Too flamboyant. Marshall?
You know, FDR won’t let 'em leave Washington.
And is commanding in the Pacific.
Then who?
Your own Mr. Roosevelt has his doubts about a supreme commander.
I’ll live him to you, sir, you’ll be able to set him straight.
No human in history has ever held the power for which you now ask. Not Caesar, not Alexander, no man, ever.
But this is Eisenhower you are considering. Is this relatively untried American, the right man for the job?
Very popular with the men.
Irrelevant. Properly disciplined soldiers fight at the leader’s commands, whoever that might be. My victories against Rommel that brought us back North Africa weren’t one because I was popular with the ordinary ranks.
No idea same. Brandy?
No, thank you.
Oh, sorry, forgot your strict scruples. General, let it not come as a surprise to you, the decision is as good as made. There will be no turning back. Eisenhower is to be supreme commander. That is the consensus of their lives.
I see. Politics first, is it?
Yes? Yes, Chief Whip?
Time to prepare for the afternoon question period, prime minister.
One last thought, prime minister. There’s more than one way to skin this cat. Things remain as they are, let Eisenhower be the de facto figure here, just don’t formalise it. Leave some room for the rest of us.
Oh, I’m sure you’ll find some way to manoeuvre, general. You know my admiration for your soldiering skills.
Yeah, thanks, if we can freeze it there. Okay, thank you. So, I wanted to show this in its entirety because this is really part of the crux of what this film is about. And I think it’s beautifully written and subtly acted as well. It’s pretty naturalistic, and the psychology, in this case, of the three main characters, a little bit Montgomery at the end. But the intrigue, the politics, the egos, all of these things are what is leadership in times of great crisis. You know, if we think about D dates and we think about, we’ve spoken about the ordinary soldier, the ordinary guy on the ground. Now, we are talking about the leadership. What is it require to not only organise the logistics and the technical side of something as huge as D-Day? But what kind of way of thinking, what approach or vision of life? And not only warfare, but how to succeed is required? What kind of leadership, bottom line? 80 years later after D-Day, what speaks to us about leadership and the different approaches, the Churchill character here, you know, character. No, this one’s too flamboyant. This one’s too full of his own, you know, self-image. This one, et cetera. Who is the one that can really take it through to the end, who can put the main aim in first? Not the ego, not the image, not other agendas, not even political, but to win D-Day on D-Day. That is the prime aim. And that’s what this scene is all alluding to for me, in the subtext between the Churchill and of course mostly the Eisenhower character, the Tom Selleck.
And this, and the Eisenhower character knows it and Churchill knows it, and it takes the two of them, and of course, Roosevelt. You know, so it takes them to come up with this kind of understanding, what kind of leadership is appropriate for these crucial, crucial crisis times and on such a huge crisis level. And there’s not any morality involved, but fundamental questions of leadership, which I believe speak to us today, 80 years later. What kind of leaders are we crying out for? What kind of maturity, sense of understanding, of limitation, of ambition, of drive, of honesty, of fantasy and rail politic and reality are we looking for today? I don’t think there’s any answers here. I think that this film captures this idea brilliantly. In the end, it’s a film about the leadership of one of the great, great moments of human history. Interestingly, both of these, the characters, the way it’s written, the Eisenhower and Churchill, of course, have an understanding of history. And I’m not scared to bring it in, not only the references to Caesar, Alexandra and others, but they understand what’s going on in the bigger canvas of history that they can try and have the greatest impact. And that’s the thought I wanted to look at this film in particular with, to share today. So, we get both perspectives, of course, the every man, ordinary soldier, and the leader, and what both require in order to succeed at their jobs, bottom line. And how, if you think about it carefully, it’s not only about what was the weather like, and we all know the debate around the weather. Was it going to be the weather or not?
The high seas and all of that. The fact that the bombs, the aircraft, they overshot, they mark, they didn’t bomb most of the German concrete fortifications. A hell of a lot of them, especially on Omaha Beach were missed, and many others. Many, many other complications. In the end, it comes down to something like this, to me, you know, to bring it an essence in a way. And that’s what’s fascinating. Historical accuracy, partly, not entirely. We have to have, let’s say, poetic licence, dramatic licence. Did the scene ever happen between Churchill and Eisenhower? We don’t know. Did the scenes, you know, did the scene rarely happen with “Saving Private Ryan?” It’s loosely based on the fact. But that is what great art can do. Great literature, great film. It can, even 80 years later, or when these movies were made, speak to us of another time completely, by presenting us with a quandaries of our experience. What is leadership for us today? Could we have these kind of characters coming together? Just the triangle, Montgomery, Eisenhower, Churchill, in a scene that echoes and gives resonance today of leadership? Whether we agree with the leadership or not? The ordinary soldier, what is it to be a soldier today? What is it actually to be a soldier after Vietnam, after the Second World War, First World War? And in different, obviously the Middle East, the horror of the Middle East and elsewhere. What is it to be a soldier today? What does patriotism mean? Sacrifice, courage? It does change and shift as history and culture changes and shifts.
And I think these two movies try to capture at least some idea artistically and in fiction, of something of these ideas coming from the historical fact, if you like. Okay, the very last clip I’m going to show is very different. If we can jump to the very last one, please, Hannah. And this is from the movie of Patton. This is where they show how they’re going to, they show the king and the King of England, and you know, where they’re going to attack, et cetera. And then the next clip is the weather. If you go onto the very last one. Okay, the one after this. The number 13, the very last one. The very last form clip. And this is of Patton, this is it here. This is of course from the George Scott film, “Patton.” I’m sure many people know it. And just want to choose this scene. Different kind of leader who is needed and highly effective. But what he’s using is not necessarily the mark of a leader for today of the ultimate overall leadership, but part leadership. It’s captured for me in this one little scene of, from the movie “Patton.” If we can show it, please.
What’s the matter with you?
I guess I just can’t take it, sir.
What did you say?
It’s my nerve, sir. I just can’t stand the shelly anymore.
Your nerve? Hell, you’re just a goddam coward. I don’t have any yellow bastards sitting here crying in front of these brave men who’ve been wounded in battle. Don’t admit this yellow bastard. Nothing wrong with him. Son of bitches who are afraid to fight, stinking up this place of honour. We’re going back to the front, my friend. You may get shot, you may get killed, but you’re going up to the fighting. Either that or I’m going to stand you up in front of a firing squad. Get him out of here! Send him up to the front! You hear me? You goddam coward!
Can we freeze it there, please? Okay, so I wanted to show this as a last clip from “Patton,” because this brings in another area of moral quandary, ambivalence, you know, what is a coward? What is courage? What is sacrifice? And what is survival? You know, and I, in this short scene from the film, in contrast to many of the others, the other scenes are heroic, adventure story, you know, the great leader, Patton, obviously the kind of, you know, larger than life character to put it mildly of the Patton. But here, in this one short scene, you know, these ideas for me are what’s thrown out. What is a coward? What is somebody who’s absolutely traumatised, freaked out, crying? Is he a coward or is he just terrified, freaked out, you know, completely broken and shattered in his mind? What do we do? What would we do in Patton’s position? What would we do if we were the young soldier or if our son or grandson or granddaughter was the soldier in the clip here? So, pulling this all together, it’s another open-ended question about different kinds of leadership. And I’m not saying this kind is not needed, of course it is, the Patton kind.
And the other kind by Eisenhower, the other kind even by the captain of the Tom Hanks, ordinary every guy, you know, sort of world-weary, but vulnerable, but strong kind of leader of the ordinary combat soldiers in “Saving Private Ryan.” Okay, so I want to hold this here and share this with you on D-Day. Given all the, those facts and figures, why 80 years later D-Day for me is still so absolutely crucial. Not because of the cliched messages or images even, you know, but they provoke these profound questions of how can we make meaning for these things of being an ordinary soldier, of being a leader of others? Or what are these questions of courage, sacrifice and so on. What do they evoke for us today and how should we go about them? Okay, the meaning of D-Day for us, and of course history and fiction. Okay, so I’m going to go into the questions.
Q&A and Comments:
From Elliot, Montgomery’s Market Garden was a disaster. Absolutely. My brother-in-law came to England via the Kindertransport via Vienna, lived with a family in Manchester. Yeah, absolutely.
And Montgomery’s Market Garden was the attack which led to the Battle of the Bulge, which was months later. Not D-Day specifically as I’m sure you know, Elliot.
So, that was a complete disaster 'cause Montgomery’s ego had it that, well, he would get through the bulge, which was the bulge in the German lines, and get, you know, smash them, get through Germany, get to Berlin, end the war, quickly. Completely underestimated the opposition and disaster. And exactly thousands and thousands of Allied lives pretty unnecessarily lost because of his ego, ambition.
Exactly what we see in that scene in the Eisenhower film. Great question. Michael. I, for one, would probably not be here if D-Day not succeeded. And we rightfully revere what democracies can do when they come together. Absolutely. It rocked me when I realised on the Eastern Front where the Nazis suffered their first real defeat was not a democracy that crushed, was even great dictator. That’s a great point, Michael.
You know, that if it hadn’t been for the Red Army, of course Stalingrad, the Battle of Kursk later, and others, which turned the war, Stalingrad being the first of course, as we know, and absolutely horrific, you know, the number of million, you know, killed there and so on. So, but D-Day is absolutely part of it from the Western Front side. Because if there hadn’t been a Western Front, you know, the Germans would’ve been able to send all their troops to at least slow down radically the advance of the Red Army on the Eastern Front. And they, you know, Stalin and the Red Army needed the Western. So, of course it ended up being a battle on two fronts. So, I don’t think it was only crushed by the greater dictator. It was, it ended up being on two fronts guaranteed to lose.
Myrna. Politics makes strange bedfellows. Yeah, what’s the old phrase? My enemy’s friend is my friend. And many others of those.
Marilyn. The percentage of the people who do not know the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust and anti-Semitism is frightening. Yeah, I know. And that’s why I wanted to share it today. Not to to scare us, but to make us aware of what we are taking on, and how we need to take it on, essential, 80 years after D-Day. And you know, to never stop, never ever stop.
Q: Stuart. What do you think of “Longest Day?”
A: Great question. And in essence, I wanted to choose it for today, but chose these for the reasons that I’ve gone into. I think it doesn’t show enough of the ordinary. I think it shows too much of battle. The storyline and the characters are not quite as developed as in these two, with the ordinary soldier and the leader. But it’s certainly a very well made film, brilliantly, visually and dramatic structure. I’m back and I’m healthy. Ah, okay, that’s great. Thanks. I know what he’s talking about, Hitler, it his name be one from history. Ah, yeah, okay, great. Thank you. Elliot.
As he grew older, he tried often to enlist, but was rejected as an alien. He ultimately became a captain of Glider behind the lines on him, which was Market Garden, yeah. Operation Market Garden. Directed to take a bridge in Holland, fought in man-to-man fighting with the Nazis, was wounded, ended up in prison. Prisoner of war, where he was treated by a Dutch Shakti.
Montgomery told the pilots that the Allied tanks would join them, which never showed up, exactly. “A Bridge Too Far” is brilliant, and was liberated to continue helping. Exactly. So yeah, “A Bridge Too Far” is a superb film, and captures, again, the morality of ego and over ambitious leadership, versus the ordinary soldier, you know, and, “A Bridge Too Far.” But again, that’s later, the Battle of the Bulge, it’s not D-Day, which we are commemorating today.
Debbie. Omaha, Juno, Gold, Utah, and Sword, the five beaches. Absolutely. I visited Omaha and Juno Beach. I was shocked at the steep incline. Yes, it’s very steep at Omaha, which is why, part of the reason why it was so difficult. The other reason that Omaha was so hard is that the bombing aeroplanes overshot because they didn’t want to bomb their own men who were getting closer from the ship to the beach. So, they overshot the concrete fortifications and the bombs dropped behind. It’s one of the terrible tragedies of that battle and war that that happened. And I think that’s one of the reasons why so many more were killed in Omaha. And the incline, the gradual incline of Juno helped beach, yeah, helped the Canadians. Exactly. And you can see the, but yeah, exactly, Judy. That’s a great point, thanks.
Q: Betty. What was the name of the TikTok, Instagram, beginning of the title?
A: “All eyes on Rafah.” “All eyes on Rafah.” You know, the city in Gaza.
David mentioned Operation Tiger pre D-Day. Yeah, all of these are wonderful and very important. But I guess I wanted to focus specifically on D-Day today. David. Since 750 died in practise, yeah, invasion.
Q: Rita. What if anything is known about Private Ryan’s wife life after?
A: Well, he did go back and he lived out a life, fairly ordinary life, but he tried to live it to, apparently, we don’t know the inner details, really, of what all the others had sacrificed for him, you know, to honour them in some way in his life.
Q: Tommy. Can you recommend a book dealing with the points raised, especially in the Ike form?
A: Oh, that’s a great question, Tommy. Let me think about that. There is a book, there are a couple of them. If you want to email me through lockdown, then I can send you a couple of references. It’s a lovely, it’s a great question, thanks.
Barry. We watched “Gallipoli.” Yeah, total lack of leadership, completely. I mean, “Gallipoli” was a classic example of First World War of lions led by donkeys, which was the phrase about the generals of the First World War. They were the donkeys leading lions who were the ordinary combat soldiers. Susan, hope you well, and hope you well and still in Cornwall. Thank you, very important topic, yeah. I and my family would not be here, D-Day not succeed. Yeah, I think many of us would not be, it’s absolutely for sure. Or the war would’ve gone on longer, and who knows what would’ve really happened in the end. Great point, Susan, thank you. And hope you’re very well Susan. Faye. Thank you.
Madeline. Oh, that’s very kind, all of you are very kind. Yeah, the statistics, I’m going to come back to using these statistics. I’m researching a couple of ideas for some lectures around these very contemporary shocking statistics, as you say, Madeline. Dennis. As a player on the ubiquitous sign, George Washington slept here. George Patton slept here. Great, that’s great, Dennis. Got to keep our wit. I like that. Judith, thank you, all very kind.
Q: What about the current conflict?
A: So many soldiers. Well, and killing, trying to save hostages, absolutely. You know, it’s, so, and that’s very, we can get the metaphor of “Saving Private Ryan” for saving, you know, our own. Saving, you know, the hostages, saving Jewish soldiers, the Israeli soldiers, you know, saving, and so we go on. Exactly. And it is crucial that an army never loses sight of that, because when it does, it loses not only the moral edge, but it loses the ordinary soldiers’ drive to fight because he or she knows when it happens, not going to be rescued, not going to be helped, you know, he’s going to be left to die or your dead body even, it’s just going to be there.
Okay, so I think that’s almost the end.
Will there more? Sorry. Hey, Lilana. Thank you, very kind. Ralph. It seems that all the attention of the European theatre, a lot of South Africans lost in Libya. Yeah, and to Brooke. Yeah, and Delville Wood and others, which is where the South Africans came in. Definitely. And we can go on, there’s so much here. As I say, today was to commemorate the remarkable sacrifice and courage in the end of D-Day, and the ordinary guys and the better leaders, as many of you have said, otherwise, would we be here today? I doubt it, as you’ve all said.
Okay, thanks very much, everybody. On Saturday, I’m going to do the movie cartoon, very different kind of topic on colonialism and cartoon, the film. Okay, so thanks very much, hope you have a great couple of days, and see you, those of you able to, would like to, on Saturday. Take care and stay well.