Exécuté pour désertion

It's been many years since I last saw "The Execution of Private Slovik," and I look forward to its release (someday soon, please!) on DVD. In particular, I recall a terrific performance by Ned Beatty.

Those who condemn this film as an anti-military screed should reconsider. The tenor of most war films of the early 1970s was undoubtedly influenced by a national revulsion with the war in Vietnam (which, unfortunately, was taken out far too often on the Americans who fought there). But the impetus to get beyond the "triumphalism" of most American war films of the '40s, '50s, and '60s would eventually lead to "Platoon," "Saving Private Ryan," and "Blackhawk Down," films that respected fighting men by demonstrating more effectively the hell that they endure. "The Execution of Private Slovik" was an excellent effort to get beyond the myth of "The Good War" and demonstrate that war inevitably degrades and damages all who are involved.

As to whether Eddie Slovik deserved his fate: Slovik was an emotionally troubled young man who never should have been put into combat in the first place, but as the U.S. casualties began to mount in the ETO in the fall of 1944, his requests for non-combat duty were rejected and he was sent to a rifle company as a replacement. He was a "coward" in the traditional sense of the word, but he was only one of more than 21,000 U.S. servicemen convicted of desertion during WWII. Of the 49 who were condemned to death for desertion, Slovik was the only one actually executed; all the others had their sentences commuted to prison time. (Another 141 U.S. servicemen was executed by the U.S. government during the war, all for the crimes of murder and rape.) If justice is supposed to be fair and impartial, it certainly appears that Slovik was singled out as an example to deter other would-be deserters. Why Slovik? One of the officers who sat on his court-martial would write years later that his execution was "an historic injustice."

See: http://www.americanheritage.com /articles/magazine/ah/1987/6/1987_6_97.shtml

http://www.worldwar2history.info/ Army/deserters.html

http://info.detnews.com/history/ /story/index.cfm?id=103&category=people

My father was an infantryman in the Philippines and was injured in combat a few weeks after Slovik was executed. I'm glad my father and millions of other Americans overcame their fear and did their duty, but Slovik didn't deserve death for his "cowardice." Punishment, yes; dishonor, perhaps. But not a firing squad.

Note: The execution of Slovik (though the soldier is never named) also was depicted, briefly, in an earlier antiwar film, "The Victors," directed by Carl Foreman and released in 1963. The scene is played without dialog; in a savagely ironic gesture, the execution is played out while Frank Sinatra croons "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" on the soundtrack. Even more ironically, Sinatra himself once owned the film rights to William Bradford Huie's book, "The Execution of Private Slovik," but he sold them to another person before Richard Levinson and William Link obtained the rights to make this film. "The Victors" is an excellent film in its own right -- until it comes out on DVD, catch it if you can!

War is a brutal business, and people are going to die. But to execute anyone, for simply not wanting to kill or be killed to me is outright murder. I could understand sending him to the stockades for a few months, but to out and out order his murder just to make an example is wrong on so many levels. Personally forcing anyone to kill or be killed is way more cowardly than what Eddie Slovik did. Slovik, at least as far as the way the movie presented him, while not being an angel, was a man of principals after he left the reformatory. He never lied about his intentions, all he wanted was a discharge. He was willing to spend time in the stockades and face contempt most likely when he got back to the states. I liked at the end of the movie after he was pronounced dead where Ned Beatty's charachter said "the bravest man here today was Eddie Slovik". War is a horrible thing that has been going on for around 5000 years, and probably will keep on for another 5000, if we as a people don't kill ourselves and our planet first.

I'm surprised at the number of reviewers who've viewed this movie as if it were actually history -- it is not. Well, it IS history if your idea of documentary history includes such fare as Oliver Stone's "JFK" -- which is heavy on Drama, however light on actual facts. This movie should not be viewed as pristine untainted, unpoliticized history. When viewing this movie, one should keep in mind the political bent of Hollywood, especially in light of the fact that this movie was released in the closing months of America's Vietnam era, when Hollywood was VERY anti-war.

This movie takes a real event, the execution of Private Slovik, and dresses it up to produce a Drama that will hold your attention, while attempting to subtly impart a clearly political message. The message? War is wrong, military agencies and the U.S. government are generally inept, and passivists are actually tortured hero's.

In fact though, Private Slovik WAS a deserter. In fact, Private Slovik was given many chances to recant his status as deserter -- but refused. In fact, as a member of the armed services in WWII, he knew that the penalty for desertion could be death. The fact that he was the only person executed for desertion does not mitigate the fact that his execution was justified. An argument can be made that the US Army did not properly carry out the UCMJ by executing everyone that was convicted of desertion, but no argument can be made that Private Slovik's execution was unjust. His execution was completely in accordance with military law and tradition.

This movie does a poor job of actually portraying Private Slovik, the real man. The fact is, Private Slovik was a man of dubious upbringing who was out for himself during an extremely critical time in our planet's history when freedom itself was in the balance. The people he refused to fight against, were Nazi's -- probably the most extreme evil movement that has ever reared it's head in the history of the earth. That movement was responsible for the near extinction of the Jewish race. Particularly telling to me is the fact that, as the son of Polish immigrants, Private Slovik was unwilling to fight the very movement that kept the Polish people in chains.

The men and women (and yes, there were women) who fought the Nazi's -- not the people who didn't -- are the real hero's. Private Slovik was a confused and unfortunate man who always seemed to make the wrong decisions (mostly because his decisions were centered around himself and his own happiness, rather than what was right) This movie does a poor job of portraying this certain truth.

By the way, I am not Jewish, but I am a descendant of a very brave 1st Division Private who stormed the beaches of Normandy, then fought bravely through 4 months of hell as the Army marched toward Berlin. He was finally killed in combat at the Battle of Hertgen Forrest -- but it was guy's like him -- THOUSANDS of guys like him -- that kept freedom alive for our generation. We owe them a debt of gratitude -- one that we do not owe Private Slovik.

I am 45 years old and I watched this 'Movie Of The Week' on TV when it was new. As I grew older I saw it again and would notice certain things that I didn't see when I was younger. The TV Movies, now called TV Mini-series were so much better in the early to mid 1970s, I think.

Now, I would find it very hard to watch because many people believe Pvt. Slovik should not have been executed considering the overall circumstances and also because of so many other experiences over my years. This film helped shaped my heartfelt opposition to the death penalty. I'm happy to say that I have always respected the work of Martin Sheen and his sons over the years.

John Martin, Fort Worth, Texas

I read the book in 1970 or so when I was in the Army, I thought the movie was pretty well balanced. The book starts with Huie visiting the "Dishonored Dead" section of the US Oise-Aisne Cemetery in France where Slovik was initially buried-his remains were repatriated in 1987. The author keeps asking why only one death sentence carried out and why Slovik, why if the purpose was to make an example of him was the execution carried out in secrecy. From there he goes into Slovik's troubled youth, his criminal record which initially protected him from the draft. But as the Drill Sergeant tells him and his fellow recruits in Basic, "You guys are the bottom of the barrel. But now the heat's one, Uncle Same needs bodies, and the bottom of that barrel is starting to look mighty good." Armies-and the governments they serve-have a funny way of lowering their standards as wars drag on. The official name of the Draft in the USA was (and is) Selective Service, by 1943 they were a lot less selective. Slovik was a good example of what WWII GIs called "The Sad Sack" (in my day, 1967-1971, a "dud", in civilianese we might say a loser.

One poster said Slovik gambled and lost, a very apt description. He repeatedly declared he would desert if given the chance, he was given a chance to redeem himself, he refused-I can clearly recall the scene where he tells the JAG officer "I want my court martial." Eisenhower hoped he could equal Pershing's record of no executions for desertion, but as the author notes he had a lot of other things on his plate. The author notes the court martial was made up of rear echelon officers, he notes the presence of some combat arms officers would have been better but they were otherwise engaged. I recall the scene where the president of the court reads the written secret ballots, realizes the vote is unanimous for death, tells the others "Let's have another cigarette and think about this."

Worth watching, very true to the source, this is one you watch and you draw your own conclusions.