MovieChat Forums > Aleksandr Nevskiy (1939) Discussion > Stalinist elements of Alexander Nevsky

Stalinist elements of Alexander Nevsky


I love this film, it's a bit like a non ironic version of Starship Troopers - i.e. a film made by a warlike, totalitarian society.

1) The natural Leader, chosen by the whole people, apart from a few traitors. He's the only person with the political acumen and ruthlessness to be able to fight the enemy. He decides to make an aliance with one enemy to fight another. Oddly enough Stalin decided just after the film was made to make an aliance with Hitler and had to ban the film until Hitler attacked.
2) The traitors, mostly rich merchants and noblemen.
3) The enemy are evil personfied - hanging patriotic men (who call out for the Leader to avenge them ), and tossing babies onto bonfires. As everyone knows, they represent the Nazis - look out for WWII style German helmets.
4) Patriotic workers pledge to increase weapons production enormously overnight, in a reference to the five year plan.
5) Nationalism. Once the Germans attacked, Stalin played down Communism and emphasised patriotism to try to motivate the people. Alexander Nevsky is offered command of an army by the Tartars but refuses - "Better to die in your native land than to leave it". Nevsky gives a speech calling for non patriots to be killed.
6) One of the Russians shouts "die where you stand" when asked about withdrawal. Stalin gave the same orders to surrounded Red Army units in the first disasterous months of the war, as did Hitler to the Germans at Stalingrad.
7) Death to traitors and prisoners of war. Both are humiliated and then killed. The lynching of the captured Germans at the end is all the more chilling when you read up on the Nazi and Soviet mistreatment of POWs in WWII. The film makes the viewer complicit in this - earlier in the film a Russian allows a German to surrender but the German kills him and escapes.

reply


Regarding point 7,

As far as I remember the film shows that German prisoners of war were allowed to leave and only the traitor was lynched.

reply

Not qualified to give an opinion of the film against historical revisionism, because Saint Alexander Nevski was a real person! http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=962 <<--Saint Alexander Nevski
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintace.htm <<--another link
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0014684.html <--THIS link, seems to indicate that he was/is venerated as a Saint by not only the Catholic Church, but the Russian Orthodox Church. (Only one other, that I have read of, and I don't recall his name.)

Of course I saw this film, but didn't know that the person being portrayed was venerated as a Saint! I just thought it was stilted history. Propagandist.


Keep smiling. ===8^)

reply

So what if he was a historical person? The film is still a propaganda. Do you really think it happened exactly like this? The story may be old but the film is about contemporary situations.


- This comment is most likely authentic and fairly close to what I intended to say -

reply

8) The film has a clear message: Raise arms against Russia and die.
9) No matter how bad the situation is, they can always recover.

Ironically, both points happend in WWII (and happend before many times, like the Napoleon invasion)
Still, a great film!

reply

10) One cannot fight on his own soil, one must take land beyond the borders to defend (this is how the partition of poland was explained sometimes: to prepare for German assault)
11) One might have to make peace or alliances with enemies from the East (Mongols in this movie, Japanese in WWII) to be able to fight off the enemies from the West.
12)It's not just about your own village or your own home republic, you must care for your whole nation (of Russia). (Did people in Novgorod really care about all Russians, did they identify as "Russians" at that time?)
13) The war effort is every man and woman's job. The guy selling weapons lets everyone in his store to take weapons without asking for money.

An interesting thing is that this movie refers to Russia and not to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union didn't exist of course back then, but "Russia" at that time was also smaller. Peoples like the Georgians weren't part of that country yet (Stalin was no Russian, he was Georgian)

reply

Very nice points. Exactly my thoughts when I saw it.

Also: Aleksandr Nevskiy = Stalin


- This comment is most likely authentic and fairly close to what I intended to say -

reply

just thinking that there also some anti communist themes in the movie. so far i've only seen one but when Novograd is preparing for war the blacksmith is donning armor and he grabs his mail saying "no foreign make for me, this is made with mine own hands." Then he looks at the armour and says "shame the mail will be too short"

reply

[deleted]

The film was not made in a political vacuum. And the fact that Eisenstein used his films as a propaganda tool has some relevance too. No one was saying that these points where unique, but that does not make them irrelevant.


- This comment is most likely authentic and fairly close to what I intended to say -

reply

There was no alliance with Hitler. A pact of neutrality is not a pact of friendship. Germany and Poland in 1939 were bound to a non-aggression pact; of course, this non-aggression pact did not render them allies. The USSR had signed numerous pacts of neutrality including with Germany in 1926 and Japan in 1941.

The Nazi Soviet pact went much farther than a treaty of friendship -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact#Nazi.E2.80.93Soviet_rapprochement

With the Western nations unwilling to accede to Soviet demands, Stalin instead entered a secret Nazi-Soviet alliance:[8] On August 24, a 10-year non-aggression pact was signed with provisions that included: consultation; arbitration if either party disagreed; neutrality if either went to war against a third power; no membership of a group "which is directly or indirectly aimed at the other."

Most notably, there was also a secret protocol to the pact, revealed only on Germany's defeat in 1945, according to which Hitler and Stalin divided the states of Northern and Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence. In the North, Finland, Estonia and Latvia were apportioned to the Soviet sphere. Poland was to be partitioned in the event of its "political rearrangement"&#8212;the areas east of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San going to the Soviet Union while the Germans would occupy the west. Lithuania, adjacent to East-Prussia, would be in the German sphere of influence. In the South, the Soviet Union's interest and German lack of interest in Bessarabia, a part of Romania, were acknowledged. A German diplomat Hans von Herwarth informed his U.S. colleague Charles Bohlen of the secret protocol on August 24, but the information stopped at the desk of President Franklin Roosevelt.

Concerns over the possible existence of a secret protocols were first expressed by the intelligence organizations of the Baltic states scant days after the pact was signed, and speculation grew stronger when Soviet negotiators referred to its content during negotiations for military bases in those countries. The German original was presumably destroyed in the bombing of Germany, but a microfilmed copy was included in the documents archive of the German Foreign Office. Karl von Loesch, a civil servant in Foreign Office, gave this copy to British Lt. Col. R.C. Thomson in May, 1945. The Soviet Union denied the existence of the secret protocols until 1988, when politburo member Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev admitted the existence of the protocols, although the document itself was declassified only after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1992. In December 1989, the first democratically elected Congress of Soviets "passed the declaration admitting the existence of the secret protocols, condemning and denouncing them".

It lead to the partition of Poland between Hitler and Stalin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland_(1939)
On September 17, 1939, the Soviet Red Army invaded the eastern regions of Poland in cooperation with Germany. The Soviets were carrying out their part of the secret appendix of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which divided Eastern Europe into Nazi and Soviet spheres of influence

The USSR treated POWs well.

That's just not true. Neither the Germans, nor the Russians followed the Geneva conventions with POWs from each other's countries. Though the Germans did with British and American prisoners -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war#World_War_II
Between 1941 and 1945, the Axis powers took approximately 5.7 million Russian prisoners. Approximately 1 million of them were released during the war, in that their status changed but they remained under German authority. A little over 500,000 either escaped or were liberated by the Red Army; 930,000 more were found alive in camps after the war. The remaining 3.3 million prisoners (57.5% of the total captured) died during their captivity.[8] In comparison, 8,348 British or American prisoners died in German camps in 1939-45 (3.5% of the 232,000 total).
...
The Soviets captured 3.5 million Axis and German soldiers, of which more than a million died.[13] By contrast, allied nations such as the U.S., UK, Australia and Canada, tried to treat Axis prisoners strictly in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

"Im Archipel Gupvi" by Austrian historian Stefan Karner shows that for the 10 years German and other POWs were held in the USSR, the overwhelming majority survived. There were deaths only because of general economic destruction in the USSR. Out of 2,388,443 German POWs, only 356,687 or 15% died. Out of 513,766 Hungarian POWs, only 54,753 or 10.5% died
Firstly, killing 'only' 15% of your POWs is not something to brag about, and secondly that figure isn't true. More than a million German POWs died in captivity in Russia, or around 40% -

http://www.historynet.com/historical_conflicts/8556717.html?featured=y&c=y
In early April 1945, the United States was responsible for 313,000 prisoners in Europe; by month&#8217;s end this total had shot up to 2.1 million. After the fall of the Third Reich, the number rose to a staggering 5 million German and Axis POWs. Of those, an estimated 56,000, or about 1 percent, died&#8212;roughly equal to the mortality rate American POWs suffered in German hands.

Those held in Soviet-occupied territory fared far worse. Officially, the Soviet Union took 2,388,000 Germans and 1,097,000 combatants from other European nations as prisoners during and just after the war. More than a million of the German captives died. The immense suffering Germany and her Axis partners had caused surely played a key role in the treatment of enemy POWs. "In 1945, in Soviet eyes it was time to pay," wrote British military historian Max Arthur. "For most Russian soldiers, any instinct for pity or mercy had died somewhere on a hundred battlefields between Moscow and Warsaw."

reply

After the Munich Agreement the year before it's no wonder that Stalin tried to entrap Germany economically as well as strategically. Carving up Poland was analogous to the Allies rushing into Belgium in 1940, except that Stalin had more justice on his side, since eastern Poland was also western Belarus and western Ukraine.

There has been a certan amount of revision as to German atrocities against Soviet prisoners - some of the mass death of the winter of 1941-42 was a statistical illusion due to double-counting and mass escapes but this hasn't altered the truth that Soviet prisoners of the Germans were far worse treated than German prisoners of the Soviets.

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

reply

"Carving up Poland was analogous to the Allies rushing into Belgium".

If by analogous you mean the complete opposite in purpose and effect, then we´re actually getting somewhere. I mean, in whose sick mind was the presence of the French and the British in Belgium in order to help their ally fend off an invading force, in any sense similar to Soviets venturing into Poland in order to annex the country and kill its people, anyway? But, of course, the murderous communist dogs have always excelled at rewriting the history.


"Stalin had more justice on his side, since eastern Poland was also western Belarus and western Ukraine".

Yeah, that´s great - first lock Belarus and Ukraine up in that prison of nations and then use the fact that some of the territory these countries used to possess, is not quite there anymore, as an excuse to invade further countries. While, of course, Soviet Union had no natural right to any part of any country. Not to mention that following this logic, Hitler´s military adventures in Western Poland & Czechoslovakia, were equally "justified".



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

With the exception of the fact that Novgorod Republic was one of the most democratic states in the world at the time, and Nevsky was merely an elected military leader.

reply