Talk:The Execution of Private Slovik

incorrect info
The private executed was in service during World War II, not the American Civil War. Please change. Hempdiddy 20:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say that and never did. The article correctly indicates that he was the only American soldier executed for desertion since the American Civil War. TaintedMustard (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Tales from the Crypt
Hmm, seems like this story/novel/film may have been the inspiration for an episode of the show. I can't prove it just yet, but see List of Tales from the Crypt episodes, #38 ("Yellow"). It also stars a father-son pairing (Kirk and Eric Douglas). I believe the senior won an Emmy or something for it, and it was also a very different episode in that there was nothing supernatural about it. According to some reviews, the supposed "horror" was war itself -- how poignant. :) Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Plot?
The "Plot" section of this article discusses a number of things, almost none of which actually have anything to do with plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambeck (talk • contribs) 22:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Separated Sheen's comments and thoughts from the plot section. Sir Rhosis (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Accuracy
This article refers to missed shots, but the article on Slovik says,, "Twelve picked soldiers were detailed for the firing squad from the 109th Regiment. The weapons used were standard issue M1 rifles with just one bullet for each rifle. One rifle was loaded with a blank.[11] On the command of "Fire", Slovik was hit by eleven bullets, at least four of them being fatal. " Is one of these wrong, or is there a subltety  I am missing? Kdammers (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"Dramatic license"
In the historical accuracy section, it states "A slight dramatic license does occur in the final scene, as there is no evidence that the priest attending Slovik's execution shouted 'give it another volley if you like it so much' after the doctor indicated Slovik was still alive". However, in the nonfiction book on which the film is based, this, in fact, does occur in the physician, Dr. Rougelot's, account of the events. So, I don't know why it says here that this was a dramatic license. There is no legitimate source for it, either, just a link to Slovik's service record. But that hardly seems relevant. Can someone fix this?


 * A little late, but I fixed it recently after readinbg Huie's book. Sir Rhosis (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * A lot of the dialogue in the film is taken directly from Huie's book, like Slovik's remarks just prior to his death ("They're shooting me for the bread and chewing gum I stole when I was 12 years old"), which is repeated almost verbatim. I assumed there was some dramatic license taken in the film, but I thought it would be unusual for them to just make something like that up. Glad to know my suspicions were justified. It's on page 231 of the 1970 edition:
 * "Fellman gave  the  order  to  re- load, and  the  chaplain  spoke  curtly  to  him:  "Give him  another  volley  if  you  like  it  so  much!"  And  I restrained  the  chaplain  with  something  like:  "Take it  easy,  Padre,  none  of  us  is  enjoying  this."
 * This error has also ended up on the Eddie Slovik page, with only an IMDb citation of the quote itself, which I have corrected. You can also see it on the Slovik page on Military Wiki, but there is an actual citation provided, which may be the source of the error:
 * "Kimmelman, Benedict B. (September - October, 1987). "The Example Of Private Slovik". American Heritage Magazine. Retrieved October 5, 2012. There is nothing in this recollection about the Chaplain's words after the first volley (see section on "Execution") nor in any other reference citation in this article. Therefore, it is safe to accept that the TV film writers used "dramatic license" when they wrote the Chaplain's lines for the movie."
 * https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Eddie_Slovik#cite_note-Kimmelman-4
 * As you can see, whoever wrote that clearly didn't bother to read Huie's book, and made an erroneous assumption based on pure supposition as a result. It may be that whoever added the info here read that and made the same mistake. 2A00:23C7:99A4:5001:D76:8A15:6AA9:4E4A (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)