Red Baron film celebrates German war hero

Telegraph,co.uk ^ | 01/04/2008 | Harry de Quetteville

[wolf78]

After decades of war-related silence and shame, Germany proudly celebrated a military hero last night, rolling out the red carpet for "Red" Baron von Richthofen.

The new attitude was on display as stars and celebrities, including British actor Joseph Fiennes, were due to gather for the Berlin premiere of a new film about the Baron.

It is set to mark a new departure for German war films, which usually reflect on the extremism, suffering and even lunacy of the Nazi era ­ if they get made at all.

The Red Baron in contrast, portrays a brilliant and honourable military figure whose life and early death in combat Germans can celebrate without blush.

The film, which at £14 million is one of Germany's most expensive productions, stars Matthias Schweighoefer as the renowned pilot thought to have shot down about 80 Allied airmen in World War One.

It is based on a biography of the pilot published last year, which opens with him engaged in a dogfight only to pull out when he sees his adversary's gun jammed.

[Mr. Silverback]

Is it actually your contention that if a country breaks of diplomatic relations with your nation you are justified killing their civilian sailors?

It's amazing how much despicable crap perpetrated by tyrants people will apologize for in order to oppose "interventionism." Wilson was a puke, but he made the right call.

[Mr. Silverback]

Why all the love for Kaiser's Germany? You like monarchies or something? Historic revisionist? Deutchland Uber alles?

I've noticed some people will apologize for all sorts of things as long as it allows them to frame American actions as interventionist. It only means they see meddling where there actually is defense, not that they have an ulterior motive.

[Mr. Silverback]

Nope, can’t say that I have. I think it’s kind of funny to make it out like the brits were bending us over because they took action against an aggressive enemy in a time of war.

[Mr. Silverback]

Read a recent book called "King, Kaiser, Tsar" and you will find that while the Kaiser and Tsar had dictatorial powers, King George V was already largely a ceremonial figure. Britian was a democracy in every sense of the word by then.

[Mr. Silverback]

Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?

A great line in a great film.

[Centurion2000]

One of the most interesting episodes of WW1 (or after) was US forces landing in Russia and kicking commie ass.

That was part of the reasons the Reds didn't like the USA. We were backing the Whites during their revolution.

[Centurion2000]

Why all the love for Kaiser's Germany? You like monarchies or something? Historic revisionist? Deutchland Uber alles?

Yes, because we know that England never had a king or queen. Wilson was the first interventionist. There was also the beginnings of the fall of the USA laid down during his term.

Income tax
Direct Election of Senators

[Mr. Silverback]

When American ships are sunk by another nation's torpedoes, responding is not interventionism. When one nation tries to get another to attack our homeland, responding is not interventionism.

Wilson was a horrible president, but this wasn't one of his mistakes.

[Centurion2000]

Wilson was a horrible president, but this wasn't one of his mistakes.

His mistake was not standing up to the British.

[allmendream]

Any second now this thread is going to break out singing “Deutchland Uber Alles”.

Kaisers Germany conspired against us, trying to ‘give’ Mexico back the territories they lost and calling for the aid of Japan. Meanwhile they sank our merchant ships in international waters.

“NUMEROUS ACTS OF WAR” was the language in the declaration of war that Congress passed. It is historic revisionism to suggest that Germany's actions against us were not acts of war.

What is it with Teutonic apologists and historic revisionism?

[R W Reactionairy]

IIRC true on rotary engines [stationary crank shaft — the rest of the engine with a propeller attached spun around the fixed crank.]

Probably not true otherwise. The Sopwith camel was a rotary powered airplane. Not certain how many others were in service.

[tlb]

>>>I once read a reference to the bio released during WWI, and the Germany censors let slip a passage that for all practical purposes, described the sexual release von Richthofen said he got from downing planes

You might be misinterpreting the section where he said he was a master at working the joystick.

[wolf78]

“NUMEROUS ACTS OF WAR” was the language in the declaration of war that Congress passed.

Because it sounds better than "We got caught red-handed!".

[RushLake]

Perhaps the Zimmerman Telegram?

[Calvin Locke]

Not me, but the guys that actually read the bio. I do believe they said something about the censors probably not being familiar with Freud, though.

[Non-Sequitur]

bump

[allmendream]

They sunk seven our our merchant ships in international waters. They conspired with Mexico to take back Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. They got caught red handed with the Zimmerman telegram, and their belligerence towards our merchant ships were both acts of war.

Spin all you want. Germany is a bunch of losers when they fight wars. They took us on twice and lost twice. Get over it.

[Bringbackthedraft]

It’s too bad Richtofen was on the wrong side...he was quite a young man. ................... Yeah, and had he lived, would he have survived Nuremberg in 1946? Would the Battle of Britain have ended differently? Iffy History.

[wolf78]

They conspired with Mexico to take back Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. They got caught red handed with the Zimmerman telegram, ...

Actually, the Zimmermann telegram literally says: "... it is our intention to endeavor to keep the United States of America neutral." Who's belligerent now? In fact the Zimmermann telegram were completely pointless if the US hadn't entered the war, something that the German Empire never wanted in the first place.

... and their belligerence towards our merchant ships were both acts of war.

After the US supported its old colonial lords with both material and men. The Lusitania was no merchant ship.

Spin all you want. Germany is a bunch of losers when they fight wars. They took us on twice and lost twice. Get over it.

I am not disputing historical fact. I am merely pointing out that in WWI the US took sides with the Serbian terrorists and the French agressors. So be proud of it all you want... *LOL.

[allmendream]

Yes, it would have gone much smoother for Germany if it were unopposed. Of course they were for U.S. neutrality as opposed to U.S. “belligerence” in daring to trade with their opponents and taking umbrage at having our merchant ships sank in international waters. Yet this does not change the fact that they offered Mexico California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona if we did enter the war and Mexico fought on Germany's side. This was also an act of war on their part.

The Lusitania was a British ship. It is not included in the seven U.S. merchant ships the German U-boats sank.

Out ‘old colonial lords’ were then a democracy, and our closest allies, and they have continued to be our closest allies. Germany was a monarchy and an empire and they were not our allies and neither would they be until we had defeated them again in WWII.

We took the ‘side’ that our ships are free to trade with anyone at any time and cannot be sunk in international waters without it being an act of war.

Maybe you think Germany can dictate who we can trade with and where our ships can and cannot go on the open seas. I don't recognize their sovereignty in that sphere, and neither did the U.S. congress.

England is our ally. Germany is either at your feet or at your throat. Good thing we kept them at our feet! Dirty Huns. ;)