The lost battalion

[bkristof]

Just watched the lost batalion.

Very nice film, not much historical mistakes in it. One of the best since ages.

The uniforms and equipment are certainly ok.

But i am not familiar with the story behind it. Is it historical correct?

Or is this again a typical USA patriotic film?

I must admid they gave the impression that the Yanks won WW1. Nope, that is not fair and correct...

But for the rest not to much of the superhero stuff in it.

What is the historical background???

[Landsturm]

I must admid they gave the impression that the Yanks won WW1.

I think Americans really do think their participation was the main factor of winning the war, so this kind of "accusation" doesn`t surprise me.

The story is very real. Here is Helpful web page and another one...

[andigger]

Actually the book The Lost Battlion is quite accurate as well. Its a quick read. Authors are Watson and Pratt.

Andy

[AOK4]

I must admit I hate the movie.

The tactics in the movie are absolutely ridiculous.

Jan

[Guest AmericanDoughboy]

Kristof,

The TV Movie "The Lost Battalion" is indeed quite accurate and a very well represenation of the various events that occured from October 2nd - 6th 1918. However, there are some moments of the film that are not correct.

1. Private Lapasti was killed during a patrol by machine-gun fire.

2. There was more than one plane searching for the soldiers of the 308th, 307th Battalions in the Argonne Forest, Charlevaux Mill area.

3. Private Yoder was not from Montana, he was from Minnesota. Yoder survived the war, unlike the film, when he is killed by an artillery shell that bursts next to him.

However, personally, I believe the movie is very good yet it does show it's "made for tv" effects.

-Doughboy

P.S. Kristof, when you said that this is another "US Patriotic Film" it actually is not. It's an anti-war film made by an Englishman who joined A&E to show America a story of their soldiers in a forgotten war.

[Glenn Warnes]

Didnt the commander (Ricky Shroder character) commit sucide after the war

Spider

[Guest AmericanDoughboy]

Didnt the commander (Ricky Shroder character) commit sucide after the war

Spider

Spider,

On the night of November 14th, 1921, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Whittlesey (formally Major) dissapeared on the steamship S.S. Toloa, leaving a suicide note on his bed saying farewell to personal friends. Some believe his suicide was caused by his serious depression after the war believing that it was his fault that over three hundred of his men were killed during the 'Lost Battalion' incident. He believed that his decision for a refusal of surrender resulted in the death of 3/4 of his men. However, all of this men strongly respected his decision and almost all of the men who served with Whittlesey during the incident attended his memorial service and funeral later on.

-Doughboy

[Vincent Petty]

"The Lost Battalion" wasn't a bad film. Of course as has been pointed out some events were changed for more dramatic effect. As much as "Band of Brothers" was marketed as the real thing people and events were changed to help the flow of the story. That is the film industry.

There were a few things though that really annoyed me --

1) The first thing that bugged me is the hostile relationship portrayed between Wittlesey and the Division commander Alexander.

2) For the most part the gear was right, however, the post-WW1 helmets they used just stood out, as well as the SBR gasmasks being worn backwards. I also was wondering about their use of what appeared to be European mess kits, rather than American meatcans and canteen cups.

I will say that I find it interesting that some of yall said the film made it look like the Americans won the war -- I wonder what film was being watched as I never came away with that impression. My impression of the film is that it was only about the lost battalion and the American experience -- this after all was an American story. However there seems to be a hostility on the part of some towards the American participation and its impact on the outcome of the war. The impact of 2 million fresh men on the outcome of the war cannot be denied. How much longer would the war had lasted had not the Doughboy arrived? How many more people would have died or been displaced? The Europeans carried a great burden fighting the war and the 100,000 Americans killed pail in comparison to what France, Britain and Germany suffered, but would the Allies have won without the fresh 2,000,000 men that arrived?

Vince

[Vincent Petty]

LOL there I go bitching about gasmasks being worn backwards, and there Whittlesey is wearing his backwards in his photo. I bet he just threw it on.

Vince

[Neil Burns]

Hi Vince,

The US lost 50,280 men dead in battle; 57,460 through disease ( 10,000 or so in the AEF the balance stateside); and 7,920 'Other' (Accidents).

According to The War With Germany Washington Printing Office 1919.

My big complaint (as I've stated before) with 'Lost Battalion' were the cartoon ethnic characters and the grenades that blew people 20 feet in the air!

Overall an enjoyable film though.

Take care,

Neil

[Guest AmericanDoughboy]

I will say that I find it interesting that some of yall said the film made it look like the Americans won the war -- I wonder what film was being watched as I never came away with that impression.  My impression of the film is that it was only about the lost battalion and the American experience -- this after all was an American story.  However there seems to be a hostility on the part of some towards the American participation and its impact on the outcome of the war.  The impact of 2 million fresh men on the outcome of the war cannot be denied.  How much longer would the war had lasted had not the Doughboy arrived?  How many more people would have died or been displaced?  The Europeans carried a great burden fighting the war and the 100,000 Americans killed pail in comparison to what France, Britain and Germany suffered, but would the Allies have won without the fresh 2,000,000 men that arrived?

Vince,

I am very happy that someone understands America's participation in the First World War. I received the impression when I was in Europe that many WWI Enthusiasts and regular Europeans did not fully appreciate America's involvement in the World War. Constantly I heard "Britain won, America entered too late." or "We did most of the work, America just watched." Comments such as that make me feel anger towards foolish ones such as those, but we Americans gained almost nothing in World War One.

We went to war believing to change the future, to support world peace, make the world, in Wilson's words, "safe for democracy." Then the end finally arrived, and 75,000 Americans were killed or missing, the economy halted its hastly growth and our sense of purpose shattered, and the effects of anti-war were opened to the public and still remain with us to this day.

-Doughboy

[bkristof]

I saw mistakes to. Like a bayonet charge with the scabbard on the bayonet???

But i like it. Maybe not 100% correct indeed. But much better than the crap we had to take last years, like Death watch...

I did not say the Americans were not important and they didn't change the outcome of the war... But at the end of the film they said they made the final breaktrough possible, and 4 weeks later the war ended >>> thet is a bit patriotic to people who are used to see patriotic films like shaving Ryans pri***** etc...

Hoorah for those courageuos man.

I hope the make simular or even better films about the Brits or who knows the Belgians.

[Vincent Petty]

I think that more is being read into this film than is really there. It is about the men of the 308th and 307th Infantries, under the command of Major Whittlesey and their ordeal during the American Muse-Argonne offensive in early October 1918. Really no more, no less. This is purely an American film of the great war.

At the end of the film the epilouge is speaking of the actions in the Argonne Forrest and along the Muse-Argonne in general.

Vincent

[Guest stevenbec]

Interesting Mates,

I liked the movie too, but what about the German units in the film.

What were they and how did they lose the battle?

Were their efforts to dislodge the Lost Bn accurect.

S.B

[paul guthrie]

Neil is right that only 50000 US were killed, less than Canada or Australia. The US never fought a large action til Septmeber 12, the Germans admitted defeat over a month before that.

And yes the ethnic bit was terrible, the Jew the Wop, the Polack but we're all Americans is quite heavy handed and of course not a word on where was the black.

[Vincent Petty]

The US never fought a large action til Septmeber 12, the Germans admitted defeat over a month before that.

I feel that this is a rather misleading remark, purly intended to create the impression that the American participation was a too little too late, to have been of any impact and that the Allied victory was ordained before American participation could bare fruit.

September 12, 1918 is the start of the St. Mihiel offensive, which is the first large action for a single and independent American army. However, it is again misleading to portray this as the first large action for the Americans who had been in action since the spring, helping to blunt the German Spring Offensives and helping to carry the Allies over to the offensive by the start of the summer. Prior to September American divisions had served in British and French armies giving them the necessary boost in man power. Some may feel that it is easy to dismiss the support of one, two or three American divisions in an action, but let us remember that one American division was 2 even 3 times the size of any division from the British, French, or the Germans -- it seems to me to be difficult to dismiss the impact in British and French lead armies of 28,000 man divisions and their impact supporting the allied cause.

The simply reality is that it was the arrival of the AEF that guaranteed an Allied victory and without the arrival of the AEF, defeat was just as likely. Notice that I have not said that the AEF won the war. The effort was an Allied effort and without each of the allied nations, there would not have been a victory in November 1918.

Vince

[Desmond7]

While I disagree with the 'defeat was just as likely' hypothesis, I think Doughboy and Vince are right to make their points.

1. It's a made for TV film ... nuff said.

2. At least it showed Americans who were interested that the country took part in WW1.

3. All blood runs red.

I was delighted to see an American family 'slide' up behind me in the Imperial War Museum as I was explaining some of the displays to my family recently. In a very typical American way, the son said 'hi' and launched into questions which I answered. Then the 'dad' stepped in and asked a few more. He and the son were very moved by the whole experience and made it plain they had been only barely aware of the effect of the war.

They had come to Uk and made a point of following a GOOD tourist guide. They were well rewarded and somewhere in a 'Philly', my family is in a photo album!

C'est la Guerre!!!

Des

[paul guthrie]

I must admid they gave the impression that the Yanks won WW1.

I think Americans really do think their participation was the main factor of winning the war, so this kind of "accusation" doesn`t surprise me.

The story is very real. Here is Helpful web page and another one...

Many Americans think the US did win the war militarily, this one does not. I have analyzed this in depth but minds are rarely changed. If I can type a URL this long w/o error it wlll be a surprise but if I manage take a look:

http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/the...ntersthewar.htm

[Guest stevenbec]

Yes I agree,

US troops were only allowed to be given out to a few units to hold the line in early 1918 and only slowly released by Perishing to fight.

By the time US troops got into battle the war was already won, in that the Germans were retreating. The US troops only garenteed the final colapse of the German Army in that they were fresh troops have missed the whole war while both British and French units had been in constant action since March and on the offencive since August.

What is disturbing is that large numbers of US troops that had been in France for some time and would not be allowed to fight by their boss. Purhaps if they were used earlier then they mite claim some help in winning the war.

One only has to look at the Hamel Battle to see how the US troops were handled (both by their own goverment and by the British) and what the troops them selves thought about it.

S.B

[N.S.Regt.]

I have a book that features Photos of old newspaper pictures one that is in it showes three Americans killed in action, the first to die in battle with the Germans on the soil of France on Nov. 3 1917. Their Names are Pte. Thomas F. Enright of Pittsburgh Penn., Cpl. James B. Gresham of Evansville Ind. and Pte. Merle D. Hay from Iowa. Thought some of our friends south of the Border would like this.

Best Regards

from north of the border

N.S.Regt.

[Vincent Petty]

US troops were only allowed to be given out to a few units to hold the line in early 1918 and only slowly released by Perishing to fight.

These "few units" are what stood in the way along the Marne at Chateau-Thierry and many other places in the Spring of 1918. These few units are also what helped the allies roll over to the offensive.

And I ask how can any criticism be made of Pershing for refusing to allow the American soldiers to be deployed as anything less than a division (he was following the orders and authority given him by Wilson)? It seems to be forgotten here that the British and French didnt want an American army, they only wanted American soldiers to fill up their formations. Do any of you think that ANY sovereign nation would have accepted feeding their soldiers into a death mill under another's flag and another's officers?

I think what bothers me here is that this is becoming a either or proposition. Just as it is an inaccurate portrayal that the Americans won the war alone, it is just as inaccurate to discount the American contribution to the Allied victory.

Vince

PS -- another mistake in the "Lost Battalion" the Haversacks (packs) worn in the film are WW2 vintage rather than WW1

PSS -- I still love yall

[jdajd]

I am a little hesitant to jump into the fray, but I have a question for those who discount the US involvment in the allied victory. Does anyone believe that had the US not entered the war in 1917 would Ludendorff have thrown his army onto the offensive in Spring 1918? The main contribution the US would be able to provide would be in the numbers, which would tip the scales immeasuably in the allies favor. The Germans threw the dice in an effort to split the Allies and force them to sue for peace, which came dangerously close to succeeding. It is very possible the Germans could have waited on the Hindenburg line for the British and French to break themselves against it. Starvation may very well have ended the war for the allies eventually, but the cost would have been very high. If nothing else, and I would far from concede that point, the US involvement hastened the Allied victory.

Jon

PS I like Lost Battalion and as someone else wrote the DVD has a very good extra, but I had the misfortune to watch Deathwatch the other night. I just stopped crying.

[bkristof]

I am not convinced. I believe the evolutions at the eastern front also played a major role in the final defeat of Germany.

[Neil Burns]

I am not convinced. I believe the evolutions at the eastern front also played a major role in the final defeat of Germany.

Hi Kristoff,

Effectivelly after June of 1917 there was no Eastern Front as Russia's last offensive was a disaster. The Germans occupying large portions of the Ukraine certainly tied down troops (mostly second rate units) but still released thousand of veteran troops for Ludendorf's Spring offensive.

Stevebec,

ironically your argument can just as easily be turned against the Allies seeing as neither the French nor British wished to fight under foreign commanders why would they insist that US troops had to? As stated earlier US Divisions were the equivalent of roughly 3 Allied divisions so even US troops holding the training sectors in quiet areas released troops for the final Allied Drive. In addition 3 US Division fought with the British during the final months that's an additional 75,000 men. The arrival of US troops by Ludendorf's own account forced him to move up the timetable for his 'Peace' offensive.

I agree with Vince this is not an 'either or' argument many factors contributed particularly the blockade. I think to completely discount the US contribution is just as absurd as to claim it was the one and only factor.

N.S. Regt.,

Thanks for that!

Take care,

Neil

[paul guthrie]

Jon I agree US involvement hastened victory, the point of the article is that US military participation did not cause allies to win when they would have lost otherwise.

Whether or not Pershing was wise in refusing earlier smaller unit participation, he was not under orders from Wilson or anyone else that forbade that; he had discretion. Those instructions are quoted in the article.

IMHO the best point made to the contrary is would the Germans have shot their bolt in the spring offensive w/o persence of US? No, probably not. Nonetheless, as I state, that is a result of anticipation of US action, not action, and US involvement did not bring a victory that would not have happened w/o them.