MovieChat Forums > Diplomatie (2014) Discussion > What happened with helping Cholitz's fam...

What happened with helping Cholitz's family escape?

posted 9 years ago by chuck-526
12 replies | jump to latest

Nordling seems to be completely averse to using force; he seemingly passed up several opportunities to take Von Choltitz's life. Yet if I interpret the end of the film correctly, he wound up doing a very bad thing.

Nordling fingers the golden wedding ring he has, but then walks to a local celebration instead of driving out of town. And the general's trusted driver is waylayed not far from Paris, apparently with the help of information from Nordling.

So it appeared to me that Nordling double-crossed Von Choltitz and didn't help his family escape after all. (Fortunately it turned out okay anyway.) Not nice.

How should I really have interpreted the film?

[–] sjr1991 9 years ago

According to the book Is Paris Burning? (published in 1965 and based among other sources on von Choltitz's 1951 memoir), the long conversation between Nordling and von Choltitz never took place, although there were some discussions between them about saving Paris, but mostly of Nordling persuading von Choltitz to release some 3,000 French political prisoners. There is no reference in that book to Nordling promising to rescue von Choltitz's family, so I suspect that von Choltitz himself wasn't that worried about it. And as it happened, nothing did happen to his family because of the chaos that enveloped Germany following the Allies' advance into that country -- though the war didn't end for another 8 months.

[–] chuck-526 9 years ago

Sorry my question wasn't clear. It's not about what actually happened, but rather about how to interpret the film.

The film made up the stuff about von Cholitz's family being in real danger. Okay, I'll temporarily suspend disbelief until the end of the film. Then the film made up a rescue for von Cholitz's family. And then the film made up yet another part about the rescuer getting captured by the resistance, apparently based on information provided by Nordling. The film writers must have meant something by that ...but what? How was I supposed to interpret the film?

(Partially going with the film, but then switching to what really happened when it gets hard, seems like mixing apples and oranges. If the film presents a bunch of made up stuff, and it doesn't fully make sense, then the explanation has to be inside the film too.)

[–] treppe 9 years ago

I was asking myself the same question about the movie: Should we understand that Nordling (André Dussolier) was a double agent working secretly for the French Resistance? It seems quite clear at the end that he has no intention of helping von Choltitz’s family when he plays with his ring...

[EDIT] Found a comment about the movie (in french) - explaining that the Chanteclair network was a lie and Nordling was simply bluffing.

http://skildy.blog.lemonde.fr/2014/03/10/diplomatie-de-volker-schlondorff-le-probleme-von-choltitz/

[–] Roonil_Wazlib_97 8 years ago

Thank you for that link. That was a very interesting read, though it still didn't answer my question about what exactly were Nordling's motives at the end (see my other post to the OP). How did you find that blog?

Last watched: Cabaret (8.5/10), The Butler (4/10),

[–] Yorke71 9 years ago

I agree that Nordling's offer to help Von Choltitz's family to escape was a bluff, but I think it was defensible within the context of the film. His goal was to save the city of Paris from destruction, not just the buildings and monuments, but thousands, possibly even millions of lives which would have been lost due the flooding of the city. I think most people would agree that the potential loss of a few people is worth all that was gained in the process. Especially since Nordling wasn't directly taking anyone's life, he was creating a situation which would indirectly put their lives at risk. That may be a subtle difference, but it's not a negligible one.

If I were to play devil's advocate, and take the other side of the argument, my question would be how much of what Nordling said was pure bluff, and how much was actually possible? Did the resistance group he mentioned really exist, or did Von Choltitz never hear of it because Nordling made it up on the spot? (My guess is it's the latter). If it really did exist, then he may be guilty of not trying to do more. Also, was the driver waylayed because Nordling tipped off the resistance after the meeting with Von Choltitz, which would seem a little cruel, or before they had their conversation? My guess, once again, is it was the latter, though I have no proof.

The look of guilt on Nordling's face when he is first given the wedding ring leads me to believe that he wasn't callously leaving the family to die, he simply realized that it wasn't realistic (espically, once again, if the network he mentioned didn't exist), and it was justifiable in order to save the city.

[–] overseer-3 9 years ago

If there was any disharmony between the two men then they wouldn't have met again in peacetime in 1955.

[–] Roonil_Wazlib_97 8 years ago

I think most people would agree that the potential loss of a few people is worth all that was gained in the process. Especially since Nordling wasn't directly taking anyone's life, he was creating a situation which would indirectly put their lives at risk. That may be a subtle difference, but it's not a negligible one.

Yes, well said. But to justify Nordling's pragmatism we'd have to know, like you said, that he wasn't callous - or worse, antagonistic - towards the lives of the family. (See my other post to the OP)

or did Von Choltitz never hear of it because Nordling made it up on the spot? (My guess is it's the latter). If it really did exist, then he may be guilty of not trying to do more.

Even if the second connection didn't exist, the first one, the German Mayer, did. He could have at least got the family out of Germany to France. Yet he was attacked by the resistance.

was the driver waylayed because Nordling tipped off the resistance after the meeting with Von Choltitz, which would seem a little cruel, or before

Where did we learn that he tipped them off about Mayer? I seem to have missed that.

Last watched: Cabaret (8.5/10), The Butler (4/10),

[–] Roonil_Wazlib_97 8 years ago

I was also a bit puzzled by Nordling's actions at the end.

Nordling seems to be completely averse to using force; he seemingly passed up several opportunities to take Von Choltitz's life.

He passed up these opportunities because he had no intention of compromising Sweden's position of neutrality before all was said and done in the war. He said something to that effect to the general.

Yet if I interpret the end of the film correctly, he wound up doing a very bad thing.

Yes I think it was the intention of the film to suggest that Nordling was one to use dirty tactics to get to his goals. However, when the goal was the saving of Paris and such a huge number of lives, we can say he was simply a pragmatic.

And the general's trusted driver is waylayed not far from Paris, apparently with the help of information from Nordling.

From what did you infer that Nordling gave information to the resistance to stop Mayer and the driver? That's the part of the ending I don't get. Why would Nordling do such a thing? I understand that he apparently made up the group in Switzerland (Chantecler) that would help the general's family. I understand he lied as it was probably impossible for the family of a general who commited war crimes to get too far once out of Germany, given the shifting situation of the war in France. But why would he actively seek to stop Mayer and the driver from getting the family at least away from Germany and the threat of Hitler?

Last watched: Cabaret (8.5/10), The Butler (4/10),

[–] chuck-526 8 years ago

An answer to one question and a guess at another...

From what did you infer that Nordling gave information to the resistance to stop Mayer and the driver?

Kind of a guess by the process of elimination. Since the driver had just been dispatched and this was a complete change of plans for him, nobody knew where he would be ...except Nordling. So either stopping him was a stroke of rather outrageous luck, or Nordling ratted him out. I can't imagine any other way it could have happened.

But why would he actively seek to stop Mayer and the driver from getting the general's family at least away from Germany and the threat of Hitler?

My guess is Nordling's real goal was to remove von Cholitz from any possibility of doing anything else dastardly in the future, and his family was secondary. Without the driver, von Cholitz himself would have had a hard time getting away. And contrary to Hitler's orders Paris had not been destroyed. Hitler likely would have been so pissed off he'd order von Cholitz shot, and now von Cholitz didn't have an adequate way to escape.

Leaving the family where they were was actually probably the safest: far away from any battle zone, avoiding risky traveling, and without anybody to blackmail Hitler likely would have lost interest in them and just let them go.

[–] Roonil_Wazlib_97 8 years ago

Kind of a guess by the process of elimination. Since the driver had just been dispatched and this was a complete change of plans for him, nobody knew where he would be ...except Nordling. So either stopping him was a stroke of rather outrageous luck, or Nordling ratted him out. I can't imagine any other way it could have happened.

Why assume that the French resistance was specifically out to get him? Wasn't the resistance all over the place having the upper hand fighting Germans? Alfred the driver and Corporal Mayer were Germans and they got stopped. Why is it strange?

My guess is Nordling's real goal was to remove von Cholitz from any possibility of doing anything else dastardly in the future, and his family was secondary. Without the driver, von Cholitz himself would have had a hard time getting away. And contrary to Hitler's orders Paris had not been destroyed. Hitler likely would have been so pissed off he'd order von Cholitz shot, and now von Cholitz didn't have an adequate way to escape.

Hmm I'm not convinced. Do you mean by "something dastardly" that he'd have gone back on his word and still destroyed Paris? But whoever would have been ordered by Hitler to shoot von Choltitz would have gone ahead and destroyed Paris anyway.

Leaving the family where they were was actually probably the safest: far away from any battle zone, avoiding risky traveling, and without anybody to blackmail Hitler likely would have lost interest in them and just let them go.

The family was in Germany surrounded by Germans at Hitler's command (if Hitler cared about them at that point in the debacle, which it turns out he didn't, but that was an unknown outcome). So I think anywhere out of Germany would have been safer.
What do you mean by somebody to blackmail?

Last watched: Cabaret (8.5/10), The Butler (4/10),

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jes' Sayin' (5953) a year ago

On the other hand, "the end justifies the means" was what Nixon used to justify his crimes as well.