The film Valkyrie – how close to the truth?
Just watched the film and quite enjoyed it (once I got over 'Ze Germans' with English accents). I have quite an active interest in the two World Wars and have read quite a few books about them, but they generally are front-line diaries etc. I am also nearly at the end of Stalingrad by Antony Beevor which I want to finish before starting Berlin (which may answer some of my questions).
But – can anyone tell me if what happened in the film had any bearing on reality and whether they really did nearly overthrow the regime?Posted 8 years agoJammy111Member
they did manage to set a bomb off, hitler was hurt and i think a few generals were killed. not sure if they show it in the film but apparently hitler was only saved due to the placement of the bomb- in relation to him it was behind one of the thick wooden legs of the table, hence he didn't get the full effect of the blast.Posted 8 years ago
not sure if they show it in the film but apparently hitler was only saved due to the placement of the bomb-
They explain it in the film that the meeting was meant to be in a closed room in the Wolf's Liar Bunker, but it was moved to above ground with open windows due to the hot weather so the energy of the blast was dissipated through the windows. They do also show the bag being moved but it isn't clear that was meant to have an effect on the blast.Posted 8 years agoTiger6791Subscriber
Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg didn't sgree with the way Hitler was running the war. (it was starting to look like they may loose) I think had they suceeded they would have carried on with the war. I don't think this come out well in the film and is missed a bit to make them a bit more heroic / appealing to US watchersPosted 8 years agoPractical MattMember
This book explains in detail the alternative germany that had been tightly plotted by the generals and it is well worth a read.
Pop fact- the table shielded the blast which was then directed out the windows but it was still benough to blow the Furer's trousers off and out the window 😆Posted 8 years agoSaxonRiderSubscriber
According to William Shirer in his magesterial 'Rise and Fall of the Third Reich', the case that contained the bomb was moved from the top of the table to underneath, which ended up shielding the Fuhrer.
On a separate note…
To the credit of many of the generals and field marshals, of course some may have wanted to continue with the war. Remember that there were military and political reasons for its origins apart from the Nazi purpose. And besides, they had a noble military tradition to uphold. We might not appreciate militarism, but many would have been appalled to see their country disgraced militarily.Posted 8 years ago
I must admit. None of them can claim to be noble. As stated in the Fall of Berlin. The Russians noted that there was no German Resistance to national socialism.
I havent seen the film but I hope it doesn't imply that the conspirators found out about the horrors of what the German military were doing and decided to end it?
The nearest to a national 'hero' should be Rudolph Hess surely? and thats tenuous to say the least.
Saying this- there should be distinction between 'hero and bravery'. On the front line there were many brave men on the German side.Posted 8 years agoduckmanMember
The Prussians wanted rid of the "Bohemian Corporal" so they could allow the military elite to run the country again.The bomb was deflected by the table,thought the room was still some mess!
Hitler had the perceived plotters hung by their tiptoes on piano wire,all filmed for his viewingPosted 8 years agoDickBartonMember
It's got Tom Cruise in it so I reckon it would be safe to say that the fact Germany is at war with the world is correct but the rest of it is done for effect and to make the film 'interesting'…my wife watched it and thought it was good but I can't stomach Cruise so didn't watch it.Posted 8 years ago
Beevor's books should be compulsory reading:
"Stalingrad" Is an epic account of a truly horrendous battle.
"Berlin" is quite unpleasant, due to the accounts of atrocity after atrocity carried out by both the Germans and the Red Army in revenge. Heavy going. If anything is going to persuade you that war is futile, this is it.
"D-day" is Fascinating. What stood out to me was the fanaticism of the SS. It sounds trite, but so much destruction could have been avoided if they'd just given up earlier.Posted 8 years agocranberryMember
Pook – not just Dresden. as the saying goes "we might have been on the side of the angels, but we were prepared to use the tools of the devil to win".
Hora – there was resistance to the Nazi Party in Germany both within the military and amongst civilians. If you wish to educate yourself I would suggest you read Mr Whoppit's link or watch Sophie Scoll – The Final Days
For the Russians to complain of the lack of resistance in Germany given parallels with their totalitarian state might seem a touch hypocritical.Posted 8 years ago
cranberry. It was passive resistance.
If you educate yourself on the days before Hitler took power you will see there was a active cross section of parties (including communist/leftwing parties).
The key word is before.
For all the fault of the Russians. If it wasnt for their involvement we would all be living under a very strange and cruel world now.Posted 8 years agomtbfixSubscriber
"D-day" is Fascinating. What stood out to me was the fanaticism of the SS. It sounds trite, but so much destruction could have been avoided if they'd just given up earlier.
It also picks out Monty as a really quite poor military commander who could not make a decision to save his life mainly due to his unwillingness to lose face.Posted 8 years ago
Its simplifying: The Russians pinned down and destroyed division after division. Just at the battle for Seelow Heights there are estimates of over 100,000 German dead and they are still finding bones now.
I remember one line(from Stalingrad?) that the Russians fired multiple airburst shells into the trees over the fleeing Germans.
If Hitler had never broken his pact with Stalin he would have had a great deal more manpower etc. Mind you he was crackers for not invading Britain.Posted 8 years agonoteethMember
What stood out to me was the fanaticism of the SS
Indeed. My great-uncle (a Captain in the Somerset Light Infantry, part of the 43rd Wessex Division) was killed during bitter fighting with SS troops near Caen. He was 33, and his wife was pregnant with their only son. Although a regular himself, many of the men he served with were TA – west country farm lads facing battle-hardened Panzer Corps, over terrain reminiscent of an earlier war.
Infantry advance on Hill 112.
43rd Wessex memorial.Posted 8 years ago
west country farm lads facing battle-hardened Panzer Corps, over terrain reminiscent of an earlier war.
Yes. When the family friend mentioned above (a fairly tough paratrooper, possibly on his 40th birthday) arrived on the beach at Normandy and saw Caen in flames in the distance he said that he and the other chaps expected to die there. He survived until his mid-90s.Posted 8 years ago
The topic ‘The film Valkyrie – how close to the truth?’ is closed to new replies.