In both Germany itself and in the occupied countries there were people ranging from fully committed Nazis to fully committed opponents to all sorts of people in-between or who had a complex relationship with both sides (Oskar Schindler was a member of the Nazi party, there are known instances of Nazis looking the other way when it came to hiding Jewish children, full-blown double agents, people who switched sides (even people who were decorated by Vichy and joined the Resistance), etc). Of those who fully collaborated with the Nazis, some were true believers, some may well have done it out of fear, but many no doubt were in it for the money, power or career advancement (genocide provides all sorts of opportunities for enrichment). However, all too often, particularly when it comes to occupied countries, matters have been portrayed as a handful of collaborators and the German occupiers on one side and everyone else in the Resistance. Yet Vichy was not sustained by Petain alone, or Petain and Laval alone, but by numerous police, soldiers, civil servants, judges, etc, and many of these people were left alone and even kept their positions after the war (as happened in many of the occupied countries and in Germany itself) - google "Maurice Papon" for one of the more egregious examples and for one of the least-publicized atrocities in postwar Europe. In that sense, I think the film, like Polanski's The Pianist did a good job of portraying that complexity, emphasizing that it was the French police and the (ostensible) French State that rounded up the Jews, but also showing a number of heroic acts by French individuals, instead of reducing the historical reality to the caricatures of "the French were all collaborators" or "the French were all in the Resistance, save for Petain and Laval." Similar caricatures could be brought up for most of the countries involved, though there are nuances - few emulated the Danes in helping nearly all the Jews escape, for example.
reply
share