Led by Claus von Stauffenberg, the July 20th plot in 1944 was the last of fifteen known attempts to assassinate Adolf Hitler by German nationals. In Bryan Singer’s 2009 film, Valkyrie, the foreground, planning, execution, and aftermath of the plot are all shown with a significant attention to detail in order to give the audience a vivid portrayal of the famous plot. In this analysis, the accuracy of this film in relation to actual historical events and context will be discussed in its chronological order. The accurate portrayals of the July 20 plot will be analyzed, including the general basis of the plot, as well as the specific details of the events and characters. Furthermore, the inaccuracies of the film and the creative liberties taken …show more content…
by the writers and director will be outlined as well. A comparison will also be made between the overall message the film wants to portray versus the actual motivations and thinking of the July 20th plotters. The film begins with Stauffenberg’s tour in Tunisia, North Africa in April of 1943, where the German 10th division is attacked by a British air attack in which Stauffenberg is severely injured.
Consistent with the actual event, he loses his left eye, his right hand, and two fingers on his left hand.1 The movie accurately portrays these injuries and throughout the film, there is constant reference to them, from Stauffenberg inserting a fake eye, to him giving a handless Nazi salute. The next scene portrays the failed airplane bomb plot in 1943 conducted by Henning von Tresckow after a meeting at the Army Group Centre on the Eastern front, where a bomb package disguised as two bottles of Cointreau were given to Lt. Colonel Brandt as a gift just as he boards a plane with Hitler.2 After the bomb fails to detonate, the conspirators led by Tresckow quickly find a way to retrieve the undetonated bomb and regroup. In the film Tresckow himself is portrayed as the one who retrieves the undetonated package, but it was in fact Fabian von Schlabrendorff, who retrieved them.3 Stauffenberg, who had shown a strong opposition to Hitler, was nominated as a replacement for Hans Oster, who had been arrested for conspiring to kill Hitler earlier. In the movie, General of Infantry Friedrich Olbricht visits Stauffenberg in the hospital, when really he was called via telephone and summoned to
Berlin.4 In the first meeting, Stauffenberg is introduced to the main conspirators in the group. Along with Tresckow and Olbricht, the others are revealed to be Dr. Carl Goerdeler, the planned successor as Chancellor, General Ludwig Beck, who would be the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, and Erwin von Litzweben, a General Field Marshall who was to be the Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht. These individuals were the focus for the main conspirators of the plot and this was likely chosen to simplify the storyline for the audience and to not confuse them with so many characters. In reality, there was a very large network of conspirators spread all across Europe, including members who were to launch coups in occupied countries such as France, and even members of Stauffenberg’s family were involved in the plot, including his brother, Berthold, and two of his cousins.5 While the characters are portrayed to be noble men who opposed the atrocities committed by the Nazis, their motivations had more to do with the preservation of Germany. There is also some question to their involvement with the atrocities committed by the Third Reich and their complicity with Nazi movement before the war became increasingly unwinnable. Undoubtedly, many of the conspirators were staunch conservative nationalists who wanted the see the structure of the new regime be similar to that of the Nazi’s. 6 After subsequent meetings, the plan was formulated: Hitler would be assassinated and the conspirators would seize control of the military and government by implementing an existing order named “Valkyrie”, which “would see executive power and military leadership being entrusted to the commander of the Replacement Army”. 7 This order was revised numerous times in order to facilitate the plan, and it would give the conspirators the ability to take control of the government and military following Hitler’s death. While Stauffenberg is portrayed to have devised this strategy alone, the idea to use the reserve army to seize control of the military and government had actually been an option for the committee prior to him joining the group 8; however, he was key to revising the plans in order to facilitate a strong enough push take control of the military.9 One of the problems of Valkyrie was that it required the cooperation of the Commander-in-Chief of the Replacement Army, Friedrich Fromm. While Fromm had disdain for Hitler and his military choices, he was not fully cooperative with a coup and as an opportunist, would not side with a resistance as long as Hitler’s Reich remained. In the film, Stauffenberg and Olbricht approach Fromm and offer him a position in the new regime, but in reality, it was decided that Fromm would either be compelled to go along with the conspiracy, or be arrested.10 The transfer of Tresckow to the Eastern front in October of 1943 put him at a distance from the planning and subsequently led to Stauffenberg taking on a larger leadership role.11 Following his promotion to Chief of Staff of the Reserve Army, Stauffenberg now had direct access to Hitler,12 making him one of the obvious choices to execute the assassination plan.13 Stauffenberg is then introduced to Lt. Werner von Haeftan, who would become his adjutant and main co-conspirator in the execution of the July 20th assassination attempt. Colonel Mertz von Quirnheim, another key conspirator, shows Stauffenberg how to prepare and use pencil detonators to trigger the explosives and then proceeds to outline the assassination plan. Stauffenberg and Haeften are to travel to the Wolfsschanze or “Wolf’s Lair”, Hitler's private bunker, in order to attend a military briefing on the current situation of the war. Before the meeting, Stauffenberg is to ignite two timed detonators and place them under the table near Hitler, where the thick concrete walls would allow for the blast to be contained, killing everyone in the room. To escape the blast, Fellgiebel, the Chief of the Wehrmacht communications, agreed to call and ask for Stauffenberg, excusing him from the meeting while Haeften waits outside with a car ready to leave. Following the explosion, Fellgiebel was to sever all communications from the Wolf’s Lair to allow Operation Valkyrie to operate without interference from Hitler’s administration. The other conspirators, however, insist that Heinrich Himmler must also be present if the plan is going to be initiated; as head of the SS, he would play a large part in ensuring that Hitler’s administration would remain intact. While the need to kill Himmler was indeed a stipulation for the committee in the actual plot, Herman Goering was also included, as he was Hitler’s designated successor and would stand in opposition to the new administration.14 Additionally, while the plan itself is accurately described, it was not Quirnheim who came up with it, and the bombing technique was incorporated into multiple plots, including the original July 7 attempt at the uniform exhibition in Klessheim. General Helmuth Stieff was to carry out this plot, but failed to do so; Stauffenberg would then take on the role himself.15 In order to execute the plan, the revised version of Valkyrie had to be signed by Hitler, and the film shows Stauffenberg achieving this at a meeting in the Berghof, Hitler’s private residence in the Bavarian Alps. An important note is that Stauffenberg would actually visit the Berghof twice leading up to the final plot, on July 6 and July 11. The meeting on the 11th was intended to be an assassination attempt in itself, but since Himmler nor Goering were in attendance, the plan was not executed.16 After receiving Hitler’s signature for the revised order, the plan can be implemented and preparations for the plot begin. During the first Wolf’s Lair attempt on July 15, Stauffenberg and Haeften prepare to carry out the plot, while Olbricht mobilizes the Reserve Army to prepare for Valkyrie. However, at the meeting, Stauffenberg notices that Himmler is absent. He leaves the room to contact the committee and ask if he should still proceed with the plan, but they refuse. Quirnheim tells Stauffenberg to execute the plan anyways, but the meeting had already ended. Stauffenberg and Haeften then leave the Wolf’s Lair with the undetonated bomb and the Reserve Army is told that the mobilization was simply a training drill. Back in Berlin, General Fromm is outraged at the unauthorized mobilization of the Reserve Army and threatens to arrest both Staffenberg and Olbricht if it were to happen again. While these events are portrayed accurately according to the historical account, 17 this was not the first attempt to execute Operation Valkyrie. The committee meets to discuss the failed attempt and Dr. Goerdeler is told that a warrant has been issued for his arrest. He is encouraged to leave the country and does so, with his role being replaced by Colonel Quirnheim. The committee then decides that any action will at be Stauffenberg’s discretion; indecision was no longer an option.
Perhaps one of the most haunting and compelling parts of Sanders-Brahms’ film Germany Pale Mother (1979) is the nearly twenty minute long telling of The Robber Bridegroom. The structual purpose of the sequence is a bridge between the marriage of Lene and Hans, who battles at the war’s front, and the decline of the marriage during the post-war period. Symbolically the fairy tale, called the “mad monstrosity in the middle of the film,” by Sanders Brahms (Kaes, 149), offers a diagetic forum for with which to deal with the crimes of Nazi Germany, as well a internally fictional parallel of Lene’s marriage.
The atrocities of war can take an “ordinary man” and turn him into a ruthless killer under the right circumstances. This is exactly what Browning argues happened to the “ordinary Germans” of Reserve Police Battalion 101 during the mass murders and deportations during the Final Solution in Poland. Browning argues that a superiority complex was instilled in the German soldiers because of the mass publications of Nazi propaganda and the ideological education provided to German soldiers, both of which were rooted in hatred, racism, and anti-Semitism. Browning provides proof of Nazi propaganda and first-hand witness accounts of commanders disobeying orders and excusing reservists from duties to convince the reader that many of the men contributing to the mass
Leni Riefenstahl, a dazzling individual that has lived through and experienced many things that no other person may have. She has lived through the World War One, Great Depression, Nazi Germany, World War Two, the Cold war and September 11. However, what fascinates historians and people all over was her involvement and relationship with Hitler and the Nazis party. This report will look over Leni’s early to role as director of her Infamous films Triumph of the Will and Olympia and her involvement and view of Nazism and Hitler.
Storm of Steel provides a memoir of the savagery and periods of beauty that Ernst Jünger’s experienced while serving the German army during the First World War. Though the account does not take a clear stand, it lacks any embedded emotional effects or horrors of the Great War that left so few soldiers who survived unaffected. Jünger is very straightforward and does remorse over any of his recollections. The darkness of the hallucinations Jünger reports to have experienced provides subtle anti-war sentiment. However, in light of the descriptive adventures he sought during the brief moments of peace, the darkness seems to be rationalized as a sacrifice any soldier would make for duty and honor in a vain attempt for his nation’s victory. The overall lack of darkness and Jünger’s nonchalance about the brutality of war is enough to conclude that the account in Storm of Steel should be interpreted as a “pro” war novel; however, it should not be interpreted as “pro” violence or death.
Occurring in 1942, the Germans believe they have built an ‘escape proof’ camp in which they plan to house their most troublemaking prisoners. What they do not realize, is that they have put all of their greatest masterminds in one place and allowed them to speak to one another. If unable to escape, the prisoners believe it is their job to make the German officials pay as much attention to their confinement as possible and away from other military expenditures. Unlike previous escape plans from the past, Royal Air Force Squadron Leader, Bartlet, plans a massive escape of 250 men through a series of tunnels.
The arguments of Christopher Browning and Daniel John Goldhagen contrast greatly based on the underlining meaning of the Holocaust to ordinary Germans. Why did ordinary citizens participate in the process of mass murder? Christopher Browning examines the history of a battalion of the Order Police who participated in mass shootings and deportations. He debunks the idea that these ordinary men were simply coerced to kill but stops short of Goldhagen's simplistic thesis. Browning uncovers the fact that Major Trapp offered at one time to excuse anyone from the task of killing who was "not up to it." Despite this offer, most of the men chose to kill anyway. Browning's traces how these murderers gradually became less "squeamish" about the killing process and delves into explanations of how and why people could behave in such a manner.
In the history of modern western civilization, there have been few incidents of war, famine, and other calamities that severely affected the modern European society. The First World War was one such incident which served as a reflection of modern European society in its industrial age, altering mankind’s perception of war into catastrophic levels of carnage and violence. As a transition to modern warfare, the experiences of the Great War were entirely new and unfamiliar. In this anomalous environment, a range of first hand accounts have emerged, detailing the events and experiences of the authors. For instance, both the works of Ernst Junger and Erich Maria Remarque emphasize the frightening and inhumane nature of war to some degree – more explicit in Jünger’s than in Remarque’s – but the sense of glorification, heroism, and nationalism in Jünger’s The Storm of Steel is absent in Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front. Instead, they are replaced by psychological damage caused by the war – the internalization of loss and pain, coupled with a sense of helplessness and disconnectedness with the past and the future. As such, the accounts of Jünger and Remarque reveal the similar experiences of extreme violence and danger of World War I shared by soldiers but draw from their experiences differing ideologies and perception of war.
When Moishe had returned to Sighet he had told the terrible story of what went on when he had been taken away by the German soldiers. He explained, "They were forced to dig huge trenches. When they had finished their work, the men from the Gestapo began theirs. Without passion or hate, they shot their prisoners, who were forced to approach the trenches one by one and offer their necks. Infants were tossed into the air and used as targets for the machine guns."(Wiesel 6). The Jews were scared and frightened by the Germans, they listened to everything they had told them to do in fear of dying. The soldiers had the life of the Jews in their hands and without regret ended many of the lives. The people of Moishe 's community could not comprehended that one could be so cruel thus dismissed his story. Such horror had never been heard of and therefore could not have been conceived. The human brain was not able to fathom that other humans were capable of such atrocities, such as using an infant as a flying target for machine guns. As for other Jews who are being taken into the camps they didn 't know what was yet to come. "They will not be killed (not yet) but the terror this welcome..."("Themes and construction: Night"). German soldiers had a duty and it was it exterminate as many Jews as possible. Many of the Jews were frightened and blindsided to what they were in store for, little did they know that terror will become a part of their daily lives. "Behind me, an old man fell to the ground. Nearby, an SS man replaced his revolver in its holster."(Wiesel 30). There was no reason to shoot the man, he wasn 't doing anything different than the other had been doing. Elizer had been walking with his father and others in the line when he had realized that him or his dad could be the next to be killed. The amount of terror that anyone had
The major focus of the book focuses on reconstruction of the events this group of men participated in. According to Browning, the men of Police Battalion 101 were just that—ordinary. They were five hundred middle-aged, working-class men of German descent. A majority of these men were neither Nazi party members nor members of the S.S. They were also from Hamburg, which was a town that was one of the least occupied Nazi areas of Germany and, thus, were not as exposed to the Nazi regime. These men were not self-selected to be part of the order police, nor were they specially selected because of violent characteristics. These men were plucked from their normal lives, put into squads, and given the mission to kill Jews because they were the only people available for the task. “Even in the face of death the Jewish mothers did not separate from their children. Thus we tolerated the mothers taking their children to the ma...
The events which have become to be known as The Holocaust have caused much debate and dispute among historians. Central to this varied dispute is the intentions and motives of the perpetrators, with a wide range of theories as to why such horrific events took place. The publication of Jonah Goldhagen’s controversial but bestselling book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust” in many ways saw the reigniting of the debate and a flurry of scholarly and public interest. Central to Goldhagen’s disputed argument is the presentation of the perpetrators of the Holocaust as ordinary Germans who largely, willingly took part in the atrocities because of deeply held and violently strong anti-Semitic beliefs. This in many ways challenged earlier works like Christopher Browning’s “Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland” which arguably gives a more complex explanation for the motives of the perpetrators placing the emphasis on circumstance and pressure to conform. These differing opinions on why the perpetrators did what they did during the Holocaust have led to them being presented in very different ways by each historian. To contrast this I have chosen to focus on the portrayal of one event both books focus on in detail; the mass shooting of around 1,500 Jews that took place in Jozefow, Poland on July 13th 1942 (Browning:2001:225). This example clearly highlights the way each historian presents the perpetrators in different ways through; the use of language, imagery, stylistic devices and quotations, as a way of backing up their own argument. To do this I will focus on how various aspects of the massacre are portrayed and the way in which this affects the presentation of the per...
Bombing Auschwitz: US 15Th Air Force And The Military Aspects Of A Possible Attack." War In History 6.2 (1999): 205. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 Jan. 2014.
Quentin Tarantino’s 2009 film Inglourious Bastards entails a Jewish revenge fantasy that is told through a counterfactual history of events in World War II. However, this story follows a completely different plot than what we are currently familiar with. Within these circumstances, audiences now question the very ideas and arguments that are often associated with World War II. We believe that Inglourious Basterds is a Jewish revenge fantasy that forces us to rethink our previous understandings by disrupting the viewers sense of content and nature in the history of World War II. Within this thesis, this paper will cover the Jewish lens vs. American lens, counter-plots with-in the film, ignored social undercurrents, and the idea that nobody wins in war. These ideas all correlate with how we view World War II history and how Inglourious Basterds muddles our previous thoughts on how these events occurred.
Director Mark Herman presents a narrative film that attests to the brutal, thought-provoking Nazi regime, in war-torn Europe. It is obvious that with Herman’s relatively clean representation of this era, he felt it was most important to resonate with the audience in a profound and philosophical manner rather than in a ruthlessness infuriating way. Despite scenes that are more graphic than others, the films objective was not to recap on the awful brutality that took place in camps such as the one in the movie. The audience’s focus was meant to be on the experience and life of a fun-loving German boy named Bruno. Surrounding this eight-year-old boy was conspicuous Nazi influences. Bruno is just an example of a young child among many others oblivious of buildings draped in flags, and Jewis...
The similarity existent between the past and the present in “Stasiland” is what empowers Funder to obtain a sense of truth, she intends to provide the necessary knowledge to the outside world enabling readers to realise the reality of East Germany. Funder undergoes her purpose with caution, as in respect of her interviewers she must consider the effects associated with revealing the truth and the past – as it has the potential to significantly harm the health of ones mental state. When envisaging the impact her background has in terms of perspective Funders intention becomes clear. Instead of finalising a truth she provides the readers with the necessary factors and interpretations - as once actuality is discovered and final...
Adaptation of any kind has been a debate for many years. The debate on cinematic adaptations of literary works was for many years dominated by the questions of fidelity to the source and by the tendencies to prioritize the literary originals over their film versions (Whelehan, 2006). In the transference of a story from one form to another, there is the basic question of adherence to the source, of what can be lost (Stibetiu, 2001). There is also the question of what the filmmakers are being faithful to or is it the novel’s plot in every detail or the spirit of the original (Smith, 2016). These are only few query on the issue of fidelity in the film adaptation.