
There's something odd about a movie critic who plays the public moralist without the tools of research. Likewise with the screenplay of Valkyrie, a movie that packs into two hours more action than attention to detail.
It's been over 63 years since the end of the Second World War on the European front. But that doesn't stop the less well read from labeling any German with a uniform as an evil Nazi. For them, Valkyrie is confusing.

I'd like to help these poor souls with a reality check. The Wehrmacht, or German armed forces, and the SS were two separate organizations with different philosophies and separate aims. The soldiers in the Wehrmacht were like any, in any army, anywhere. They were sworn to follow orders through an established chain of command, headed by Hitler in 1934 upon the death of Paul von Hindenburg. The SS, on the other hand, were a much newer organization. They were not officially part of the Wehrmacht, but rather, recruited to enforce Hitler's police state -- by whatever thuggish means. Both uniforms were different, the Wehrmacht's being free of the intimidating symbols preferred by the SS.
The lines of duty in both organizations intersected periodically during the War. And likely, there were Hitlerian zealots in the Wehrmacht, as there might have been the odd SS officer with a crisis of conscience. But generally, the perception - from my readings and from my 92 year old neighbour, once a lieutenant in the Polish army - was that the Wehrmacht did not inspire the fear and horror that did the SS. In fact, near the end of the War, the SS "exercised dominance over the Army to eliminate perceived threats to Hitler's power."
This attempt to clarify will not make a difference for the movie critic from Foxnews. Poor Roger Friedman so wants to see evil in all officers of the German army that he wonders if Bryan Singer's Valkyrie is the start of films based on Nazi apologia.

Film critic Manohla Dargis from the New York Times seems puzzled that "there are no discernibly nasty Nazis in 'Valkyrie'." For her, count Claus von Stauffenberg was an enigma of history. And she concludes that the conspirators against Hitler failed because, in the words of an earlier journalist, William L. Shirer, they were "terribly late." Evidently, neither Mr Shirer nor Ms Dargis is aware that there were multiple attempts on Hitler's life. In fact, had Ms Dargis dug a little further (a simple google on dissent + Third Reich would have done it), she would have found more scholarly research. In Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich, historian Ian Kershaw makes clear that there was nothing belated about the German reaction against Hitler. From 1938, 15 known attempts were carried out against the Führer's life. All failed.

Perhaps the film review that most coincided with my opinion was that of Kirk Honeycutt in the Hollywood Reporter. I, too, found the film too hurried for one of historical significance. As a result, viewers of Valkyrie have a slick tale that makes for exciting watching, but not for thoughful digestion.

Accompanying these observations are photos I took in April, 2008 when I visited the bombed ruins of Hitler's miltary headquarters in Poland. Wolfsschanze, also known as Wolf's Lair, or Wilczy Szaniec in Polish, lies deep in the Mazurian forests. It's about half an hour's bus ride east of the large town of Kętrzyn, or what used to be called Rastenburg when the region was part of East Prussia.
View Larger Map
It was here, on a hot July 20, 1944, that Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg detonated a bomb intended for Adolf Hitler. When it went off, von Stauffenberg fled to the nearby airstrip; the waiting airplane took him to Berlin. He was convinced that he had killed Hitler. But such was not the case. Inadvertently, the leg of an oak table came between the bomb and the Führer, merely disoriented him for awhile. As a result, almost ten more months would pass until the German Reich capitulated. And millions more civilians would be sacrificed, among them, Jews and non-Jews alike.

But getting back to the movie... I loved director Bryan Singer's use of film from the era that provided subdued tones. The palette was intriguing in this day and age of more saturated colours. What puzzled me was the choice of Tom Cruise in the lead. What were they thinking? Since when does body language that screams G.I. Joe evoke the spirit of an überaristocratic colonel from a bygone era?