Steve rips Tom Cruise In an Industry of the Blind
I think when you notice your boss shipping trainloads of Jews and gypsies and gays off to be gassed and turned into lampshades, and your big concern is that he may lose a war and cause problems for your country, you can be said to have completely lost sight of the high moral ground. Maybe I’m being unfair to Claus von Stauffenberg–the man Cruise plays–but judging from this quotation about Poland, I sort of doubt it:
The population here are unbelievable rabble; a great many Jews and a lot of mixed race. A people that is only comfortable under the lash. The thousands of prisoners will serve our agriculture well.
Oooookay.
Betsy links to Mark Steyn’s Holiday Cheer
Roger Kimball writes about Sarah Palin,
I know that Sarah Palin is a deeply divisive figure, as much for the Right as for the Left. One of the reasons I so admired–make that present tense, “admire”–her is that, of all the candidates, she was the only one who advocated and embodied the virtue of people standing up for themselves. She was nobody. Her last name was Kennedy. She wasn’t married to a former president of the United States. Her family wasn’t rich. But she decided she wanted to become mayor of her town, and she did it. Then she decided she wanted to become governor of her state: she did that, too, unseating an good-old-boy from her own party. It may be that the word “existential” has never passed Palin’s lips, but she understands the existential value of independence. She knows that big government is intrusive government and that, as Gerry Ford put it, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”
HRW v Hugo Chavez st sycophants: Human rights in Venezuela.
Richard Fernandez contemplates The march of folly
The 3 Amigos Celebrate Success in Iraq… Shine Light on Cut-&-Runners. Check out the photo.
Bear Grylls is the seventh coolest guy of the year. Daniel Craig is fifth.
I think Steve’s being a bit harsh on von Stauffenberg. While he did carry many of the attitudes of the German aristocratic officer class, he and his family were never wholehearted Nazi supporters, and his brothers had contact with oppositionists and coup plotters in the military. As far as I know, Stauffenberg was never a member of the Party.
What I don’t understand is the attraction in a movie about the 20 July plot: they bungled it and were quickly captured and executed. Why would I want to spend $8-10 to see that?
I have to agree with Anthony as it’s the ultimate act of von Stauffenberg that is important after recognizing the disaster that was overtaking Germany and the evil reponsible for it. Not necessarily whether he had modern sensibilities towards various races. And for a change the film show how many people were involved outside of the usual cadre of conspirators that are usually shown.
In Germany, von Stauffenberg is very important, as are Hans and Sophie Scholl. They serve as a counterwieght to any attempts to rely on we-didn’t-know or we-couldn’t-do-anything excuses. They have also helped Germans come to terms with the Nazi era and the Holocaust without descending into a heritable self hate that could lead to greater problems. I haven’t seen the movie, but keeping the von Stauffenberg story alive is important to understanding today’s Germany as well as the past.
When the Nazi party rose to power in 1933, German aristocrats and German military people welcomed them: they much preferred that to teh democracy of the Weimar Republic.
Those who really opposed te Nazis would be eventually dead, prisoners or in exile: while there could be also people who may have kept a low profile or didn’t agree with everything the Nazis did, opposition to the regime from 1933 to the end of WW2 doesn’t strike me as very energetic.
Mind you, I quite like the james Mason film on Rommel, but I cannot help feeling that even if Rommel didn’t agree with Hitler, he -and von Stauffenberg- should have stated so back in 1933.
In the late 1950s (I think) there was a Hollywood extravaganza about WWII that was so uncritical of the German army and so nasty about the American one that “Mad” magazine made fun of it.
I think more books have been written about Hitler than any other historical character. No-one ever became poor selling Nazi-related material. There should be no moral qualms about this film because every film offers a moral dimension. From now till the end of time, the Germans will always be the ultimate bad guys. Pound for pound, the German soldier was the best the world has seen. This film shows that even tyrants have a guardian angel.
Pound for pound, the German soldier was the best the world has seen.
Hmmm… I’d question that assertion and offer as competitors: a) the Roman Army under Julius Caesar; b) the American Army that liberated France; and c) the American Army of today, especially its Special Forces.