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 remember reading the book in 1966 and seeing the movie in 1974, and the facts seem to be correct. Some think the movie was made as a statement after the war with Viet Nam. I am not going there. I am a Viet veteran myself, and feel this dissection of the movie is guesswork. Martin Sheen was absolutely great. He captured the emotions of Pvt. Slovik very well. You could almost feel your own stomach churning as he headed for his execution. Did he deserve to die, yes, was it an extremely unfortunate situation, again yes. Faced with a firing squad, there is no doubt, as weak-kneed as I would be, I would take my chances on the battlefield as I assume, most would. I believe Pvt. Slovik truly believed he would not be executed, but picked the wrong time in history to make such an assumption.

First of all, I am amazed at the number of people who think this is a factual account. NO movie or TV show that is a "docudrama" or even a documentary is completely factual. (Even Ken Burns made over 1000 documented errors in his Civil War series.) Everyone who puts on a uniform of the military knows the penalty for desertion during wartime. True, few pay that full penalty, but the idiots I have read who ask "why" obviously have no concept of what real war is.Is there someone out there who really believes that World War II was not necessary? Should the US have let Hitler conquer Europe and his allies take Asia? Has the US become so afraid of fighting that we no longer value our freedoms? Slovik should not have died, but the facts in this docudrama are far from complete. It was, and remains, a "Vietnam-esque" view of the military.During the Civil War, cavalry was often put in the rear of the infantry. If men tried to run from the fight, the soldiers had orders to shoot them.The message was clear: Fight the enemy, you may die -- run and you WILL die.In time of war, the Army must be harsh. War is brutal, but that is why it should be the avenue of last resort. Once the die is cast, it must be fought with all the violence and fury needed. Only if we are willing to fight will we maintain our freedom.

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.