Talk:Where Eagles Dare

Historical Inaccuracies
First of all the town of Werfen was not in Bavaria but rather in the Reichsgau of Salzburg at this time. The castle or to be more accurate fortress was called Hohenwerfen not Adler.

The Smith character says that they are German Sailors but they are in the uniforms of Gebirgsjaeger or mountain troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.139.160.28 (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, Smith said to Schaffer, "Why do you think we're NOT dressed as German sailors?"70.182.224.139 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Script says Bavaria - Reichsgau of Salzburg

Discussion page stages: "First of all the town of Werfen was not in Bavaria but rather in the Reichsgau of Salzburg at this time."

This is true. But remember that the State of Austria ceased to exist after the Anschluss and became the 'Ostmark'. Certainly, not in Bavaria in either case, as you state.


 * Honorific 'von' in service with the SS/Gestapo

The article states: "Despite von Hapen's uniform having SS collar flashes, this is correct as Gestapo officials also held SS rank; less credible is the fact of a Gestapo Major sporting a "von" before his surname"

This is dubious. The SS was many things at different times in its history. One of the original functions of the SS was to redress the lack of the professional classes in the SA by providing an alternative more suitable for individuals of that class, many of whom would have had a 'von' honorific.


 * Liklihood of a Gestapo agent being situated in Werfen

The article states: "Likewise Von Hapen's presence at the military headquarters castle is also strange as the Gestapo's primary role was to find and locate "enemies of the Third Reich"."

That there would be a Gestapo liaison officer in Werfen is well within the bounds of historical accuracy. Schloss Klessheim at Salzburg was Himmler's Headquarters in the region. There was an SS unit stationed at Schloss Fischorn at Bruck, outside Zell, the SS Motor Pool was at Mittersil, and Berchtesgaden and the Führer area were just to the West. There is no reason why Hohenwerfen could not have been the location of any of these functions.

Sufi Mutra (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Sufi Mutra (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Plane Fuel Consumption

It states that the plane used in their escape would'nt have the capacity to fly to Werfen/Oberhausen and make the return journey, however in the novel it clearly states that they were going to stop off in Switzerland, surely they can refuel there?--86.21.136.74 (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure aircraft from warring states are allowed to land in neutral states. Warships can dock in neutral harbours for only 24 hours, but ships make long voyages and so may have sick/injured people aboard. 81.147.98.47 (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

How written
I've mentioned that the Where Eagles Dare novel was written at the same time as the film. Unlike other MacLean works, this wasn't a book-to-movie translation. Observe how there was a film novelisation of the Bond film Moonraker for a comparison which bore no resemblance to the original Fleming novel. In this case MacLean was approached to write the novel for the film. Douglasnicol 13:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * MacLean essentially wrote them in tandem. A somewhat better analogy than Moonraker would be Arthur C. Clarke's role in 2001: A Space Odyssey.    Wasted Time R 11:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not quite in accordance with MacLean' s interview for the film's pressbook. MacLean was commissioned to write the screenplay and delivered it to Kastner six weeks later with the title Schloss Adler. Kastner let MacLean keep the publishing rights for the book which MacLean then wrote at his home in Haslemere. The title change apparently came at kastner's suggestion.218.101.96.158 (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary
Given there's a spoiler warning at the start of the plot summary, I hope there are no objections to me submitting a full plot synopsis rather than the "teaser" currently in place? Brickie 11:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't see why not. Go for your life!NiceDoggie 10:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I just completely rewrote the plot section... that took me a while, with the book at hand, even though I've read it three times and seen the movie about ten. Most complex plot I've ever come across... wow! If it's too long, anyone can feel free to cut the dramatics :-) 68.42.74.123 22:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC) -- 68.42.74.123 is me, The Realms of Gold.  I spent so long typing it, I think Wikipedia timed me out.  - The Realms of Gold 22:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good summary. I corrected a mistake early on and noted at the end that there were two characters in the film that are named differently. Douglasnicol 00:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, somebody tore up the cable car scene in my plot summary. I don't take it personally of course, but the additions were really convoluted and some of them unnecessary -- it's a great scene but I think the summary is long enough already, haha. I re-edited it for flow and content. -- The Realms of Gold 19:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I should elaborate on what I did: the cable car scene was poorly worded, and too many finely detailed details (who dies when, the detonation charge left for the waiting Germans at the bottom, &c.) halted the dramatic flow. So I pared it down a little. Of course, somebody can feel free to pare the whole section down -- I like it a lot, of course, since I wrote it :-) but it is pretty long. May as well go read the book. -- The Realms of Gold 19:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "halted the dramatic flow" - it's a plot summary, it should be three or four short paragraphs at the most, not a detailed description of every scene. The cable car sequence should be shortened to "the heroes make their escape by cable car", even just "the heroes make their escape to a waiting aeroplane". -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The plot summary is not entirely correct. Also, is it of the movie or the book? RISadler (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to be using the book, as some of the names in the book were different. The three traitors were Berkely, Thomas and Christenson (not sure if I've got the right spelling), whereas in the novel one of them was name Carriacola.  I believe as well in the novel that Rosemeyer and Kramer were not shot. Douglasnicol (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually there are three characters with different names in the book from in the movie: Caracciola instead of Berkley, von Brauchitsch instead of von Hapen, and Torrance-Smythe instead of MacPherson. The last was omitted in the article. I have rectified that. Ptilinopus (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Can we then decide which to use, the book or the movie, and then mention it in the article? RISadler (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a source for Smith's being in the Grenadier Guards? I may have missed some insignia, but there's no verbal reference to it at all, and in the book he's in the Black Watch. Novus~enwiki (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * When seen in British service dress at the beginning, Smith does seem to be wearing the 'flaming grenade' collar badges of the Grenadier Guards. The Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers wear similar badges, but those should have the scroll with the motto 'Ubique' underneath the grenade, which Smith's badges don't. Because he is intelligent and not particularly posh, the character seems more like a Gunner or Sapper officer, but the badges do suggest he's a Grenadier. Khamba Tendal (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Production Notes
It is stated this is the last film Clint Eastwood made without receiving top billing. I do not believe he received top billing for Paint Your Wagon which was made the next year. Can someone please check this statistic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.132.166.170 (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Anton Diffring Pic
I've changed the caption of SS General to that of SS Colonel. There's a few reasons. IMDB credits him as SS Standartenfuhrer Kramer, looking up that rank on Wiki says it is the equivalent to an Oberst rank which is in itself a Colonel rank. Richard Burton also says when talking about Eastwoods role in the mission in film "His mission was to kill you General Rosemeyer, and you Colonel Kramer". Kramer when arguing with Major von Hapen earlier in the film also states "I am a Colonel in the SS". Douglasnicol 15:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"...and not some lieutenant who can be frightened with your threats!" I love this scene. The actor accidentally says "who be can frightened," but it took me a good half-dozen views to catch it, since the acting is so good. He doesn't even flinch at the mistake. --The Realms of Gold 00:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * He actually says, "whom you can frighten" :) Novus~enwiki (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Whereeaglesdare.jpg
Image:Whereeaglesdare.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 05:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

They are many changes in the story between the book and the movie. A. In the book neither Kramer (who by the way is Abwehr n´t SS), Anne-Marie Schenk, Rosenmeyer killed.

B. Neither ar Colonel Weissner killed by Smith earlyer.

Sad to treat a book that way —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Cultural References
I had to remove the reference to The Misfits song "Where Eagles Dare". The name is the same, but there is no connection to the movie at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 20:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:315724.1020.A.jpg
Image:315724.1020.A.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 05:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Quentin Tarantino
In a quote in the film magazine 'Empire', Tarantino described 'Where Eagles Dare' as his favourite 'men-on-a-mission' movie, and said that one day he would make his own 'men-on-a-mission' movie, but I don't think he actually meant that he would like to remake 'Where Eagles Dare'. Halmyre (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed split
As the article stands now, it seems to conflate discussions of the film and the novel, with the novel itself getting very little attention. As closely related as they are, they should still have separate articles. As the originating work, the novel should be at the plain title Where Eagles Dare and the film article moved to Where Eagles Dare (film).-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  05:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing here is that if the screenplay and novel were written simultaneously, it's hard to pull the two apart; there isn't any "originating work" as there is for most MacLean novels. The problem of the novel getting little attention can be fixed by adding a "Novel" section to this joint article.  I'd leave it as it is.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be happy with that--even a brief section, accompanied by the appropriate Infobox with the original publication information. -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  19:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Arguably, the initial work is the screenplay. Elliot Kastner, (an American film producer) approached MacLean to write a screenplay, (for a WW2 story, that would sweat, that would involve a rescue), Kastner was apparently a big fan of MacLean's cinematic dialogue style. The screenplay was eventually delivered to Kastner in early 1967. It was Kastner who came up with the title. See Alistair MacLean - A Life by Jack Webster, ISBN 1-85592-519-2. The book was published before the film was released, (first edition of the hardback is 1967), but films take a while to make.

Creekman (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars
The trench run sequence in Star Wars ANH is taken from this film and I am very, very surprised that there is no reference to it here. And not just the trench run but impersonating officers, shooting a radio operator beofre he can broadcast and the gunfight whether troops pour through an open door. Katana  Geldar  03:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the Trench run sequence is taken from 633 Squadron not this film. Douglasnicol (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I think you'll find it's more from the Dam Busters, some of dialogue is almost identical

You would have to provide a source, preferably an interview with George Lucas, to show that Lucas deliberately modelled sequences in "Star Wars" on this film. Otherwise it is just supposition, even if it is obvious to you and I. It's good of not to try the typical "it is often argued that / many people argue that Where Eagles Dare inspired certain sequences in Star Wars" though. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A wide search can bring in the 633 Squadron reference, but that might be included on that films page, I honestly can't see any connection to this film and Star Wars, both films that I've watched so much that I'm sure I could almost act them out word for word. :D Killing a radio operator covertly is long a staple of any war or espionage film so that's tenuous at best. Douglasnicol (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Helicopter
Hi!

Why does no one mention that helicopters (although already invented) at that time were nowhere in military use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.198.188 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Helicopters were in military use, albeit sparsely. Look up the company of Focke-Achelis for their machines.  The U-Boats also had an engineless rotary kite (not a true helicopter) as an observation platform. Douglasnicol (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello to every one!

I agree there were two helicopters used in Germany although in small numbers. Actually the Alpes were a common testing ground: Focke Achgelis Fa 223 and Flettner Fl 282 were the types in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.82.108.93 (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Video with opening
This site: [] has the opening of this great movie.Agre22 (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)agre22

Critical Response and Cultural Impact
I'd like to see something included about how this film is perceived by critics etc (as is found in many film articles), and a bit about its wider cultural impact - eg the way the famous line "Broadsword calling Danny Boy" has become an classic quote, and the fact that it seems to be regarded as an iconic war film that's often shown on TV at Christmas in some countries (and is similar to The Great Escape (film) in that respect). But I'm not the person to do this. Sidefall (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

von Brauchitsch - why? his name is von Hapen in the movie
This article is about the movie not the book. Why is von Hapen's characters referenced as von Brauchitsch as per the novel? leaky_caldron (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed. I also know that one of the traitor agents has a different name in the book yet the article uses the film names. Douglasnicol (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with von Hapen having medals?
I see the writer of this article seen to have a problem with Sturmbannfuehrer von Hapen having combat medals. Does it not make sense for von Hapen to have been at the front before? He could have been wounded and then transfered to Ostmark where it was nice and quiet?

True, he shouldn't be wearing a dress uniform all the time. But then, in the movies, Gestapo men have almost always been shown in the dress uniform of the SS. Plus, it just looks so much cooler than the gray everyday uniform, doesn't it? Openskye (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not just combat medals, its the sheer volume of them. He also appears to wear WWI ribbons which is impossible given his age. -OberRanks (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Where are those WWI ribbons? I didn't see them. Openskye (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The entire row below his Gold Combat Badge has at least four German kingdom awards which were awarded during and before WWI. The costumers obviously got the most Nazi looking medals they could find for the character since he is cast as the sterotype Nazi in this film..."Strange...I seem to remember...zat ze cathedral was on ze OTHER side of ze square!" -OberRanks (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good eyesight, my man. I hadn't looked. Openskye (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies
Is this edit, a question of historical inaccuracy or a question of cinematic error?

Scenery shots of "Oberhausen Airfield" show high mountains, supposedly the alps. In fact, the only village in Bavaria with the name Oberhausen, is near Neuburg, at an elevation of 420-455 m. In this area, there are no mountains that high. The alps are about 140 km further down south. Also, there never was any airfield at Oberhausen, Bavaria. As a matter of fact, the airfield used in the movie is the Austrian Aigen im Ennstal military airfield. The exact place of filming is the "Fiala-Fernbrugg" garrison, which is still intact and used by HS Geschwader 2 and FlAR2/3rd Battalion of the Austrian army. I think it has some valid points but I think that it's off topic in the historical mistakes section?

Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.73.72 (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion it's a historical inaccuracy, for there never was any "Oberhausen Airfield" in WWII (there never was one), just as there never was any Ju-52 that could fly a round trip from Britain (or Anzio) to Bavaria without refueling (which is also in that section)... But I agree it might be better to move it to a new section, called "Factual Errors", because this part also tells about "wrong scenery" in the Oberhausen area... How is that? I still do find it weird though, since some of the items in "historical inaccuracies" could then also belong in this section... Maybe a new section for "Cinematic errors" isn't that bad indeed, but again, I think it is not wrong to put it under "historical inaccuracies", after all, in history, there never was a Oberhausen Airfield... --Mario R 22:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The original book and the cinematic representation are fiction. Therefore anything that attempts to use "real" locations has to be cinematic, unless the author was intending to use real places and got them wrong in which historical might be more accurate. Leaky  Caldron  23:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. To clarify between a "factual error" and a "historical inaccuracy". To me, factual is a fictional thing that is used erroneously, like a a nazi nuclear bomb, the Third Reich didn't have one, or there was no castle in Bavaria in late 1943/44 that had a cable car system. However something that did exist but it has been used incorrectly is a historical inaccuracy.
 * 1. Helicopters existed but the Germans didn't have any operational ones
 * 2. Gestapo agents were almost always plain-clothed agents (hence the name German Secret Police). Their work was usually more akin to police work and were attached to the Nazi police service. The only full-time uniformed branch of the RSHA by 1943 was the SD who were SS. The Kripo were also generally plain-clothed detectives.
 * 3. Major von Hapen wears a pre-war SS uniform. The SS wore field issue 1942 uniforms by this period.
 * 4. The medals, they existed, but as noted above entirely incorrect: a complete fabrication for the film.
 * 5. The SS/Army relationship is completely skewed. The SS/Gestapo were on the same team. The Germany Army/Abwehr on the other side. In fact it makes no sense that Smith and his commandos even go to the castle. The spies they are after would be part of Canaris' network not Himmler's, so it makes no sense to send the Cartwright to Bavaria! Maclean clearly got his historical wires crossed to use inter-service rivalry for a key plot element.
 * 6. As noted the Ju-52 existed but never had the operational range in the film.
 * 7. Finally Cartwright's serial number is anachronistic rather than historically wrong as serial numbers did exist at that time.
 * In conclusion historically inaccuracy means period embellishments to suit the film-makers story. Factual errors are incongruous mistakes involving fictional things, people, events and places. However I would seriously suggest that we do not go down the road of including factual errors as that just opens a can of worms. As noted above. Oberhausen does not exist, it's just a name, so it can't be compared to its real namesake. It's like criticising the actor who played Hitler in Downfall for being slightly too small. Then you get into a discussion about real and not real! For instance all castle interiors were shot at Pinewood, only exteriors were done at Burg Hohenwerfen. So where does fiction end and fact begin? It's too messy, besides is it so necessary to de-construct such a great flim?Personally I don't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.68.30 (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to correct you: Oberhausen DOES exist. There are several villages in the south of Germany (Bavaria) that are called Oberhausen: Oberhausen, Weilheim-Schongau, Augsburg-Oberhausen, Oberhausen near Neuburg. The first one is quite close to the mountains and maybe it's this Oberhausen that the writer used in his book. The factual/historical error is that there is no airfield and there never has been any airfield in that area. At least, I cannot find any information on that. If there really was no airfield there, I would say that it's a factual error. He uses an existing place name, but "invented" an airfield in that place. Maybe deliberately, but nevertheless factually wrong... – Usagi M  talk to me 11:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's go through the points one by one.
 * Oberhausen is the the name of several villages in Bavaria. Therefore it is a common settlement name in this part of Germany. But it is only a name.
 * None of the real Oberhausen have an airfield. A fictional invention for the purpose of the story.
 * The real Oberhausens are not near a castle that was German secret service HQ during WWII which was attacked by a a group of Undercover allied agents.
 * The only conclusion to draw from these points is there are villages in the region that share the same name with the fictional airfield. And like the town of Werfen (a real one is in Austria) and the Schloss Adler (the Berg Hohenwerfen in Werfen, Austria), it's pure invention.


 * Therefore, as the Oberhausen depicted in the film never existed (because it's in a fictional Bavaria), it is a factual error and the details are not needed in the article. Take it as it is, Oberhausen is only a name and has no relationship to any real Oberhausen.


 * BTW the point I was raising when I raised this discussion is to prevent the Historical inaccuracies section becoming a repository of "factual" errors and the usual OR theories, thus falling into a Slippery slope, and ultimately being deleted per se. I have seen it happen on other topics/articles.


 * To conclude: just consider this. There is an artist and film director called Steve McQueen because he has the same name as movie star Steve McQueen should they be considered together? Both spoke English, both connected to films, both noted for their style, both have won awards. The answer to this question I hope is obvious!


 * Although I don't really see the analogy with Steve McQueen in this case here (comparing apples and oranges), I do agree that the name "Oberhausen" (lit. "Upper Houses") is too common and simple a nice name for a village in the movie. Maybe therefore there's no reason to mention this is a "factual error". However, it would be interesting to mention what airfield was used for this "Oberhausen Airfield", namely the Austrian Aigen im Ennstal military airfield. The exact place of filming is the "Fiala-Fernbrugg" garrison, which is still intact and used by HS Geschwader 2 and FlAR2/3rd Battalion of the Austrian army... I have implemented this in the article under "Filming locations" (with ref)... The Austrian airfield was already mentioned there... – Usagi M talk to me 19:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Blanking of section
The entire section was just blanked. Given the extensive edit history and contributions by several different editors, I think something like that needs to be discussed. I've restored it - I won't edit war if it gets removed again, but to simply remove it without discussion seems very heavy handed. -OberRanks (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BURDEN, the onus is on the contributors to verify the content. WP:FILMHIST says that we should use secondary sources to cite accuracies and inaccuracies.  Otherwise, we editors would be indiscriminately listing the issues left and right based on our personal knowledge (see WP:PSTS).  Hope that makes sense. Erik (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If it violates policy, I have no major objections. I was just concerned that since so many editors worked on that section, someone would get upset and revert. -OberRanks (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there are some aspects of film articles that are open-ended to editors. Editors particularly like to forever tweak the plot summary, to point out goofs, or to list random bits of trivia.  This kind of section, while well-intended, kind of falls with that crowd.  I'm not sure if I can point out a good "Historical accuracy" section to copy -- 300 (film) and Valkyrie (film) are a couple of okay ones that come to mind.  The film Gladiator actually has a good reference comparing film and history, but it was not really implemented in that article.  I'm not sure what kind of references Where Eagles Dare has to warrant a section analyzing its historical accuracy. Erik (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reinserted the section because it discusses established facts that are already known (the links take the reader to the article concerned, that are referenced):
 * 1) helicopters were not available to fly in WWII
 * 2) Major von Hapen was Gestapo. Gestapo were plain-clothed agents that worked in cities. If he was SD Sicherhiestdienst, then maybe he would be in a field grey uniform, but he is not he wears an all black pre 1939 SS-Allgemaine uniform which is also anachronistic.
 * 3) MacClean did not understand the political or ideological differences between the Heer and Waffen SS, as evidenced by the dialogue.
 * 4) the Junkers Ju 52 aircraft of the period did not have the operational range to fly a round trip to that part of Germany and back again. Besides they had a top speed of 165 mph. Therefore if London to Munich area is aprrox 800 miles. Time = Speed/Distance. It would take at the least nearly 5 hours. Round trip 10 hours. At some point the return journey, if you assume the film's chronology, would have been in daylight

Why is there no reference to a ball, to say that is it round, because a ball is round?

Besides the first rule on WP is to assume good faith, if good faith cannot be proven then there other WP policies are used. My edits were all made in good faith. This all self explanatory, it ain't rocket science. What has to stop is the section becoming a trivia section. BTW 300 was based on a comic book. So it questions the intelligence of people that did not know that the ancient Peloponnese was not in fact like a Frank Miller illustrated novella.

This section examines much more subtle differences, that appear plausible but are entirely wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.138.40 (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * helicopters were not available to fly in WWII
 * Sorry, but that's wrong. Germany had for example the Focke-Achgelis Fa 223 and Flettner Fl 282 helicopters in operational use. 79.194.14.101 (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a case of I don't like it, as an IP editor suggests, more a case of a fictional adventure occuring in a fictional universe, where things are different to our universe. In Mclean's universe Major John Smith and Lieutenant Morris Schaffer staged a daring rescue into Nazi Germany - a Nazi Germany which happened to include all of the above things which were considered perfectly normal.  The Nazi's didn't use helicopters in our universe, but that's OK, because in our universe there was no daring rescue staged by Major John Smith and Lieutenant Morris Schaffer either.  This is what suspension of belief and fictional universe is all about.   a_man_alone (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It may be minority interest but I think that there is case for it's own page : Historical Inaccuracies In 'Where Eagles Dare' so many are there. To add just one more - what are all these German troops doing in the Alps in the first place? The war was on the Eastern and Italian fronts when the film was set.  Smokey TheCat  14:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As consensus is against me, I'll point out the coincidence that Major Schaffer looks uncannily like Philo Beddoe. that surely deserves a mention as well.  a_man_alone (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * FWIW no portable VHF speech radio had the range to transmit from Germany to England at the time so Burton's "Broadsword calling Danny Boy ... " speech would not have been possible, unless it was sent in Morse. Making the viewer watch a radio operator keying this would no doubt not have made good cinema.


 * The film is fiction and so the producers may well have concentrated on making an entertaining film rather than one that is a hundred per cent accurate, something not necessary for the majority of the cinema-going public. After all, nobody complains if on stage Macbeth is wearing the wrong style of pantaloons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The biggest 'inaccuracy' is that the film transposes a Cold War spy plot to the very different circumstances of the Second World War. British intelligence had traitors working for the Soviets, during the war and after, but never any traitors working for the Nazis. And no German agents managed to operate undetected in Britain at all. Every one of them was swiftly caught and either 'turned' or hanged. Khamba Tendal (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @95.149.173.13 I wonder why there is no discussion here or mention in the article that the Germans are speaking English. Is that not a serious historical inaccuracy? 109.144.76.63 (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Over 3 years
For someone to notice that Burton doesn't have a son. This is why Wikipedia is a joke. Lulz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.134.41 (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Major Von Hapen's name is spelled with two P:s in the entire article, which is incorrect
What is the preferred order, that I mention the issue here, and then go and fix the errors, or the other way around? Or does it have to go through more channels?

21:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnkell (talk • contribs)
 * Go to entertainment refrence desk and ask there. Sir Stupidity (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't even have to report it - just fix it. If you put in the edit summary what you've done - "corrected character spelling" for example, then that's sufficient.   a_man_alone (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Arnkell (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Arnkell

Rosemeyer, von Brauchitsch, and Caracciola?
The movie has a character called General Rosemeyer. I have established this at IMDb. However, this article tells me that the movie characters SS-Sturmbannführer von Hapen and Ted Berkeley were named von Brauchsitsch and Caracciola, respectively, in the novel.

Is there any documentary evidence to show the coincidence where Bernd Rosemeyer, Manfred von Brauchitsch, and Rudolf Caracciola were famous German racing drivers in the 1930s? Did MacLean ever state that he used these drivers' names intentionally?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Production Dates
Filming began on January 2, 1968 in Austria and did not conclude until July 1969

- The movie was released on 4 December 1968 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065207/), so could not have still been in production in July 1969! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.55.187 (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Re-make?
I heard that there were possible plans afoot for a remake, possibly directed by Danny Boyle? ("Broadsword calling Danny Boyle!?" ) Does anyone else know anything about this please?  Smokey TheCat  03:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)