Good but too one sided


Allies killed tons of women and children in German cities. When the Russians entered Berlin they went on an orgy of rape and murder. So don't think the Russians were the good righteous ones. And Stalin ended up killing 50 million Russians so he was a far worse enemy to his own people than Hitler was. This film was very good, but too nationalistic only giving really one side. Both sides did atrocities.

><> <><

reply

This is not a documentary nor a journalistic piece. This is a narrative from the perspective of a person in a particular time and place.

You are confused.

reply

Wow I had no idea! Thanks for clarifying. Seriously I know it is from one person's perspective, but it still could have been more balanced. You are confused!

><> <><

reply

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting it could have been more balanced by being written from numerous points of view?

This is fine, but it would have been a completely different movie.

Unless you have an issue with narratives that strictly represent a single point of view (which I think is silly), I really don't think your point makes logical sense.

Indeed I believe that you are confusing the role of narrative in art and narrative in history, rhetoric or theory. Art is not necessarily about "balance." It is not necessarily about truth either.

reply

Was very one sided....but then again the story was only about the Einsatzgruppen (in particular The Dirlwanger brigade), and a Partisan division. So, it stands to reason that it will feel one-sided.

reply

Agreed. The film was definitely one-sided and biased. The way the Germans were portrayed is enough to assume that. The Germans committed heinous acts, but not all of them were some kind of monsters who enjoyed the show, like it was portrayed in the film.

More so, just like the world isn't black and white, there were no "good" or "bad" guys in WW2. Each side can be blamed for all sorts of atrocities.

reply

The film is one-sided but it is through the eyes of one character who is a Partisan and the story takes place over a 24 hour period in one geographical location - there is no bigger picture. Also the SS unit shown in the film are based on an actual unit who were not indicative of the SS as a whole or of the German army. So whilst it is 'one-sided' it is only a snapshot, and arguably a realistic 'snap-shot'. The film should not be taken as a grand portrayal of WW2 or of the Eastern Front, because it is far from being that.

reply

Hitler was also a vegetarian, but that doesn't make him a good person.

** Well, Hip-Hip-Hooray for your cheap climax! **

reply

I know I'm probably wasting my time as this person "netrek" is locked into its absoluteness about what it "knows"..... but here goes:

ALMOST 50 million Soviet/Russian people died alright but 27 million died due to hitler via the German invasion and subsequent German genocidal practices during their invasion of the USSR. AND so it isn't so SIMPLISTIC as "Stalin did it". If 50 million did die, it occurred from 1918 to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

- The total numbers of persons that died in the Russian Civil War is approximately 7 million or so; this include combatants and civilians (civilian deaths were higher).

- The best guess is that a maximum of 8 million Soviets/Russians/Ukrainians (YES RUSSIANS, millions of Russians perished too, mainly in the southern steppes farming region) died from the forced-collectivization famine in the early 1930s.

- Millions were shipped off to the gulag by Stalin and no one to this day knows how many perished in those gulags. The best guess by western researchers as well as Russian researchers is no more than 3 million TOPS perished.

Add the numbers up and you start getting close to 50 million (45 to be exact). But as someone else mentioned: these numbers of deaths occurred over a 7 decade period and not JUST "under Stalin".

NOW, if you want to make claims of "tens of millions perished under dictator (insert name)" THAT WOULD BE MAO. Two western historian authors who wrote excellent books on "Mao's Great Leap Forward" BOTH agree that Mao's GLF famine killed at a maximum 35 million Chinese. One was American and the other was British. Both of them came up with that number of 35 million TOPS was from both of them gaining access to census records in China; with the British writer/historian admitting how surprised he was how easy it was for him to get to those records. HOWEVER, NEITHER author categorically state "that Mao killed 35 million". That is their best guess and both say THE NUMBERS COULD BE LOWER.


_________________________________________

"If you really want something in life you have to work for it. Now quiet, they're about to announce the lottery numbers."
Homer Simpson

reply

[deleted]

The film never says that the Nazis were the only 'bad' guys...

I simply do not understand this type of criticism. You're adding your own thoughts and assumptions into the film. Come and See never says that only Germans are bad people or only the Germans committed atrocities.

If anything a film such as this makes humanity as a whole look very bad, even if its focused on a particular culture. Come and See is probably one of the most historically accurate and non-political war films ever made. Simply because you are showing the sins of a person or people (ie Nazis) does not mean you are defending anyone else in that same process. If the film had scenes intercut with Russian soldiers handing out baskets full of candy to children, THEN you'd have a point. But there's nothing like that here. There are no 'good' guys. As one review pointed out, there are victims and there are perpetrators.

Also Come and See isn't Germans = bad anyway, it's war = pure horror. Very few war movies focus on civilian casualties, partly because it's the hardest thing to stomach for most people and will make even 'justified' wars appear evil and irredeemably destructive. There is no culture or religion in human history that does not have blood on its hands. What's depressing is that you could make a film like Come and See for pretty much any war anywhere in the world (for starters just look at what ISIS is doing in the Middle East right now).

I think that's ultimately what makes this film so powerful. What you're seeing is not just an isolated incident that happened once in history and never again.

reply

There can never be any defence of Nazi Germany and the Germans, and for the Holocaust. That being said, there are a few more points

To one extant the film was one sided. The film is made in such a manner that it gives a message that the Germans had to be bloodthirsty and savage as a race to do all this. A further reading on the net reveals that most of the atrocities were not carried out by the regular German army but by a brigade of convicts called SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger ( google it ) specially rounded up for this dirty job

Thank God that Nazi Germany lost, and Hitler was a mass murderer, BUT look at the other so called civilized nations. History is written by the victors, so you have to research a bit

1) The regular army of Japanese - and their Nanking massacre but these Japanese barbarians are revered today as a cultured race

2) The Turks - and their Armenian, Assyrian and Greek genocides, but we mistakenly consider Turks to be the least fanatical amongst Muslim nations.

3) England - Its firebombing of Dresden, or Churchills hand in the death of 4 million Indians in the Bengal famine, but everyone talks about the Englishman's sense of fairplay.

4) US's second bomb over Nagasaki, even if we were to buy their logic for dropping the atomic bomb to end future deaths, Hiroshima was enough.

5) Congo, Rwanda, Cambodia, Stalin, Yugoslavia, the Pakistanis in Bangladesh,

6) Just watch what the Islamic Jihadis and Chinese do in the next 10 years

60 years have passed since World War 2 and its tragedy. We shouldn't forget the atrocities commited by the Germans, but open your eyes to the others as well.





Darkness lies an inch ahead

reply

I agree.

&#x3E;&#x3C;&#x3E; &#x3C;&#x3E;&#x3C;

reply

A further reading on the net reveals that most of the atrocities were not carried out by the regular German army but by a brigade of convicts called SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger ( google it ) specially rounded up for this dirty job


A further reading of academic literature and any awareness of the subject will reveal that the Wehrmacht was heavily involved in most of the atrocities.

This particular atrocity seems to concern Dirlewanger.


If people are still claiming that it was just the exception who were committing atrocities then perhaps we need more films like this.



reply

One - I commented on Dirlewanger with reference to Belarus
Two - I did not condone the Nazis
Three - The other offending nations have been forgotten

Maybe we need more movies about war crimes by other nations ?

Darkness lies an inch ahead

reply

One - I commented on Dirlewanger with reference to Belarus


You actually said that "most of the atrocities were not carried out by the regular German army but by a brigade of convicts called SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger". This is not true - the Wehrmacht waged a war of genocide throughout the Eastern occupied territories.

Two - I did not condone the Nazis


I never said you did. Though you seem to deny what they did.

Three - The other offending nations have been forgotten


Really? Idi i Smotri is a very old Russian language art film which few people have seen. There are very few films that depict the German atrocities against the non Jewish populations of Eastern Europe - in fact these depictions are so rare that people often assume that the Wehrmacht fought a clean war in the east.

In contrast - most, if not all, the supposedly forgotten examples you give are very well known and are the subject of huge debate (ie Nagasaki, Dresden) and have received blockbuster (ie Nanking) or acclaimed (ie Rwanda) film coverage.

Maybe we need more movies about war crimes by other nations ?


well, it's clear that we need more films about what the Germans did to Belorussians, Poles, Ukrainians and Russians in the east because some people have clearly forgotten.

reply

One - misunderstood
Two - imagined
Three - Factually Wrong
Four - Not on the point

Darkness lies an inch ahead

reply

You people really don't like your opinions being challenged, do you.

reply

I just feel that history is written by the victors, that's all

Maybe you would prove your point if we were to have an extended debate, but lets just watch another movie instead - ok ?

Darkness lies an inch ahead

reply

The point is that you are wrong to say that the German army was not involved in most of the atrocities.

I just feel that history is written by the victors, that's all


True - those with the resources and opportunity get to write their narrative of history. Maybe this is why we know far more about Dresden, allied bombing, German resistance, the rape of German women in Berlin and the treatment of German POWs in Siberia than we know about the experiences of Belorussian peasants under German occupation.



reply

[deleted]