It's kind of weird... I come from Holland and we got invaded by the germans back then, they actually marched in the streets here and occupied us for like 5 years.
Now, when seeing this movie from the opposite view I noticed I all of a sudden took side for the germans when they where fightnig the russians....
It's really weird how television/a good story can change the entire perspective.
there is almost always a tendency to empathize with the central characters from whose eyes the stories are told, and it's not THAT difficult to do so with that kind of story , made by Germans, speaking German, through eyes of German troops and characters..
no doubt the fact that they chose to place them on the Eastern rather than Western fronts, makes this easier for us...there is not much difficulty at all to place oneself in Wehrmacht uniform alongside those guys in some of those scenes.
However, even when one watches something like 'Enemy at the Gates" one is able to see and to take the diametric opposite side...
In my eyes that is a great thing it opens our eyes to the fact that not everyone was a monster like many ignorant individuals would like to think about germany.
shareI've always found the accounts from the German side far more interesting and more horrific. They're very similar to us (in my case the British) but in the case of that war they were trapped in some kind of nightmare - 10 million Soviets on the one side - the materiel might of the Anglo-Americans on the other - governed by a regime beginning to eat itself and facing an unknown and nightmarish abyss.
sharethe German WW2 memoir books are certainly very popular sellers for decades in english-speaking world..there are a large number of them, such as the Guy Sajer one, and the hard to get sought-after one with 'Devil" in the title, where a group of SS soldiers actually after VE day are offered a choice by French to either join their Legion , or be handed over to Soviets..they choose to work for French, and are sent to Indochina, where they got a very feared reputation for more brutality..(against admittedly a very vicious enemy)
that book sells for $100 if u can even find a copy..
Feldwebel Henri Metalmann, a Panzer sergeant who like our Wilhelm was a deserter, was a very popular commentator on numerous WW2 documentaries in 80s, 90s and early 00s..he hints at his units involvement in what would now be called 'War Crimes" in Russia..he certainly admits that if they came to a Russian civilian house or village, and the people had anything they needed, they just took it at gunpoint or else..
then there are numerous Luftwaffe pilot memoirs..if anything the guys are feted like rockstars in the military history community..
Everybody wants to hear a real-live WW2 Jerry speak of his experience/POV..
It is always interesting to take individuals instead of a collective, because the individual rarely deserves the punishment for the collective sins.
First step in the holocaust was to remove jewish individuals and make them one large faceless collective. This makes committing all the following attrocities a lot easier.
This can be seen in many other conflicts on this planet. The use of drones for example follows the same logic.
no, it does not, it follows the opposite approach.
being that, the Drones --always-- target specific individuals...and are highly successful doing so, despite the stupid attempts by left-of-centre activists to stop them.
I'd be most happy to see them stop, if their opponents can suggest a better idea for eliminating out-of-judicial reach militants.
and please dont tell me, 'well, we just need to make the terrorists happy" or this *beep* about draining the swamp the mosquitoes breed in, or all of that kind of nonsense.
My comment is not about the precision of drone strikes (or other high tech weapons), it is about the distance the people commanding them have from their target, which makes it much easier to use them on the target and its surroundings. Therefore I don't think there is any need of getting into a political debate about pro and cons of certain weapon types or the question whether military engagement or developement aid make more sense (which would be a nonsensical debate anyway when it is not about one clearly defined conflict situation - only morons try to argue in absolutes in that question).
Another example would be to give a prisoner a number instead of a name, to take away his individuality, also utilised by the nazis.
It is easy to raise sympathy from the audience if you cherry-pick your characters and throw overboard any attempt of making them representative. None of the protagonists was a card-carrying Nazi. None of them believed that the Russians were sub-human, and this after 8 years of indoctrination by the most powerful propaganda machine that ever existed. Mind you, the protagonists spend their whole adolescence (the time of your life when you are most susceptible to outside influence and herd-behavior) reading and listening to how Jews were vermin and Russians sub-humans destined to be slaves, but still kept to their own counsel and behaved humanely and kindly to them. What are the odds?
The irony is that in spite of how much the director tries to make us relate to their plight I still didn't at any point of the movie feel any sympathy for the protagonists. I find the nurse character particularly obnoxious. The bleeding heart poet who turns into a coldblooded and efficient killing machine is such a monstrous cliché too. You don't feel the arc in his story, he just flips over. The elder brother, the singer and the Jew are weak and completely ineffectual. It is worrying that the strongest, most memorable and believable character in this movie is a Gestapo officer. If anything, at least he was representative.
An uncomfortable sympathy for the germans in this movie....
It's kind of weird... I come from Holland and we got invaded by the germans back then, they actually marched in the streets here and occupied us for like 5 years.
Now, when seeing this movie from the opposite view I noticed I all of a sudden took side for the germans when they where fightnig the russians....
Well, what can you expect from a film which sweeps under the carpet all the German atrocities and trys to shift the blame onto the real victims (Soviet citizens, Polish partisans, etc.). Absolutely disgusting.
shareIts a delicate theme, because in the eastern countries there were many collaborators - not so much in Chekia and Poland, but in Ukrainia, the Baltic states, even Russia. And a lot of the worst units who commited war atrocities had their stock of collaborators.
One example was the russian SS volunteer group "RONA".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.S._Sturmbrigade_R.O.N.A.
This unit participated with some german units to fight down the Warsaw uprising in 1944 and slaugthered thousands of Polish civilians along with them.
But I do not like how this subject is handled in the movie. They showed, that it is given knowledge to any viewers that such units participated in the atrocities and why. And that is wrong in my opinion, because this is a subject which was not touched much in popular fiction works, and they should have spent more time to explain the viewers how and why collaborators joined the killing squads. For a more unpolished look I recommend the novels of the byelorussian writer Ales Adamovich, especially "The punitive squads". His works were also an inspiration for the famous russian movie "Come and see".
And Germans weren't victims too then? Over 5 million died. There were victims all around. Most of them weren't volunteers carrying out their beloved Nazi orders.
shareWell, what can you expect from a film which sweeps under the carpet all the German atrocities
Absolutely disgusting.
hehe - I think you might understand his comment better after you've watched the third episode.
I don't quite get the criticism of portraying Germans as victims either. Certainly not a whitewash and quite fair and balanced in its portrayal of Germans.
hehe - I think you might understand his comment better after you've watched the third episode.
I don't quite get the criticism of portraying Germans as victims either. Certainly not a whitewash and quite fair and balanced in its portrayal of Germans.
Not completely sure about the depiction of the Ukrainians. Certainly, Ukrainians were actively involved in the holocaust - not only massacres like Babi Yar but also as part of the Nazi forces guarding death camps and carrying out genocidal war against Jews and other minorities.
Still, I was surprised to see that the Ukrainian Righteous among Nations is actually quite high. If one is going to point the finger at the Ukrainians as perpetrators of the holocaust there should be some balance. Especially, perhaps, if one is a 'German' filmmaker.
Well I didn't get any impression that the Ukrainians were behind the holocaust. It never suggested that at all. It just showed that some were complicit in helping the Germans. Don't forget, the real bad guy in that scene was the German SS officer who shot that little girl very callously and then made a disgusting comment about her blood soon after. The Ukrainians weren't shown killing anybody in that scene. Only the German officer was shown brutally killing. And it was also German officers who came for the Jewish nurse in the hospital, after the German nurse grassed her up. I saw no insinuation anywhere in that first episode that the German film makers were trying to shift the blame on others and not blaming Germans. There were bad Germans all over that first episode. And like I said, I didn't even think the German soldiers were shown to be likeable or sympathetic, except one of them.
shareIt just showed that some were complicit in helping the Germans.
That's the point. It showed them as complicit in helping the Germans murder the Jews. Certainly this is true - but as I subsequently discovered to my surprise - there were actually Ukrainians who helped Jews, maybe a bit of balance might have been in order.
As it is, at least in this particular scene (the first concerning the holocaust) the contrast is the evil murdering Sturmbannfuhrer and his Ukrainian mob on one side and on the other the three horrified Heer soldiers.
I thought the German soldiers were quite likable - to be honest I thought Friedhelm deserved to get beaten up.
I think it's fairly clear what the Ukrainian 'thugs' are doing even though they aren't explicitly shown killing anyone.
I'd disagree that it's little known that some Ukrainians and others took part in the holocaust. Demjanjuk should be known enough in Germany. Still, even if that might be a motive to include them I don't think it's particularly valid. After all, it's very little known that some Heer troops willingly took part in the massacres of Jews and took photos etc - not as depicted in the series.
However, I don't think it's necessary to depict the Heer troops actively participating like this - the series is balanced enough without more condemnation of the average German soldier. But I do question why they chose to portray the Ukrainians, especially without any balance. ie there were Ukrainiains that murdered but there were also those that were appalled. The Germans are shown in the way - there were those that murdered - and those that were appalled.
I'd disagree that it's little known that some Ukrainians and others took part in the holocaust. Demjanjuk should be known enough in Germany.
Still, even if that might be a motive to include them I don't think it's particularly valid.
After all, it's very little known that some Heer troops willingly took part in the massacres of Jews and took photos etc - not as depicted in the series.
However, I don't think it's necessary to depict the Heer troops actively participating like this - the series is balanced enough without more condemnation of the average German soldier. But I do question why they chose to portray the Ukrainians, especially without any balance. ie there were Ukrainiains that murdered but there were also those that were appalled. The Germans are shown in the way - there were those that murdered - and those that were appalled.
I'm surprised that you don't feel it's pretty well known that Lithuanians, Ukrainians etc had a role to play in the holocaust. Demjanjuk (Ivan the terrible) had been making the news since the 80s (extradition battle from the US, eventual trial in Israel, eventual trial in Germany) - and most of the other recent trials in Germany have been of non German perpetrators.
Aside from that, you may have seen BBC panorama - stadiums of hate, the recent coverage of the Ukraine crisis in which the 'anti-semitic' Nazi Ukrainians are sometimes emphasized. Lithuania and Ukraine also celebrate their SS in marches - this regularly makes, and last week made the news. Added to all this apparent fascist/Nazi/racism, conventional wisdom has it that the local populations assisted the Nazis in WW2. I don't know if you watch many holocaust films but it's either hinted at or explicitly shown.
I'd say it is valid, and it was just a brief scene anyway. It's not as if they harped on about it, and as I said the big 'pay off' with that scene was the brutal evil German SS man callously shooting that little girl in the head.
I guess they had to I suppose otherwise people would be screaming "what about the Jews?".
Just out of interest, offhand do you know the percentage of Ukrainians in 1941 who were not showing their appalled reaction against mistreatment of the Jews? I don't know, just a question. Did they openly protest and challenge it when it happened? Or were they, like most Germans, cowed and didn't butt in?
there was a such thing as the ukrainian SS
shareExecytions happened on every side the same way though but i agree 100%
shareFancy using a 1956 Leica lllf with self-timer to take photos in Russia
shareI that that is a ignorant point of view not every German soldier was a criminal nor are they lacking in the fact that all of Germany their were victims its just a blatant disrespect sympathy can be found everywhere its not about the collectives guilt but the individual it was a great portrayal where most movies dehumanize the Germans.
shareSo did many Dutch in real life. Many Dutch men hated the idea of Communism and 50,000* of them volunteered (certainly not forced), served and fought in the German Waffen SS against the Red Army.
I always had empathy for the Germans simply because I have German blood from my paternal side and some Dutch from my paternal side. I don't have that same empathy for Nazi's, they were beasts. But for Germans who suffered needlessly during the war, the vast majority whom were Christian how as a Christian could I not. I couldn't support atheistic Russia, they were on par with Nazi's as far as I'm concerned. Hitler was Satan incarnate, but the vast majority of Germans were in an untenable position.
shareThe majority of Germans bought into Nazism.
shareI don't think that's true. For the most part, ordinary Germans had no voice in the matter. The Gestapo would have eliminated you or sent you to a concentration camp. Perhaps by their silence they can be deemed guilty I guess. It's like Jews willingly going along and not fighting back, you think something might change your circumstances but then nothing happens. Culpable yes!
shareAround 55% of Germans surveyed in 1948 thought 'Nazism was a good idea badly carried out'. A majority, and somewhat high considering what Germany had just gone through.
I don't think you can equate the Jewish experience to the German experience.
The Gestapo was a small organisation which relied 95%+ on denunciations from German citizens. Indoctrination, propaganda etc played a key role and in general Nazism was attractive to traditional German attitudes towards nationalism and authoritarianism. Though Germans may have been ambivalent towards some aspects of Nazism, many Germans may have reasonably felt that their circumstances were better under Nazism and at least by 1939 they had a lot to be proud about.
It's not fashionable in film or TV to depict many Germans believing in Hitler and either actively or tacitly supporting the regime, but historically there is a wealth of evidence for it.
Yeah, the majority bought into nazism......AFTER hitler straightened out the ecomy, and people were BACK at work and EATING again, after living in *beep* after the treaty of Versailles. How could you blame them??? From 1919 to 1934 the were paying the price for losing ww1....and paying dearly. Can you imagine how us spoiled usa citizens had to go through that??? And if some psycho politician came around and got us back on our feet, we would IDOLIZE HIM.
PEOPLE look out first for themselves and their families.......if our well being comes at the cost of others, FEW would grumble, turning our heads at anything distasteful. Thinking we would have been, as a whole, any different is a fairy tale. It's simply group think. Villi size the german people if you want, but it was pure luck of circumstances that it was them, not another nation, even us who were the followers of nazism
And were does this 70,000,000 deaths come from???? That was the estimated deaths in the whole war, victims of BOTH sides, the axis and the allies.
living in *beep* after the treaty of Versailles.
How could you blame them???
And were does this 70,000,000 deaths come from???? That was the estimated deaths in the whole war, victims of BOTH sides, the axis and the allies.
IT HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH VERSAILLES!!!!!!! If not, what caused germany to sink to the depths it did???? I can't even BEGIN to understand what u r stating!! The USA, Britain BOTH were bummed out about the treaty...only FRANCE wanted the dick up the ass germany got after ww1
Really, if u got REAL FACTS denying that, I'd LOVE to read them...cause I don't want to argue, iwant to knoe the facts......if u got em, tell me...
My point about 70M dead is that someone posted that the nazis were responsible for that number........that simply not true...
shareIT HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH VERSAILLES!!!!!!! If not, what caused germany to sink to the depths it did???? I can't even BEGIN to understand what u r stating!! The USA, Britain BOTH were bummed out about the treaty...only FRANCE wanted the dick up the ass germany got after ww1
My point about 70M dead is that someone posted that the nazis were responsible for that number........that simply not true...
I see both your points.
But germany was hurting waaaaay before the crash....Versailles placed a war debt on the german people that simply impossible to pay back.
And your point about the seventy million, I get....but it bothers me to blame the germans for STALINS MURDERS, as well as the a bomb causualtues......I simply think STALIN was the biggest pschopath in ww2, not hitler...he basically got a free ride cause he was on the winning side.
But, great post......sounds like you know what u r talking about.
55 million dead in WWII please do not inflate.
I think his point is caring about your family and job and taking care of them at the cost of somehing else and partially saying millionss would have done the same thing not just germans and the treaty of Versailles is relevant in this situation due to the position it put the germans in
"Of the many provisions in the treaty, one of the most important and controversial required "Germany [to] accept the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage" during the war (the other members of the Central Powers signed treaties containing similar articles). This article, Article 231, later became known as the War Guilt clause. The treaty forced Germany to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions, and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. In 1921 the total cost of these reparations was assessed at 132 billion Marks (then $31.4 billion or £6.6 billion, roughly equivalent to US $442 billion or UK £284 billion in 2016). At the time economists, notably John Maynard Keynes, predicted that the treaty was too harsh – a "Carthaginian peace" – and said the reparations figure was excessive and counter-productive, views that, since then, have been the subject of ongoing debate by historians and economists from several countries. On the other hand, prominent figures on the Allied side such as French Marshal Ferdinand Foch criticized the treaty for treating Germany too lenientl"
From treaty of Versailles.
Around 55% of Germans surveyed in 1948 thought 'Nazism was a good idea badly carried out'. A majority, and somewhat high considering what Germany had just gone through.
here's the link to the full US survey conducted in its western zones.
https://archive.org/stream/publicopinionino00merr/publicopinionino00merr_djvu.txt
The aim of the survey was to assess public opinion in Germany and provide insight for the denazification of Germany and whether it had potential for democratisation.
I wouldn't interpret the term 'Nazism' to cover only the holocaust and expansionist agenda
The show is sympathetic to the 5 German friends there is no sympathy for Nazism.
sharewe were always humans, however misguided or unaware, or following the leader. as many do now.
not making excuses but assuming that only monsters do bad things is misleading. and fyi; look at the british empire, the ''belgian'' congo, and durch colonies in africa as well as involvement in the slave trade.
EXACTLY LOOK AT THE 1916 IRISH UPRISING
sharewhat about it exactly?
shareGreta del torres was real and there was a whilhelm and friedhelm winter in the Wehrmacht but anything else is up in the air according to me and im pretty sure the soviet female officer/commander may have been protraying someone important but im not exactly sure hope you agree no disrespect intended by the way
share