Talk:Ike: Countdown to D-Day

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: War / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the War films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Military history: War films / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	War films task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

A&E

Wasn't this originally aired on A&E and not the History Channel Source--Nubbie44 23:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eisenhower and Patton.

Early in the movie, Eisenhower upbraids Patton for predicting "Anglo-Saxon world rule." Patton never did any such thing. The film is obviously referring to the infamous "Knutsford incident", when Patton allegedly said the British and the Americans would rule the world after the war. According to many eyewitnesses, Patton actually said the British, the Americans, and the Russians would rule the world after the war, but the part about the Russians was left out of many newspaper accounts. Eisenhower did nearly send Patton back to the States after this incident. Patton was still in hot water from the slapping incidents the previous August, and Eisenhower was getting tired of covering for him.97.73.64.144 (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Source please" - from a reputable history book - for these "many eyewitnesses". Every serious book I've read about this says that it was the suggestion of a permanent Anglo-American Alliance ruling the world which caused the trouble. A lot of US opinion, especially in the mid-West and especially amongst Republicans, was isolationist and/or traditionally hostile to the UK. This was distorted somewhat in the movie "Patton" which claimed that he caused offence by omitting the Soviets, thus painting Patton as a prescient Cold Warrior. Not sure this has any basis in fact, but a lot of people believe it because films are often a way in which myths are propagated nowadays.Paulturtle (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC) So this movie may well have been trying to "set the record straight" about a notorious inaccuracy in the famous 1970 movie.Paulturtle (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sources

The list of accuracies and innaccuracies, which seem legitimate, lack sources. Could someone add them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.83.194 (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Errors

These scene with General Patton "bracing" at attention for an extended period in Ike's office is ludicrous to us veterans and fellow military officers. Among American general officers and especially fellow West Pointers, this is just not credible and there is NO evidence that Patton, as a general, ever stood braced at attention for any length of time in anybody's office in front of a desk. This struck me as Hollywood-gone-wrong again. American general officers in WWII who knew each other were, as a rule, courteous but informal with each other (and there are plenty of first-hand accounts in memoirs that describe that informality). More likely, Patton gave a courteous entry salute to his commander and Ike said "Have a seat, George. Do you want a whiskey?" Look at how the interaction with Ike was portrayed in "Last Days of Patton," for example, which is probably a lot closer to the reality: blunt and informal, with no standing at attention, between two generals who knew each other. Yes, Patton was officially "scolded" on several occasions, but I will never believe that he was held standing at attention during it. Can't Hollywood and A&E hire enough real military veterans to advise on things like this?.Starhistory22 (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]