Defiance: New WWII picture

Stefan;
I couldn't tell you what degree of independance the Bielskis operated with. BUT I AM GUESSING that if Platon told them to attack...say.. such and such a railroad junction coordinating with such and such another unit they would have to make the attempt. The Reds were pretty pathological on the issue of control. Now if they wanted to sneak some people out of such and such and such a Ghetto on their own time? Well maybe they had that kind of wiggle room. Could they set up their own synagogues in the Forest? Apparently, but they better be displaying red flags in some other prominant places. The Bielski story has only come to us on the testimony of some survivors who emigrated to the West. There really is no corroborative evidence-and until such a time as someone can get into the Soviet archives, there will never be.
JeffinMNUSA
PS. Excerts from the Duffy book; http://books.google.com/books?id=E9...a=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPT1,M1
PSS. Here it is 11,000-15,000 Jewish Partisans in Belarus and Western Ukraine. Just a wild guess But I would bet the house that their contributions went way beyond their numbers.
http://www.jewishpartisans.org/t_switch.php?pageName=map+main&country=Soviet Union It is a fact that Stalin downplayed the contributions and sufferings of the minorities in the aftermath of the Great Patriotic War.
And here is that incredible number of 500.000 GERMAN soldiers (not German allied or Quislings) killed by Partisans in the East;
http://books.google.com/books?id=kN...&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result
The scale of Partisan fighting in the USSR; http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/thepartisanwar.htm

 

Anyway, I am really looking forward to seeing this one! Should prove interesting!!

 

Having seen the film previews and various discussion groups concerning this film, I am aware of the controversies surrounding this film and the depictions of the main characters. ( I must admit though that at first, I mistook them to be Polish partisans, not Russian.)

On the subect of the treatment many of these partisans metted out to other's, specifically Jewish refugees/escapees, I would recommend to all an eye-opening book called "The Wiesenthal File", written by Alan Levy (1993, W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.). It is a horrifying book which I found difficult to read given it's brutal description of concentration camps and it's victims.

Though there is no mention of the Bielskis, there are several paragraphs devoted throughout based on survivor's testimonials, which describe how various Polish and Russian partisan units made it a special point to hunt and kill many Jews who sought refuge in the forests of eastern Europe. At one point, there are documents mentioned detailing how partisans would be hidden at the edge of nearby forests during the mass executions of Jews and other minorities, watching the slaughter from afar. Only when the Eiensatztruppen units left would the partisans emerge from their cover to kill those who were left alive or were attempting to escape. Other partisan groups were more benevolent: safeguarding Jews who were able to make payments in monies or jeweleries, or other things of value.

I do not mean to disparage the many partisans who fought like lions against the Nazis, and did so under incredible hardship. The partisans described in Mr. Levy's work above describe were a distinct yet infamous minority of those partisans. However, in the context of the current discussion, particularly in light of the upcoming film, I thought it would be important to shed some perspective on this sensitive topic. That said, I intend to see the film with an open mind.

 

I just checked imdb to make sure. It was "Legends of the Fall." I thought it was lame, but the women loved it.

 

You are clearly getting away from the point, you stated that the partisans were 'the red army behind the lines,' they were not. They had their own commanders, their own system and got up to many activities which were not in obeyance of RKKA orders. This alone marks them out as different from the Red Army. Moreover you suggested that if the group were guilty of any crimes etc it was simply because they were following the orders of Red Army commanders, now aside from the fact that the amount of control the Red Army exercised is debatable, shooting prisoners or attacking civilians are not the kind of thing you do as a response to orders from Moscow but in an attempt to survive.

This is pure conjecture! Aside from the fact that the Soviets didn't insist on their own covert units (razvedchiki etc) from waving flags so it doesn't make sense for them to get partisans, hiding in the woods to do the same, you are again simply assuming the Bielskis were communinsts, they were not.

Either way, it seems pretty clear that your comment that they should be portrayed as 'committed communist warriors' is frankly laughable.

Very true. That does not mean however that we should start making stuff up!

 

Stefan;
SORRY-but the Red Partisans were the RKKA behind the lines. The commanders were given a great deal more leeway than Frontline commanders but they still had to obey orders. The Partisan zones were also little SSR's (a la Slepyan) complete with political rallies, party membership cards, icons of Stalin hanging everywhere, and heavy handed security that would not hesitate to kill. The Bielskis became part of this in 1942. We will see how the movie treats on this subject but the fact is to have done otherwise would have made the Bielski group some very dead heroes. If they were not communists it seems they did a good job of convincing General Platon that they were. The situation in Belarus was the worst of any in all NAZI occupied territories and later a Soviet census estimated that 25% of the general population had perished-though some estimates place the number much higher. The Jewish population of Belarus was statistically wiped out. So in such a horrendous situation is it surprising that people are doing what they must do to survive?
JeffinMNUSA

 

We have already established that the Bielskis were not directly under soviet control and despite working with them on many things, did what they wanted much of the time as well.

The extent to which this is true is very debatable, as I have said before, whilst they worked with the soviets they did not have a soviet commander and despite local commanders efforts to take over them they maintained a fair degree of independance.

Again, you are simply making it up. They did not need to persuade Platon of anything, they simply needed to tell him that they were willing to use their logistic elements to help support him and to fight alongside. As with hundreds of Jews who joined the Soviet partisan groups, all they needed to do was say 'we want to fight with you because the Home Army will kill us' and the Soviets would take them onside, they would have been stupid to turn down hundreds of volunteers to join in their fight.

I am not denying that, however you described them as 'committed communists warriors,' now even if they were simply persuading the Soviets they were communists (which they probably weren't) just to survive, this doesn't make them the 'committed communist warriors' you are making them out to be.

Let's simplify this rather:
1. You stated the crimes they are accused of were probably 'just following orders,' whilst this makes sense in the context of the massacre involving soviet partisans (though it seems pretty clear the Bielskis weren't there so it is fairly irrelevant), they also stand accused of executing German prisoners, threatening and killing civilians and so on. These acts are not going to be as a result of specific orders from Moscow, they are far more likely to be the result of having to take desperate measures to survive. Not saying whether it is right or wrong but your 'obeying orders' analysis is flawed in this respect. It may also be worth pointing out that 'obeying orders' wasn't an excuse at Nuremburg, why should it be a defense here?

2. The Bielskis were not under direct soviet control, the local soviet partisan group constantly tried to subsume them but never succeeded. The Bielskis were clearly clever enough to work with the Soviets, to support them and so on but they were never under their direct control.

3. The Bielskis clearly weren't 'committed communist warriors' as you claim. They were fighting to save and protect their people, not fighting for Stalin or Lenin.

Just as an afterthought, when you consider the trouble the Germans had with the Bielskis and assuming local partisan groups or the invading Soviets have the same issues taking them on, why on earth would the Soviets want to turn a large group of friendly partisans who would happily fight on their side hostile by attacking them? Whether they were communists or not, it just makes sense to support them and use them against the Germans and the AK.

Sorry Jeff, but whilst you clearly know a hell of a lot about the subject, you are not being logical in your thinking.

 

Stafan;
And you are accepting the testimony of the survivors as being the whole of the story-which survivor testimony seldom is. OF COURSE they are going to try to distance themselves from the Reds-they were immigrants to the West at the time of the Cold War! The matter could be handily settled if the Russians were to give us passes to the Soviet Partisan records and we could see how Partisan Central regarded the Bielski group; Were they "those pesky Jews in the Noboloki that we can play ball with."? Or were they "OUr fraternal comrades of the Naboloki who follow orders and are worth every Pepishaw (PPSH-a fine weapon for close combat in places like forests) we can send them." I am guessing the latter. I don't think we are going to settle this argument until Moscow does open the archives so I will let you get in the last word. Enjoy the flick.
And the Polish charges? Well they are increasingly sounding like they may contain a large dosage of political motivation. This makes the Polish charges HIGHLY SUSPECT. Polish Investigators Tie Partisans to Massacre - Forward.com"
JeffinMNUSA

 

But you are ignoring survivors testimony and making it up, better to form a conclusion based on the evidence at hand than simply make up a conclusion based on illogical conjecture.

Or better put 'those guys who hate the AK and are happy to fight with us and support our fighters.!

That is exactly the point, you are guessing. Your guess is based on the flawed idea that the Soviets would only support communist groups, this is clearly not the case (as demonstrated by the hundreds of non-Communist Jews and not politically motivated Poles who fought with the Soviet partisans and the Red Army during the war).

You are 'guessing' the Bielskis were 'committed communist warriors' with no evidence at all, despite all the evidence to the contrary, very bad practice for any student of history!

 

thought you should both know i'm thoroughly enjoying this debate...

 

In the context of the times I think this a safe assumption. Then as I recall from Duffy the Bielski group suffered no repercussions after liberation. This at a time when everyone who served the Germans in any capacity was being sent to the Gulag and the AK and other independance minded partisan groups were being exterminated by the NKVD. Apparently Bielski credentials were quite good. Sorry Stefan, if they weren't "dedicated Communist warriors" then they certainly had Moscow-and General Platon- convinced that they were.
JeffinMNUSA
PS. Glad you are enjoying the debate Eagle. I fear it is just a taste of what is coming once the movie hits the theaters. The Polish press seems to be backing away from the Naliboki allegations. But Moscow was at war with AK and so were the Bielskis; http://wyborcza.pl/1,86871,6125087,The_True_Story_of_the_Bielski_Brothers.html
PSS. A word from the Slepyan account is "Partisanzchina". It means something like "the rough and tumble partisan spirit." The Bielski group may have exhibited a lot of Partisanzchina, but not enough to get them in trouble-even after the liberation.

 

But the evidence suggests you are wrong. We have numerous accounts of Jewish partisans who were clearly not 'committed communists' joining Soviet partisan groups because that was what they needed to do to survive (Florian Mayevski again springs to mind). This is borne out by simple logic, hundreds of Jews were under attack not only from the Germans but from the AK as well, they were a natural ally for the Soviets. They need not be 'committed communists' because the Soviets knew full well that the choice facing the Jews was 'fight with us or die.' The Soviets destroyed 'anti-Soviet' resistance but if you weren't anti-Soviet and were willing to fight with them they weren't going to kill you. Your entire assumption is founded on the basis that the Soviets would destroy anyone who wasn't a communist, regardless of whether they were willing to form an alliance or not, this is foolish and not the case.

And therein lies the rub, the Bielskis were not 'independance minded' and that is another difference between them, the AK and numerous other groups. They were not interested in a 'free Poland,' only in helping their people to survive the war. Why should the Soviets make an enemy of a group who didn't oppose them? The Soviets most likely saw the Bielskis as a group of friendly partisans who could be a thorn in the Germans side and offer a lot of support to other local Soviet groups. Destroying them would have been a waste of time.

No, they didn't. Keep in mind that the Soviet hierarchy weren't stupid enough to think that every Soviet soldier was a communist, the reforms of 1943 and the change in the role of political officers clearly illustrates this. The identification of Stalin with 'Russia' was of course a propaganda coup but Soviet soldiers fought for their homeland and their people just as the Bielskis did, the hierarchy understood that and were not stupid enough to think that people fought for a set of barely understood political principles. You do not however shoot someone who is willing to fight for you just because he is fighting for his family rather than for some balled looney who started a revolution before he was born.

Interesting word, haven't come across it before. I too am enjoying the debate, always interesting to have an intelligent discussion with someone who probably knows more about many areas of the subject matter than me. I do however think your view of the Soviets as destroying anything that wasn't communist is very simplistic and not entirely accurate. As I have said, of course they attacked 'anti-Soviet' groups, the Bielskis however were not 'anti-Soviet' so why destroy them if you can use them?

 

Stefan;
Well give me this anyhow-Tuvia could "talk the talk." As I recall from Duffy Tuvia hit it off well with General Platon and was able to convince the Guerrilla leader that the Bielski group would be a great weapon in his arsenal. Did the Bielskis "Walk the walk? Well the brothers immigrated Westwards after WWII ended so maybe they were not such committed communists after all. IT'S STRANGE that the Stalinists allowed the immigration-perhaps Platon put in a good word?
This is truly one of the greatest stories to come out of WWII and I do hope the filmmakers have done it justice. A historical truth I hope has not been missed... is what a large part guerrilla warfare as practiced by groups like the Bielskis played in the defeat of NAZI.
JeffinMNUSA
PS. Tuvia on a visit by Platon; http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/revolt/bielski.html
PSS. AN excert from the Grenkevich work on the effects of the larger Partisan War; http://books.google.com/books?id=7-...X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA235,M1

 

I'd agree with that, particularly as when you consider the infastructure the Bielskis had at their disposal they actually had a lot to offer the more 'fighting' oriented Soviet groups.

Not all that strange, quite a few of the surviving Polish Jews were allowed to migrate after the war.

True enough. Personally I'd quite like them to portray the dichotomy between the good side of the Bielskis (saving people) and the (probably justifiable) negative side, i.e. the way they treated local Poles and so on. I think it would be good if the film made people think a little about how these guys survived and whether the wrong that had been done to them justified their treatment of collaborators and so on.

 

I actually was just able to see this film last night. I have some useful friends (thats all ill say!) and i will not reveal any spoilers. What i will say is that the film's main emphasis is on the group SURVIVING. However there will definitely not be any disappointment to those looking for combat scenes. A pretty big part of the film actually is the Bielski's relationship and dealings with another Russian partisan group, which is not exactly friendly.

A very good movie in my opinion, message me if you have any questions.

 

Eagle;
So I am guessing the focus is on the early days? So it was a RUSSIAN partisan group they were on ill terms or a Polish? If it was Russian were they Reds? The Bielskis joined the Reds I think officially in 1942 if I recall from Duffy. I am hoping the filmmakers do not take this one too far into left field ("Enemy at the Gates"? Actual Soviet veterans of the Stalingrad Battle walked out on this funhouse distortion).
JeffinMNUSA

 

Just a point on semantics, there were no 'Russian' partisan groups in Poland however there were 'Soviet' groups. It may not seem important but the Soviet Union consisted of numerous Soviet Socialist Republics, most of which were not Russian. A partisan group in Poland would be highely unlikely to be made up of 'Russians' but could easily be 'Soviets.'

Sorry, it is a pet peeve of mine.

 

TIME OUT!

I'm hoping to see the film tomorrow with luck.

OK BACK TO THE BIG DEBATE.

 

Stefan;
The Bielskis operated in the Naliboki forests on the Belarussian/Polish border and I believe had 100 clashes with the AK. The movie looks fantastic but I am wondering how many "artistic liberties" were taken. Ah well-opens next week. "Artistic liberties" are pretty inevitable when a filmmaker is trying to compress a story into a two hour version and make $$$, but there is a line they should not cross. The "Geronimo" movie took about thirty years worth of Apache war stories and compressed them into one (and Wes Studi looked and acted a lot more like the noble war chief Victorio rather than Geronimo-who was considered something of a rascal by his own people)-but the movie somehow WORKED. "Enemy at the Gates" on the other hand crossed the line in to pure comic book fantasy. We will see how the cinema treats the Bielskis it would be a funny touch if they were to add the true story of General Platon asking Tuvia if it were possible to make vodka in the Bielski artisan shops; http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/revolt/bielski.html .
JeffinMNUSA

 

MY REVIEW.

I can not comment on how close the film is to the book as I have not seen the book. It's been a good three or four years since I last saw a film at the cinema and I was not disappointed.

The story starts in July 1941 and ends some where in the late summer or autumn of 1942. Well acted and directed, don't expect an all out war film for this is not the case. This is a film about survival from the enemy and the elements, a story of the two eldest brothers who take a different view point from each other.

There are some action scenes and one rather brutal scene involving a capture SS man but not out right gore. The Russian partisans are only seen in there camp and in action no food raids that we all know of.

I found the film to be very watchable and in my view I think most here will enjoy this film.

8 out of 10