Valkyrie (movie)

I did notice that there were only about 50 people in the theater. It may come out on video by the end of the year.................which is next week.

 

A mini review from someone else who saw it that I found on another site.

"Tom Cruise bore a resemblance to Stauffenberg i.e., the nose and their silhouette. With that said, I watched this movie not expecting much, but I personally thought it was better that I expected. It was a solid performance by the cast including tom Cruise. The reason why so many people hated this film is not due to Tom Cruise acting, but his connections wth Scientology along with his offscreen rants.
My only dissapointment with the film is that it was a little too sympathetic with Stauffenberg, neglecting show his initial support of the Nazi policy of conquest aswell as the anti-semitic views that the real Stauffenberg expressed to his wife in a letter from Poland in 1939 in which he derrided the Poles and the Jews as "A people that is only comfortable under the lash. The thousands of prisoners will serve our agriculture well."
The film did not really delve into his evolution from being a loyal soldier of the Nazi regime to a disgruntled conspirator.
Aside from that I give the movie an 8 out of 10. I recommend it."

 

If these people know nothing why are you so concened about their opinion?

You can always watch "Triumph des Willens".

 

I take your point but I also feel the author was making a good point in that these men were perfectly happy to go along with the Nazis, they knew about the racial policies, they knew people were being beaten in the streets, Stauffenberg even seems to have approved of the use of Poles etc for slave labour. I think the general point is that portraying these men who helped keep the Nazi regieme going for so long as heroes is to say the least controvercial.

Good analogy, but again, these men only decided to act as the ship was sinking, it isn't really heroic

Again, this came up when Downfall came out. The point being made is that there is an increasing trend in current movies to portray the German people as victims of the Nazis, to say 'look at all the horrible things Hitler and a few people did, but it wasn't us!' Now right or wrong there was a definate sense of this in Downfall and (from the review though of course I have yet to see the film) there seems to be in Valkyrie.

It is interesting that in terms of historiography there was a period immediately after the war when historians were effectively saying 'Germans are different from the rest of us, nobody else could have allowed this to happen' and so on, effectively a backlash against the shock of learning what people are capable of. A decade or two later people came in on the other side (in keeping with the EU etc) to say that the German people aren't different from the rest of us, that it was circumstances which led to the events of the 30's/40's. The risk is that this may have gone too far.

Now we all know not every German was a Nazi, we all know that most people were simply victims of circumstance and we can all clearly see that the modern generation aren't to blame for the crimes of their forebears. However I think the general, overriding point being made by this article and others on the subject is that the trend now seems to be to totally absolve the entire German nation of blame and to focus on the victims/resistance. Is this right? In fact, is it dangerous to totally take away responsibility for what happened from the people who not only allowed it to happen but actually took part in it? Therein lies the rub I think...

 

You're wrong. The Wolfschanze was guarded by the Führer-Grenadier-Bataillon (also known as Führer-Begleit-Bataillon). This was indeed a Heeres unit and it had protection of the Wolfschanze Führerhauptkwartier as its primary task. This is why the guards of the Wolfschanze in the opening scene of Der Untergang (Downfall) are also depicted as Heeres troops.

 

why does everyone who wants to discuss World War II have to pander to Jewsih sentiment. Why is it necessary to qualify the pre-war sentimentof Stauffenberg, or for that matter, every Germany officer, regarding their feelings on Hitler before discussing any other aspect of their lives. The Holocaust was not the only thing that happened in the war. In fact 90% of the war was not about the Holocaust, it was about the war. I, black African man, do not cry about the slave trade or slavery everytime I talk about Washington, Jefferson, the many English governments that supported and profited from that practise. I simply talk about the issue at hand, whether it is washington's wooden teeth or the eloquence of Thomas Jefferson.

I saw Valkyre ant it was a good movie. I think that the producers tried to abide by truth as much as they could, and truth does not always lend itself well to entertainment... I will write more about what I thought later today... but this is my first post here... so let me go back to work..

 

Although I haven't seen it the impression I get from those who have is that it is more "Mission Impossible 4" than a genuflective commentary on events of late WW 2.

 

If you want to compare it to that kind of movie then I would choose Ocean's elven. Why? Because Oceans showed the team planning and preparing for their actions... As did the people with Operation Valkyrie.

 

yeah, that's the subject were discussing here.

 

WOW!! Really?? As part of the " everyone "who wants to discuss World War II have to pander to Jewsih sentiment" set I didn't know that . What an ridiculous statement. Do you seriously think that "EVERYONE" who discusses WWII "panders to the Jewish sentiment?". You could not be more wrong and obviously you have not read alot of what is posted here.
I guess you must have missed this part of the statement in my post ,

"My only dissapointment with the film is that it was a little too sympathetic with Stauffenberg, neglecting show his initial support of the Nazi policy of conquest aswell as the anti-semitic views that the real Stauffenberg expressed to his wife in a letter from Poland in 1939 in which he derrided the Poles and the Jews as "A people that is only comfortable under the lash. The thousands of prisoners will serve our agriculture well."

Not just the Jews but the Poles as well. There was NO mention of the Holocaust in that statement AT All. Nor was there in my assessment of the film any mention of Jews or the Holocaust. But since I discuss WWII I should be one of the "Everyone" that does. Right? I certainly find it funny when people come and make the blanket statements about people you know nothing about like yours. Nice to see in your first post an obvious chip on your shoulder.

 

Yeah, what he said! ^^^^^^

 

No prob Jeff. I made my statement . Thanks

 

This thread is taking an "interesting" turn, I'd be wary, there are PanzerPenguins about.

 

Well, I'm going to see it tomorrow night anyway. I have been looking forward to it coming out for quite some time.

 

With Dingane shamful remark to one side, I'm still interested in folks view on this film for the better or worst.

 

Yes, I 'd like to know more about it too. It looks promising. How was the film A-58?

 

I have yet to see this movie either, but be that as it may, what should be remembered when it comes to von Stauffenberg and his relatives and contemporaries; is that he and they were largely indifferent to the Jews themselves, or their plight. If the movie reflects the mass killings by referring to only the Jews, then that is only a slight mis-representation and probably inserted for clarity to the "lowest common denominator" of movie goer.

It was the besmirching of Germany’s honor which was of particular importance to many of the conspirators. For example, though many of the conspirators were aware of the terrible crimes carried out on the Eastern Front, and were indeed appalled by them, it was not the crimes themselves that lead them to action, but the damage they perceived those crimes were doing to Germany’s reputation for the future. Both Stauffenberg brothers expressed that even though they were appalled at the violence carried out against minorities (by the Nazi regime), they still viewed Jews as foreigners who had to be either controlled or segregated.

"…his brother Berthold, speaking for himself and Claus after the failed coup, told the police that they had approved of most of the Nazi’s domestic policies." (Hoffmann, Stauffenberg, p. 68)

"Claus von Stauffenberg approved of restrictions on Jews, but condemned persecution. Berthold, despite his article regarding citizenship, felt that those who murdered Jews ought to be prosecuted." (Hoffman, Stauffenberg, pp 81, 92)

"After his arrest, Berthold von Stauffenberg admitted that he and the other resisters had found Hitler’s concept of race, and by extension his anti-Semitism, to be ‘healthy and forward-looking.’ Berthold von Stauffenberg, for instance, had written an article before the beginning of the Holocaust proposing the revocation of citizenship for, among others, Jews and un-redeemable criminals." (Hoffman, Stauffenberg, pp 89-90)

Colonel von Stauffenberg’s was quite disturbed by the war crimes committed against Russians, Poles, and Jews. But again, it seems that he did not allow this to affect his thinking until mid to late 1942 when winning the war was seen to be nigh impossible. Stauffenberg, for instance, resented that Hitler had, in the words of the author Peter Hoffmann, "besmirched the good name of the German people through cruel mass murder." (Hoffmann, Stauffenberg, p.210)

When looked at in this light, it wasn't THAT these crimes were being committed per se, it was how their commission would be viewed by the future if/when Germany lost the war. Just my opinion of Col. Stauffenberg and his historical involvment in the July 20th plot. Could be wrong, often am.