History of the German Freikorps * * *

A Brief History of the Birth of the Nazis (at Amazon)
The book begins at the end of WWI as civil unrest is spreading within Germany
due to widespread dissatisfaction with the war among the civilians and the soldiers. During this time, there was a strong communist/revolutionary movement within the naval soldiers and within the working class. As with the Russian communist revolution, the German communist revolution-that-wasn't started with mutinies aboard naval ships. Towards the end of WWI, losing the war seemed inevitable and naval soldiers began to balk at dying for a lost cause. The first large mutiny occurred at Kiel on October 29, 1918 when the navy ordered a last, and at that point suicidal, battle against the British blockade. The 'Red' soldiers took over the ships and the port. This revolt was put down by the Kaiser but unrest continued to spread -- until the Kaiser was forced into exile on November 9, 1919 and the monarchy was replaced by a fragile republic, the Wiemar Republic.
Out of this chaos, the Friekorps were born.

The young republic was facing multiple uprising from various revolutionary groups: the communists, the Spartacists, the Red naval soldiers and the Workers' parties. These groups were engaging in mass revolts in Berlin and were taking over government offices. The regular army was ineffective and riddled with 'Red' sympathizers. Instead ex-military officers formed their own scratch militia, called Freikorps or Free Corps. These were made up of young, hard men who had been tempered in the trenches of WWI. These newly minted Freikorps were sent to quell the civil unrest -- with a heavy hand. The Freikorps became famous for their violence and independence -- and their virulent disdain for the Wiemar Republic government. At their height in 1920, there were about half a million Freikorps soldiers in militia of various sizes up to battalion strength. Some of these only lasted a few months, while others lasted to the Versailles Treaty after which they were eventually absorbed into the regular Army.

"A Brief History of the Birth of the Nazis: How the Freikorps Blazed a Trail for Hitler" tell sthe history of the Friekorps from their inception in 1919 to their official dissolution in 1920 by the Versailles Treaty through their change to illegal political terrorist militia in the 1920s and then to their final end in the summer of 1934 when the Nazis carried out a purge known as the Night of Long Knives. The first half of the book is mostly about their various military actions up to 1920: from their military action in Poland to mercilessly putting down the Ruhr Red revolts in the spring of 1920. The second half of the book concerns the post-Versailles Treaty period. The Versailles Treaty strictly limited the number of soldiers that Germany was allowed to maintain, and the Wiemar government was certainly not inclined to turn a blind eye to the Freikorps. The Friekorps were a threat to the government, and had been involved in multiple putz attempts to overthrown the republican government and replace it with a fascist government.

By the early 1920s, the majority of the Freikorps had been disbanded or integrated into the Wehrmacht. However, many Freikorps evolved into illegal anti-republican groups and some of these were terrorist right-wing groups that that assassinated republican officials. These illegal Friekorps groups were important to the nascent National Socialist Party (Nazis). Specifically, the Bavarian Freikorps were critical in the Munich Beerhaus putz in 1923 when Adolf Hitler attempted to seize power by force. After this failed, and Hitler sent to prison, Hitler decided to seek power within the political system and distanced himself from the more unruly elements of the Freikorps. Nonetheless many Freikorps officers went on to become leaders in the Nazi party and of the SS.

This book was a real eye-opener for me. I was not aware of the extent of civil unrest in Germany at the end of WWI or of the communist revolts that occurred in 1919 and the early 1920s. The history of these revolts gave me a very different image of pre-WWII Germans than I had before. In Berlin Diary, the memoir of a US journalist, we see only the stereotypical view of German citizens fawning over Hitler in mass assemblies and there is certainly no evidence of widespread resistance. The history of the Freikorps shows a completely different German citizenry. For example, in March 1920 in what is known as the Kapp Putz, a Freikorps militia tried to overthrow the republican government by force and succeeded in taking over the government headquarters in Berlin and sending the leadership running. However, they were faced with massive passive resistance by government employees who stalled in carrying out their orders. Then a Berlin-wide strike was called and the city was shut down. After a few days of civilian resistance, the putz leaders were forced to leave. On the other hand, the image we see of the Freikorps is striking similar to that seen later in the Nazi party and SS. Lieutenant Mann, an officer of the Freikorps leading the failed Kapp Putz, said afterwards "If we had only shot more people [meaning civilians], everything would have been alright." It was a lesson they put to use in quelling the Ruhr revolt a few weeks later and one that the Nazis took to heart also.

--EEH

Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)* * * *

Judgment at Nuremberg (DVD at Amazon)
It took me a really long time to watch this film, even though it was an Oscar winning film on a topic I'm fascinated by, namely the Nuremberg trials. It's 3 1/2 hours long and basically the whole thing is filmed in the courtroom. I just didn't see how it would not bore me to tears. But Kaja was visiting and was interested to have seen it too. Neither of us wanted to see it; we wanted to have seen it as part of our filmatic education. So with a partner to bolster our courage in the face of boredom, a six-pack and a big bowl of popcorn, we decided to work our way through it over three nights and set the DVD rolling at 11pm one night. We were transfixed through whole film and ended up watching it straight through, not finishing until after 2am.

Why is this such a good movie? Gosh, it's really hard to put your finger on. The acting is great. Spencer Tracy is very believable as a well meaning and thoughtful small-town judge, who is really trying to understand the German people and is trying to not pre-judge them. The German lawyer is played by Maximilian Schell, an Austrian-born actor. He is magnetic in the film, and he won an Oscar fo r Best Actor in a Leading Role for his performance. The screenplay is also thoughtful and doesn't make any cheap shots (unlike the abysmal Taking Sides, which was on a similar topic). The screenplay also garnered an Oscar.

Oh, yes, the plot. There is a trial of three Nazi judges who are being charged with going along with the Nazis and thereby allowing the Nazis to pervert justice so that instead of communists, jews, disabled, etc being just summarily locked away, their persecution was given the patina of a proper and fair legal hearing. Two of the main cases being discussed have to do with forced sterilization. Mainly we (the viewer) are sitting in on the court cases and listening to the arguments by each side. There are a few scenes in prison with the three men on trial, a few scenes of parties, but by and large it's in a courtroom. But it is riveting commentary on the moral culpability of professionals within a terrible system.

I didn't feel like the film tried to tell me what to think and how to judge the men on trial. In the end, I sympathized with many of the arguments of the German lawyer, and I felt the American judge took a moral high-ground that is a bit unrealistic*. I think that was one of the points of the film, to make one think about these issues and show that it is not so cut-and-dried. The path to moral corruption is walked one little step at a time and at each turn, you may even be making what you think is the most moral choice in that situation. So in fact, when you finally do become an active participant in the actions of a corrupt State, it can be almost by surprise and without you ever really making a conscious choice to be such a participant.

*Kaja's comment: This was mostly likely requisite for the era in which it was released. It was a time where the US stood as an ultimate moral compass and empowered to pass judgment by being the victors. If we think about the how the nature of our politics and public has changed from then to now, I think that we would see our protagonist judge in a 2008 film tested and succumb to the human sympathies that we extend to other individuals in the middle of personal dilemmas.

Taking Sides *

Taking Sides (link to DVD at Amazon)
Eli: I was really looking forward to this film. It is by Istvan Szabo who is one is one of my favorite directors, and it is on a topic that I find fascinating, the culpability of the artist or intellectual within a totalitarian system. It's also about the trials in Germany after WWII and that's really interesting to me. But this film sucked. The characters were one-dimensional and the acting was flat. The American officer, who was trying to catch and punish Germans who had 'collaborated' with the Nazis, was a complete caricature and totally unbelievable. Watching this was torture. What a different experience than the 1950s film Judgment at Nuremberg! Kaja, what was your take on this?

Kaja: Absolutely right, Eli. I couldn't agree more. The central motive of this movie seems to be to remake the classic, Judgment at Nuremberg, but with a different type of intelligentsia: the musician. Hey, they'd have a great soundtrack to boot. BUT, the film in essence rehashes an age old argument similar to the one about Wagner being a Nazi supporter, despite his inability to control how his music was manipulated. Rather, it was his sister who promoted him in the public eye. While she was an avid Hitler supporter, how can we begrudge her initial overtures (pun intended) to the public to support the brilliant work of her brother? Holding Wagner accountable is like holding Nietzsche accountable for the fact that his writings were disseminated to German recruits as they marched off to the frontier.

It's not possible, however, to completely dismiss the case that the movie is describing: it happened and is about very real people. But the manner in which the movie, and the characters within it, attempt to twist music's connection to mean so much more in supporting a regime than it did is rather sad and misguided. It overlooks the fact that music both inspires and heals, much more than it incites people to battle (those are simple fanfares). I guess I am mainly left guessing why Szabo portrayed his characters the way he did. The American is an abrasive, self-righteous fellow that makes me wretch; his obsession is to humiliate a dignified and brilliant maestro. Okay... spot on. Bravo, Szabo, you're very perceptive indeed. The Germans are two young people, a boy and a girl, who fall in love. Aw, how sweet. BUT they harbor secret sympathies with the poor conductor. Hmmm... thus they are two-faced, secretive and can't be trusted. So, who is the viewer to look toward for inspiration? Not the tyrannical and ignorant American, of course. Certainly not the weak, secretive and feeble German couple. No, we look to the solid dignity and pride of a musician being humiliated. So we have a black-and-white situation: artist=good; judgmental American=bad. The transparent way that Szabo manipulates the sympathies of his audience, is cheap and doesn't admit that it is a messy moral situation. Really, while this movie was beautiful to look at, it had me squirming in my seat (and not in the good way). I see no redeeming value that it may have. Even the music was cliche.

So there you have it. Don't bother with this one.

Berlin Diary (1941)* * * *

Berlin Diary (link to book at Amazon)
At 21 in 1925, William Shirer left the States to work as a foreign journalist in India and Europe. 1933 he took off a year to be a beach bum in a little village in Spain with his wife, but the dollar took a hammering, their saving took a beating, and Shirer had to quickly get a job. He worked in Paris for a few months, at a reporting job that bored him to tears, but then in early 1934, he landed a better job in Berlin. Thus it came to be that he spent 7 years in Berlin covering the rise of Hilter and the early years of WWII when Germany was celebrating one incredible victory after another. This 'diary' is not about himself, but his commentary on the events around him and on which he was reporting. As a foreign correspondent of a major U.S. radio company, he reported at the center of the major events happening at the time. Later Shirer would write many books about Nazi Germany, the most famous being The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. But Berlin Diary is before all that, written in the moment and full of the uncertainty and tension that comes with not knowing how things will turn out and not knowing exactly what is happening (each side, Axis and Allies, are putting their spin on their news and official reports).

This inside-American view of the rise of Hitler and Germany would be fascinating on its own sake. But what was really gripping about this book is that is was published in April 1941 -- at the height of German power. Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Holland, Belgium, France have all fallen to Germany. Britain is being bombed and it is not at all clear that she can win against the superior German army and air force. Shirer did not know how it would all turn out when he published this shortly after his return from Berlin in December 1940. It is easy when thinking about WWII to think that 'oh, yeah, Germany took over Austria and then invaded Poland..yada..yada' as if it were obvious this would happen and that Germany would be so successful. But from reading Shirer's journal, you are reminded how incredible and NOT clear these events were. Hitler was playing a game of bluff -- threatening war to get countries to just roll over and play dead. As each piece of territory was taken over, the German war machine gained strength until Hitler no longer had to bluff but could just drop the hammer.

Reading this diary, I felt like it was all happening right now. Each evening I was eager to read to find out what had happened that day. My husband and step-son were amused when I would shuffle down-hearted into the kitchen; 'What's wrong?' they would ask. 'Poland has been invaded. They are getting slaughtered.' I would reply in all seriousness. The funny thing is that while reading Shirer's book it did feel real -- well, it is real though it happened 75 years ago. By reading his diary, I experienced in a small way the emotions and shock that Shirer felt watching these incredible events unfold.

Das Leben der Anderen (The Lives of Others, 2006)* * * *

The Lives of Others (link to DVD on Amazon)
Of all the communist states, East Germany had the most elaborate and insidious secret service. It is said (by wikipedia) that 1 in every 50 East German citizens was collaborating with the Stasi (the East German secret police). It was a world in which people had to be afraid of everyone -- even their friends, family and children. The most innocuous comment or joke could land you in trouble -- not necessarily prison, no in this world the hammer was more subtle. A black mark on your folder affected your ability to work in a non-menial job, to get a decent apartment, to get your children into school.

In 1985, I was studying in West Berlin and I spent my free weekends in East Berlin. If you were never in the eastern bloc during this period, it is perhaps hard to imagine what it was like. Grey oppression. That was the overwhelming feeling and look of the place. One night, I stayed past the curfew for foreigners and rode the subway through the night and into the next morning. I watched the other riders, who stared fixedly at the floor. They could tell that I was a foreigner. Then around 2am, the subway thinned out and it was just me and one other man. He looked like he was maybe a writer or a university professor. He came over and sat next to me. He clearly wanted to talk but was very nervous. Of all my many trips to East Germany, this was the only time someone had the nerve to say anything to me. He leaned close and asked where I was from. I told him I was an American studying in West Berlin. He asked to look at my passport. I handed it to him and watched as he fingered the stamps showing everywhere I had traveled. I knew he was forbidden to travel and I felt self-conscious. He looked to be in his 50s so he would have been in his early twenties when the Berlin Wall was built. Did he have friends or family from whom he was separated in West Berlin? Probably. He glanced again over his shoulder, leaned forward and whispered in my ear, "Don't believe what they tell you about East Germany. We are not free and this isn't a Socialist utopia." I had no idea what to say to this completely unexpected remark. The moment was like a scene out of some art movie -- the florescent lights of the subway flickering, the sound of the subway rushing through the underground, and a gray-coated German intellectual trying to educate a young naive American student. Thing was that my first visit to East Berlin had banished any question about the eastern bloc being a Socialist utopia from my young, liberal mind. This was a world where posters proclaimed things like “To do everything for the welfare of the people – that is the meaning of Socialism!”, next to these really depressing looking factories and next to shops that held nothing of value. It was a world where I was reminded forcibly of the cliche "A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth". I waited for him to say more. Was he serious? But just whispering this heresy seemed to have terrified him. He handed back my passport and got off the subway.

This world of fear is the one in which Lives of Others is set. Lives of Others begins, appropriately, in 1984. The premise is simple: surveillance of possible dissidents or defectors. Our protagonist, Captain Gerd Wiesler, is an expert on surveillance, interrogation, and reading the body language of others. From a series of scenes exemplifying his proficiency in each area, it becomes clear that with a life devoid of vibrancy, Wiesler lives vicariously through his subjects. We meet Wielser in a university classroom. Approached by an old classmate, Lt. Colonel, Wiesler is assigned to monitor the playwright Georg Dreyman. Once again, the next several steps are straight forward. The Stasi execute a sting operation in which Dreyman's apartment is given the complete works: microphones in the light switches and electrical sockets. Setting up a roost in the attic of the apartment complex, Wiesler and his assistant (Udo) monitor the activity below, typing by the light of a solitary, metal lamp. With lighting from the below and to the side, Wieslers face is cast into long shadows of what is, perhaps, obsession. In the interest of not giving too much away (as the plot is rather unremarkable), suffice it to say that as Wiesler roosts in the attic, the drama unfolds below. The differece between love and sex are at the heart of this drama. Dreyman is in love with the actress Christa-Maria, but a high ranking minister, Hempf, lusts after her as well. Using what can only be described as oozing charm and his political position, he forces her to engage in demeaning and compromising positions. Thus, Christa-Maria is suspended between her allegiance to Dreyman and herself and the malignant interests of the minister. All the while, Wiesler sits and listens as tensions come to a head, waffling in his sympathies for one party or the other, like a vapid viewer of some tv soap-opera. His sympathies take him so far as to physically reach out to Christa-Maria. The remainder of the film plays out this initial setup. The big question is, will Wiesler be caught--by his superiors or Dreyman. With love, sex, betrayal, and compassion what more could any lover of psychological spy thrillers want? Certainly, this was one of the most engrossing films that I watched in 2007 and is further validated having won the 2007 Oscar for Best Foreign Film.

---

Written jointly by EEH and Kaja
Rented on Netflix.

In Deadly Combat (1964) * * * *

In Deadly Combat: A German Soldier's Memoir of the Eastern Front by Gottlob Herbert Bidermann (link to the book on Amazon)

This is a memoir of a young German soldier who started as a landser—infantry man—manning a heavy machine gun and then became a platoon leader. He began his service in the Crimea in a battle group that defeated the Russians and pushed them out of Sevastapool Castle. They were later moved up to join the army besieging Leningrad. They battled the Russian groups trying to break the siege. Later as the Russians pushed the Germans south, out of Russia, they were surrounded and trapped in what was called the Courland pocket. Against overwhelming odds, they resisted all attempts by the Russians to smash their pocket. They held out till the end of the war, when they were finally ordered to surrender. The author was taken prisoner and was one of the few to survive the gulags.

This memoir is considered one of the best. This memoir gives a good perspective on the skill of the German soldiers and why the Wehrmacht was so effective. Small teams of heavy out-numbered German soldiers were able to maintain their position by being unflinching under fire. In the beginning, the soldiers are affected by seeing death and being killing machines. In one early battle when they are mowing down wave after wave of Russian soldiers, one of the heavy machine gunners becomes overwhelmed by it all and cries out “I can’t keep killing!”. This must have been alarming to his mates who were doing all they could to stay alive. After a year or two though, the soldiers are inured to it and seem simply proud of their skills at repelling these attacks.

My thoughts? It is a good book. If one is interested in German war memoirs, this is one to read. However, I felt kind of traumatized by the end. Killing, killing, killing. Ug. The writer does not glorify this but that is what his life was about at this time.

Blood Red Snow * * * *

Blood Red Snow is memoir of a German soldier who fought as a heavy machine gunner in Russia, Ukraine and Romania. He also did a short stint in Italy, chasing partisans. This story is very different than A Stranger To Myself. No endless philosophizing or ruminations on the glint of snowflakes against the sun. Instead this is a straight-forward story of what happened to him as an elite front-line soldier.

His first battle is on the outskirts of Stalingrad. He starts as a naive and idealistic young soldier, but that doesn't last long. His first job is a trip into Stalingrad to deliver food at night. This is just before the encirclement, and the battles are done from rubble pile to rubble pile. All he can think about is getting away from the horror. Shortly after the fighting begins and his unit is one of the sacrificial units that are maintaining a fight to the death position. Almost everyone in his unit is killed, and then when all is hopeless the last 10 make a dash to safety through heavy gunfire. They are among those that race across the River Don on foot and are only saved because the ice is too thin for the Russian tanks. It is a brutal fighting retreat. He get injured, gets sent to the rear, and survives.

After a stint in Italy, where not much of interest happens except some looting, he is sent back to Russia. He is now in an elite unit that is steadily retreating from the Russian offensive east into Romania. By this point, he is very weary after so many months of frontline fighting. In the end, he ends up in Poland and is in East Prussia when the Russian arrive. He is once again injured at a lucky time and manages to survive by being in a hospital at the right time.

One interesting section concerns a home-leave he gets in the summer of 1944. He writes that things were very tense at home. Many refugees. People being sent to concentration camps. He does not mention Jews, but rather dissenters and those that refuse to fight. He is not critical of them nor is he sympathetic. Everyone has a duty to do and they refuse to do theirs. In retrospect, we know that Germany mounted an unprovoked attack on Russia in the summer of 1941. But this is not what Germans were told at the time. They were told that Russia was massing troops on the border and this was a defensive attack to protect Germany and Europe from the war-mongering Bolsheviks. I'm sure that this is what everyone believed.

In this memoir, the viewpoint is unconflicted. The Russians are the enemy and they are brutes. He writes about how as his unit retreats and the Russians move forward, the Russians kill villagers in the eastern Ukraine who helped the Germans -- even if they were forced to do so. This is also mentioned in the book, Stalingrad. As they retreat into Romania, he talks about the rampant raping by the Russian soldiers. This is also well documented. He also writes about the treatment of German POWs and that they are killed or worse. Again this well-documented. So to him when he was a soldier, it was clear-cut. He does not mention German war-crimes, but then it sounds like he was not in areas where these were happening in the extreme. He did not fight in the Ukraine in winter 1941 where he would have seen 100,000s of Russian POWs interned with no food nor does he see the round-up of Jews in those areas nor the winter looting and rampant killing of civilians. He does not experience the scotched-earth retreat from Opel. Many other soldiers did experience this and the documentary Mein Kampf has footage taken by these men.

Overall I found this to be an unrealistically rosy picture of German soldiers in Russia. Here there is no mention of the poor treatment of Russian POWs. There is mention of wounded Russians being shot, but this is attributed to sadism. Looting is punishable and soldiers have to be sneaky about it. I don't necessarily doubt that this is a true account of this soldier's experience, and people I've talked to in Czechoslovakia during the war have commented that the German soldiers were well-behaved. Nonetheless, I was struck by the lack of any reference to German treatment of Russian POWs, the massive institutionalized looting, and mass starvation of civilians (like in Leningrad). I cannot believe he was unaware even if he did not personally see this. This especially struck me at the end, where he makes a comment about wanting to be an POW of the Americans since at least they treat POWs according to the Geneva Conventions. I was pretty much flabbergasted by this comment, given what happened to so many Russian POWs. Granted from what I've read, those that were shipped to Germany for slave labor were treated decently, but millions were starved or gassed.

Another part of the book that I read with skepticism was the part where he said he was among the first German troops to come into the village of Nemmersdorf after the Russians briefly took it. Nemmersdorf is the site of the most famous Russian war atrocities in East Prussia. This is the first German town that the Russian troops reached. The Russian troops were accused of killing all civilians, raping the women and girls to death, and then mutilating the bodies. Goebbels had a famous propaganda film made of it. There are questions however about whether it was 'enhanced' for propaganda purposes by SS troops in the area. That the Russians killed the civilians and mass-raped the women and girls meshes with well-documented reports of many, many similar events from East Prussia (discussed in Fall of Berlin). But the Nemmersdorf massacre was also characterized by mutilation and crucifying people on barn doors -- I have never read of anything like that in other reports. In any case, the author claims to have been among those troops that first arrived after the Russians and claims to have seen the mutilated bodies. I found it surprising that of all places, he just so happened to be in Nemmersdorf on Oct 21, 1944.

In the end, I'm not sure what to make of this memoir -- except that it gives me a new insight into more of the evil of war.

Chronology
October-November 1942 On the Don River outside Stalingrad. Makes a hasty retreat and get injured. Thus survives.
October-November 1943 On the Dneiper in Eastern Ukraine some 500km south of Kursk. Russians are in the process of their steady push of the Germans out of Russia. His unit is one of the delaying units set up to give the retreating soldiers more time.
December 1943 Major assault by the Russians on the line of the Dneiper River.
January 1944 Retreat from the Dneiper River near Dneproperovsk.
March 1944 Miserable retreat to just north of the Black Sea. From where they are transferred to Romania.
April 1944 Part of a big successful fight where the Germans defeat the Russians near Lasi (Jassy) on the border between Romania and Moldava. Russian will have it back by July.
June 1944 Heavy fighting near Jassy as Russians are intent on retaking Jassy.
July 1944 Transferred to Poland; hard fighting; losing; injured and off the hospital.
October 1944 Fighting in Poland. Says he is in the troops that first come into Nemmersdorf (the site of a famous Red Army massacre of civilians), but that seems hard to believe.
January-March 1945 In Denmark as a trainer for new recruits.
March 1945 Volunteers for the front with his ragtag group of new recruits. Sent to Stettin on the Oder as the Russians are pushing their way to Berlin. Is soon injured, and sent back to a hospital.
End of April 1945 Is in a hospital that is taken by the Americans, but the Americans turn the German POWs over to Russia. He reinfects his wound to get back to the sick ward, and survives this. Spends time in American camp then released.

A Stranger to Myself * * *

A Stranger to Myself is a book made from the diaries of a young writer/poet/philosopher who died in Russia on his 5th tour on the Eastern Front. This is a memoir about what it was to experience the Eastern Front as a little human not an uber-German. If you've seen any books on the Eastern Front, you've seen the pictures of the winter of '41. The German soldiers in summer uniforms are laying in endless frozen heaps. The walking have their hands and feet wrapped due to frostbite. It is a disaster. Reese entered the war during that winter and lived through the experience in those pictures. He also was on the front near Kursk during the disasterous winter of '43 when Germans were again pushed back. 100'000s German soldiers were killed or froze to death during that winter. He returns to the front in winter '44 as the Germans are getting pushed out of Russia after the failure of Operation Citidel. So this is a memoir of the winter defeats. He misses completely the heady summer of '41 when the Germans pushed to Moscow and the summer of '42 when they pushed to Stalingrad.

A Stranger to Myself is unlike any war diary that you would have read before. This is Wagner meets WWII. It is an at times lyrical and, in the first half, overwrought exploration of his experience of the war. We are transplanted to the Russian steppe. The writer paints a vivid and poetic pictures of the the landscape and how it changes from winter to summer. As I read it, I could almost smell the crisp morning air and see the red sunrises, and then later the endless brown and mud that covers everything. In the beginning of the book, Reese struggles with yet embraces the role of the soldier. He repeatedly talks of the mask of the soldier and playing a role. He tries to understand his existence. Life is suffering. It is what must be. Suffering defines existence. In the beginning he sees himself as part of a larger thing. The master race scouring the countryside. Yet he does not see himself as superior; he is simply part of this larger thing that is happening. He feels no emnity to the people or his enemies. Yet he participates. His life is not defined by Free Will. He gives in to the larger forces and plays his role. He embraces herioc nihilism. After 2 years of war, he view will change however....

Reese is unsparing in his examination of himself. And if all soldiers were like him, the Wehrmacht surely wouldn't have gotten very far. He kvetches, he gets lost, he has heart palpations, somehow he repeatedly manages to stay behind and hold the fort while his comrades go off to fight, etc, etc. During the brutal winter of '43, he descends into pure desperation and finally stands up in his trench until he is shot. Salvation, a home-pass. In the winter of '44, however, he is a seasoned frontline veteran and participates in endless battles -- although he and the others are fighting just to save themselves nothing more. He is unsparing in his admission of his participation in abuses of civilians; he does not agonize over it nor does he feel good about it. In the winter of '41, he describes how the soldiers were constantly hungry and suffering. They looted from the civilians viciously and if the people complained, they were shot. Later in the book, during the retreat from Orel, he writes of the endless destruction behind the frontlines. The Germans instituted a scorched earth policy on their retreat. He is sad of the war is consuming noncombatants and recognizes that he is both perpetrator and pawn of the war-monster.

After 2 years of war, Reese has changed. He explores his mental scars that simply do not heal. His writing has changed. Before it was overwrought and explored endlessly this idea of heroic nihilsm. Now his writing is terse as he tries to comes to grip with who he is, what his life is, and the images in his head. He decides his life can only go forward after going through the fire. He volunteers for the frontlines. In the end, after going through the crucible, he is ready to live. The beauty of nature consumes him. But he accepts that death is his fate and is not sad. He did about 3-4 months after he finished the book during a furlough at home. He was killed in June 1944 during the retreat from Russia.

Chronology
August 1941 Reese is stationed in Poland and participates in fights to push the Russians east
Sept 28, 1941 Reese arrives in Kiev the day after the greatest encirclement of the war; 650,000 Russians
October 1941 He is near Kursk. Winter arrives they begin to freeze and starve;
Dec 1941 - Jan 1942 Starving and freezing and trench warfare near Kursk; Reese is injured and returns home. This was the eastern end of the big Russian counter-offensive.
July 1942 Reese joins the summer offensive in the push towards Stalingrad. They start marching near Kharkov. But he collapses in the march and is sent back to Germany.
October-Dec 1942 Reese is sent to Rshev NW of Moscow. In Dec/Jan a big Russian counter offensive at Rshev pushes the Germans back 200km.
Feb 1943 In the midst of this counter offensive, Reese stands up in his trench to get shot. He does.
July 1943 Reese is sent to about 200mi SW of Moscow near Smolensk on the Vopez River. Fighting.
End of July 1943 Moved to Mileyevo NE of Bryansk (100km W of Orel). Fighting.
August or so 1943 Collapse of the Citidel offensive. Enormous retreat by the German Army back to the Dneiper River in the west. All villages destroyed on retreat. Reese describes this.
To Dec 1943 North of Gomel (200km W of Byransk). Reese is part of the fighting to hold the line of the Dneiper River against a huge Russian counter-offensive.
Spring 1943 Home leave
June 1943 Reese is killed in the Vitebsk region 400km W of Moscow during the start of the Russian counter-offensive that drove the Germans out of Russian

A Woman in Berlin (1954)* * * * *

A Woman in Berlin (link to book at Amazon)
A Woman in Berlin is the diary of Marta Hillers who was living in Berlin when it fell to the Russian Army. The diary starts as she is sitting in a bomb shelter to avoid the nighttime bombing raids by the Americans. During the day, they can hear the Russians over the horizon. It is 3 more days before the Russians will make it to their part of town. This diary records what she saw in her small part of Berlin during the two months starting just before Berlin fell. Marta Hillers (who published this anonymously but it is well-known who is the author) was a 34-year old journalist. An orphan from WWI, she lived as a free-spirit. A modern woman. A traveler. She had studied in Paris and had visited Russian, back in her youthful days as a coffee-house red-sympathizer before she became disillusioned after visiting Russia. She had a working command of Russian, which would change her experience during the Russian occupation (it's unclear if it was a positive or negative).

I had approached this book with trepidation. I knew that during the fall of Berlin, there was an orgy of mass rape and that estimates are that 50% of all women were raped. As I opened the book, I braced myself for horror. The book wasn't anything like that. Yes rape is a big part of this book; the author herself loses track of the number of booted soldiers that force their way into her bed. But unlike in Prussia, most women were not getting raped AND beaten. It was happening to all women, and the Berlin women quickly developed a gallows humor about it. Marta relates how every visit to friends quickly found the women huddled together discussing 'So, how many...'. Just like women huddle together and tell birthing stories. When one relates a particularly unpleasant encounter, the rest wince and can commiserate with their own unpleasant encounter.

After one particularly uncouth rapist, the author decides she's had it and that if she's going to have forced intercourse with Russians 2-3 times a day, at least she is going to have it with only 1 Russian of her own choosing. So she goes out to find an officer. Her plan is a bit vague on how this is going to work, but she figures if she gets an officer boyfriend, he will somehow keep the others at bay. She manages to find one, and thus her apartment (actually not hers but a widow who she is living with) becomes a gathering spot every evening for a group of Russian officers of various levels. Endless late nights of drinking and discussing politics (followed by ... with her officer). She is amazed at the diversity of men -- they come from all over Russia and represent very different backgrounds. At some point, she realized that she has become a willing participant and ponders whether she has become a whore. She provides sex; the Russian visitors provide food. However, the alternative is starvation. So she is practical about it. A number of other women in her building have similar arrangements.

In the second month of the diary, the Russian Army leaves from her part of town. Gone are the Russian visitors. Gone is the food. Back to potatoes and nettles. She joins a number of forced labor call-ups. A day of rubble clearing. A week dismantling a factory and loading it on a train to Russia. I have often wondered how the Germans (esp women) could rebuild Berlin so fast after the war. I had imagined that the women must have been shattered by their experiences. Some were. But this book gives insight into the many women who were not. Who somehow coped and focused on the work to be done and not on self-pity. As one woman comments, "Life goes on..."

The Fall of Berlin * * *

The Fall of Berlin is the follow-up book by the author of Stalingrad: the Final Siege. TFOB starts as the Russians cross the German border in East Prussia. For those who are spotty on their post-WWI geography (meaning 99.999% of us), Prussia was is in the Baltics (meaning up by Lithuania) and extended across modern day northern Germany (formerly East Germany), Western Poland, parts of Lithuania, and far southwestern Russia (parts it annexed after WWII from Germany). Much of the first third of the book is about the invasion of Prussia and the attempts by civilians to escape. This was especially interesting to me because I know someone who's mother and grandmother were among those civilians. About 1/4 million civilians were trapped in Konigsberg at one point, completely surrounded by the Russian Army. My friend's mother was trapped there and was among those that crossed the ice of Frisches Haff (a bay) on foot to reach a small spit of land that the Germans still held. From there they walked into Germany through a thin corridor of German-held land to East Germany. Later after the Germans surrendered, they escaped from East Germany to the West.

The Germans civilians in Prussia were understandably terrified of the Russians. They had been inundated by propaganda about how the ruthlessness the Russians and the horrors they would do against Germans. But soldiers who had been on the Eastern Front knew that the Russians would be driven by revenge -- rather than ruthlessness per se. One Berliner recalled being on a subway when an old soldier announced how Berlin would be flattened if the Russians won, "If they win, they will do to us what we did to them." As it was, the Germans of East Prussia were still unprepared for the fury of revenge. The first target as the troops came were women. The book contains many first-hand accounts that any woman spotted was gang-raped by 10 to 40 soldiers at a time. Deliberate shooting of civilians seems to have been rare, however lines of fleeing refugees were repeatedly straffed by aircraft and run over by tanks. I think to understand in part what the Russians did when they came into East Prussia, you have to understand what the German Army did to Russia. The German Army carried out a policy of living off the land (meaning taking food, shelter, firewood, etc from civilians), laying siege to cities, and Slavic cleanings. Slavs were considered an "inferior race" and there was widespread killing of civilians. t is estimated that 11 million Soviet Union civilians were killed during WWII! In addition, the out-matched Russian Army suffered horrific casualties (like 50% or so). Russian POWs were sent to concentration camps and suffered the same fate as Jews; as the Russians came into Poland, they discovered these concentration camps with Russian POWs. I'm not trying to justify their actions, but rather show the context in which they occurred.

The second half of the book covers the race to Berlin and the downfall of Berlin. Surprisingly this part of the book was not terribly interesting (for me). Lots of space is devoted to troop movements (yawn). You don't get a sense from the book about what the civilians in Berlin went through. This is surprising since there were many diaries published from that period. For some reason, this part just seemed a bit mechanical. Basically, the sense you get from the book is that Berlin fell without much of a fight in the city proper and then people started getting on with their lives. That's hard for me to believe. The city was reduced to rubble and the depression among the people must have been extreme. My next book is "A Woman in Berlin" which is a diary from the 9 days of the battle. I expect that this book will give a different picture.

Stalingrad: the fateful siege * * * * *

The battle for Stalingrad was the bloodiest battle in the brutal battles on the Eastern front. After surviving a brutal winter and unsuccessful attempt to capture Moscow, the German Army turned its attention to the east and the Caucaus oilfields. They raced forward rapidly in a headlong rush of one success after another. Then they reached the city of Stalingrad on the banks of the Volga. In difficult fighting they managed to capture 95% of the city, but the Russians held on the the north side of the Volga River and a small strip of land on the south side. For months, the Russians and Germans fought a pitiless street battle in the ruins -- while each day winter got closer. In late November 1942, the Russians executed a large counter attack and successfully surrounded the entire 6th Army, by then numbering only about 250,000 men. The Germans were unprepared for winter, and over the next 2 months, they slowly but surely starved to death. When they finally surrendered in early February 1943, they numbered only 90,000. These were taken prisoner and only about 6,000 managed to survive captivity and make it home.

In total, some ¾ of a million Axis troops (Germans and their Hungarian and Romanian allies) were involved and basically all were killed or wounded, except some 6,000 who were taken POWs and managed to survive Siberian work camps. All and all this represented about 1/4 of the men fighting for the Germans on the Eastern front. On the Russian side, some 1 ¾ million troops were involved and about half were killed or wounded.

This book combined reams of archival material such as letters home, memoirs, and official reports to provide not only a sense of the overall battles, but a feeling for what it was like for the individual soldiers. As the film Stalingrad graphically shows, it was grim for the German soldiers. Although I have to say that after reading the book, the film was not nearly as horrific as the truth. One memorable section in the book describes how the doctors had to scrape the lice off injured men with spatulas before surgery. The movie also is from the perspective of only the Germans. The book gives equal treatment to the Russian soldiers. Russian soldiers experienced some 50% casualties, and some references have said that the average survival of newbies on the front was 1 day. The story of the Russian soldiers is that of incredible courage under impossible odds. Of course, lack of courage or allowing oneself to be captured (translation = not fighting to the death) was punished by execution, but that does not by itself explain the willingness to die shown by so many of the men*. I'm not sure what explains the wanton disregard of soldiers lives by their leaders, however. The tendency of the Russians to do frontal attacks against well-guarded positions was shocking.

The one area the book did not discuss, however, was the perspective of the people trapped in the city and those in the surrounding areas. People were not allowed to evacuate, which meant that the 50,000 or so people living there died. Those able to help with the fight were organized into militia or put to use otherwise. In the end, about 2000 civilians survived in the city through the battle which included some 900 children -- of which all but 6 were orphans. Outside the city, the Germans were living off the land, by taking food from the villages and they dismantled all buildings for their own uses. One must presume that the elderly and children in the outskirts did not fare very well either. The book also discusses the anti-Slavic views of the Nazis. They viewed Slavs as ethnically inferior and subjected them to some of the same extermination policies as the Jews. This was seen most vividly in Poland where there were mass killings of civilians, but also in Russia. The treatment of Russian POWs was similar to that of Jews (meaning sent to similar camps and marched into similar ovens) and was dramatically different than that of American or British POWs. The Russian soldiers were very affected by seeing the treatment of Russian POWs and used this as a justification for their later treatment of German POWs. As the same time, in utter Stalinistic perversity, being taken prisoner was a Russian crime since troops were ordered to fight to the death. Obviously you didn't do that if you were taken prisoner. When Russian POWs were returned to Russia after the war, 2/3s were executed or sent to Siberia(!!)

Overall, this book was very interesting. I had not expected to read this book actually, but I was given it as a gift and couldn't put it down. It's like watching a train wreck; it's mesmerizing. I'm interested in understanding the post-war period in Germany. The fall of Stalingrad is immensely important for this because 1) the casualties were so high so this really affected public sentiment back in Germany and 2) what the Germans did in Stalingrad and in Russia fueled the plundering, murdering, and rape that occurred when the Russians made it into Germany. This relentless drive of the Russians to exact revenge lead to a fundamental difference between East and West Germany. One side was laid waste to and the other side not. The next book this author wrote is the Fall of Berlin, which details this.

* It is thought-provoking that such admirable bravery and self-sacrifice can exist in the same people that a few months later were committing horrific crimes against German civilians in East Prussia. Of course, the German Army did worse to Russian civilians. Although on the German side, attacks against civilians seemed to come from the officers and military tactics that used starvation and ethnic liquidation as a weapon. On the Russian side, civilian attacks (rape, murder, pillaging, squashing with tanks) came from the ordinary soldier while the officers were supposed to prevent this. Clearly most didn't try hard to stop it though.

NAPOLA * * *

NAPOLA (English name: Before the Fall) is a movie set in the National Political Elite schools of the National Socialists (Nazis) in the 1933-1945 period. At the height, there were about 40 of these schools that aimed to turn young men into the leaders needed for for the worldwide German empire. In many ways, this movie reminded me of Dead Poets Society with no Robin Williams character. Saying that, I've just revealed the entire plot -- yes this movie suffers from predictability. But it is well done and the cinematography is very nice.

The film semi-effectively shows how otherwise decent young men could get sucked into and worked up by both the Nazi fanaticism and the seduction of a uniform. Although it really has a Hollywood feel to it so this part seems quite real. It also conveys the "island paradise" aspect of these schools. The film is set in 1943, when the war is going badly and people are really suffering from food-rationing, but the boys have enough to eat and have fun adventures like going gliding. A man who who had been in a Napola commented on this very aspect of the schools. This film ends with the note that at the end of the war, the boys in the schools were sent to fight. They fought fanatically and suffered 50% casualties in an utter waste of life.

For some very odd reason, Amazon classifies this as a gay film (and apparently whoever made the US DVD cover thought the same thing). However, that's like calling the Dead Poets Society a gay film because it involves young men. Before the Fall involves two young men who are close friends, but they are not friends. However, it's true that the main character is a pretty young man who does spend more time than necessary with his shirt off. Personally, I didn't think this was a bad thing.

Heimat (ep 7)

Episode 7 covers the final months of the war. As in previous episodes, it is concerned with the individuals not with what is happening in the country as a whole. It's as if Schabbach is a little enclave, that is affected by the events outside but is much more concerned about it's own little world.

Otto, who in the previous episode learned about his son with Maria, comes to visit. After an ackward beginning, Otto and Maria rekindle their affair. Otto had been so depressed about Maria sending him packing 3 year ago, that he joined the bomb-disposal squad in hopes that he would be blown to pieces. Now, after seeing Maria again, seeing his son, and talking over what happened 3 years ago, a light turns on inside him. He has a reason to live, and he knows the war is near the end. He and Maria will soon be back together. Well, obviously he had die then. Indeed, he gets blown on his next bomb. Later we see Maria biking out on the frozen fields and crying. Ok, ok, I get this already. Maria's life sucks. Shortly there after the war ends and the Americans come to town. The episode ends with Edgar and his wife (who is perfectly and hilariously acted) packing up to leave their house. Edgar's wife is frantically sobbing, then she sees the tall black American soldiers waiting at the door and her old brothel-madam self shines through. She turns to Edgar, and says "I think maybe we can be of use to the Americans". And she's off to smooth-talk the Americans with a glint in her eye.

The 1940 and 1950s in Central Europe: Film

The 1940s and 1950s in Central Europe (Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland) is a historically fascinating and tragic period marked by devastating war and totalitarianism. Below is an annotated list of films reviewed in SunnysideKitchen that are focused on this period. Some of these films were made behind the Iron Curtain. There are a couple dates to keep in mind for these. Stalin died in 1953 after which there was a loosening of the restrictions on the kinds of films that could be made and filmmakers were no longer in the "socialist realism" straight-jacket. So these films span two different eras: before- and after- Stalin's death. The Hungarian films have another important date: 1956, the year of the Hungarian Uprising, after which hard Stalinism returns to Hungary. For the other Warsaw pact countries, 1968 is the more critical year. This is the year of the Prague Spring. After that is crushed, severe film censorship returns for all filmmakers behind the Iron Curtain and things don't get better until the late 1980s when the communist governments are overthrown. Burnt by the Sun (1994) This film is set in the early 1930s, so a bit before the 1940s and it's set in Russia, which is not Central Europe. Nonetheless, it is about an important aspect of the tyranny of communism and Stalinism, in particular, that affected Central Europe in the 40s and 50s -- which was the capacity of the system to turn on it's own followers and use this unexpected violence to control. Directed by Nikita Mikhalkov, one of the most famous modern Russian directors. Ballad of a Solider (1959) Most Americans have no idea of the suffering and sacrifice Russians experienced in the war. This film gives you an air-brushed taste of that. It is a famous Russian film about a young soldier who travels home to help his mother in the midst of the war. Before 1953, all WWII films in Russia had to follow a "great Red soldier" script. After 1953, there are a series of films about the terrible human toll of WWII. This is one of the most famous of those. Downfall (2004) Excellent film on the last few days of Hilter's life when he is in the bunker. Shows the downfall of Berlin. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. The Bridge (1959) An anti-war film made in the late 1950s in West Germany. Shows the home front situation and mentality as the Americans are pressing across Germany. Eroica (1957)Two Polish films on "passive heroism". The first is about a man who is not at all interested in dying for his country, but ends up helping the partisans against the Germans none the less. The second is about a group of Polish POWs who are descending to madness and one who makes an unusual sacrifice to help the group morale. Fateless (2005) Autobiographical film about the experiences of a 14-year old Hungarian Jewish boy who is rounded up and sent to the camps in Poland. Beautiful film. Heimat Heimat episodes 1-7 follow a German family in a small German village through the end of WWI to the end of WWII. We see from their perspective the radical changes that happened: poverty and hardship after the end of WWI, followed by great infrastructure improvement (roads, electricity) and an increase in personal wealth, the rise of the Nazis and war, and then defeat and occupation by the Americans. I found it a bit slow, frankly. Ivan's Childhood (1962) Beautiful yet searing indictment of the brutality of WWII. It follows a 10-year old boy, Ivan, who becomes a scout for the army. Judgment at Nuremberg (1962) Excellent film that explores the culpability of German judges within the corrupt Nazi State and the manner in which people can become morally corrupt even though at each step they take what they believe is the most morally defensible position at the time. LoveFilm (1970) This film is set in the 1960s in Hungary, but it has many flashbacks to WWII and the immediate post-war period in Budapest. By Hungarian director Istvan Szabo. Mein Krieg A German documentary (in German with subtitles) using footage taken by soldiers fighting on the Eastern Front. Even if you can't understand German it is interesting because it shows really what it was like from the heady days at the beginning of the invasion as they moved at full speed to their depressing retreat back to Germany after brutal casualties. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Mephisto (1981) This movie is set in the late 1930s in Germany. Explores the role of artists (and by extension intellectuals) within a totalitarian state. It is a clear metaphor to the moral dilemmas faced by artists, such as the director, working behind the Iron Curtain. The Murderers are Among Us (1945) This movies is set immediately after the war in Berlin. It is one of the most famous of the "Rubble Films". This film show you what Berlin looked like right after the war. Unfathomable. DEFA's first film -- the state film monopoly that started in the Soviet zone of Berlin and then became the GDR film monopoly. NAPOLA (2004) German movie about a young poor man who goes (against his father's wishes) to a National Political Academy (NAPOLA), which were military schools run by the Nazis. The movie is kind of like "Dead Poet's Society" but at a Nazi military academy. Shoah (1985) An impressive 8-hr documentary which interviews people who were in Poland and witnessed aspects of the Holocaust. It includes both people who survived the camps and people who saw the trains or saw the camps from the outside. This is a must see for anyone interested in the history of this period. Sophie Scholl: The Final Days This is a film about one of the few resistance groups in Germany during the war. They were a group of Munich students who distributed fliers protesting the war. After Stalingrad, they produced a flier telling people about the huge casualties and arguing for armistace. They were caught and executed. The film focuses mainly on the trials and the resolve of the students to die for their beliefs. This movie illustrates one reason that there was not much resistance -- an effective police state combined with swift execution for those who dared to question the war. Stalingrad (1993) This German movie covers the bloodiest battle in human history where 1.25 million soldiers were killed and another 1/2 million civilians perished. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Zelery (2003) A romantic epic set in 1945 in Czechoslovakia. A beautiful Czech film that is mostly about village life, but it also illustrates the mass rape and pillaging that Russian soldiers committed as they swept across Central Europe.

Heimat (episode 4, 5 & 6)

Episode 4 is set in 1938. This episode focused on Maria and her feeling of not having lived. An engineer is boarding with the family, and Maria falls for him. They awkwardly get to know each other. That's about what happens. The peripherial stuff is more interesting. We see that the Nazi party has heavily infiltrated society. About a third of the men at a social dance are wearing the Nazi armband, including the engineer that is wooing Maria. However, Maria continues to resist sending her boys to the Nazi Jugend. We see signs of the rapid investment in infrastructure by the Nazi's and their popularity on account of that. We see large movements of young men in work crews for the roads. Maria's sister-in-law, married to the Jewish jeweller, is quite well off. He shows off the most popular item, a silver ring with a skull. This is popular among the men on the road crews. As in episode 3, life seems to be changing very rapidly.

Episode 5 is set in the winter of 1938 to the summer of 1939. Maria and Otto start a relationship. After no word for 12 years, Paul (Maria's husband) sends a letter saying he will visit. Maria is distraught. Otto leaves. Much misery. Ernst (the youngest son) runs off because he hates his father and joins the Hitler Jugend Air Brigade. Anton is eager to see his dad and writes poems for him. Maria and Anton go to meet Paul at the ship, but they don't let him off because he cannot prove Aryan descent. Hilter announces war with Poland saying that Poland attacked first. People do not seem upset but rather determined to beat the Poles. There are a few references to Jews having a hard time. The village is still changing. With the new highway, it is no longer on the route from Prague to Berlin. Everyone passes them by now.

Episode 6 is set during the height of the war 1942. Ernst is now a fighter pilot. Anton is fighting in Russia. Life on the home front has its privations, but is not too bad. In fact, sometimes the women forget that a war is going on. Anton's pregnant girlfriend comes to live with Maria, and she and Anton marry by proxy. A contingent of French POWs are stationed at the village as workers. Weigund (Anton's cousin) is in the SS but has gotten out of combat for medical reasons. He guards the French. He is brutal and heartless. At one point, he discusses in hush-hush terms the 'final solution' and it's clear he knows what is happening since friends in the SS are doing the dirty work. Otto (Maria's half-Jewish lover and the father of her 3rd son) is working on a bomb squad. He is depressed and views himself as already dead.

It took me 5 months to get through this DVD. It covered the pre-war period which was mainly about the changes in the village as the Nazi government put so much work into infrastructure. But not much happened to my eyes. However, I am looking forward to the 3rd DVD which covers the end of WWII and the post-war period.

Heimat episode 7

Eyes are the Portal to the Soul: Differences in Film Representations of War

Written by Kaja A paper inspired in part from a visit to Sunnyside and joint viewing of many of the following films. The other part of the inspiration was a writing assignment in a class on societal perceptions of conflict. Links are to EEH's reviews after Kaja and EEH watched the films together. 

Societies are founded on myths. Whether myths of origin, homogeneity, parity, or freedom, most are constructed and integrated into a society’s precepts based on hindsight and introspection. War myths are integral in a society’s identity and, as such, feature prominently in the form of combat movies. Presentations of war by the media within different countries co-vary with the kind of involvement a state had in the conflict. Factors such as winning and losing, whether a conflict was fought at home or abroad, and collateral damage all bear on how the conflict is represented retrospectively in film. For instance, Germany lost the war, fought on native soil, and suffered massive civilian deaths and as a result, German representations of WWII illustrate absolute war, lack heroism, and demonstrate blame-shifting. Conversely, the US was victorious, fought abroad, and suffered few civilian deaths. As such, American WWII representations consistently present a degree of romantic war, ardent heroism, and moral superiority. Russian war films, however, display similarities to both American and German representations of war. While Russia was victorious and display moral superiority and heroism in WWII representations, the massive civilian casualties prompt portrayals of war as absolute, incomprehensible, and tragic. 

In all three of these countries, retrospective representations of WWII remain consistent over time because of film’s capacity to address underlying social tensions and continue to fight the home front battle. As products of their socio-economic and historical past, directors speak to particular demographics, ideologies, and/or identities. Whatever the intentions filmmakers have, they present in their movies their own visions of an aspect of the larger social reality, even if the effect is unintentional (Sobchack 283). Of particular interest is the “realist” approach to film as a medium for reflecting “real life,” either as it objectively exists or as it is reflected in the minds of the film’s heroes (Shlapentokh 4). These “realist” movies do not allow a viewer to avoid fundamental tenets of the film such as themes of anger, religion, racism, etc. War movies are “realist” movies because they explicitly address a salient feature of societal history. As such, there is a link between these “realist” movies and the inferences one can draw from them. 

Germany Germany’s World War II losses were significant. Of the 69 million German inhabitants prior to the war, approximately eight million died (~5.5 million soldiers and 1.8 million civilians) at a ratio of 108.2 deaths per thousand citizens. Ostensibly, the devastation was all encompassing; it obliterated not only the industry, economy and fundamental infrastructure of the German state, but also destroyed civic pride and cohesive identity. In light of this desolation, Germany’s first task was to establish an estimable position within regional and world economy. However, restructuring the German identity was more difficult. Because the Nazi ideology was closely tied to a traditional Deutsches Kultur such as Volk and traditional heritage (ex. songs appropriated for propaganda purposes), there was no identity refuge upon which Germans could rely. Vergangenheitsbewältigung is the process of coming to terms with the Nazi past (Hake 87). One of the ways which German vilification is attempted to be resolved is shifting the blame to a higher authority, thus attributing the actions of an individual, his country, and his culture to the perversion of the individuals controlling the system. Milgram’s experiment, which examines the effects of authority on individual behavior has helped to justify this transfer of blame (Helm 322-330). When revisiting World War II in film, the Vergangenheitsbewältigung aspects of blame shifting, totality of war, and absence of heroism are consistent across time and space within the context of the conflict portrayal. 

Die Brücke (The Bridge, 1959) follows the story of a group of German boys ordered to protect an insignificant bridge in their home village during the conclusion of World War II. Indoctrinated into the Nazi ideology, each of the seven boys has their own reasons for joining the ranks of Wehrmacht. One joins to protect the fatherland, another to spite his father, and another succumbs to peer pressure and ignores his misgivings about fighting. The range of motivation for joining the war signals to viewers the multiplicity of motivations that brought able bodies to the war. Through these varied motivations, Die Brücke presents the identities of soldiers as breaching the confines of the Hitler Jugend mold. Ironically, the boys’ professor—the very one who indoctrinated them into the nationalist ideology—staunchly opposes the war and pleads the commanding officer to not waste the boys’ lives. Heeding this call and acknowledging the pointless loss of young life, the young soldiers are left behind with an experienced officer. Their stationed location, we discover, is the very place that they had played war games only a week before. In the face of the approaching American army and retreat of cynical the Wehrmacht troops, the absurdity of the situation increases. The fatherly commanding officer is shot by a patrol while getting coffee, the boys systematically die while facing the American army, and finally, the two surviving boys prevent the strategic bridge demolition that had been initially planned by the Wehrmacht. As the closing narrative scrolls across the screen, the viewers are told that the bridge had no value whatsoever. As such, the tragic death of every character, from the commanding officer, to the American soldiers, to the Wehrmacht patrol, illustrates the film’s underlying message: there is no redeeming quality to war—it is pointless. 

More recent films, such as Stalingrad (1995) and Untergang (Downfall 2005), reinforce the message sent by Die Brücke. Stalingrad follows a company of German ‘storm troopers’ sent to fight in the battle for Stalingrad having just completed a tour of duty in Africa. The importance of the city was contingent upon its function as a Russian transport point for oil and supplies. Germany’s defeat at Stalingrad marked a tipping point in the Reich’s war effort. Stepping into the midst of a hellish guerrilla-war, absolute, random, and gritty battle permeates the images that flash across the screen. In addition to the graphic portrayal of war, the film highlights a recurring clash between ranking officers and soldiers. While in die Brücke the commanders closest to the ground were sympathetic and the indictment of the war as a whole translated into an indirect anathema on the leaders, the conflict as it is portrayed in Stalingrad is visceral. One general not only practices sadism on a personal level, by torturing and executing captured Russians, but also forces his perverse pleasure upon the protagonist. This same general starves his soldiers, but simultaneously hoards enough supplies to feed the entire army for a week in a private warehouse. The protagonist is a young German officer who realizes that it is necessary to break from the rules in order to serve his troops. Over time, he changes from an optimistic commander to a shriveled husk; this parallels his shift from a romantic view of war to a realistic perception of war. The commander’s singular goal becomes escape and he sinks to all levels to try and return home from what he deems to be a nonsense war. The perverse nature of war and the sadist general are aptly illustrated when the sadist general crumbles into insecurity when his authority is no longer obeyed. In the closing scene our ‘hero,’ seriously wounded in both legs, freezes to death, sitting in his comrade’s embrace. This film, through degradation of the protagonist’s character, shows the lack of heroism in German portrayals of World War II. Additionally, the sadist general illustrates the causes and havoc wreaked upon the populace by a deranged leadership. 

Untergang marked the 50th anniversary of Hitler’s death at the conclusion of the war. As such, the film addresses the ultimate figure responsible for the German nightmare. It is a tribute to Hitler’s mental degradation and moral dilemma. The events of the movie come at a time when the Clausewitz plan is being implemented and the city is in uproar, having just been declared a front-line city. Constantly faced with his shaking hands, Hitler’s desperation deepens as he continues to hallucinate about the 9th army as the last source of hope for those left in Berlin. Architectural models only serve to remind both Hitler and the viewers of the “true-greatness” that he had had planned for the Third Reich. Now, on the eve of the Reich’s fall, these legacies of Germany’s greatness, are undermined and left unfulfilled. The portrayal of Hitler himself is riddled with controversies. Caught between realizing his atrocities and reconciling the image of a disintegrating individual, viewers are torn between hate and compassion for this perversion of a seemingly fragile mind. However, the fervor with which the Hitler Jugend fight for and commit suicide for the Nazi ideal and their personal dedication to Hitler himself, reminds one of the tragic loss of an entire generation of youthful promise. Notably, one SS soldier epitomizes the underlying guilt presented throughout the film: “just because we are soldiers, does that mean we stop thinking?” 

This question strikes at the core of the issue as it is presented in Untergang. Who is to blame for all of these events, the German people for doubtlessly believing in Hitler, or leaders such as Hitler who led the country down this path in the first place? Confronted with desperate dancing and drunken festivities as the allies approached, Hitler provides a response to this question with two telling statements: “what are young men for,” and “if my German people fail this test, I will shed not one tear for them, they deserve nothing else.” In the first quote, life has lost its meaning and soldiers merely serve as cannon-fodder and thus undermine any and all eloquence about the nobility of war, which he espoused earlier in the film. The second quote, directly challenges the assumption that the events are his responsibility. In essence, this second quote is a rebuke and reprimand of a nation that had placed in him great faith. Ultimately, nothing matters to Hitler. To him, it does not matter if everything is destroyed. When “compassion is a sin, [and] weakness is a sin,” then we know that blame for a national betrayal is a mantel of guilt and authorship firmly imparted by the current generation upon past leaders. 

The German portrayal of WWII wrestles with issues of responsibility, reconciliation, and rebuilding. Even in a film as recent as Untergang, the salient issues are still present. In all three movies war has is devastating, illogical, and entraps the entire society. Shifting the blame to crazed leaders, either Hitler himself or other authorities, these leaders guide the precious and impressionable youth of the country to inevitable death. There can be no redeeming quality about an event which brought so fundamentally changed the fiber and course of history. These three aspects are represented so as a direct result of the absolute defeat in the war. It is my believe that certain factors, such as combat portrayal, can change depending on military involvement in new conflicts. Therefore, were Germany to become more militarily active in the world’s wars, then gradual shifts in presentation would occur. As it is, however, overwhelming emotions of resentment and betrayal seem to still permeate German society, especially in the context of Untergang. Another German war film that illustrates these themes is Die Moerder Sind Unter Uns (The Murderers Are Among Us 1946), which was the first film made in Germany after WWII. 

America 

 In contrast to the devastating effects that German society faced in the wake of war, the US experience was quite different. Not only were the casualties much lower than in German and Russian counterparts (under half a million), but the civilian population remained unscathed by the physical mortification of being present in a war zone. The loss of life averaged only 3.2 per thousand Americans and the war remained a strange and distant event separate from daily life. American involvement in the war dictated that a different set of portrayals be present in its film presentations of battle. 

The war was presented as a moralistic war; it was valiant, relatively organized, and bloodless. Recent films have included more gruesome depictions of violence; however, they continue to present the effort as heroic and morally just, even if somewhat less pristine. Because the US victory sustained a relatively small number of casualties, Americans have come to view the war years as a “golden age” when “a can-do generation of Americans solved the world’s problems” (Dickran 719). Thus, the war was not only a necessary war, but a “good war” as well, justified in retrospect on victorious humanitarian grounds. After all, victor’s justice and rationalization “after the fact as the ‘best war ever,’ redeemed its negative social impact” (Dickran 723). Because of mass media technology, Hollywood movies and photojournalism were forms of cultural production that could address the broad impact of the war on American society.

Ultimately, WWII films are about living and dying, and what constitutes a good life (Basinger 80). The combat movie genre, at least in the US, definitely had addressed questions of ideology as the justification for involvement: “if you had to die young, what would make you a noble sacrifice and what would make it all a waste? What about killing? If you had to do it, did that make you a killer? What about when the war was over, and you returned home, having killed? Would it all change you forever” (Basinger 80). 

Ultimately, the answers lie in the film representations themselves. Saving Private Ryan (1998) was an “occasion for another solemn encounter with the meaning of World War II and should be understood as a last acknowledgement of…a face-to-face salute to the surviving warriors” (Doherty 301). According to Doherty, Saving Private Ryan is best understood as a firm acknowledgement of that generation’s commitment and accomplishments and as a “final act of generational genuflection” (301). With a tag line, “in the last great invasion, of the last great war, the greatest danger for eight men…was saving one,” viewers understand that Saving Private Ryan is the ultimate heroic ideal, romantic in every sense. Smacking of “leave no man behind,” the portrayal of the conflict is un-realistic in the one sense of singular soldier retrieval. The tale is bracketed by the present-day time frame of a graveside visit at the Normandy Memorial Cemetery and by a pair of furious combat sequences. The entry into purgatory begins with a battle overture depicting the Allied landing at Omaha Beach. A man’s intestines spill out of his gut, a face blows apart, a dazed GI with a bloody stump grips his detached forearm, and a wounded man suddenly disintegrates into a shredded torso. These are the terrors, which confront the viewer at home, harrowed by the graphic representation of the war on film. Watching the movie, I could not help but wonder what it would have truly been like; would I display the same seeming resolve and heroism that was flashing before my eyes? As Captain Miller screams, “Let’s get in this war!” the soldiers surge forward into what seems like the apocalypse. There is a combat squad formed to save Private Ryan: an idealized leader, a grizzled veteran, a tough guy, an Italian, a Jew, a compassionate medic, a sniper, a clerk, etc. Private Ryan is himself from Iowa and captivates the heart of the country. This group composition uses broad strokes to cover most American stereotype and to endear and personalize the cost of war. Subsequently, each character is sequentially eliminated and brings the message of devastating, but heroic war to the home front. 

Russia 

 Russia holds the position as a hybrid in style. While Russia emerged as one of the three main victors of World War II, it suffered by far the largest military and civilian casualties of any other state. This is an attribute not only of Russia’s proximity to Germany and the invasion tactics employed by the Germans, but under-equipment and inexperience. As such, the social repercussions of fighting for the motherland and being successful in their endeavors manifest themselves in having fought a heroic just war, but with the underlying current of devastation and war tragedy. During Stalin’s time (1929-53), cinematographers had to obey the official ideology regardless of their personal convictions and ideals. However, after Stalin’s death and the liberalization of the regime (1954-85), film directors were finally able to somewhat express their own views of the world (Shlapentokh 16). Because of the regularized nature of films produced prior to 1953, I will focus on movies that were released during this “liberalized” era. 

The narrative of Ballad of a Soldier (1959) is forthright. A soldier shoots and destroys two tanks, he is commended with four days leave, and he travels home to fix his mother’s roof. The majority of the film takes place on a train and highlights the mechanics and process of returning home. Aloyosh, the soldier, is a character that is identifiably Russian. With Russian height, hair, and build, he heralds the development of a new type of hero within Russian cinematography: true Russians (Shlapentokh 140). As this new type of hero, he embodies a lack of formal education, is good natured, from the country, and dies a hero’s death in an act of martyrdom and symbolic Russo-Christian ordeal (141). 

Aloyosh continues on his journey, one sees through the wagon windows the devastations of war (burned houses, poverty, discarded machines), but his optimism does not wane. Here Aloyosh is a hero, but he is a hero of everyday life. His form of valiance does not manifest itself through zealous disregard for his personal safety, but instead posses a quiet perseverance that appears to be able to get him anywhere, given enough time. Unfortunately, as Aloyosh arrives at home, he only has time for one quick embrace, a kiss, and then departure. Using panning and low-angle shots of his lonely mother, the angles bring a particular emotional aspect of the movie. The low-angle shots establish the dominance of the mother figure, and the pan-shot establishes the bleak landscape that Aloyosh left behind (Dick 12-28). In Russian culture, the mother figure is a particularly strong and important figure; this film in its construct and execution strongly reaffirms this fact (Gillspie 136). 

The epilogue poignantly annotates the underlying devastation of war: “This is all we wanted to say about our friend, Aloyosh. He could have become a splendid citizen, he could have decorated the world with gardens. But he was, and will always stay, in our memory as a soldier…a Russian soldier.” The non-specificity of the tale—we are never told anything about his background, life story, or even hobbies—is such that the film speaks to as many as possible and justifies the loss of many young men who died protecting their mothers and, allegorically, the motherland. 

Mikhail Kalatozov’s Cranes are Flying (1957) outlines several aspects of war: protection of the homeland, heroism, and premature death. What is particularly intriguing is that the hero dies without killing any of the enemy and it is quite possible that he dies without firing even one shot. Yet, he and his comrades are bearing arms. This implies that enemy contact is imminent and that losses are anticipated on both sides (Shlapentokh 136). All of the film’s main characters are patriots, imbued with a heroic desire to defend their homeland and personal lives. Each has his own private life, complicated relationships and strong morals, which only reaffirm his position as a common citizen, not a soldier reared in a crucible of hell. 

Each character comes from a diverse background. A father parts with his family, an intellectual parts with his wife and colleagues, and the hero—Boris—waits among the crowd to bid his fiancée Veronica farewell. As a volunteer, he wants to defend her and the motherland which she embodies; however, they are unable to meet. The hero’s eventual demise, as is consistent with the hero/tragic war duality, demonstrates that Russia’s victory will not lessen the tragedy of an individual’s death or of the collapse of a dream for familial happiness. However, once more, despite the war’s obliteration of his life, his death takes on meaning because he actively protected the lives of others (Gillspie 136). His death occurs on a very personal level. Focusing on the feelings of the mortally wounded hero, Boris’ dying thoughts are of marriage and Russia’s victory. Although his life did not individually save the country, the continued emphasis in Cranes are Flying on aggregate sacrifice, reaffirms the justification of the heavy casualties absorbed by Russia during WWII. Russia is saved from the Nazis so that other people may enjoy their personal and private happiness. 

Elem Klimov’s Come and See (1985) departs greatly from both Cranes are Flying and Ballad of a Soldier by inviting the viewer to witness Nazi atrocities in occupied Belorussia as experienced by the protagonist, Florian (Flor). Flor is an accidental participant in war, a naïve draftee. His mother, left alone with two small children, is unwilling to see her “man” go with the partisans, who at first seem quite sinister (they are portrayed as jaded and amoral). He is a survivor and eyewitness to some of the Nazi atrocities: German soldiers herding villagers into a church and then setting it on fire and tossing back inside the young boy who attempts to escape; dozens of corpses of recently executed villagers are heaped at the back of houses, caught on camera as if by chance. Flor’s mother and sisters are among the dead and after seeing them, staggers off with a few survivors. These men are ambushed on a field as they milk a commandeered cow and only Flor survives. An elderly peasant tries to lead him to safety as the Germans move in and massacre the inhabitants of this village, too. After the debacle, a group of partisans arrive, capture, and execute some of the merciless and barbaric Germans responsible. The manner in which Klimov manipulates his audience, is such that the subsequent cold blood execution of the Germans causes relief and a sense of partially implemented justice. However, the absolute grotesque massacres and Flor’s trials and tribulations see the development of Flor into a hero. 

The representation of brutal war presented here, as opposed to Ballad of Soldier and Cranes are Flying, breaks with the trend seen before. As Suid proposed to be the case of Vietnam on American media, I would suggest that the Afghanistan war had a similar effect on Russia’s portrayals of war—merely to a more polarized extreme. It is striking that the social repercussion of war on society never seem to leave us. With Russian WWII cinema there is was an emergence of the ‘True Russian,’ or a hero who does not represent a socialist society so much as to embody Russia (Shlapentokh 140). Boris and Flor both posses these attributes, however, Aloyosh in Ballad of a Soldier embodies this Russian form of heroism. According to Shlanetokh, these promotions were not perfunctory, but intentional in constructing a Russian identity, because “cinematographers felt it their civic duty to describe truthfully some aspects of their society [and] also wanted to send moral messages that ordinary people would not find in official mass media or education” (Shlapentokh 129). Within the context of making movies that deviated from party guidelines, it is important to remember that antiwar films were seen as tools for dissident behavior (Culber 88). As such tools, the texture, nuances, and messages found in these movies take on greater significance. 

Conclusion Movies are a part of culture and are reflective of shifts in perceptions. If one society is more prone to glorifying war and violence, the trend is predicated on past events and carries through from one generation to the next. Films not only help to reinforce these changes, but also act as chronicles of these changes over time. In the context of WWII film representation, the particular results and incidents each country experienced directly influenced how the media portrayed the conflict. Germany’s presentation brims with resentment, betrayal, and sense of deep sorrow as part of the process of healing while American portrayal generally posses a large amount of moral justification, heroism, and war as not so bitter. Because of Russia’s combination of the three factors, portrayals developed into a form of reconciled nationalism presented through the ‘True Russian’ hero, but the effects of an absolute war were remained. I would propose that it became such a large feature of the genre due to the massive civilian death tolls. I would not, however, anticipate the same representation of absolute war in French movies because the social trauma was funneled through glorification of the Le Resistance. Bearing in mind that identities are constructed and can change over time, there has been a Marked change in the representation of the violence of war itself in US cinema. Any WWII perceptions of American ‘true grit’ as intrinsically superior to samurai fanaticism or storm-trooper discipline was erased by the Vietnam conflict (Doherty 282). As such, the pristine nature of battle itself and its representation rapidly degenerated after Vietnam and became the visceral, gut-wrenching portrayal we see today in Saving Private Ryan or other movies which openly vivisect a victim. Thus, the significantly more aggressive portrayal of German brutality may be a factor of Russia’s involvement in Afghanistan. Comparable in the effects it had on Russian society, Afghanistan dispelled any notion harbored of Russian heroism conquering all. If Germany reasserts military power more forcefully in the future, then I would suggest that there will be a shift in this cinematographic rhetoric as well. 

Bibliography Basinger, Jeanine. The World War II Combat Film: Anatomy of Genre. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1986 Culbert, David and John Whiteclay Chambers II. World War II, Film, and History. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996 Dick, Bernard F. Anatomy of Film. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1978 Doherty, Thomas. Projections of War: Hollywook, American Culture, and World War II. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1993 Gans, Herbert J. “The Rise of the Problem-Film: An Analysis of Changes in Hollywood Films and the American Audience,” Social Problems 11(4) Spring 1964: 327-336 Gillespie, David. Russian Cinema. New York, NY: Pearson Educations Limited, 2003 Hake, Sabine. German National Cinema. New York, NY: Routledge, 2002 Helm, Charles and Mario Morelli. “Stanley Milgram and the Obedience Experiment: Authority, Legitimacy, and Human Action,” Political Theory 7(3) Aug. 1979: 321-345. Kalatozov, Mikhail. The Cranes are Flying. USSR, 1957 Klimov, Elem. Come and See. USSR, 1985 Shlapentokh, Dmitry and Vladimir Shlapentokh. Soviet Cinematography 1918-1991: Ideology Conflict and Social Reality. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter, 1993 Spielberg, Steven. Saving Private Ryan. USA, 1998 Sobchack, Vivian. “Beyond Visual Aids: American Film As American Culture,” American Quarterly 32(3) 1980: 280-300 Suid, Lawrence H. Guts and Glory: Great American War Movies. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1978 Tashjan, Dickran. “Art, World War II, and the Home Front,” American Literary History 8(4) Winter 1996: 715-727