The Sixties in Berlin and in Hollywood: City with a Wall in Its Center—The Attempt to Erase the German Past

Berlin was the location in which most of the intelligence operations in Europe have taken place in the first twenty years of the conquest and the Cold War. In November 27, 1958, Khrushchev issued a formal letter to the Allies, demanding that the western Allies evacuate Berlin and enable the establishment of an independent political unit, a free city. He threatened that if the West would not comply with this, the soviets would hand over to the East Germany’s government the control over the roads to Berlin. In the coming months Moscow conducted a war of nerves as the last date of the end of the ultimatum, May 27, 1959, came close. Finally the Soviets retreated as a result of the determination of the West. This event reconfirmed the claims of the West that “the US, Britain and France have legal rights to stay in Berlin.” According to Halle: “These rights derive from the fact that Germany surrendered as a result of our common struggle against Nazi Germany.” (Note 2) The Russians have done many attempts to change Berlin’s status. In 1961 Berlin Wall was constructed, almost without response on the part of the West, and by so doing, the Soviets perpetuated the status quo that had been since 1948. In July 25, 1961 Kennedy addressed the Americans on television, saying that “West Berlin is not as it had ever been, the location of the biggest test of the courage and the will power of the


54
Published by SCHOLINK INC. and it was a great attraction. There were so many stars, dynamic stunts, integrating many scenes of the real invasion, and made it a great box office success. It gained 17.5 million dollars, almost two times of its cost. Throughout the production Zanuck declared time and again his belief that the film was not just a historical description. He thought that it was important to pass the message through the film about the state the world was and the treat on our way of life. It was intended to be a reminder to the people that the Allies fought together and defeated the evil because they were together.
The Longest Day is considered to be one of the most loved, preferred and famous films. It is based on the book by Cornelius Ryan that has an unprecedented distribution, and was sold in the first year in 800,000 copies. (Note 10) Ryan wrote about the invasion to Normandy for the Daily Telegraph of London. Ten years after the war he interviewed more than 1,000 soldiers who participated in the invasion, and later on wrote the book. (Note 11) It would have been interesting to examine the German point of view and interview German soldiers at that time during and after the war. The makers of the film had problem translating all the testimonies into a visual medium. Hollywood described the massive invasion of 175,000 soldiers of the Allies from the US, Canada, Britain and other countries.
There were more than 13,000 aircrafts and 6,500 ships of different types. (Note 12) The film reinforces a patriotic issue, the victory of democracy over dictatorship. The American, English and Canadian soldiers were strong and willing to initiate, they trusted their commanders and their goal, whereas the German soldiers are presented as confused, fearful and without any initiative.
When the film was done, 1962, it was almost 20 years after the end of the war; West Germany was re-armed and joined NATO in order to block a possible invasion from the USSR. The wider goal of the film was to present reconciliation towards the Germans, like the thesis that was raised at the beginning of this research, i.e., the change in the American foreign policy by a more positive representation of Germans in Hollywood's films. For instance, General Erwin Rommel is shown in a sympathizing way due to his attempt to murder Hitler in July 1944.
The genre of war films, which flourished in Hollywood in the sixties, did not focus on the moral significance of the crimes of Nazi Germany and focused on heroism in the battlefield. This emphasis on heroism made vague the significance of war. The description of American soldiers arriving to a concentration camp is fulfilling one's obligation. This issue comes up also in relation to The Great Escape and the Battle of the Bulge, which will be discussed later on.
In the Great Escape, 1963, the image of the German in the first part of the film is innocent and ridiculous, it is easy to convince the Germans with simple explanations and the German is embarrassed and tends to believe what he is told. For example, the American soldier tells him: "The baseball flew so I went to fetch it," and they believe him. The prisoners' attitude to their capturers is degrading, making fun of them. For instance, in the scene of the attempt escape, Steven McQueen who plays Hits, he tries to check the dead area from the guards' angle. After he is caught, he retrieves a cutter for cutting iron from his pocket and volunteers to "admit" that he had tried to escape. His behavior is cynical and sarcastic. The picture changes in the second half of the film, when it goes out of the camp and presents www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 55 Published by SCHOLINK INC.
another German, more sophisticated, more violent, and monstrous, who does not hesitate to act aggressively and pull the trigger. After the aircraft of the pilot Handley falls down, and manages to escape, the soldiers shoot with no real reason and kill Blithe the blind.
The reality outside the camp shows the outside world in a most ugly and cruel way, including different political movements, like the French underground, and this reality penetrated eventually into the camp.
We see the more aristocratic part of the German army as it is dismissed and punished by the monstrous part that have taken over. That is to say Nazism versus being German. The difference between the professional soldiers and the ideological Nazis is emphasized by the fact that even the camp commander fall in the hands of the Nazis although he is part of the German army. The Nazis execute without hesitation by a machine gun 50 prisoners. The game has gone out of control. The rules have been violated, or have never been valid for these soldiers.
There are two main characters in the film: the German camp commander and the SS officer that represent two approaches to the nature of Germans. The camp commander, General von Luger, played by Hans Mesmer, represents the one who knows the rules of the game and is willing to abide by them.
He is a pilot and an officer, and knows the rights of the prisoners, and the rules and the moral codes. He is the highest authority versus the heroes, the prisoners. His figure is shaped cautiously. On the one hand he keeps a tough expression, his body is very erect (like all the German soldiers), his speech is in staccato and confident, he has a high forehead, which testifies of wisdom and determination and his behavior is very formal. On the other hand, he believes that conflicts of interests can be settled through peaceful ways.
The film The Great Escape (1963), presents the German soldiers and generals during WWII in as way that let us understand the German military mechanism. The film emphasized that the German army, in spite of its impeccable order, accuracy and determination is divided internally. The film is divided into two parts, not a one-dimensional evil and threatening enemy, but rather a mechanism that is split between the "good" and the "bad".
The first part is told from a light point of view, and does not present the enemy as a monster or beastly senseless people. The German is presented as tough, but sensitive at the same time, but sometimes ridiculous, and even with a sense of humor. In one of the opening scenes, when the German officer catches the two soldiers who disguise themselves as Russian peasants, he calls them by their names, makes jokes with them and brings them back to their place. He is pleasant and smiling. The choice of the genre of entertaining adventure films enabled the director to pass the hidden message that one can see the German as a potential partner in spite of the war. Furthermore, the potential German partner is presented as unsophisticated and not really threatening. It testifies about the debate of the German representation. It shows how difficult it was to convince the American public of the change of attitude toward Germany and justifying their attitude towards Germany, as it was the national interest to do it at that time. This is why the presentation is dual.
There is a clear division between the German soldiers, the pilots and the air force people and the SS The plot is about an American general who goes crazy and orders to attack the USSR. All the squadron of the strategic bombers is launched to its targets deep in Russia. But the Russians invented a doomsday mechanism that is operated automatically in case of a nuclear attack and destroys the whole world. The crisis gets worse when the president manages to cancel the attack but one aircraft does not receive the cancellation and continues to its target and to the end of the world.
Dr. Strangelove, who is actually Dr. Macordic Liebe (in German: strange love) is a German scientist who is employed in the Pentagon. His figure is based on a number of ex-Nazi experts, who had been recruited to the American defense system, like the engineer of the American space program, Werner von Brown, who was in charge of the V2 rocket program that intimidated London in the forties. He is a disabled person on a wheel chair and limited in his right hand. He suffers from non-volitional movements, like the Nazi Heil salute and addressing the president as Mr. Fuhrer, and he seems crazy in his movements and speech.
The destruction of the world reminds Dr. Strangelove of the time he served Adolf Hitler, and his threats represent some kind of Nazi craziness which derives enjoyment out of the idea of the end of the world. This respected doctor on a wheelchair with an iron arm gets excited to say words like: exterminate, slaughter, sex, and his artificial arm pops up with a distinctive Heil Hitler salute. The danger he represents is also in his influence on aggressive American generals. The film criticizes America of adopting the Nazi militarism that might damage America and peace in the world.
The film was a direct reaction to the Bay of Pigs crisis in Cuba, when the world was on the verge of a nuclear catastrophe. The critics praised Dr. Strangelove together with severe claims. Most of the critics regarded it as a brilliant, merciless treatment of the nuclear crisis.
Dr. Strangelove is the dominant figure in the war room. He suggests a survival of few, ten women per man. The consultants love the idea. In the deep piers life and love would be more mechanical. Dr.
Strangelove would certainly bring about more denial of human traits. This is a hint for Germans and Americans who become more similar to one another. Dr. Strangelove is very ironical. "Peace is our profession," he says. The criticism in this film could not be expressed when McCarthyism was in its prime.
The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (1965) is a more significant expression of the change in List at the beginning of the fifties, and was accused of sympathizing with the communists and he could not work in the US at the time, tries to get even with Hollywood, as well as with the American policy during the Cold War and its human price.
There are two German figures which illuminate the view of the film and its hero: Limas, the hero, is a British spy who is a plaything in the hands of intelligence factors on both sides of the Iron Curtain, and two German figures in the film, Fiddler and Mont. These two Germans represent two archetypes within the ideological chaos: Fiddler, the German Jew, who is a human exception in the alienated atmosphere.
Mont is an ex-Nazi, restrained, arrogant, who is eventually found out to be one of the worse characters.
The film presents the German as nationless, who still carries the rooted stereotypes of WWII. They all wear masks and you can never know the real face of a person and whose side he is. The images of Fiddler and Mont are situated on the two ends of the archetypal German image.
Fiddler, a German Jew, played by Oskar Werner is a typical casting of a Jew: short, dark, gentle with good eyes, wearing a casquette and having an energetic body language. Fiddler is the most human figure in the film after the hero. He is supposed to be a pawn in the hands of the British agency, and try to catch Mont the Horrible. But in the course of the film we learn that Mont is on the British side, whereas Fiddler, the communist, fights for his ideals.
Mont's figure is played by Peter Van Eyck, and he has a smaller volume than Fiddler. He does not exceed the German-Nazi stereotype. Van Eyck played Nazis in many Hollywood films, and was identified with such characters. He has Arian nice face, tough cruel look, and a small mean smile from time to time. Mont is the ultimate Nazi -cold, keeps being clean at work, even in the trial against him he does not say a word, as if it has nothing to do with him, and his spokesman has to do the job. Colonel Hessler is the commander of the forces in the field and he leads a brigade of tanks. His priorities are the army, the uniform, his name and his honor. He is interested that the war would go on and on. When General Kulas, his commander, sends him a girl to be with before the battle, after he has not been with a woman for a long time, he sends her away. Hessler has a strong will to fight, although he knows from 1941 that Germany would not be able to defeat the Americans. Hessler (Robert Shaw) is very high. He cries "Victory!" as his Tiger tanks attack and defeat the American forces in the Ardennes forest in Belgium in December 1944.
"Well, have we won the war?" asks enthusiastically the colonel's assistant (Hans Christian Blach).
"No, we haven't," answers the colonel. "Well, have we been defeated?" concludes the assistant. "No.
we haven't been defeated," answers the colonel. The assistant admits that he, an uneducated person, cannot understand it. "It means victory, because the war will go on," explains the colonel, "and the world won't get rid of us." "But what will be with my sons?" asks the assistant. "They'll wear uniform and fight for their German country." "They will die for their country," he responds. "If necessary, they'll die," agrees the colonel. In this way one can define the essence of life of a German soldier.
"You're crazy and a criminal!" cries the assistant. Hessler is a professional soldier. His ideology is to fight until death, but he is not a regular Nazi. The dichotomy between the assistant and Hessler exists also between Hessler and his Nazi commander, General SS Kohler (Werner Peters). When Hessler understands the assignment he has got, he goes for it just because as a soldier obedience overcomes his ideological position. This is a complicated image with positive aspects, while the main criticism about him is his blind obedience, also when his identification with the Nazi ideology is not full.
The ordinary Germans, whom we are supposed to accept as potential allies are represented by Konrad, colonel Hessler's personal driver. All Konrad wants is to go back to his home and to his sons he longs to see. Konrad understands that the Germans have lost the war, and when he sees that his commander, Hessler, is willing to go on fighting, he requests to go to another position. At the end of the film we see Konrad throws his weapon and his military equipment and goes home smiling by foot to Germany.
That is, Germany's future is by choosing life, not nurturing warfare. Germany has to throw militarism away, and if it does so, one can even like it, as insinuates Konrad's kind smile.
The relationships among the Germans are strictly military, but there is a comradeship, which can be seen in their warm relations of Hessler and his personal aide Konrad. The German soldiers seem like tools who are shifted from one place to another. This is an attempt to show how the Nazi leadership exposed the guys who have been left, after most of the men were killed or wounded, as cannon fodder.
There is no dialogue of any kind between the soldiers and their superiors. The connection between Colonel Hessler and General Kulas, his commander, is also cold and military.
The Nazis seem clean all the time, their uniform are well kept and they aspire for absolute accuracy in times. When the Germans catch a grop of prisoners they execute them in the field. The event is based on the execution of 150 Americans. There is a definite difference between the SS and professional soldiers who would not have do so, and Hessler expresses his protest before his commanders about this barbaric conduct. over the country and the British secret service is aware of their activity except in Berlin. The film tells the story of a neo-Nazi organization. The members in Berlin are intelligent and cruel people the British do not know about, and they, these Berliners, kill the two British agents, Metzler and Johns. The agent Quiller gets the assignment to find out where is the base of the organization in Berlin. In the course of his search he meets Inga, a teacher, and falls in love with her. Quiller is caught, interrogated and released by the neo-Nazi organization just to be a target for surveillance. Later on Quiller is caught again and arrives at the house of the organization with Inga's help. The Western agents follow Quiller and manage to catch all the organization's members in the house. At the end it is found out that Inga is also a member in the organization.
The film deals with an attempt to revive the Nazi period. October (Max von Sidov) is the head of the organization in Berlin. The leader is wise, charismatic and cruel. The people around him obey his orders quickly and efficiently. He uses cruel investigation methods: injections and psychological work.
"We want to know the location of your headquarters in Berlin, your coding system and how much you know about us, as well as what kind of information your predecessor forwarded to the headquarters.
What is your exact aim in Berlin? You don't have any other choice but to give us the information." Finally, October's patience runs out, and he orders to give Quiller more injections and even kill him after he would lose consciousness.
Quiller is sent to Berlin to substitute the agent who had been killed. In an encounter in the giant stadium of West Berlin (110,000 seats, where Nazi Germany hosted the Olympic games in 1936) with Paul (Alec Guinness), the contact person in Berlin on behalf of the British intelligence, he warns Quiller of the neo-Nazis: "A lot of new blood, youngsters, who seriously believe, is very dangerous. One should not under estimate them, it is all quite complicated. It is hard to identify them; nobody wears a brown shirt, very difficult to identify them. They look exactly like any other German, dealing with various things, but they are cautious and very wise. Now they look like everybody else.
It is curious, don't you think so? It is all politics.
I tell you what is our task. Our task is to get into the heart and find the extremists among them. The Nazi-Germans you will be able to identify if you can get close and look at them. Their basis must be found, urgently." (Note 14) The Quiller Memorandum differs from other espionage films in two aspects: the first is that it is not an inter-bloc war, but a war between the regime, which is not defined beyond the fact that its interests are influenced by the Western interference, and the neo-Nazi elements in Berlin, who try to take Germany over. They even have a new Fuhrer. The second is that the film is made with completely new methods.
The two parties are exposed to the enemy. This is a psychological warfare, and there is the question whether every German is a Nazi.
The film was issued to the screens in November 1966 and received varied criticisms. In England it received good criticism. The London times defined it "most refreshing, a thriller in the best classic around every corner. The surprises run as they find out that not everyone is what he is supposed to be.
In the meantime, the audience is in suspense as the music builds up the tension towards the surprising ending.
Patton ( including the best movie, and the best actor for Scott, a prize he refused to receive. Patton is considered as one of the greatest biographical epos that have ever been put on screen, and George S. Scott in the leading role is sometimes considered as one of the greatest appearances in the history of the movie.
Scott and the film in general gained from an intelligent script written by Francis Copola and Edmond H.
North, a strange and lucky couple of styles of writing, which are seemingly not similar. After almost 45 minutes the film focuses just on a small part of Patton's career, starting from his North African journey until the end of the war. There were only a few compromises with history. For instance, Patton wears the uniform of a four-stars general, a higher rank than he had, with the exciting speech to his forces at the beginning of the film. This scene was taken, almost word for word from a speech Patton gave on June 4 th , 1944. This is just one example of the reliability that gives the film its excellent texture. Patton profits also from the extra ordinary technology, especially the cinematography by Fred Concamp and the role of the band of Gerry Goldsmidt. Generally speaking, the film won seven Oscars, including the best actor. Pringle investigates Erika about her past, she evades him. "Women adopt everything that is fashionable," she says, and Pringle teases her" Yes, once it is a hat, another time it is a swastika, and now it is the colors of red, white, blue, and then maybe the hammer and the sickle?" Pringle insinuates allegorically to the American fear of Germany which might betray it.

A Critical Examination of the German Representations in the Films and Their Analysis
The German cunning is represented in Erika's complicated image with her skill of survival. She is cynical and not romantic any more. She used to be the mistress of a senior Nazi, was in the environment of Hitler, suffered from the war, but her determination and seducing sexuality secured her survival during the conquest. This history is described in the songs: "The destructions of Berlin," which refers to the ghosts of the past, "All your sufferings," which refers to the shortage after the war, and "Your sweet tomorrow." These words expressed a hope and even a prophecy of the possible recovery that have occurred indeed with the economic boom in Germany in the fifties.
In the film The Devil Makes Three from 1952 the feminine representation in the figure of Willy expresses the theme of the German that would betray and exploit the West if the Nazis come to power again.
German femininity maintains a cover of fog in the films of the sixties as well. Inga, a school teacher in the film The Quiller Memorandum (1966), is feminine, pretty and smart. She speaks quietly and she helps Quiller find the people who would help him, and so a romantic relation is generated between them. But eventually it is found out that she may belong to the organization too, which remains unsold to the end. A number of questions remain in the air at the end of the film. Although October keeps holding Inga as a hostage, she is released finally and the underground is caught. So does the teacher help these neo-Nazis and does she continue in their way. The ambivalence in the answer to this question is the allegory that Inga represents for Germany as a whole. That is to say that Germany's loyalty and its potential to return to its dark past still exists under the surface, although it is controlled by American or British virility. One can say that Hollywood align itself to a certain extent to the dictates of the American policy toward Germany, but at the same time it cannot leave Germany's Nazi past undealt with.

Representation of Nazis or People Who Believe in the Nazi Ideology
In the time of the Cold War the Nazis are represented in two ways, one comic and the other threatening.
In the film foreign Affairs (1948) by Billy wilder there is an interesting representation of Nazis and followers of the past regime. Captain Pringle sits in his office which deals with de-Nazification. Father and son come to him. The father has a small moustache (like that of Hitler) and he wants to apologize for his son who drew swastikas with a chalk on walls. The father suggests punishing the child severely, while he stamps obediently with his heels. Pringle tells him jokingly that he may put his son in a gas chamber. As Herr Mayer says he would obey, Pringle explains to him that they, the Americans, cancelled the gas chambers, and they can go home. Herr Mayer stamps with his feet, and when Pringle says people do not do it any more, he bows and turns around, and we see a swastika on his back. Like in the story of the where the child shouts that the king is naked, here too the child exposes the real spirit of the Germans who have not yet left Nazism.
In the film Berlin Express (1948), the Nazi underground believes that a state of war is the ideal state for Germany. As far as they are concerned, every means is possible to achieve this goal. They use German citizens to get information and then kill them. For the same goal the underground members even kill each other. There is no sense of solidarity. All the scenes of the underground are conducted in full darkness, and the faces of the members are vague and everything is seen dark and gloomy. The underground is located in callers under the city of Frankfurt, a symbol that Nazism still lies in ambush in the dark and waits for the right time.
In Stalag 17 the Nazis are presented as caricatures. Colonel von Scherbach tells jokes about the author of White Christmas and how he stole the name from the German capital. He even puts on his boots when he speaks on the phone with his superiors so that his stamp with his heels will be heard in Berlin.
The film presents Nazism as an extreme absurdity. The cultural contempt is strengthened in the characterization of the fanatic guard (Zig Roman), Johan Sebastian Schultz (Roman played Erhardt concentration camp in Lubitsch's film from 1942 To Be or Not to Be). As a matter of fact, Schultz is the only Nazi who shows some kind of compassion toward the prisoners, but the Americans take advantage of this weakness. The prisoners call him Schwinhund-a pig son of a bitch, which is very dissociable.
Price (Peter Graves) the security officer of the barracks, the chosen leader of the escape committee is to be found as the real traitor, as he acts from a real commitment to Nazism. Price used the queen of the Chess game as a letter box and the cable of the electric bulb in order to pass messages to the Nazis.
Price was a Nazi, whose name was probably Preissiger or Preishopper. He lived in Cleveland in the US, but when the war burst out, he returned to his homeland as a good Nazi. He spoke English and therefore has become a spy. He was the informer of barracks 4.
The first film that confronted directly the Cold War is the satire One, Two, Three by Billy Wilder (1961). There is a German who tries very hard to erase his former identity as a Nazi. But there is one www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 64 Published by SCHOLINK INC.
common characteristic to all the images, both Western and Eastern Germans, and this is their inability to erase their Nazi character, the Nazi essence that presents loyalty and a blind devotion to the ideal, tough discipline and obsessive rationalism, and longing to the heroic past of Germany, which reverberate in each of the German figures. There are three figures of ex-Nazis and Western Germans: McNamara: And did you object to the Nazis and didn't love Adolf?
Schlemer: Which Adolf? Where I was I didn't know anything, they didn't tell me.
This example represents the subterranean flow that went on in Germany. But this distorted and caricaturist Nazism is presented as not threatening and not dangerous.
In the film The Great Escape from 1963, the presentation of the Nazis in the film is greater than that of the ordinary Germans. The Nazi German is more sophisticated. Unlike the ordinary soldiers in the camp, the Nazis are more cunning, suspicious and tacticians. When two of the prisoners pretend to be Frenchmen, the Nazi soldier checks their passes and says "Good luck" in English, and the pretender answers in an American accent, and so his identity is discovered.
The Nazis wear black coats and drive luxury black vehicles. They are hedonists, like the mafia gangsters. In the scene in the café, the Nazis sit there confidently and order wine. They are amused.
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 Until that point we haven't seen soldiers out of duty, which shows the gap between the fighters in the front and the soldiers in the hinterland. In the scene where Dr. Strangelove explains the President of the US how the doomsday machine of the Russians works, the president asks: can't it be dismantled? and Strangelove answers: This is the way it was made, and it was made this way only to deter, to frighten, and as such it is easy to understand and convincing." It explains part of the Berman/Nazi nature, everything is simple, even extermination. Dr.
Strangelove understands the meaning of the technological catastrophe. He thinks that only those who will be in deep mines in the US would survive. The computers will decide who of the Americans would survive so that the President would not have to make this decision. Strangelove tells him that the senior people in the army and the administration have to be among the chosen ones. So Strangelove represents the self-destruction and de-humanization that Nazism represents.
The film The Quiller Memorandum deals with a number of important issues: Who are the neo-Nazis nowadays? How do they achieve their goals? What are their goals? The Nazis nowadays do not wear brown shirts, of something like that," explains Paul (Alec Guinness), the head of the British secret service in Berlin, to his agent Quiller (George Segal). Neo-Nazism lives and kicking under the surface and this threat seems more interesting to the West than dealing with the conflict with the Soviets, and 20 thousand people a day." Here it comes from Berlin again, the fourth time today. I was left with 10 people. How can I exterminate all the people who were left in the camp? The equipment doesn't work, I don't care what they did in Buchenwald, I alone here! Berlin wants me to exterminate everyone who was left in the camp before the Americans arrive. There are 6000 men, women, and children. This man who asked me to do it strolls in the streets. The Americans and the Russians will come to him, and he would tell them: "I have never heard of concentration camps," "there was never a policy of exterminating 12 million people." "This is an invention of the SS, but no one in the government has heard about it." And I'll be here, trying to explain to the Americans. They might not understand what they'll see here. Maybe a German officer obeys orders. The courage to stand in front of the enemy and honor and say: "I fulfilled my duty to my homeland." (Note 20) The speech of the camp commander is a paraphrase of Himmler's Posen speech. This is another component of the problematic representation, since the speech creates an impossible division between Christian and the crimes of the regime. There is a feeling that the film makes a demagogic use of these crimes. Killing Christian, who is full of guilt feelings, becomes a kind of atonement for the Germans.
One may feel this was what one had to do, that is, yes, there were crimes, but most of the Germans were not involved in them. We are left with the message that the Germans were the victims of the Nazis because, among other things they were ignorant and did not know about these crimes. Today it seems an absurdity. It is known today and was known then that the majority of the Germans were aware of the crimes of the regime, and certainly the Wehrmacht soldiers that part of them participated actively in these crimes.
In the last scene in Judgment at Nuremberg, 1961, judge Howard (Spencer Tracy) criticizes the Minister of Justice of Nazi Germany, Ernst Janing (Burt Lancaster). The scene begins as Howard enters Janing's cell. Janing tries to start a conversation, but Howard remains loyal to the goal of the visit, which was requested by Janing through his advocate, Rolf. Janing expresses his appreciation to the judge of the way in which he conducted the trial, and asks him to keep for him the records of all the trials he conducted as a judge. A moment before the visit ends, Janing tries to address Howard in an intimate tone. He asks him to believe him that he did not know of the "things" that happened (the atrocities and the extermination). This was not what we wanted, he says. Howard answers him, and this is also the bottom line of the film: "It came to this the moment you sentenced death to an innocent person." Then he turns to go out of the cell and does not give Janing a private moral acquittal, he had asked for.
In this case the ordinary Germans are convicted, which is contrary to their representation in Hollywood.
This case emphasizes the problematic nature of the limitations Hollywood put upon itself due to the needs of the administration, needs that have been answered during the fifties and the early sixties, which released Hollywood from the threatening grip of McCarthyism.
The film The Longest Day (1962) describes the German and the Allies perspective on the D-Day, the invasion to Normandy on 6.6.1944. The German soldiers seem neat in their uniform and conduct. They www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 68 Published by SCHOLINK INC.
do not believe that the Allies will attack although they catch a coded message that the invasion is going to be carried out. The German generals and other high officers shift between loyalty to Hitler and hatred towards him, and the basic feeling of fear of him. Even when the Fuhrer's opinion is needed, they do not call him because he has taken a sleeping pill and he rests at the moment.
The Germans seem quite complacent and with self-confidence. Rommel, the general commander, receives the announcement about the invasion at home, as he went home to celebrate his wife's birthday.
The relationships amongst the Germans are cold with no emotional expressions, and their speech is sharp, clear cut and violent.
In the Great Escape, 1963, the image of the German in the first part of the film is innocent and ridiculous, it is easy to convince the Germans with simple explanations and the German is embarrassed and tends to believe what he is told. For example, the American soldier tells him: "The baseball flew so I went to fetch it," and they believe him. The prisoners' attitude to their capturers is degrading, making fun of them. For instance, in the scene of the attempt escape, Steven McQueen who plays Hits, he tries to check the dead area from the guards' angle. After he is caught, he retrieves a cutter for cutting iron from his pocket and volunteers to "admit" that he had tried to escape. His behavior is cynical and sarcastic. The picture changes in the second half of the film, when it goes out of the camp and presents another German, more sophisticated, more violent, and monstrous, who does not hesitate to act aggressively and pull the trigger. After the aircraft of the pilot Handley falls down, and manages to escape, the soldiers shoot with no real reason and kill Blithe the blind.
The reality outside the camp shows the outside world in a most ugly and cruel way, including different political movements, like the French underground, and this reality penetrated eventually into the camp.
We see the more aristocratic part of the German army as it is dismissed and punished by the monstrous part that have taken over. That is to say Nazism versus being German. The difference between the professional soldiers and the ideological Nazis is emphasized by the fact that even the camp commander fall in the hands of the Nazis although he is part of the German army. The Nazis execute without hesitation by a machine gun 50 prisoners. The game has gone out of control. The rules have been violated, or have never been valid for these soldiers.
There are two main characters in the film: the German camp commander and the SS officer that represent two approaches to the nature of Germans. The camp commander, General von Luger, played by Hans Mesmer, represents the one who knows the rules of the game and is willing to abide by them.
He is a pilot and an officer, and knows the rights of the prisoners, and the rules and the moral codes. He is the highest authority versus the heroes, the prisoners. His figure is shaped cautiously. On the one hand he keeps a tough expression, his body is very erect (like all the German soldiers), his speech is in staccato and confident, he has a high forehead, which testifies of wisdom and determination and his behavior is very formal. On the other hand, he believes that conflicts of interests can be settled through peaceful ways. Colonel Hessler is the commander of the forces in the field and he leads a brigade of tanks. His priorities are the army, the uniform, his name and his honor. He is interested that the war would go on and on. When General Kulas, his commander, sends him a girl to be with before the battle, after he has not been with a woman for a long time, he sends her away. Hessler has a strong will to fight, although he knows from 1941 that Germany would not be able to defeat the Americans. Hessler (Robert Shaw) is very high. He cries "Victory!" as his Tiger tanks attack and defeat the American forces in the Ardennes forest in Belgium in December 1944.
"Well, have we won the war?" asks enthusiastically the colonel's assistant (Hans Christian Blach).
"No, we haven't," answers the colonel. "Well, have we been defeated?" concludes the assistant. "No.
we haven't been defeated," answers the colonel. The assistant admits that he, an uneducated person, cannot understand it. "It means victory, because the war will go on," explains the colonel, "and the world won't get rid of us." "But what will be with my sons?" asks the assistant. "They'll wear uniform and fight for their German country." "They will die for their country," he responds. "If necessary, they'll die," agrees the colonel. In this way one can define the essence of life of a German soldier.
"You're crazy and a criminal!" cries the assistant. Hessler is a professional soldier. His ideology is to fight until death, but he is not a regular Nazi. The dichotomy between the assistant and Hessler exists also between Hessler and his Nazi commander, General SS Kohler (Werner Peters). When Hessler understands the assignment he has got, he goes for it just because as a soldier obedience overcomes his ideological position. This is a complicated image with positive aspects, while the main criticism about him is his blind obedience, also when his identification with the Nazi ideology is not full.
The ordinary Germans, whom we are supposed to accept as potential allies are represented by Konrad, colonel Hessler's personal driver. All Konrad wants is to go back to his home and to his sons he longs to see. Konrad understands that the Germans have lost the war, and when he sees that his commander, Hessler, is willing to go on fighting, he requests to go to another position. At the end of the film we see Konrad throws his weapon and his military equipment and goes home smiling by foot to Germany.
That is, Germany's future is by choosing life, not nurturing warfare. Germany has to throw militarism away, and if it does so, one can even like it, as insinuates Konrad's kind smile.

Conclusions
In this article I have discussed the way in which the American policy was expressed in the films under discussion. During these years there have been changes in the American policy towards Germany, changes that included a shift from a tough policy that called for punishing the Germans in order to prevent them from developing a military force and a future threat, to a policy that called to rehabilitate Germany as part of coping with the Soviet threat. These changes were expressed in the films I dealt with from various points of view.  In this period we see that Many films which were produced in the fifties and the sixties in Hollywood reflect the struggle between rehabilitating Germany of all guilt, out of political needs and the formal policy of the US in the cold War on the one hand, and trends which have been preserved or aroused again in Hollywood, which refused to purge Germany and the Germans from guilt.

For example
In a historical perspective, the films of this period were a severe accusation against the German elite.
The films which have been produced in the fifties and the sixties questioned Germany's withdrawal from its past, as the Nazi past comes up time and again as a bothering reminder, like the films One, Two, Three and Dr. Strangelove and others films.
Hence one may say that there was an objection inside Hollywood's studios to the drastic change in the German representation up to a real purification.
The films raise the question whether all the German people is guilty, or just part of it, and whether one has to differentiate between the Nazi leadership and the people. As we have seen, this issue provided the content for many films in the fifties and the sixties, and the answer to the above question confirms the main argument of the present research: in spite of certain changes in the representation of Germany and the Germans in the Cold War, generally speaking, there was no real change from the representation before the Cold War time. In addition, the films confirms another claim of this research: Although in certain times Hollywood was recruited to serve the American policy towards Germany, it cannot be regarded as an extension of the administration, nor a recruited institution. As a matter of fact, in many aspects, Hollywood raised a voice against the American policy toward Germany, and more than once it even expressed open and hidden criticism of this policy.
When trying to examine the question of representation in the period under discussion, we were three trends: 1) Representations of German women as a metaphor for Germany.
2) Dividing the Germans into two groups: Nazis and other Germans. The first group is represented negatively and the second is usually represented positively.
3) A tendency of ambivalence and complexity in the equivocal meaning of the representation, a tendency that increases in the late fifties and gets more extreme in the sixties.
As a whole, we can learn about the interaction between Hollywood and the administration from the question of the German representation. One can say that this period, 1947-1970, was divided into three sub-periods: a. Between 1946Between -1952 Hollywood was relatively free to describe the situation and criticize it and even the American administration.
b. Between 1953Between -1958, the height of the McCarthyist persecution, Hollywood was very modest and adjusted itself to the winds that came from the administration. In this period many films are done as if according to order.

c. Between 1958-1970 the grip of McCarthyist persecution is loosened and the American interests
in Europe stabilize and Hollywood has a more pluralistic atmosphere.
As the debate about the question of intervention has ended, and the German problem was solved, Germany's weight decreased.
When the Korean War burst out, the political-cultural attention was directed to other parts of the world, and the drama of formulating the foreign policy adjusted itself to other historical and regional circumstances.
Anyway, Germany was in the focus of the ideological-political interest for a period of time, and by describing life under the occupation, Hollywood usually expressed the prevailing opinion in the American public. This stand was generally similar to the stand of the administration, but when there was a contradiction, the relation between Hollywood and the administration was complicated and ambivalent. We have seen this in a number of films, as well as among a number of auteurs who