Tom Cruise denied from filming
They had been warned and now Reuters reports that the German Defense Ministry has denied access to military bases to the company who’s producing the movie in which Tom Cruise will play the role of Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg.
In a comment from the ministry the reasons called were dignity and appropriateness and a lack of sincere and respectful depiction of the events of the July 20 plot (a failed attempt to assassinate Hitler) because Tom Cruise is a member of the Church of Scientology.
On the one side, I totally understand the motives here even though in my opinion von Stauffenberg is not the democratic poster boy and resistance fighter – at least not of – excuse my bluntness – the same caliber of Hans und Sophie Scholl.
On the other side you cannot expect that the movie will not be filmed just because we have so high moral standards. So what does it matter if they shot the movie here? Could be worse I guess. And just by the way, the movie will be shot somewhere in Eastern Europe.
Tags: Berlin, gebrüder scholl
> in my opinion von Stauffenberg is not the
> democratic poster boy and resistance fighter
What’s your problem with Stauffenberg? What makes a good “democratic poster boy and resistance fighter”?
In a military resistance which had to fight with own hesitancy and doubts (military honor, oaths to hitler, treason, and the question what to do after Hitler’s death), Stauffenberg undertook the most resolute attempt to kill Hitler. And that after several other attempts by the military resistance failed over the years (Hitler did not show up, bombs didn’t explode, etc.).
Apparently they finally tried again on July 20th although they didn’t really believe in their own success, they did it just out of principle. As von Tresckow said:
“The assassination must be attempted at all costs. Even if it should not succeed, an attempt to seize power in Berlin must be made. What matters now is no longer the practical purpose of the coup, but to prove to the world and for the records of history that the men of the resistance dared to take the decisive step. Compared to this objective, nothing else is of consequence.”
It was far beyond the point where stopping Hitler for mere military and patriotic reasons (to retain Germany’s power at least partially and to get better conditions when making peace) would have made sense (a often heard accusation towards the military resistance).
> at least not of – excuse my bluntness – the
> same caliber of Hans und Sophie Scholl.
The Scholl’s and their friends were very courageous, indeed.
On the other hand, I doubt that they would have been able to change the regime, were the military resistance had at least temporarily a chance for success (afaik Joachim Fest says, that the chances would have been best around 1938/39, when several Generals planned coups, objecting to Hitler’s war plans)
It is surprising that the German government has such a short memory of their track record of the past with Nazism and the Holocaust. Open mouth, insert foot Germans.
“It is surprising that the German government has such a short memory of their track record of the past with Nazism and the Holocaust. Open mouth, insert foot Germans.”
whats that suposed to mean?
Haha… I was waiting for something like that to happen.
@Teebo:
Claus von Stauffenberg was a monarchist who thought – surprise, surprise – that a monarchy would be more appriorate than Hitler’s reign. Where is the democracy in monarchy?
Also, even though he found the raids on the jews “disturbing” (as some historians like to put it), he still performed his duty in the German Reichswehr in WWII and even was awarded for just that.
So yeah, in the end – when he saw that the war could not longer be one – he tried to assassinate Hitler.
I have to agree with the poster here, for sure he is not -the- best example of a resistance fighter.
On the Tom Cruise issue – yeah, he is a Scientologist and uses his “fame” (!!!) to advertise Scientology and to also attack Germany because of the way we “treat” Scientology (which is a cult and nothing else). Aww!
On a sidenote, I read that the production company did not yet even try to get permission to film on grounds of the Defense Military. Which makes all this even more ridiculous because everyone bought into something that is not even an issue – yet. :)
That’s interesting, Angela. The Scientologists have tried to use Godwin’s Law on the German government like that already.
> Claus von Stauffenberg was a monarchist who
> thought – surprise, surprise – that a monarchy > would be more appriorate than Hitler’s reign.
> Where is the democracy in monarchy?
Well, to just peg Stauffenberg as a monarchist is oversimplified IMO. Apparently it’s hard to categorize him politically. His personality would probably fit best into Germany’s monarchy, but I wouldn’t conclude that he was explicitely fighting for a certain form of government. To my knowledge they planned votes in case the coup would have been successful.
He seems more driven by moral principles than a political agenda (including more conservative ones like soldier’s honor).
And actually, I don’t care much.
I’d prefer a monarchist group being able to overcome the NS terror anytime over any group having the “right” ideals but not the means or the will to remove Hitler. I’d be fine with anything that would have stopped the insanity of war and holocaust.
> Also, even though he found the raids on the jews
> “disturbing” (as some historians like to put it),
> he still performed his duty in the German
> Reichswehr in WWII and even was awarded for just
> that.
According to J. Fest, the murder of civilists, jews, commissaries, and the fact that Hitler was leading Germany into a catastrophe, were the major motivations of the Stauffenberg/Tresckow group.
> So yeah, in the end – when he saw that the war
> could not longer be one – he tried to
> assassinate Hitler.
The will to save the greatness of the nation from total defeat was a central motivation in the military resistance, yes, but it was never the only one. And at July 20th, it all already reduced to a pure moral deed, as it was clear that the allies would only accept unconditional surrender.
> I have to agree with the poster here, for sure > he is not -the- best example of a resistance
> fighter.
Well, who is then? I think we do Stauffenberg wrong by nitpicking that he was a soldier and maybe not dedicated democrat. After all, he risked his life, knowing that the chance for success was low, and took the chance trying to kill Hitler (and it’s wasn’t the first try they made). Why should I rate him less than the people from Kreisauer Kreis or Weisse Rose?
@Teebo: Agreed that -it- should have happened. I don’t necessarily rate him less, it’s just a different scale.
Point taken that some of it here was slightly simplyfied, but for sure he was driven by motives which I cannot relate to – at all. Even the moral depiction is just too much on the given timeframe and given the circumstances.
But of course that’s also easier to judge, especially looking from now.
While the discussions regarding the motivations and capabilities of CCvS are interesting and worth pursuing, I will also be interested to see how Cruise, the film’s producers, and the CoS will respond to these decision on the part the Defense Ministry. Given the mania and money available to CoS there is sure to be some blowback – perhaps California will sever diplomatic relations!