The battle of Castle Itter
Here’s quite a story—a description of one of the very last battles at the close of WWII, one in which the Wehrmacht and the Allies fought together against the Waffen-SS.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
I recall reading about this story (and the book) a few months ago. It’s amazing.
I had never heard of this until today. And I agree: why hasn’t anyone made the movie?
Photo of the castle:
http://phila3000.de/JPGS/wq/wq90000-94999/wq91636.jpg
More photos here.
And I agree: why hasn’t anyone made the movie?
The Nazis have been painted as so absolutely evil that redeeming part of their people or forces would not be useful to certain factions.
The same is true of anti Sherman and anti Lincoln propaganda.
Not to be hyper pedantic, but World War II didn’t close until September 1945. All of the last battles, months of them, were in the Pacific. This obviously regards the European theater. Still, a very important milestone.
Castle Itter.
“The Nazis have been painted as so absolutely evil that redeeming part of their people or forces would not be useful to certain factions.”
The Nazis *were* absolutely evil. But anyway, I can think of two major English-language movies off the top of my head that at least partially redeemed some German servicemen: *Valkyrie* and *Cross of Iron*. If those movies could get made (one as recently as 2008), then so could a movie about Castle Itter.
This reminded me of the final episodes of the 70s British TV series “Colditz”, a low-key but well-acted POW drama starring David McCallum and Robert Wagner. It was based on the book by P.R. Reid about his days as a prisoner at Colditz. As the American army approaches the Germans (portrayed as strict, but honourable, Wehrmacht troops for the most part) agree to turn over control to the British inmates but maintain the pretence of still being in charge in order to prevent the SS from storming the castle. German soldiers, under British orders, patrolled the castle with rifles but no ammunition. There is an interesting psychological dimension to this episode as the roles are reversed between guards and prisoners.
eric:
Ooops! Thanks, will fix.
(kcom) Not to be additionally pedantic, but Father-in-Law served in the occupation in 1947-1948 (in SW Germany) and some of the stories he tells of chasing after wanted men even at that late date suggest that the occupation wasn’t all beer-and-fraulein either.
I read Harding’s book and while I thought it was good, I didn’t think the book itself was that great.
But the story itself would make an outstanding movie.
I don’t think the fact that we’re talking about WWII German soldiers would prove much of an obstacle. Not all soldiers we’re Nazis. That’s why Hitler had a second army, the Waffen SS. For the same reason Iran has it’s Revolutionary Guard Corps; the dictators don’t trust the originals.
To the list of movies that didn’t make all German soldiers look like absolute monsters I say we can add The Eagle Has Landed (1976).
As an aside I always thought the actions that made up the Battle of Leyte Gulf provided enough material for five or ten great movies. Yet I don’t know of any; just a few books and some shows on the History channel.
Soviet:
I’ve been watching some YouTube videos regarding various aspects of the Pacific War the last couple of days. I just saw one that talked about the surrender in Tokyo Bay. We occupied Japan after that. My question is, how did that even happen? Where would you even start? It’s a large country and we didn’t have any troops there at all. Normally you occupy a country because you’ve conquered it. But although we defeated Japan we didn’t conquer it. How many days, weeks, months did it take to move our troops in? There would have been plenty of time for guerrilla groups to form but I guess they didn’t. Probably because the emperor’s word was the law and he said no. Or maybe some of that happened but I haven’t heard about it.
The Nazis *were* absolutely evil.
In the sense that Lincoln was absolutely evil to Southern Democrats that liked to use slaves to increase their economic and political clout, yea. It makes for a convenient enemy.
There would have been plenty of time for guerrilla groups to form but I guess they didn’t. Probably because the emperor’s word was the law and he said no. Or maybe some of that happened but I haven’t heard about it.
It’s been documented by the Japanese and American historians in various books like Embracing Defeat by John Dower. The author’s biases are obvious but I have enough secondary and primary sources of information that it isn’t an issue any more.
There were a couple of things that happened which reduced resistance.
1. The Japanese people obeyed the Emperor first, and the military totalitarian system second.
2. The Japanese people were expected by the military totalitarian system to give their lives for the Emperor.
3. When the Emperor told them to surrender, this was like a condemned man having a second chance at life, they went into a kind of euphoria or shock at having a life that they had already accepted was gone. They were dead people living, only at the command of their leader. Many people can empathize with this if they remember what a relief it was to be rescued from a great burden or if a great stress disappeared, or if a love one suddenly came back to life.
4. Most of the Japanese Imperial military bureaucrats and other officers committed suicide. They kind of got rid of themselves.
5. MacArthur refused to punish or kill Hirohito, instead allying with him as a Shogun with the Japanese Emperor, in order to facilitate peace and prosperity, rather than rebellions and rage.
The infrastructure of Japan didn’t exist after the fire bombings. When Americans came in on their tanks, they were welcomed in like the Iraqis did at the Fall of Baghdad. Kids were in the streets asking for chocolate cause they were starving.
In that sense, the Japanese of that time and the Iraqis were much like children, expecting the Americans or their Leader to tell them what to do. The American Reform or MacArthur’s crusade actually, to rebuild civilization in Japan started pretty soon, although a lot of things fell through the gaps. Unlike Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, MacArthur was like a dictator in Japan. A military governorship helped cut away monopolies or other corrupt practices, favoring efficiency above all else. And a people wrecked in economic and spiritual matters, prefers a military dictatorship for security and efficiency.
MacArthur had America’s best interests at heart, and perhaps arguably the Japanese interest as well, regardless of who liked it or not. Unlike Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the executives in charge weren’t traitors.
“In the sense that Lincoln was absolutely evil to Southern Democrats that liked to use slaves to increase their economic and political clout, yea. It makes for a convenient enemy.”
Moral Relativism? Seriously?
It’s a criticism against self righteousness and being morally certain about things that your Authorities told you, but you never in fact verified using your own methods.
Or is JIC trying to convince me is above the average human in this standard of verification and is better than his common man?
So the answer is no, you’re not worth taking seriously.