In the first 15 minutes of this film I saw two scenes that I doubt ever happened. Can someone tell me if they did?
The first was a conversation between Eisenhower and Churchill in which they discuss the reasons a ground invasion is necessary, as opposed to continual saturation bombing to destroy the German will to continue the war. Ike argues that saturation boming would essentially destroy Europe, and his mission was to save it. In other words, the ground invasion would not be as physically destructive as the air campaign. That’s an arguement that I never heard attributed to any Allied commander
The other was a scene in which general George Patton actually hugs Ike in gratitude whe Ike decides not to send Patton hime in disgrace after some boneheaded comments to the press.
Since Churchill and Roosevelt had spent two years assuring Stalin that as soon as they possibly could they would set up a western front to take pressure off the eastern front, it’s hard to imagine that in 1944 either of them was making a case against a landing.
I don’t know about the hugging scene, but Gerald McRaney is only 56. Patton was 59 at the time. So why does he look like a dissipated 100?
I gave up on the movie halfway through. How could anyone make D-Day that boring?
And why would anybody think Tom Selleck could play Eisenhower?
The Churchill conversation supposedly happened before Ike was confirmed as Supreme Commander. That would have made it probably in early 1942, and the discussion had something of the flavir of a job interview.
At least some of the things posited in that discussion were accurate. Arther Harris and Carl Spaatz, the Allied bombing chiefs, really did think the invasion was a waste, really believed they could win the war on their own, and fought very hard to keep their forces out of Eisenhowers control. They felt that their airforces would be used against tactical targets for which they were not trained or equipped, and that it would be a serious misallocation of their forces.
As just mentioned, the LeMay types really had an unshakable belief in the ability of strategic conventional bombing to win a war. Ike was nowhere near that irrational. He would have heard the case for it being made, would have smiled and nodded, and then continued to plan D-Day.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, It got a pretty good review in the Los Angeles Times today (31 May) and it’s on my A&E tonight.
Could have happened. Patton was an emotional guy and knew he was on a short tether after two soldier-slapping incidents in Italy and shooting off his mouth here and there. In his book A General’s Story Omar Bradley wrote that he and Ike had decided to replace Patton with General Lucian Truscott who they considered ideal for the 3[sup]rd[/sup] Army. However Truscott was in the Med and the commanders there wouldn’t give him up so they stuck with Patton.
The title is Countdown to D-Day, not something like D-Day With All Its Bells and Whistles And More Explosions Per Second Than You Have Ever Seen Before!!!
If John Wayne can be cast as (was it?) Ghengis Kahn, I guess Selleck can be cast as Eisenhower.
This movie is not about D-Day. It is both a character study and an examination of the process of the planning for D-Day.
Tom Selleck wisely did not try to give an impersonation of Ike. He neither looked like him nor sounded like him. But I do think that his performance was able to convey the qualities that made Ike the right choice for Supreme Allied Commander.
I have read that Patton and Ike were close friends at one point. (I believe that Patton was one of Eisenhower’s mentors at one time.) The hug may have been Patton’s way of trying to manipulate Ike. Or it may not have happened at all.
Most of what I saw in the film I had already read elsewhere, so I think it’s pretty accurate – right down to the fact that his driver was a woman.
I thought the film was excellent and so did my husband.
BTW, I caught my first glimpse of the beaches of Normandy just a little more than a month ago. We flew over them on our way out of France. I am glad that my eyes have finally seen them after all of these years.
Well, yes, Ike’s driver was a WAAC. In fact, her name was Kay Summersby and outside the Eisenhower family there is a furious debate whether she and Ike were having an affair all through the war. She denied it, sorta, but an earlier minseries on Ike was based on her book and made the relationship explicit.
Carlo D’Este goes into great detail about Summersby’s and Eisenhower’s relationship in the biography, Eisenhower: A Soldier’s Life. Essentially, he says that the rumors are unfounded and incorrect.
By the way, if anyone wants a biography of Eisenhower, particularly his military career, that is a good one.
Although Magnum PI is a fine actor he reads honestly as too manly for Ike. Ike alwasy struck me as sort of a scholarly fellow, bookish of sorts. I kept thinking William H Macy would have been a great.
It was OK in my opinion, although I wouldn’t pay to see it. Of course I don’t pay to see many movies. The last one was The Thin Red Line and before that Saving Private Ryan both of which got raves from most reviewers.
I’m still pissed that I paid good (not hard earned, but good) money to see either of them.
I forgot. Although I don’t remember specifics about a hug, Patton and Eisenhower had been friends since around 1920, so it wouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility for them to hug considering the circumstances.
