German troops in Egypt in 1936?

A treaty was signed between the United Kingdom and Egypt in August 1936, under the terms of which Britain agreed to withdraw troops from Egypt (apart from a contingent required to train the Egyptian Army and to protect the Suez Canal).

It's possible that the British troops were in the process of withdrawing from Egypt around the time of the Tanis dig... although it would have taken a while to do this.

The German archaeological expedition at Tanis was presumably officially a civil venture, not a military one, and must have had the permission of the Egyptian and British authorities to proceed.

(Whether the authorities were fully aware that there was a heavily armed German military contingent present is another matter.)

Click to expand...

I think it's pretty obvious that the presence of so many German troops in 1936 Egypt was a major blunder on Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan's part. It's a big blooper. The dig was pretty close to Cairo. And there is NO WAY the British would have said nothing about the presence of so many uniformed Germans dictating the local Egyptians in such an aggressive manner. No way.

Click to expand...

That's why we must assume that the dig had the permission of the British and Egyptian authorities in some capacity.
Some kind of agreement must have been reached between the respective governments... the dig was probably officially authorized with the understanding that it was administered under the auspices of a civil venture, and perhaps the Germans were allowed a limited military presence to protect their personnel and aid in the logistics of the undertaking.

And maybe they slowly increased the military presence without permission until it was at the level we see in the movie.

(Historically, there are precedents of certain archaeological expeditions receiving military protection and aid.)

Ultimately though, it's all just conjecture.

There's an edition of the novelization from the '90s with a foreword by Lucas, in which he himself points out that Foster was the one who actually wrote the novelization, even though that same edition still bears Lucas' name as author.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Alan Dean Foster was the ghost writer on the original Star Wars novelization, based on GL's screenplay.

And it's the same with Steven Spielberg who is credited as being the author of the Close Encounters of the Third Kind novelization.
That was also ghost-written by an author, based on Spielberg's script.


.

Has anyone seen the 1943 film "Five Graves to Cairo"?

It is quite a good Hollywood film, most of which dealt with British spies and
German officers in a hotel in North Africa.

Part of the story is that in the late 1930's, General Rommel and a bunch of German soldiers,
posing as archaelogists, went to Egypt to bury gasoline and supplies for the invasion of Egypt.

A picture is shown of "Rommel" and the archaelogist group in civilian clothes.

That's why we must assume that the dig had the permission of the British and Egyptian authorities in some capacity.
Some kind of agreement must have been reached between the respective governments... the dig was probably officially authorized with the understanding that it was administered under the auspices of a civil venture, and perhaps the Germans were allowed a limited military presence to protect their personnel and aid in the logistics of the undertaking.

Click to expand...

There is no way in the world the British government would have allowed a German military presence (no matter how "limited") in Egypt and so close to Cairo in 1936. No way. Let's be realistic here. Around the same time, the government under Stanley Baldwin was already leery of their king's (Edward VIII) strong pro-German opinions during that same year.

It was a blunder on the filmmakers' part. Which is probably why in "LAST CRUSADE", Walter Donovan and the Nazis were shown requesting permission to establish a presence in the fictional country of Hatay.

Fish1941 said:

It was a blunder on the filmmakers' part. Which is probably why in "LAST CRUSADE", Walter Donovan and the Nazis were shown requesting permission to establish a presence in the fictional country of Hatay.

Click to expand...

Not entirely fictional. Hatay was disputed territory within the French Mandate of Syria.

Montana Smith said:

Posting Campbell Black

There were trucks, bulldozers, tents. There were hundreds of Arab diggers and, it seemed, just as many German supervisors, incongruous in their uniforms somehow, as if they deliberately sought discomfort out here in the desert. The land had been dug, holes excavated, then abandoned, foundations and passageways unearthed and then deserted. And beyond the main digs was something that appeared to be a crude airstrip. "I've never seen a dig this size," Indy said.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Originally Answered by Campbell Black

Was it difficult to create the places and scenes used in Raiders?

I invented them myself. I took what was in the script and added to it. There were other such additions to the book.

Click to expand...

I'm debating the realism of an adventure film which ends with a supernatural event.

Originally published in The Complete Making of:
"I was really motivated by things like...looking for the lost graveyard of elephants or the golden eye of some idol. i thought, Well gee, what if you actually made it realistic?"

Click to expand...

Raiders is realistic, so much that its sequel was balked at for ignoring basic laws of physics.

Regarding the Germans in Egypt, the film shows a sparse contingent which coupled with hiding the flying wing etc...display the type of restraint which disqualifies the descriptor: "over the top".

There are certainly over the top elements but the German military presence isn't.

Rocket Surgeon said:

Raiders is realistic, so much that its sequel was balked at for ignoring basic laws of physics.

Regarding the Germans in Egypt, the film shows a sparse contingent which coupled with hiding the flying wing etc...display the type of restraint which disqualifies the descriptor: "over the top".

There are certainly over the top elements but the German military presence isn't.

Click to expand...

Raiders is your precious. Nasty Hobbits can't ever take it away from you.

Fish1941 said:

...in the fictional country of Hatay.

Click to expand...

You might want to double-check your facts there, bub.

There is no way in the world the British government would have allowed a German military presence (no matter how "limited") in Egypt and so close to Cairo in 1936. No way. Let's be realistic here. Around the same time, the government under Stanley Baldwin was already leery of their king's (Edward VIII) strong pro-German opinions during that same year.

Click to expand...

True, it's highly unlikely that an armed German regiment would have been given such leeway to operate unchecked in Cairo in 1936.

However, still playing devil's advocate, it's worth pointing out that the German Archaeological Institute maintained its Cairo office up until 1939. Many believe that the Nazis were using the Cairo office at that time to advance their interests in the Middle East prior to the outbreak of WW2.

The head of the institute during the Nazi period was an established Egyptologist, and a pro-Nazi. During the years of the Nazi regime, he conducted Egyptian digs in the Cairo-Memphis area, Nubia and Giza.

In fact, the Cairo office gave Goebbels a tour of the Pyramids just before the start of WW2.

And King Farouk who succeeded to the Egyptian throne in 1936 was also very openly pro-German.

But whatever. Ultimately, the audience just has to suspend its disbelief.


On a similar note, in Crystal Skull, it's highly unlikely that a squad of armed Russians could operate so freely in the USA, slaughtering American troops and gaining access to one of the country's most secure military bases.

WilliamBoyd8 said:

Has anyone seen the 1943 film "Five Graves to Cairo"?

It is quite a good Hollywood film, most of which dealt with British spies and
German officers in a hotel in North Africa.

Part of the story is that in the late 1930's, General Rommel and a bunch of German soldiers,
posing as archaelogists, went to Egypt to bury gasoline and supplies for the invasion of Egypt.

A picture is shown of "Rommel" and the archaelogist group in civilian clothes.

Click to expand...

I've seen "Five Graves to Cairo" and it's very good. Well worth watching.

Interesting note: Rommel is played by Erich von Stroheim, whom Indy met in "Hollywood Follies".

Randolph Carter said:

But whatever. Ultimately, the audience just has to suspend its disbelief.

Click to expand...

Absolutely...but it's fun to discuss. Your latest post was full of great information, Randolph. More on that later...

Randolph Carter said:

On a similar note, in Crystal Skull, it's highly unlikely that a squad of armed Russians could operate so freely in the USA, slaughtering American troops and gaining access to one of the country's most secure military bases.

Click to expand...

For some related discussion on this particular subject, check out the thread:
If Soviets broke into a U.S. base in '57, would it have started a war?

Randolph Carter said:

However, still playing devil's advocate, it's worth pointing out that the German Archaeological Institute maintained its Cairo office up until 1939. Many believe that the Nazis were using the Cairo office at that time to advance their interests in the Middle East prior to the outbreak of WW2.

The head of the institute during the Nazi period was an established Egyptologist, and a pro-Nazi. During the years of the Nazi regime, he conducted Egyptian digs in the Cairo-Memphis area, Nubia and Giza.

In fact, the Cairo office gave Goebbels a tour of the Pyramids just before the start of WW2.

And King Farouk who succeeded to the Egyptian throne in 1936 was also very openly pro-German.

Click to expand...

Roughly correct on all accounts.

To qualify this:

The Archäologisches Institut des Deutschen Reiches AIDR (not to be confused with today's Deutsches Archäologisches Institut DAI - names matter, even though the lineage between both is straightforward ) had the biggest network of dedicated scientific offices compared to any other body of that nature at that time, and they all remained open until the outbreak of WWII or beyond, if in a non-hostile territory.
Britain - as usual - was relying on a 'making things up as we go along' mentality and had to fall back on its plethora of learned societies or foundations (like the Palestine Exploration Fund) and its consular service offices to keep up with German reach.
German expeditions conducted on British-held or protected territory where not uncommon, especially in West Asia, even following WWI, as long as the paperwork was done and the operation deemed as indeed 'scientific' by the Boys of Whitehall.

The AIDR had offices across the Levante, the Gulf and Central Asia, and where of course involved in politics in the run-up to WWII, and already way back before WWI. During the times of the Great Game, scientific thrust and political power projection and strategic intelligence went hand in hand, so what you describe was not unusual or something the Germans were particularly strong or even unique in doing. Even today, British or German institutions operate only slightly "at arm's length" from their respective governments. In fact, German institutions are now much less keen to be involved with government than those in the UK. Indy as a character is quite wonderfully situated in that time period because the US was never organised in that respect, but had very successful individuals doing this type of work.

Around the thrilling espionage times of WWI, the powerful Abteilung Istanbul/Constantinople was home to both Theodor Wiegand and his protégé Martin Schede, who later ran the AIDR from 1932-36 and 1938-45 respectively. Both were Classical archaeologists, so your source describing especially Schede as an Egyptologist is not correct. Schede famously excavated in Didyma and Samos. When I visited the Didyma site in 2009, the DAI was still running it on behalf of the Turkish government.
Also, only Schede joined the NSdAP in 1937 and thus actually became a Nazi (so he wasn't merely "pro-Nazi"); Wiegand died in 1936. During his tenure at the AIDR, Schede advised Heinrich Himmler's Reichssicherheitshauptamt (RSHA) on various SS projects in Central Asia, such as training what we would probably call 'jihadists' nowadays. However, it must be noted that both Wiegand and Schede worked successfully on keeping archaeological work and scientific research clean of Nazi ideologies or propagandist Aryan pseudoscience. In fact, the idea of Hitler being "fascinated, driven or absorbed by the occult" as we see it in IJ is quite exaggerated, and is no stronger manifesting in Hitler than it was in general mainstream society at that time, including Britain and the US. Just look at the Theosophists and other mainstream mysticism in late-Victorian Britain and the Interwar period. The one difference is that Helena Blavatsky's scribbles didn't advocate war or mass-murder on an industrial scale beyond comprehension.

If anyone is into easy non-fiction literature, Peter Hopkirk writes very sourcefully on this topic in the period around WWI, e.g. in "On Secret Service East of Constantinople: The Plot to Bring Down the British Empire".

Archaeos said:

In fact, the idea of Hitler being "fascinated, driven or absorbed by the occult" as we see it in IJ is quite exaggerated...

Click to expand...

The myth of Hitler's fascination with the occult has been fostered by fictional and pseudo-historical works. ROTLA was just another in that succession.

Such interests were more the preserve of Himmler.

Archaeos said:

German expeditions conducted on British-held or protected territory where not uncommon, especially in West Asia, even following WWI, as long as the paperwork was done and the operation deemed as indeed 'scientific' by the Boys of Whitehall.

Click to expand...

Yes, and this is where ROTLA intentionally goes over the top. Hitler wouldn't have been as inept in 1936 as risking conflict with Britain by sending troops into Egypt to oversee an expedition.

He would have made sure that everything was above board, and conducted the dig more surreptitiously. Why risk conflict when a genuine dig could have been undertaken, with only a few aware of the actual 'treasure' they were looking for?

, Monty!

Montana Smith said:

Such interests were more the preserve of Himmler.

Click to expand...

Exactly!
And Himmler's work - despite the outlandishness of some aspects of it - must be seen in the realpolitical and pragmatic contexts of establishing a new "religion", or rather ideological belief system for the post-WWII Nazi-German populace to buy into: a mixture of "science"-based systems of thought and belief, mystic ideology, rituals etc. blabla. The book "HITLER, BUDDHA, KRISHNA" by the Trimondis is giving a nice overview of that (unsure if that has been translated into English by now, though).

Montana Smith said:

Yes, and this is where ROTLA intentionally goes over the top. Hitler wouldn't have been as inept in 1936 as risking conflict with Britain by sending troops into Egypt to oversee an expedition.

Click to expand...

Agreed!
While Hitler is casually displayed as some mad megalomaniac nowadays in the History Channel 5 omnibus ware, it is safe to presume that you wouldn't attain such high levels of national and international power if you weren't a skilled and rused politician (which is of course not saying that he wasn't quite an "unsane brotha" to start with: he was). WWII was a war between and about the supremacy of ideologies, and not so much about merely land grabbing or resources or a reductionist "Tyranny against Freedom". Himmler's work needs to be seen in that context as well, solidifying Nazi ideology with a full canon of beliefs.

Montana Smith said:

He would have made sure that everything was above board, and conducted the dig more surreptitiously. Why risk conflict when a genuine dig could have been undertaken, with only a few aware of the actual 'treasure' they were looking for?

Click to expand...

Indeed!
Already as a kid, I felt let down by the segments following the Cairo shoot-out (where all was cleverly done in plain clothing) with the show-stopper Wehrmacht uniforms, Afrika Korps trucks and Swastika-bearing Flying Wing. Call me anal, or too German ( ), but as cool as all that kit is on the silver screen, it is lazy research if not done intentionally, and I felt back then and still now that if done intentionally, when screenwriters/directors just "let go of realism for the fun of it", they could at least insert one line of addressing the issue where two protagonists talk about it, e.g. Dietrich and Belloq have an exchange à la...

Belloq
"I find your carelessness and intransigence in this matter very reckless. Cairo. Jones. The woman here. And mon dieu, why do and your man have to be so damn proud and walk around here in uniforms as if you were conducting an excavation in Nuremberg?

Dietrich
"Because I can, Belloq. You do your work finding the Jewish relic, and I do my work making sure it arrives in Berlin – safely - and in my way!"

Belloq
"I can assure you if this mission fails, Herr Himmler will ask questions not just to me, but to you as well!"

Dietrich pauses, but continues listen to his record player




P.S.: BTW, the trucks could have easily been shipped to Egypt declared as civilian vehicles without military markings. And even though the Flying Wing is daring, I think it would not be an issue flying it into Egypt from the Libyan desert which was then - correct me if I am wrong - a Fascist-Italian colony/protectorate/territory. Deserts are vast, and in a time before radar, it could have sneaked past British eyes. But still: it's careless and not something the guys at Berlin Wilhelmstraße 77 would have done to provoke the guys at Berlin Wilhelmstraße 70.


_____
EDIT: outrageous grammar, bad spelling, and other stuff

Some things Lucas etc got wrong through ignorance or lack of research, because the project didn't call for it. Others because it was intentional.

Raiders was set in a stylistic environment, not quite real, but with enough reality to ground it in something recognizable.

Films such as these are great jumping off points to inspire further fact finding.

Montana Smith said:

Some things Lucas etc got wrong through ignorance or lack of research, because the project didn't call for it. Others because it was intentional.

Raiders was set in a stylistic environment, not quite real, but with enough reality to ground it in something recognizable.

Films such as these are great jumping off points to inspire further fact finding.

Click to expand...

Spielberg has to take half of the blame. He is co-creator and producer of the franchise. And this is the guy who had claimed that Willie Scott came from a privileged background.

Joe Brody said:

The timing of this thread is interesting. Clinton-esque, even. KotCS is a train-wreck, so some sock-puppet starts a thread about a supposed flaw in the perfection-that-is-Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark to make the point that Raiders isn't perfect.

The story in Raiders required that the Tanis action be set in British Egypt -- and basic movie-making 101 requires the bad guys be in German uniform (to give more visual flare to the picture and to show that Indy is wasting true 'bad guys').

What makes Raiders great is that even though these circumstances dictated a gross historical in-accuracy, the film-makers were not undisciplined and created a set of cirumstances that makes the use of the uniformed German defensible.

We know that the dig site was extremely remote, and we also know that the dig site had its own air-strip. Remember, the German plan to remove the Ark all along was to fly it out in the wing. Presumably, the German troops were flown in on the sly. And it was German agents that went after Indy and Marion in Cairo -- not German troops.

Also remember by 1936, the N@zi expansionist thinking was already entrenched -- so some cocky-and-not-so-smart German officer like Dietrich may well have already adopted the Casablanca mindset ("Oh, we Germans must get used to all climates, from Russia to the Sahara") and chosen to flaunt his presence in British Egypt while out in the remote desert.

Click to expand...

Why is it so hard to accept that the obvious presence of German troops in 1936 Egypt was a major blooper on Lucas and Spielberg's parts? Why make excuses? I love "RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK". But I'm not inclined to resort to questionable excuses for its mistakes, in order to pretend that it's perfect. That's a little sad.

Fish1941 said:

Why is it so hard to accept that the obvious presence of German troops in 1936 Egypt was a major blooper on Lucas and Spielberg's parts? Why make excuses? I love "RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK". But I'm not inclined to resort to questionable excuses for its mistakes, in order to pretend that it's perfect. That's a little sad.

Click to expand...

Nice to see you back, FishFace, and I agree with you. Keep in mind, though, that most of the time we are trying to make things fit, rather than the other way around.

From the post that you quoted, what I found funny is this:

Joe Brody said:

...and basic movie-making 101 requires the bad guys be in German uniform

Click to expand...

Really? I must have missed that 101 class.

Can one imagine all of the good films that would have been lost if the Nazis had never existed?

They are the perfect villians.

WilliamBoyd8 said:

Can one imagine all of the good films that would have been lost if the Nazis had never existed?

They are the perfect villians.

Click to expand...

Well, when you put it that way, I guess it was all worth it, huh?
Nah, I'm just messin' with you WilliamBoyd8. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt, that what I just said in Jest, is not your take.

Though I heard the movie Valkyrie got some controversy, out of concern that it may exaggerate the goodness of certain Nazi's, and their opposition to Hitler, and gain sympathy for Nazi's, I found it compelling, and eye opening, as the facts behind it can't be ignored. Found it interesting that not every German agreed with Hitler's warped morality, or lack-there-of. Didn't realize till viewing this move, that there had been so many attempts made on Hitler's life, by his very own people.

Montana Smith said:

Some things Lucas etc got wrong through ignorance or lack of research, because the project didn't call for it. Others because it was intentional.

Raiders was set in a stylistic environment, not quite real, but with enough reality to ground it in something recognizable.

Films such as these are great jumping off points to inspire further fact finding.

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. Well said, Montana.

WilliamBoyd8 said:

Can one imagine all of the good films that would have been lost if the Nazis had never existed?

They are the perfect villians.

Click to expand...

Well, when you put it that way, I guess it was all worth it, huh?
Nah, I'm just messin' with you WilliamBoyd8. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt, that what I just said in Jest, is not your take.

Though I heard the movie Valkyrie got some controversy, out of concern that it may exaggerate the goodness of certain Nazi's, and their opposition to Hitler, and gain sympathy for Nazi's, I found it compelling, and eye opening, as the facts behind it can't be ignored. Found it interesting that not every German agreed with Hitler's warped morality, or lack-there-of. Didn't realize till viewing this movie, that there had been so many attempts made on Hitler's life, by his very own people.

Montana Smith said:

Some things Lucas etc got wrong through ignorance or lack of research, because the project didn't call for it. Others because it was intentional.

Raiders was set in a stylistic environment, not quite real, but with enough reality to ground it in something recognizable.

Films such as these are great jumping off points to inspire further fact finding.

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. Well said, Montana.

There were no uniformed Nazis in Morocco in 1941 but they appear in "Casablanca".