Stupidity: The scene in the outdoor Parisian cafe is incredibly daft. First, the cafe owners call James Coburn's bizarrely-accented Australian to the telephone to keep him out of the way as their accomplices assassinate three uniformed German officers seated in the cafe in a drive by shooting. They then toast the killings with cognac, and that is the mistake - not the shootings, not the luring away of Coburn - the mistake is that the cafe proprietors celebrate the assassination of the German officers in broad daylight, in the open, without even stopping to think that such an action would have them shot, because all of this is done in the direct view of passers-by in broad daylight. Do they think those three German officers were the only ones in Paris? How did they know Coburn wasn't an undercover Gestapo agent or a French collaborator? Don't they stop to consider that in an occupied city machine gun fire is going to draw some attention from the authorities, who might just wonder what a couple of bullet riddled corpses are doing lying about the place?
raywest
8th May 2006
The Great Escape (1963)
18th Feb 2004
The Great Escape (1963)
Corrected entry: After the men escape they are all standing at the train station because the train was late, or there was a hold up of some kind. Was this possibly a ribbing kind of gesture at the term used in Nazi Germany "The government stinks but at least the trains run on time"?
Correction: That wasn't about Nazi Germany, it was about Fascist Italy. The phrase "He made the trains run on time" was coined by one of Mussolini's propagandists, and became widely believed, although there was little or no truth to it (source: Montagu, A. and Darling, E. (1967) The Prevalence of Nonsense, Dell/Delta, New York. Page 19).
I believe (but I'm not 100%) that Patton once said the Nazis made the trains run on time when, after the war, he was questioned about not removing them from official posts in the Austrian Government. That is from memory and I might be wrong.
Correction: The late trains were directly due to the POW escape. The Germans were scouring the countryside searching for the escapees and knew they'd be trying to board trains and other public transportation. They'd be checking every station and depot in the vicinity as well as boarding buses and train coaches to search them, thus delaying the regular transportation schedules.
2nd Feb 2008
The Great Escape (1963)
Corrected entry: The 'Australian' has no Australian accent whatsoever.
Correction: So? Coming from another country doesn't automatically mean a deep accent.
Correction: He definitely has an Australian accent. American actor James Coburn wasn't perfect, but one can definitely tell it is supposed to be Australian.
18th Jun 2018
The Great Escape (1963)
Factual error: A convoy of open trucks arrive at the camp bringing the latest batch of prisoners, many of whom are carrying rucksacks and tote bags of clothing and other possessions. Where did they come from? Combat servicemen in World War Two did not carry overnight bags with them - a change of clothes or a handy supply of toiletries was the least of their concerns. A prisoner of war arrived in the camp with the clothes he stood up in and nothing else.
Suggested correction: These prisoners were being transferred from other camps to this camp. As Big X said, "they are putting all their eggs in one basket." It's likely they are carrying possessions they've acquired during their time in captivity.
What "possessions"? Do you think they had Oxfam shops in POW camps during World War 2? They would be dressed in their combat fatigues and nothing else.
They would have possessions as they would receive parcels from home and Red Cross parcels.
Prisoners of war would receive Red Cross parcels, and may have also scrounged, made or been issued a few other bits and pieces. In particular, they'd probably have a change or two of underwear, some toiletries and a few books or games at the very least.
POWs acquired possessions by hand-making, scrounging, care packages, 'selling' watches and rings to guards or local civilians.
They were universally known for their trading and scrounging abilities. Remember these were the "worst of the worst" in offending.
Just to clarify. They weren't exactly the "worst of the worst" for bad or incorrigible behavior. They were the best at attempting to escape POW camps or otherwise subverting their German captors. The fed-up Germans decided to contain them all in one prison to stop the constant breakouts. They only succeeded in creating a POW "think tank" by pooling together the most talented escape artists who combined their skills and knowledge.
In international conflicts, in addition to prisoners regularly receiving Red Cross care packages, the Geneva Convention requires captors to treat all POWs humanely, and provide food, clothing, housing, medical treatment, and hygiene. As mentioned, these prisoners brought their belongings with them from other camps. International Red Cross inspectors monitor POW camps for compliance. Failure to comply with the rules constitutes war crimes, which are adjudicated after a conflict. Germany was generally compliant. POW camps were to detain captured soldiers and prevent them rejoining the war. They did not punish detainees as "criminals" but disciplined them when they were non-compliant or for other misbehavior. Once the war was over, POWs were repatriated.
The Great Escape was from a POW camp specifically set up to hold trouble makers from other camps. Also, sometimes people expect to be captured and prepare to for it! Today, during funeral of John Lewis, speakers repeatedly mentioned that he was carrying a backpack with 2 books, an apple, an orange and a tooth brush. Which haven't been seen since his head was beat in. A least one German Fortress commander, sworn to defend his fort until he and all those under his command were dead, surrendered with multiple suit cases to make his incarceration more comfortable. Like the character Yossarian in Catch-22. [Spoiler alert: he makes elaborate preparations to the paddle in a life raft from Italy to Sweden.].
4th Nov 2014
The Great Escape (1963)
Corrected entry: Blythe doesn't need to escape - thus endangering fellow escapees and taking the place of another man - since the Geneva Convention (which the Luftwaffe generally adhered to as the Allies held many German prisoners) required that all POWs who suffer severe disability that would prevent them from fighting were to be repatriated.
Correction: Blythe hid his condition. He was essential to planning the escape and would not want to desert his comrades. The Germans didn't release him because they didn't know he was visually impaired. No one did until it was discovered shortly before the escape. Also, Blythe wasn't actually blind. He'd become severely myopic (near-sighted), which had progressed fairly quickly, and was only able to see things extremely close up. His vision could have been corrected with strong prescription eyeglasses, but a POW camp did not have that kind of medical care. His condition was such that if he was repatriated to the Allies, he could, with corrected vision, once again be an active soldier in some capacity and would have substantial knowledge of the enemy's POW camps locations inside Germany and their operations.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Suggested correction: Regarding the French cafe proprietors making a toast, if questioned, they could simply claim they were celebrating surviving the incident and/or needed a calming drink. Considering any ensuring panic and confusion after the shooting, pedestrians would hardly notice the waiters. Attention would be on the dead Germans. French citizens most likely wouldn't care or cooperate with the authorities. Being indifferent to German officers getting killed is not proof of involvement. Most French hardly be remorseful over their enemies' deaths. Antagonism toward the Germans was normal. It would be more suspicious if the proprietors showed concern. As far as helping James Coburn, it was pretty obvious he was neither French or German, and they took a chance to protect an innocent bystander. Also, it was to inject some subtle levity into the scene.
raywest ★
Rubbish. During the occupation Paris was crawling with collaborators and undercover German agents. The cafe owners are drinking champagne - not much of a nerve stiffener! - and they clink glasses in celebration of the shooting of the German officers. Their actions are beyond obvious to anyone that can see them. They simply would not take the risk and would act as if they were horrified to see their customers shot dead in their cafe.
Nope. Even if collaborators were "crawling" around, no-one would expect any French citizen to care about Nazis being killed. If questioned they can claim it was for the other reasons already stated (and they are not drinking champagne). It does not prove their involvement. Little would come of them being interrogated. As mentioned, this is a movie, and the scene injects subtle humor and is intended to show the audience that they are involved in the coordinated plan.
raywest ★
Again, rubbish. The Nazis occupying Paris arrested anyone suspected of belonging to or assisting the Resistance on the slightest pretext, and the cafe owners who were celebrating the deaths of three German officers would be in a Gestapo prison cell before the bodies of the dead Germans were cold. What they do after the Germans are shot is blatant, irresponsible, dangerous and completely unnecessary. They could have saved their celebrations for later when it was safe.
Once again, NOPE. Clinking glasses is not proof of possibly belonging to or aiding the Resistance. They also were not wildly celebrating. It was a quick, low-key action, and they looked both nervous and relieved. Also, I re-watched the scene on YouTube. When the car pulls up to shoot the Nazis, the street around them is completely empty. No witnesses anywhere. People are only seen far in the background. The phone call just before the shooting is a signal and indicates this was well-coordinated and timed. Secondly, the story needs to move quickly, and insignificant characters would not be seen toasting later. This also showed James Coburn (and us) that the waiters were potential allies.
raywest ★
You think the Nazis needed proof of someone's involvement in the Resistance? They arrested, tortured and shot innocent people on the unsubstantiated word of pro-German informers! No witnesses anywhere? What about Coburn? They didn't know who he was or where he was from. For all they know he could have been a Gestapo agent himself. The scene is absurd. Nobody is so stupid as to do what they did at the risk of dying horribly if caught doing it.
It should also be noted that the cafe owners duck behind their counter before the car carrying the gunmen shows up, and they get Coburn to do the same. They just provided incontrovertible evidence that they knew about the assassinations ahead of time.
Yes, they absolutely were part of it, and the hit was timed and planned in advance for the opportune moment. This was not a random act, and the phone call is the signal that sets the events in motion. When they made the toast, they knew the street was completely empty and obviously felt it was safe to do so. Also, if Coburn was a spy or collaborator, he would have warned the Nazis, not hidden behind the counter. THIS IS A MOVIE, NOT REAL LIFE.
raywest ★