Danger, David Hasselhoff
By Mitch Berg
Tom Cruise.
How do people think of him in the US? Good actor, but kind of a nutjob, what with all the bouncing around and the silent childbirth and the Scientology?
I’m probably not far off, right?
I’m not sure how much weight to give a single newspaper column (albeit a column in a relatively conservative paper by regional standards), but it’d seem Cruise’s decision to do a movie about Claus Von Stauffenberg – the Prussian Junker officer who tried and barely failed to assassinate Hitler – is resonating among Germans:
Es bedurfte eines Querdenkers, um dieses Vorurteil zu durchbrechen. Es bedurfte eines Weltstars, um sich damit im Ausland Gehör zu verschaffen. Durch seine Entscheidung, Graf Stauffenberg sein Gesicht zu leihen, wird Tom Cruise das Bild, das die Welt sich von uns Deutschen macht, verändern. Das Ansehen des Landes zu retten, gerade auch im Ausland, war einer der wichtigsten Beweggründe Stauffenbergs bei seiner Tat. Durch Tom Cruises mutige Entscheidung, diese Rolle zu spielen, wird Stauffenbergs Anliegen auf mittelbare Weise doch noch verwirklicht. Eine breite Öffentlichkeit wird anhand seiner Geschichte verstehen, dass man sich dem Unmenschlichen widersetzen kann, und dass Heldenmut und eine menschliche Haltung noch wichtiger sind als der Erfolg einer Tat.
What? You took Spanish like the rest of the “path of least resistance” crowd? OK, auf Englisch:
It took an unconventional thinker to break through this prejudice. It required a world-class superstar to get that message to audiences abroad. With his decision to lend Graf von Stauffenberg a face, Tom Cruise will change the image that the world has of us Germans. To rescue the image of his country – especially abroad – was one of the key motives Stauffenberg had for his deeds [attempting to assassinate Hitler]. Because of Cruise’s courageous decision to play this role, he has indirectly fulfilled Stauffenberg’s intentions. Based on his story, a huge audience will come to understand that one can oppose inhumanity, and that a hero’s courage and nobility are even more important than the success of his deeds.
So I’ve wondered for years – how badly do the Germans want the world to ignore, or at least temper their view of, the Holocaust and World War II?
It’s true – there were Germans who resisted the Nazis. Unlike Stauffenberg – who planted a bomb that came within an unlucky fluke of killing Hitler in mid-war, and who died for his efforts – most died, unlamented, in concentration camps or Gestapo prisons. Some fled Germany (and some of them turned around and fought with the Allies). They were a thin film among the German people, many of whom were enthusiastic Nazis, very many of whom (if you believe Goldhagen) were culturally and theologically anti-semitic, most of whom acquiesced with Naziism for whatever reason.
But I’ve known a zillion Germans. I speak, or at least spoke, the language well enough to get past just the words. Germany’s done a lot to purge itself of the mindset that led to its many, many sins (as even Goldhagen noted in the afterword to Hitler’s Willing Executioners). So I can’t say that I blame them for wanting to show some part of the other side of their culture.
I can’t wait to see it, honestly.
(Via ModVoice)
December 26th, 2007 at 7:44 am
Utterly legitimate to tell the story. I’m hoping — perhaps in vain — though, that the movie will not skim over how late Stauffenberg was to opposing Hitler. I’m not sure who it was who said that the scales didn’t fall from his eyes, but that they were shot off, but I think that’s a fair cop.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Von Stauffenberg is not as much of a hero as he is sometimes made out to be. He was a junker and a professional officer. Hitler was never popular with either of those classes and by 1944 it was obvious that the war was lost.
Germans traditionally believed that the heart of their nation was not in a constitution or a political class, but the nobility and the army. The First World War was perceived by the people as a betrayal, or at least a failure, by the nobility and the army. Hitler came to power by capitalizing on this sense of betrayal.
Von Stauffenberg wanted to save Germany by setting the clock back thirty years. If his coup attempt had been successful lives would have been saved in the short term but a Germany that retained its militaristic aspect may have been the result.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
“and by 1944 it was obvious that the war was lost.”
Picked up a book at Half-price Books in Highland Park last year. On the liberation and aftermath at the death camps. The section on Sweden was interesting. They went from trading (aka supporting economically) Nazi Germany, to aiding the Allies after it became apparent that Germany was going to get their asses kicked. A swing in military fortunes does wonders for the “opposition”.
December 26th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
According to the ever-reliable Wikipedia, these were the peace terms Staufenberg & comrades would present to the allies after they had killed Hitler & seized power: