MovieChat Forums > Der Untergang (2005) Discussion > Something I find intriguing about the fa...

Something I find intriguing about the famous ranting scene

posted 3 years ago by SlackerInc (1107)
10 replies | jump to latest

At one point one of the generals stands up to Hitler, insisting that he cannot allow his troops to be maligned this way. Was this always the case, that the top military brass were powerful enough to get away with this? Or was it a function of Hitler’s diminished power, hiding in a bunker while his country collapsed around him? I assume if in say 1943 some civilian bureaucrat talked to him that way, he would either be shot on the spot or be taken somewhere to be tortured.

[–] KaiMaster (907) 2 years ago

It showed that Hitler no longer intimidated the Generals.

[–] TimeTunnel (4769) 2 years ago

Leastwise one General didn't respect Hitler at all, from the 'beginning'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_von_Saucken

[–] SlackerInc (1107) 2 years ago

Very interesting! It says everyone present was surprised by his seeming insubordination on March 12, 1945. So it would seem that was a new development at that late stage, but of course the scene in "Downfall" is even later. Makes a lot of sense and really fills in the story. Thanks.

[–] TimeTunnel (4769) 2 years ago

Well, many didn't have been fans of Hitler.
In the last real elections in 1933 the NSDAP got 43.9% what's a lot but not the majority. The following elections were farces cause only the NSDAP was left to vote for.

General von Saucken never greeted with the Hitler salute.
Though he still felt like a soldier (as other Generals also) especially in the higher military Hitler and his 'brown gang' were watched critically. For von Saucken the limit exceeded beginning of April 1945 when he ignored orders from the Führerbunker and started "Operation Walpurgis Night", an evacuation plan what enabled about 300,000 refugees to escape to the West from the approaching Red Army.

But you're right, a "civilian bureaucrat" as in your OP would've faced serious consequences if behaving like that and not greeting with the Hitler salute.
It wasn't penally itself but anyone who wants to hang a dog will also find a rope.

[–] SlackerInc (1107) 2 years ago

Even with the general in your cite, it says everyone in the room was shocked by how he behaved in Hitler's presence. We can infer from this that it must not have been at all common even among the top military brass.

[–] TimeTunnel (4769) 2 years ago

Though it wasn't "common" to object Hitler, it wasn't extraordinary either.
And it wasn't as dangerous as often said. No General was put up against the wall for this, in worst case they were relieved of command and transferred to the reserve.
Among them was the best strategist, Generalfeldmarschall Erich von Manstein.
Eventually he contradicted Hitler too often and was dismissed in spring 1944.

In 1945 mostly bootlickers around Hitler were left.
First of all Wilhelm Keitel who liked to be called "Lakei-tel" (Lakai = lackey).
Of course these 'characters' were shocked by von Saucken's behaviour.

Executions occurred in context with the "20 July plot", the assassination attempt on Hitler in 1944.

[–] SlackerInc (1107) 2 years ago

You would think Hitler would have purged the top brass and put in bootlickers earlier, like Stalin did; but maybe they wouldn't have had the battlefield successes they did without those guys.

[–] Techto (1374) 3 days ago

At one point in the film, after raging about widespread insubordination and incompetence, Hitler rues that he didn’t follow Stalin’s example and have all of his generals killed.

Historian Stephen Kotkin says that both the Russian and German generals who survived the war frequently claimed credit for battlefield successes and blamed the failures on Stalin and Hitler, respectively. The truth, Kotkin says, is that while neither Stalin nor Hitler were military geniuses and both made many mistakes, they weren’t nearly as feckless as their generals made them out to be.

[–] Aylmer (539) 3 days ago

I think it's folly to think that the Germans were quite as internally heartless as a lot of Western media would have you believe. While complicit in numerous war crimes and atrocities, I don't think there were were any examples I can think of where a general was executed for anything other than being connected with one of the failed plots to kill Hitler (like Rommel after July 20). Most likely if they mouthed off too much, they'd simply lose their job or get transferred like what happened to Manstein or most of the initial generals behind Barbarossa (like Von Bock and Von Rundstedt).

That said, Hitler's inner circle became more and more staffed due to loyalty over competence as the war dragged on. However even among loyalists, there are different degrees of how much resistance they'd put up to him, token or not. General Burgdorf there probably had to step in from time to time to reign Hitler in, both because he believed he needed to, plus he probably felt that Hitler wanted some occasional pushback and criticism. Notice that Jodl and Weidling argue with him as well, making him seemed almost ganged-up on until someone like Goebbels steps in and makes it clear everyone is loyal to him.

I've been around a couple super wealthy/powerful/famous people in my life and most of them didn't want to be surrounded by utter yes-men. They at least wanted a little "token" pushback or else their sycophants are too obvious and they get rid of them. Even people at the very top I think generally want to feel as though their cadre is authentically fans of them, not just mindless yesmen.

[–] Techto (1374) 2 days ago

Well, Stalin killed hundreds, if not thousands of loyal officers on completely trumped up charges, so Hitler comes out looking like the more reasonable military head. Although there was the bloodletting of the ‘Night of the Long Knives.’