Talk:Cross of Iron

Opening Credits
No mention is made of the opening credits which really give away the ambitions of the film as an anti-war anti-violence movie.

Current Plot Section
The Plot Section is supposed to tell the movie plot, not to be a "fully referenced" array of loose citations. I rewrote it to see if it pleases this movie fans which keep editing this article based on their personal tastes. Please do not start another revert war and bring your points of view to the discussion section. Thank you! Fernando K


 * There is no war. The Plot Section is supposed to discuss the plot. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan page. It is not necessary to give a play by play. The cites have been taken from professional writers and are a guide to how to write such a section. The attempts to date have been amateurish, irrelevant and inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. They have also been in violation of Wikipedia policy on original research. If it can't be cited, it doesn't belong here.Calgarytanks 23:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * totally agree.Pluke 12:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wonder why you do not take all your wisdom to enlighten other articles. This is really a pity for the community. The world needs you Calgarytanks, Puke et al !!! (or is it the Canadian Highlander?) Fernando K

I'd like to suggest that as of the time of this writing, the following from the article is incorrect: "...although not having yet encountered the enemy, Stransky has already emptied the magazine of his MP40." In fact, in there are at least two enemies charging at Stransky across the train tracks, and there may even be a few enemies at which he's shooting before then...so although yes, his magazine is empty, he has in fact been shooting at enemies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.87.8 (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

To Unidentified users that keep editing this page
Please read the considerations below before editing! This article seems to attract some curious overzealous unidentified users that keep editing it to their personal beliefs of relevant or not, bad understood wikipedia policies etc.

I have seen some comments about this article featuring more than one frame (screenshot) from the movie. What I noticed was that Jaws has three frames from the movie and nonetheless it is a featured article, therefore it must comply with Wikipedia policies. If you take a look at Summer of '42, it also has two frames from the movie, but it is also a featured article. Fernando K 16:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Other interesting point is that the first picture here (of James Coburn) is described as part of a poster for the movie. I watched the movie again and it really does not match any scene in particular, so it is not a frame. In fact the whole movie is not so colorful, having a sepia tone. Fernando K 00:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See also [], limited number, not "one". The only place that mentions that there is a maximum of one screenshot per article is the upload tool, and as pointed out above, this rule has been ignored in featured articles. Fernando K 17:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Forrest Gump has 6 screenshots from the movie, and nonetheless one of them is referenced in the official Wikipedia policy on Images. Take a look please... Fernando K 18:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You may wish to read What Wikipedia is not


 * Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.


 * Your edits are simply a regurgitation of the summary, but really is all the article has to offer. It's poorly written and trite. It is far too long, and reads like a teenager's fan site. There are plenty of secondary sources on the film's plot, suggest you start with Jay Hyam's work and go from there. 68.146.198.203 19:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Mr. Anonymous (wonder why you do not register). I tried to put some analysis for the plot of this movie, but then I engaged in a fight with Mr. Dorosh, also a very zealous Wikikeeper, that ruled many of my contributions to be original research. As I could not disagree with him that many things I wrote could not be found written anywhere, I allowed the matter to rest - it is too hard to please all of you guys. As the article ended up, it became really too detailed (some parts I put up just to comment something ruled to be original research, like the social classes of the main characters), but you can also find other movie articles like these, with not so many angry people complaining. I remember that I wrote the bulk of the plot long ago (see the May 2 2006 version) and since then dozens of angry people popped out making changes. I wonder also why so many people get interested in this particular movie, for I made contributions to other topics in Wikipedia and nobody seemed to care as much. As for yourself, I would suggest you to be more polite and civil, for some terms you use can offend people (calling people idiots for example). Remember that your point of view is your opinion alone, and such are the lines you wrote above. We could have spared many reversions if you had taken a look in this discussion page. Now please find me where it is stated in any of the Wikipedia policies that the maximum of screenshots per article is one. See the examples above. Fernando K 22:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

To M.Dorosh
...or we can start fight about this? With all respect, I believe that my additions on Wiki are based on facts as much as yours. 87.116.141.96 16:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Good to see you taking part in improving this article, any chance you can source the information you are writing as sometimes people may revert un-sourced changes. Please get a user account, it will make editing a lot easier.  Welcome to the wiki Pluke 17:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok Pluke,thank you very much on your welcome,my english howewer (as you and others may see it:) is bad so I cannot allow myself to write anything more than one-sentence occasionally.Anyway,I'll try my best based on your advice.About the top -also the top of Elbrus,too:)- I agree about unlikeness that the group of children raised a flag at the mt.Caucasus in the middle of Stalingrad's batttle.However,this is the propaganda-movie that nazis mostly used during the war to show this moment,about their farmost advance to the east.So speaking about the movies ("Iron Cross" is also a movie) we can accept it here even if it's a part of propaganda or fiction,at least I think so.Best for all always and thank you again 87.116.141.96 06:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The footage in question is not Mt. Elbrus, and the Stalingrad Offensive was in 1942 (by early 1943 Soviet counter-offensives had isolated Stalingrad into a pocket - there were no offensive operations in 1943 at Stalingrad). The changes are therefore non-sensical and I've deleted them. However, more cutting is probably needed as the opening credits are really kind of irrelevant to the plot of the film. I think the entire paragraph can be jettisoned as it serves no purpose in explaining the film in an encyclopedic manner. Michael Dorosh  Talk  16:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Dorosh, I am th on who wrote the bulk of this article, which seems to have been endlessly edited since it was only a stub. I appreciate your comments and I am surprised that no one (includng you) criticized the fact that I have not mentioned the young Russian boy - except when I mentioned the scene where he comes back from the dead and his MP-40 jams saving Stransky, linking it to a passage in the book in which the Prussian officer reprimends Steiner for abandoning his allegedly superior MP-40 for a PPsH.

Please note that even though I agree with you that the Hitler Jugende kids are not obviously climbing Mt. Elbrus, the Gerbigjäger troops which did climb Mt. Elbrus did it during the large Southern Front offensive in 1942 (Case Blue, I think) which led among other things to the approach to Stalingrad.

Please don't say that my claim that the aircraft are Corsairs to be a speculation - it is just a comment that they are not obviously WWII Russian aircraft such as the common Sturmovik. The rest of the props are very likely to be genuine and/or later unlicensed copies by the Yugoslavian Army. Maybe some Corsairs went to Russia as lend-lease, what do you think? ;^D

In fact Stranksy lets quite clear to Steiner that he is under pressure from his family to get the Iron Cross - as for himself, he would rather be back in France. Someone long ago removed by beautiful original research that Stranky's pursuit for a medal, regardless of his methods, is quite incomprehensible to the rest of the German soldiers around him, such as the politicians motives to wage war is likewise incomprehensible to the population in general. I believe some note should be made about this deep cultural difference between Stransky and the landsers around him, without being original research. Fernando K 02:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again, Mr. Dorosh - please explain why you think fit to delete the sentences about the "all-out assault" - the Soviets attack shortly after Steiner arrives back to his unit, and this helps understand why he begins fighting along Stransky, and the one about the Soviet boy - he actually appears again in the end. If you do not think to be odd the fact that he shows up after being machine-gunned please tell me why. Fernando K 00:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My opinion is irrelevant - this is an Encyclopedia, not a fan site. If you can't source it, it doesn't belong here. "Oddly" is an editorial comment. You have to find a source to back it up,you can't just throw your personal opinion in. Michael Dorosh Talk  00:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK what if we replace oddly by surprisingly? Fernando K 02:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for consensus
Ok there seems to be a lot of reverting going on with changes on the article page, can we hold back for a while and come to some consensus amongst the editors and in accordance with wikipedia policy as to how to handle this correctly. Pluke 20:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cross of iron still.jpg
Image:Cross of iron still.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Coburn Iron Cross.jpg
Image:Coburn Iron Cross.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

T-34 Authenticity
There was a statement affirming the authenticity of the films T-34/85 as being likely to have been in the battle. I struck that comment in favor of the T-34 Model 1943 being the likely tank to have been in battle in the Taman Peninsula. The T-34/85 hit the front line in April of 1944 by my source. I am open to any other thoughts on that.

The commentary on the DVD placed the film around March-April 1943. I tend to agree based on the information available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remark knights (talk • contribs) 05:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft
Are there any sources identifying the attack aircraft which appear at about one hour 3 minutes into the film? They seem to bear a resemblance to the Vought F4U Corsair, which, as far as I can tell, did not see service with Soviet air forces during WW2. Arcanicus (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't know how reliable it is, but the Internet Movie Plane Database lists two planes for the film, one of them a Corsair. This guy's review also mentions Corsairs. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Those were Corsairs. It was stock footage added in. Intothatdarkness 13:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Found some more opinions in various forums that agree with both of you. Now if only we could find some "authoritative" source to be quoted & referenced. Or is it too small a point for the effort? Arcanicus (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Original Research?
If someone describes what they see take place in the movie without placing any personal value judgements on what they're describing do "we" dismiss that description of the action or the plot as "original research" is they do not provide documentation (a cited published work) showing that someone else had previously said the same thing in a recognized publication elsewhere?

Would it be considered "original research" for someone to describe Steiner as a German soldier if they did so without providing documentation (a cited published work) showing that someone else had previously described Steiner as a German soldier in print?

Where is the line drawn? Thanks. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Wikipedia's policy on original research is here. Describing what you've seen without being at all subjective about it is actually very difficult, and something that a lot of people can't do. I can write up a plot section in what I think are purely objective terms, and another editor may come along and point out what are (or what they believe to be) the various POV bits of language I have used. However, you don't usually need citations for plot setions, but you will need them for any sections or statements that are contentious.  You could state that Steiner is a German soldier, for instance, without a citation, but you could not say that he epitomizes German class struggle without citing a reliable source. Geoff B (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot
While waiting for an anticipated attack, Steiner releases the young Russian only to see the boy killed by advancing Soviet troops.

The Russian boy is still alive in the closing scene of the film, laughing at Stansky's inability to reload his machine pistol.Frisianfields (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you've read that too literally. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * He's dead, Jim. Showing him at the end is just an artistic device. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies. "Stransky shows that he doesn't know how to reload and pitifully begs Steiner for help. Steiner at first berates Stransky then begins to laugh hysterically as Stransky attempts to put his helmet on back-to-front, as the Russian boy-soldier (as a ghost) shrugs." http://www.filmannex.com/movie/cross-of-iron/7430 Frisianfields (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Cross of Iron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050412141451/http://www.deutschesoldaten.com:80/books/cross.htm to http://www.deutschesoldaten.com/books/cross.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Potential source
The film is reviewed in "Germany's Heroic Victims"; BE Crim - Heroism and Gender in War Films, 2014 - Springer.

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cross of Iron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120423214226/http://www.filmcritic.com/reviews/1977/cross-of-iron/ to http://www.filmcritic.com/reviews/1977/cross-of-iron/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Breakthrough is not 100% canon to Sam Pickenpah's movie
Now all of you got to listen Breakthrough is now classificed an unoffical sequel it's not 100% canon to Cross of Iron nor does follow the correct timelines as why can Stransky still be alive he was already left for dead on the battlefield. and Steiner goes missing in action, the reason I am confirming it Breakthrough is an unoffical sequel not 100% canon as it's a unoffical knock off remake to the original.

Leave that on here because we need proof that Breakthrough has been confirmed to not be 100% canon to Cross of Iron's timeline. Trooper201 (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As per Talk:Breakthrough (1979 film), this is purely your personal opinion. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)