AFAIK this wasn't written too long ago. The writer apparently forgot the scene where the SS-grenadiers (among those who had the Panzerschrek) were shooting the wounded paras crawling away, as they were rushing along; and the scene with the SS-grenadier in the bayonet fight with Mellish (Jewish G.I.) in the room; or the flashing scene after that where another SS-grenadier leapt over a roadblock and clubbed a G.I. with his rifle butt. Spielberg obviously included those scenes to illustrate German brutality.Mr. Steven Spielberg
Dreamworks Productions
10 Universal City Plaza
N. Hollywood, Calif. 91609
Dear Mr. Spielberg:
Permit me, a twice wounded veteran of the Waffen-SS, and participant
in three campaigns (Battle of the Bulge, Hungary and Austria) to
comment on your picture, "Saving Private Ryan."
Having read many of the accolades of this undoubtedly successful and,
shall we say, "impressive," film, I hope you don't mind some
criticism from both a German and a German-American point of view.
Apart from the carnage immediately at the beginning of the story,
during the invasion at Omaha Beach, whereon I cannot comment because
I was not there; many of the battle scenes seemed unreal.
You made some commendable efforts to provide authenticity through the
use of several pieces of original-looking German equipment, for
instance, the Schützenpanzerwagen (SPW), the MG 42s, and the
Kettenkrad.
And, while the appearance of German infantry soldiers of the regular
Army in the Normandy bunkers was not well depicted, the Waffen SS in
the street fighting at the end of the film were quite properly
outfitted.
My comment about the unreality of the battle scenes has to do with
the fact that the Waffen-SS would not have acted as you depicted them
in "Private Ryan."
While it was a common sight in battle to see both American and
Russian infantry congregate around their tanks when approaching our
lines, this rarely if ever occurred with the Waffen-SS.
(The first Americans I saw during the Battle of the Bulge were about
a dozen dead GIs bunched around a burned-out, self-propelled, tracked
howitzer.)
Furthermore, almost all the German soldiers seen in "Private Ryan"
had their heads shaved, or wore closely cropped hair, something
totally in conflict with reality. Perhaps you were confusing, in your
mind, German soldiers with Russians of the time.
Or else, your Jewishness came to the fore, and you wanted to draw a
direct line back from today's skinheads to the Waffen-SS and other
German soldiers of the Third Reich.
Also, for my unit you should have used 18 or 19-year old boys instead
of older guys. The average age, including general officers of the
heroic Hitlerjugend division at Caen, was 19 years!
The scene where the GI shows his Jewish "Star of David" medallion to
German POWs and tells them: "Ich Jude, ich Jude!" is so outrageous as
to be funny.
I can tell you what German soldiers would have said to each other if
such an incident had actually ever occurred: "That guy is nuts!"
You don't seem to know that for the average German soldier of World
War II, of whatever unit, the race, color or "religion" of the enemy
didn't matter at all. He didn't know and he didn't care.
Furthermore, you committed a serious error in judgment when, in the
opening scenes of "Private Ryan" you had the camera pan from the lone
grave with the Jewish star to all the Christian crosses in the
cemetery.
I know what you wanted to say but I am sure that I was not the only
one who immediately thereafter glanced over all the other hundreds of
crosses one could see, to discover whether somewhere else was another
Star of David.
And you know the answer. In fact, you generated exactly the opposite
effect of what you had intended. Your use of that scene makes a lie
out of the claim now put forth by Jewish organizations that during
World War II Jews volunteered for service in numbers greater than
their percentage of the general population, and that their blood
sacrifice was (therefore) higher also.
I visited the large Luxembourg military cemetery where General Patton
is buried and counted the Jewish stars on the gravestones. I was
shocked by their absence.
After World War I, some German Jewish leaders mounted the same ruse:
They claimed then and still do to this day that, "12,000 Jews gave
their lives for the Fatherland," which would also have made their
general participation higher, which it was not. But perhaps
the "12,000" figure is intended as a symbol denoting, "from our point
of view, we did enough."
During World War II, as now, about a quarter of the American
population considered itself German-American. Knowing the patriotic
fervor German-Americans harbor for America, we can be certain that
their numbers in the Armed Forces were equal or higher than their
percentage of the population.
Yet in "Saving Private Ryan" there was not one single German name to
be heard or seen among the Americans.
Did you forget Nimitz, Arnold, Spaatz or even Eisenhower? Well,
perhaps Capt. Miller from Pennsylvania was a German whose name had
been anglicized. In omitting the American Germans you seem to have
taken a cue from the White House at whose contemporary state dinners
rarely someone with a German name can be found.
Well, maybe someone thinks that the abundance of German sounding
names such as Goldberg, Rosenthal, Silverstein and Spielberg
satisfies the need for "German-American" representation.
My final comment concerns the depictions of the shooting of German
POWs immediately after a fire fight. A perusal of American World War
II literature indicates that such incidents were much more common
than is generally admitted, and more often than not, such
transgressions against the laws of war and chivalry are often or
usually excused, "because the GIs got mad at the Germans who had just
killed one of their dearest comrades".
In other words, the anger and the war crime following it was both
understandable and, ipso facto excusable. In "Private Ryan" you seem
to agree with this stance since you permit only one of the soldiers,
namely, the acknowledged coward, to say that one does not shoot enemy
soldiers who had put down their arms.
As a former German soldier I can assure you that among us we did not
have this, what I would call, un-Aryan mindset.
I remember well, when in January of 1945 we sat together with ten
captured Americans after a fierce battle, and the GIs were genuinely
surprised that we treated them almost as buddies, without rancor.
If you want to know why, I can tell you. We had not suffered from
years of anti-enemy hate propaganda, as was the case with American
and British soldiers whose basic sense of chivalry had often (but not
always) been dulled by watching too many anti-German war movies
usually made by your brethren.
(For your information: I never saw even one anti-American war movie--
there were no more Jewish directors at the UFA studios.)
Sincerely,
Hans Schmidt
P.O. Box 11124
Pensacola, Florida 32524-1124
Letter to Steven Spielberg from a Waffen-SS veteran
- Jeremy Chan
- Member
- Posts: 1410
- Joined: 25 Aug 2003, 11:32
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
Letter to Steven Spielberg from a Waffen-SS veteran
- _The_General_
- Member
- Posts: 1532
- Joined: 08 Jul 2003, 11:01
- Location: Netherlands
- Contact:
/Marcushoffman-info.com wrote:Hans Schmidt is chairman of the German-American National Public Affairs Committee (GANPAC) and publisher of the monthly "GANPAC Brief" ($50/yr. [$35 for students and pensioners] $60 overseas). In 1995 he was arrested in Germany and imprisoned for six months at Bützow prison in Mecklenburg, for the "crime" of having mailed his newsletters to Germany.
The 71 year old Schmidt remains unbowed and continues to address American audiences and write his memoirs. His 490 page paperback book, "Jailed in Democratic Germany" is available from him for $25.00 postpaid.
-
- Member
- Posts: 456
- Joined: 05 May 2002, 17:14
- Location: Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
The author appears to know the film pretty well. He probably left those scenes out on purpose. The scene of the ss-grens shooting wounded para's mirrors a scene where paras shoot wounded ss-grens who were wounded by explosives around Tiger tank. Before Mellish was on his back struggling to save himself from being stabbed, The ss soldier was on his back struggling to save himself from being stabbed, from the same bayonet if I remember correctly. Nothing happens in a scene without a reason or without the consent of the director (if he's competent). These mirror scenes were purposely included in the film to show the audience the hell of urban combat and how all sides fight vicously. As far as the last clubbing scene, it was tough, hand-to-hand combat. If you go back and look, I wouldn't be surprised if you see a para beating a German with a helmet or something else. He probably didn't see an anti-German bias in these scenes. I didn't.The writer apparently forgot the scene where the SS-grenadiers (among those who had the Panzerschrek) were shooting the wounded paras crawling away, as they were rushing along; and the scene with the SS-grenadier in the bayonet fight with Mellish (Jewish G.I.) in the room; or the flashing scene after that where another SS-grenadier leapt over a roadblock and clubbed a G.I. with his rifle butt. Spielberg obviously included those scenes to illustrate German brutality.
I never understood the anti-German tag that many have labeled this film with. As I said in previous posts, its the only film I can think of that makes the German soldier (especially the ss) look less violent and less cowardly than his American counter part. As far as the campy, Indiana Jones-style combat scenes, I think that had more to do with Steven Speilberg's action movie background and youth spent watching TV like "Combat!" than his inherent "jewishness", as the author likes to put it.
I was at the 50th Anniversary Ceremony at Normandy (the cemetery in the beginning of the film), and while Stars' of David were few, due to the military rigidity of the graves layout, when you look across those white rows, they stick out. I wonder what Mr. Spielberg thought of this letter. If I got it, I would've thought Mr. Schmidt was a bit of an asshole.
-
- Member
- Posts: 456
- Joined: 05 May 2002, 17:14
- Location: Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
I agree about the shaved heads. And if Steven Spielberg did it to draw comparisions to Neo-Nazis or make the Germans look more menacing, than shame on him. However, it wouldn't surprise me if the idea to shave heads came from one of Dale Dye's ex-jarhead DI's wanting to be a prick or put the extras in the right frame of mind.
One thing i really hate about the movie, is the scene when they are in a town, and there is played some propaganda "The statue of liberty is kaputt". I think it is trying to show how insanely stupid the germans are, by being fooled by souch simple propaganda, and how stupid they are for being influenced by it themselves.
- SeppCaesar
- Member
- Posts: 614
- Joined: 06 Sep 2003, 05:22
- Location: Michigan, U.S.
-
- Member
- Posts: 106
- Joined: 18 Nov 2003, 09:30
- Location: palatka
- Kurz Patrone
- Member
- Posts: 455
- Joined: 17 Jan 2004, 13:03
- Location: Melbourne,Australia
Excellent letter,thats just what i thougth the first time i saw the movie,and im refering only to the militar aspect of it,i enjoy spielberg movies very much even thou he portrays germans as clows.
The first 25 minutes of SPR were one of the best combat sequences,after that it went cartoon way for me,in the last battle theres no way that a waffen ss battalion is going to enter a town without first sending scouts,even worth after they saw the americans on the Kettenkrad,thats just comic to say the least.
The first 25 minutes of SPR were one of the best combat sequences,after that it went cartoon way for me,in the last battle theres no way that a waffen ss battalion is going to enter a town without first sending scouts,even worth after they saw the americans on the Kettenkrad,thats just comic to say the least.
-
- Member
- Posts: 456
- Joined: 05 May 2002, 17:14
- Location: Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
Seeing how foolish alot of the propaganda was on both sides, I wouldn't doubt if this scene was taken from an actual vet's story. Of course the American soldiers will find this stuff comical. I'm sure German soldier got a good laugh from the "Hitler likes to dress like a school girl" stuff too.One thing i really hate about the movie, is the scene when they are in a town, and there is played some propaganda "The statue of liberty is kaputt". I think it is trying to show how insanely stupid the germans are, by being fooled by souch simple propaganda, and how stupid they are for being influenced by it themselves.
Last edited by James Patrick on 11 Apr 2004, 15:18, edited 1 time in total.
- Conacher1941
- Member
- Posts: 913
- Joined: 17 Sep 2003, 23:56
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Sure the veteran SS men would! It's not like they would suspect the "rabbit" of drawing them into am ambush.Kurz Patrone wrote:Excellent letter,thats just what i thougth the first time i saw the movie,and im refering only to the militar aspect of it,i enjoy spielberg movies very much even thou he portrays germans as clows.
The first 25 minutes of SPR were one of the best combat sequences,after that it went cartoon way for me,in the last battle theres no way that a waffen ss battalion is going to enter a town without first sending scouts,even worth after they saw the americans on the Kettenkrad,thats just comic to say the least.
Also they were aparently rather foolish SS troops as they decided that it wouldn't be necessary to check the houses and establishments that lined the road, because we all know that in urban combat only rarely does the fighting take place indoors.
Cheers,
...Conacher
-
- Member
- Posts: 456
- Joined: 05 May 2002, 17:14
- Location: Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
That's a good point, but sometimes I wonder. I remember reading about a major of the 30th ID who was captured during the Ardennes and spent the night being interrogated by Joachim Pieper. For such a bright guy, his techniques and arguments were pretty immature and unsophisticated. Amerika lost the war, the cabal of Jews that secretly runs the world wanted war between the USSR and the West, wunderwaffens would turn the tide of the war. Listening to the major describe it, it sounded like he was being interrogated by a twelve old Hitler Youth.I think it is trying to show how insanely stupid the germans are, by being fooled by souch simple propaganda, and how stupid they are for being influenced by it themselves.
-
- Member
- Posts: 63
- Joined: 09 Jan 2003, 13:55
- Location: Australia
The greatest potrait artist in the world when painting a man cannot put every important event in the subject's life on the canvas.
Likewise a Movie Director cannot put every aspect of a war/offensive in a two hr movie.
Spielberg is an artist (in my view), a public figure, and a man who wants to provide as best he can for his children.
Spielberg lives in a country with many vocal minorty groups pressuring all aspects of society, and as a public figure dealing with a sensitive issue he's going to endure his own share of criticism.
Hollywood is the biggest "money-spinner" film industry in the world and is
a. American
b. historically full of propaganda war movies
Saving Private Ryan is a movie from the American perspective with American heroes. Although more shocking than any other war movie I have seen it does still have the same emotional detachment of the enemy as has occurred in all other war movies.
Spielberg did go to greater lengths to introduce the enemy, but in no way is this a major focus in the film.
Hollywood is an international movie industry and I feel for people ("on the wrong side of the fence") who view the movie and are saddened e.g. those descendants on the losing side or those who experienced war first hand.
I can also sympathise with those Americans who immigrated from an axis nation coming to terms with their conscience, patriotism (to whom) and worry for their families. Saving Private Ryan is not about this issue and thus should not be judged against it. Again there is only so much that can fit in a two hr movie. The masses of war themes available is too great a weight for one Movie Director alone.
One good point about Saving Private Ryan. It has raised the bar in what people expect in a good war movie. So perhaps one day a great war movie will be made that addresses the issues in the letter which is the subject of this post.
With Kind Regards
The Raven's Claw
Likewise a Movie Director cannot put every aspect of a war/offensive in a two hr movie.
Spielberg is an artist (in my view), a public figure, and a man who wants to provide as best he can for his children.
Spielberg lives in a country with many vocal minorty groups pressuring all aspects of society, and as a public figure dealing with a sensitive issue he's going to endure his own share of criticism.
Hollywood is the biggest "money-spinner" film industry in the world and is
a. American
b. historically full of propaganda war movies
Saving Private Ryan is a movie from the American perspective with American heroes. Although more shocking than any other war movie I have seen it does still have the same emotional detachment of the enemy as has occurred in all other war movies.
Spielberg did go to greater lengths to introduce the enemy, but in no way is this a major focus in the film.
Hollywood is an international movie industry and I feel for people ("on the wrong side of the fence") who view the movie and are saddened e.g. those descendants on the losing side or those who experienced war first hand.
I can also sympathise with those Americans who immigrated from an axis nation coming to terms with their conscience, patriotism (to whom) and worry for their families. Saving Private Ryan is not about this issue and thus should not be judged against it. Again there is only so much that can fit in a two hr movie. The masses of war themes available is too great a weight for one Movie Director alone.
One good point about Saving Private Ryan. It has raised the bar in what people expect in a good war movie. So perhaps one day a great war movie will be made that addresses the issues in the letter which is the subject of this post.
With Kind Regards
The Raven's Claw