Historical aspects in the films The Downfall Movie; Days of Glory - Essay Example

?(Add (Add (Add Details) (Add Essays I. The Downfall Movie As I watched the movie ‘The Downfall’, the idea hit me that throughout the period, Hitler was playing against his own people and officers. Admittedly, he wanted to do with his officers what Stalin did with higher order officers. Also, Hitler wanted to do away with the old and the unwanted. This went along with his plan of reconstructing Berlin. The evident dislike of Hitler for the civilians is visible throughout the movie. For example, he tells Speer in a scene “You know Speer, there is an advantage to those bombings.” This is so because in his words, “It is easier to clean up debris than to demolish everything ourselves”. Here, one can see a Hitler who claims that as the war is over, the reconstruction will be quick. As one moves ahead, one comes by more such instances. To illustrate, when Mohnke says that three million civilians have to be evacuated if there is no intention to make a deal with Americans, the response of Hitler is that they have to be cold as ice. That means, he is not intended to waste a moment in protecting the civilians. In his own words, “we can spend no energy on the so-called civilians”. When one remembers the scenes where 12-13 year olds fall prey to the Soviet fire as they promised to their Fuhrer, and the fact that Hitler is in no way intended to protect them, one realizes the fact that the only intention is a wipe out. To illustrate further, when Mohnke asks as to what will happen to women, children and the elderly if they are not evacuated, the response of Hitler is that there is no civilians in such a war. In addition, he states it clearly that if the war is lost, there is no matter in losing the people too. In other words, it becomes more than evident that Hitler is such a man who is sympathetic only towards two things; his dog and his lady secretaries. The rest all are just means to his end. However, when I watched the movie further, I was astonished to see that more provocative statements were in the pipeline. An example is his Operation Clausewitz which results in the evacuation of all offices from Berlin. Thus, Hitler uses Berlin as a front line city, and is not ready to take the civilians to safer places. He says “We would destroy them ourselves”, because according to him, “our people have become weak, and they have to die out.” When one sees the police officers killing old civilians alleging that they are traitors as they tried to escape from the front line, the fact becomes crystal clear; Hitler wanted to get rid of the old and the unwanted ones. In addition is the scene of old people abandoned in hospital along with hundreds of corpses. Moreover, the officers who betrayed him from the very beginning, according to Hitler, will pay for the treachery with their blood. That means, Hitler is very aware about the possible outcome and he wants to reconstruct. In total, it becomes evident that Hitler, at least in the movie, is not a leader of the people, but a man who does not possess even the slightest degree of care for his people. Instead, he is dreaming about a reconstruction of Berlin for which he wants to get rid of the old and the unworthy. For the purpose, he uses Berlin as a front line and makes people pay for their unworthiness. II. Days of Glory The film Days of Glory seems to be another film that depicts how the French treated the Africans during the period of colonization. The film concentrates on the way the soldiers from North Africa recruited into the French First Army are treated by their white counterparts. It seems to me that the westerners used the blacks as mere artifacts that can be used to meet their ends. To begin with, one can see that in the movie, many Berber men join the forces not for the love of France but to fulfill personal needs. To illustrate, Said is a goat herder who is forced to join the force for poverty, and Yassir is in need of booty as it is necessary for his brother to marry. Similarly, Messaoud is thinking about marrying and settling in France, and lastly, there is Abdelkader who is dreaming about the equality of colonized Algerians. However, when one looks into the reality, one can see that the Africans are used as mere cannon fodder by the White commanding officers. To illustrate, in the first mission in the Italian Campaign, the African troops are sent to capture a highly guarded mountain which is under German control. Evidently, the lives of Africans get no importance in the plot as they are made easy prey to the artillery targets. As a result, there is heavy casualty though the troop wins. However, when there are queries about the considerable losses, the response of the white colonel is that “today was a great victory for the Free French Forces”. Similar instances are seen when the troops are on the way to Operation Dragoon. The Africans are denied tomatoes on the ship and a confrontation is avoided as the captain ensures equal treatment. However, the situation does not change even thereafter. On the one hand, we can see the African troops proclaimed as heroes, and on the other, one can see Messaoud falling prey to the French discrimination of prohibiting communication between White women and Arab men. He wants to marry Irene, a White woman, and as he leaves for war, she promises that she will wait for him to marry. However, as the French effectively censor mails between them, they fail to communicate thereafter. More discrimination is in the pipeline, and the point that deserves attention is the effort to capture the Alsatian village. Though the troop manages to reach the village and thwart the German troops, they are not given the kind of treatment they are promised. Abdulkader is the only survivor in the fight. The colonel who promised that Abdulkader would be rewarded comes to the area in a jeep, but he intentionally avoids Abdulkader. Thus, the movie, through a chain of events that portray discrimination, shows how the French utilized the Blacks for their own benefits and how they gave no importance to the lives of the Blacks. In total, it becomes evident that for the colonizers, the Blacks were mere artifacts whose lives possess no value. So, they found nothing wrong in using all possible means including treachery to make the Blacks work. III. World War I A look into the history of World War I makes me believe that the war was the product of treaties and not reasons. In other words, the nations had no way other than joining the war or they were all connected together through treaties. Evidently, the reason behind the first war could be found in the murder of Franz Ferdinand- the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne- by a Serb secret society named Black Hand. In my opinion, Austria-Hungary took this as an opportunity to take aggressive measures on Serb. This is so because Austria-Hungary was instrumental in issuing an ultimatum to Serbia to bring the culprits to justice instantly, and exactly a month after the death of the heir, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. However, the conflict ignited a chain reaction that was set by treaties. Firstly, Russia was bound by treaty to Serbia to provide military support in case of emergencies, and hence, it had no way other than sending troops to Serbian defense. Thus, the involvement of Russia was inevitable when Serbia was involved. Similar was the case of Germany too. It was bound by treaty to help Austria-Hungary. So, when Russia started its military movement, Germany had no way other than declaring war on Russia. Now, when one looks into the role of France, one can see that again, there is the presence of treaty. This time, the treaty existed between Russia and France. So, France got the inevitable role of warring against Germany. Admittedly, question can arise as to how the relatively neutral Belgium had its fingers burnt in the battle. The most reasonable reason can be found in the fact that for German troops, to reach Paris in the shortest possible time, the easiest way was to cut through Belgium. At this juncture, one has to look into the facts behind the role of Britain too. Here, one can see that it had treaties with both France and Belgium. Thus, Britain too was forced to declare war on Germany. The inclusion of Britain meant the inclusion of its many colonies ranging from India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and African nations. Evidently, America and Italy preferred to adopt neutral stands in the beginning. However, the US had to enter the war as Germany continued with its submarine warfare that threatened American commercial fleets. Similarly, Italy did not help Austria-Hungary with which it had treaties. It denied help on the ground that their actions were offensive while the treaty only covered defensive actions. As it found the actions offensive, it joined the other allies. Lastly, Japan too respected its responsibility based on treaties. It had obligations based on treaties to support Britain. So, it declared war on Germany. In total, it becomes evident that the First World War was the result of treaties. In other words, under such a chain of treaties, any event could have led to a World War. To sum up, the First World War arose because the nations, for a long time, had been facing unrest and invasions and were eager to develop alliances in order to ensure their survival. There were nations like Germany that tried to expand their horizons recklessly. Thus, a minor movement from Germany was sufficient to ignite the World War. IV. World War II One can see the reasons behind the Second World War not in treaties but in the aggressive and irrational activities of Germany, Italy, and Japan, and the rather appeasing attitude exhibited by Britain and France. In addition, one can see the inability of the League of Nations too. To illustrate, the Versailles Treaty had taken Germany’s right to have a big army, warships and tanks. The treaty had made it clear that Germany was responsible for the First World War, and hence, it was made to pay 6600 million pounds as damages. In addition, it was deprived of the right to have big army, many naval ships, tanks, air force and submarines. Moreover, Germany was prohibited from developing new alliance with Austria. Admittedly, this Treaty had a huge impact on the German population and economy. They were unable to pay the money. In addition, there was severe unemployment and inflation. So, Adolf Hitler got popularity for his promise to break the norms of the Treaty of Versailles. On gaining power, Hitler immediately started building up military power in blatant violation of the Treaty. In addition, history saw the creation of warships and air force. Admittedly, France and Britain were highly aware of the violation of the treaty and the growth of Germany. However, they considered it beneficial as they thought Germany could be a wall against the Communist invasion to the West. Hitler was not hesitant to violate the norms of the treaty. Though it was made clear in the treaty that the Rhineland area should be demilitarized, the year 1936 saw Hitler entering Rhineland again. Undoubtedly, it was possible for Britain and France to stop Germany from these steps as its military was not powerful enough. However, they just wanted to use Germany against Russian Communism. However, Hitler managed to develop strong ties with Japan and Italy in the period. More atrocities were in the pipeline. Germany entered Austria and took back the land it had lost. Again, the Western nations did not mind to act as they were interested in appeasing Germany. Though it was promised by Hitler that he would not go further in expanding his territory, he again continued the activities, and this time, the victim was the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia. In the opinion of Faber, instead of taking strong steps, the steps again were to appease the Germans, and as a result, the Munich Agreement allowed Germany to have the Sudetenland region if it would not enter the rest of Czechoslovakia (p.10). Again, Hitler was not hesitant to violate his promises, and in March 1939, he took hold of the entire Czechoslovakia. Still, there was no strong reaction from France and Britain except the promise that they would take military action if Germany invaded Poland. Similar was the case of Italy and Japan too. Though Japan entered the Manchuria area in China, and Italy entered Abyssinia, the League of Nations could do nothing to stop the same. Moreover, Britain and France did not like to make Italy their enemy. These inabilities made these powers all the more powerful and aggressive, and the situation culminated in the Second World War. V. Rise of Fascism and Nazism The rise of Nazism, in my opinion, is not just the result of the ideological onslaught by Hitler but the roots of this anti-Jew sentiment can be found in the anti-Semitism that was deep rooted in all European countries at that point of time. In other words, Christianity had the most important role in the rise of Nazism and the Holocaust. To support my point of view, I would like to point out that nearly two thirds of the Germans during that period of time were Protestants and the rest were all Catholics. Also, as Gruner noted down, history proves that most of the Nazi leaders were all Christians (251). Thus, it becomes evident that most of the so called Nazi Germans who engaged in holocaust were baptized Christians who were supposed to practice love, care, and tolerance. Now, I would like to point out that it was not only in Germany that an anti-Jew attitude was evident at that point of time. To illustrate, anti-Semitic practices were very common among the Catholics, and some of them were wearing yellow identification, prohibiting intermarriage, confiscating Jewish property, and even severe practices like ghettoization. No one has forgotten the ferocity in the On the Jews and their lies by Martin Luther, and how it might have led to the creation of Mein Kampf. Thus, what I would like to argue is that Nazism did not arise out of vacuum or from atheism. Instead, Hitler was just making use of an already existing sentiment in order to give some hope to the German people who were heavily hit by the Treaty of Versailles. In other words, religion loses its power and control on the face of poverty. Similar is the case of Fascism too. Just like Nazism, this ideology too took birth in nations where there existed economic and social unrest. While the Nazis found the reason behind the turmoil in the presence of Jews, the Fascists found the reason in lack of cultural and economic control by the state. Thus, when Nazism attacked the Jews, Fascism attacked all racial and religious minorities in order to ensure centralization of power. The kind of rule the ideologies preferred too seem similar in nature. For example, while the Nazis ensured Aryan rule, Fascism advocated plutocracy; or the rule by the wealthy. Admittedly, one can see certain similarities between the ideologies as one looks closer. The first one is the belief that there should be such leaders who are able to command from the above and act with insight instead of merely representing those below. The second point is that both the ideologies looked to establish a unified nation where individual desires of the citizens were of no value at all. Thus, for both the ideologies, it was necessary to have wars and aggression, and morality took a back seat. However, to me, the most striking similarity lies in their hatred for Jews. It was generally found that both the ideologies felt that Jews are a hindrance to national integrity. So, again the reason lies in the Anti-Jew view kindled by Christianity. In total, it becomes evident that Christianity was a driving force behind both Nazism and Fascism. As the religion failed to provide direction in the time of turmoil and poverty, the ideologies took birth, and based on the notion of national unity, the supposedly antisocial Jews were looked down upon. Works Cited Faber, David, Munich, 1938: Appeasement and World War II. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2009. Print. Gruner, Wolf, Jewish Forced Labor under the Nazis: Economic Needs and Racial Aims, 1938-1944. USA: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Print. Read More