Casablanca : Americans + French in Berlin 1918 ?

When remarked about Americans in general, the French Captain Renault replied to the German Strasser don't underestimate American's , as he was with them in Berlin in 1918.

Berlin was never occupied in WW1 by the allies, infact the WW1 ended with the Allies 450 miles from Berlim, this seems a very strange statement.

This is a well known historical error in the film. One of many, and none of them detract from the greatness of the movie.

On the other hand, we know Louis is thoroughly corrupt, not entirely honest and something of a scoundrel, so stretching the truth with Strasser isn't out of character.

Or on another other hand, in a world where non-rescindable, unquestionable German Letters Of Transit exist, so perhaps could a 1918 Allied occupation of Berlin.




Poe! You areavenged!

---

This is a well known historical error in the film. One of many, and none of them detract from the greatness of the movie.

---

Indeed. It was a mildly clever way of noting that Americans helped defeat the German Army in the Great War. Whether they physically went into Berlin is largely irrelevant. A harmless historical goof.

Good point. It would have made more sense if he had said "Germany" rather than "Berlin".

It's not a mistake. The war did end without Berlin being taken, but in the two years after the war, while the millions of soldiers were being returned to their countries of origin (it take a while to 'dismantle' a war), all the Allied powers shared the extensive and in many ways total occupation of Germany. Americans were in Berlin during that period, both as occupiers and as 'tourist' soldiers on leave.

Here's a report on the occupational aspects, including the ruthless disintegration of the Germanic Empire, as well as some of the most severe demands for reparation and war costs in the history of modern warfare. The Americans were major players in defeating, occupying and ultimately humiliating Germany as nation.

The American General Pershing said in 1918 that the war with Germany will not be over until Berlin is militarily occupied. He was right, and many a historian considers the first and second world wars to be the same war with a twenty year break in the middle.

Iow, while the Allied Forces certainly occupied all of Germany in 1918, it wasn't the kind of occupation that occurred in 1945, putting an end to Germany's empirical aspirations, the kind that Pershing wanted to keep on fighting for back in 1918.

http://www.history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/resmat/interwar_years/american_military_government_of_occupied_germany_1918-1920.pdf

In short, not a goof. Renault could well have been in Berlin when the American Occupying Forces (some 250,000 personnel) tore strips off of the German people.

All the little devils are proud of Hell.

Phydeaux50, I cannot access the document you cite, however, I have to express very serious doubts as to the correctness of your comment. Clearly the Allied Powers, as agreed in the Armistice of November 11, 1918, occupied the Rhineland and the Ruhr in the Western part of Germany, but I have NEVER heard even once of a single allied soldier stepping one foot in any other part of Germany, certainly not Berlin. Whatever General Pershing may have said in 1918 (no doubt prior to the decisive offensive) regarding the need to occupy Berlin, I can assure you nothing of the sort happened. In November, 1918 a genuine revolution broke out in Germany (primarily in the eastern parts of Prussia and Bavaria) and the government which took over after the Kaiser's abdication had quite a time putting it down, so the allied powers would have had their hands full if they had mixed up in that situation.

I appreciate that you have studied- it shows in your prose. Here's the cover page from the pdf

---

HEADQUARTERS AMERICAN FORCES IN GERMANY OFFICE OF CIVIL AFFAIRS, COBLENZ, GERMANY.
March 4th, 1920. From: Officer in Charge of Civil Affairs, A. F. G. To: Chief of Staff, A. F. G. Subject: Report on Military Government.

I herewith submit to the Commanding General A. F. G., a report on the activities of the Office of Civil Affairs, from December 1st, 1918 to January 10th, 1920. 2. While principally treating the activities of the Staff section, which during this period has been under my direction, I have never- theless endeavored to give the report a somewhat more ambitious scope, and to discuss therein the entire subject of the American Military Government in Germany. It is hoped thereby, that a complete record of our administration in the Rhineland may be preserved, as a basis for technical study of Military Government by the General Staff of our Army as well as for future historians. 3. Volume I contains a narrative account of the Military Gov- ermnent, while the remaining volumes are devoted to collections of the more important documents. These documents are arranged by subjects, chronologically, in such a way that it is hoped they may be readily accessible to lay student or historian. A number of treatises on various phases of the German body politic, together with essays on the organization for Military Government in the French, Belgian, British and German Armies, have also been incorporated into this portion of the Report. 4. It is requested, that if the approval of the Commanding Gen- eral is secured for this report, it be forwarded to the War Department, for either publication or record, as the Secretary of War may desire.

(Signed) I. L. HUNT, (Typed) I. L. HUNT. ('olo,/!, Infnantry, Officer in Charge Civil Affairs

---

One aspect of your comments supports the idea of an 'American Military Government'- the revolutionary gov. was quashed- how? I doubt it was strongly worded letters. ;)

I believe Pershing's comment was made when he received news of the impending armistice.

All the little devils are proud of Hell.

As I wrote, this excerpt concerned only the Rhineland. Yes, there was a military occupation of a part of Germany (closest to France and Belgium) which lasted until the mid-1930s, but certainly not of the rest.

If you are interested in the instability in Germany in the aftermath of the war, here is some basic information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapp_Putsch

I would also highly recommend the classic account written by Erich Eyck - A History of the Weimar Republic (http://www.amazon.com/history-Weimar-Republic-Erich-Eyck/dp/B0007E5F5Y)

I'd accept that within the scope of Casablanca that the reference to Americans in Berlin was to communicate to the audience that Rick was talking about Germany. The producers may have thought that saying Rhineland was too specific and may not be known/understood by a generation of Americans about to go to war and who were only children when their parents were reading about the American Military Occupation of the Rhineland in the daily news of the post WWI period. Iow, it was licence taken to convey 'Americans in Germany' to an important section of the audience (young) who may be confused by a ref to Americans in the Rhineland.

Back to the original question, which is the focus of my response (were there Americans in Berlin after 1918): there is a world of difference between the occupied territories being the only place Americans were stationed or visited, and the influence of the American Occ Gov had on German domestic policy. I'm not being bloody minded; the US Occ Gov policy had more than mere influence over German domestic policy.

---

On June 11th, General Mangin took occasion to assure the Burger- meister of Mayence of the neutrality of the French army in domestic German affairs. Count Brockdorf-Rantzau, the German delegate at the Peace Conference at Versailles, paid a flying visit to Cologne for a conference with Cardinal v. Hartmann, the Archbishop, Oberbiirger- meister Adenauer and other prominent Centrists. On his return to Versailles, he expressed himself as assured of the impotency of the separatist movement. These events had fully shown the wisdom of the American policy of retaining the old officials in office. Any other course than that adopted, would have involved us in the support of a group of adventurers, who would have controlled the government without the shadow of a popular following. Such a situation would have spelled untold difficulties for the American army.

---

I understand that the geographical limits of the Occupation was set to a specific region, but the political limits were closer to absolute than you seem to accept. I'm not a modern European history scholar, and I see that you are well-read (but also not a mod Euro scholar), and the info quoted above is from an original document. History is an interpretation of the available documents, and for any author to claim that the USA was confined to the geography of its Occupational Zone is to focus only on the geography, disregarding the politics.

The reason for the Occupation was proximity should hostilities recommence. It was a stand-over position, reinforcing that America had real, tangible control over Berlin; the public officials, and the German public were left in no doubt about their position. That is entirely consistent with Rick's comments.

America had a great deal of influence over domestic policy, being able to veto changes in governorship and more. To think that not a single American soldier or military administrator set foot in Berlin between 1918 and 1924 is, well, not a position I'd want to try to defend.

All the little devils are proud of Hell.

Wow, major effort to engage in pointless hair splitting. Our original discussion was whether American soldiers actually "stumbled in" to Berlin in 1918. They did not.

Apart from that, your "historical interpretation" is merely an extrapolation from one document to apply across the board to matters not covered by that document. In fact, the occupation government occupied a certain area of Germany, and while obviously the occupying forces had a dominant influence over the parts of Germany they occupied and the very FACT of the occupation was a huge political issue which had very significant influence in German politics of that time, the American and other occupying forces had no actual influence on German policy in other parts of Germany.

I suggest you give it up. You really don't have any background information on the history of the period which would allow you to intelligently interpret a historical document, as is evidenced by the attempt you just made.

Also, "tearing strips off the German people"? I wonder which side he is on.

I never saw the "blunder" remark as an historical error; more like hyperbole by Renaud to describe the Allied victory. He is showing he is not completely under Strasser's thumb. An important part of the character development.

Renault's statement is wrong. Now is it a character error intended by the writers or an unintentional error by the writers who believed what they were writing was accurate (and never bothered to fact check it) or (as I believe) an intentional error by the writers to serve a dramatic purpose?

Major Strasser dismisses/discounts the yet to enter the war Americans via referring to Rick as "another bumbling American." Renault's reply is meant to reassure both American and foreign audiences that as Churchill observed - "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." (From memory, please don't jump on me for minor paraphrasing.) It is also an opportunity for Renault to symbolically slap down Strasser & his arrogance. Whatever failures Renault has - deep down he detests Strasser and always takes advantage of the opportunity for a dig.