German TV drama confronts a nation's wartime guilt

A valid point, and one that would be unforgivable had this been a historical documentary or even a dramatization of absolutely factual historic events.

As I understand it however, this is a fictional account of 'generic' made up characters, though some of the events depicted happened to a variety of actual persons. As such I view this more a 'art form' than historic document and judge it in this manner.

An example of my view would be to look at classic westerns from John Ford like She wore a Yellow Ribbon and Fort Apache. Both are considered good (extremely well made) films about an historic period, but they are not themselves "Good History". Mr. Ford, more so that most directors of the period, tried to show the Native American tribes in a respectful light, but they in the end were still the foil for the "Heroic American Cavalryman" portrayed by John Wayne. Certainly they got a part of the truth, but by no means the whole truth of the era and times.

A better look could be seen in the first season of Hell on Wheels,. Set roughly in the same period, a railroad company encounters a tribe across its intended path. The Natives attack the encroachment, but are enticed to meet with the railroad baron to negotiate. The Native chief is baffled by both the belief that the whites have the right to build their railroad and by their insistence that the tribe should and must abandon their way of life. This is a more accurate depiction of the truth, but also not the whole truth.

For any piece of entertainment, and I think my examples as well as the subject of this thread are such, should be judged first and foremost by this standard over absolute historical accuracy.

This does not invalidate your opinion and you are of course welcome to have and share it.

Admittedly I am at a disadvantage here, I have watched only the first third and that without English subtitles, so I can go only by what I have seen and can understand as a non German speaker.

 

Exccellent post Belasar.....Said in one post what I had been attempting in the first half dozen of mine....I must learn American English.

 

It appears that English language is similar to Whiskey: originates from Britain, the substance is the same, just exists in many different flavors.

 

But it would be unfair to treat Poles as an indigenous tribe and Russians as a Red Plague in a conflict with Nazis.. That's exactly what Göebbels taught. The truth is absolutely different: Nazis were the worst savages ever and had all the worst attributes of the term "Bolsevik". To understand this we must first forget all our previous ideologically biassed knowledge and focuss to purely human relationships. In this case ideology just serves to explain or hide the lack of humanity.

 

I employed the history of the North American native peoples as the most accurate corollary relevant to Americans. It is not precise by any means, but is close enough for this debate. They were native to a land that another political entity desired and took by force of arms predominately. Further we could state the "resettlement" program employed had a nearly identical effect upon the native people. Many of these tribes have disappeared altogether, and those that remain mostly have only a vague resemblance to their original form.

Had Germany won the war the same result would have been the fate of the Polish people.

What I feel our disconnect here is in the view of what this Film is trying to portray.

I suspect that the film's intent is not so much an totally accurate depiction of actual history, a balanced and un-biased look at the past, but a look at the thoughts, feelings, opinions and lets be fair, prejudice's of a group of 'common' German people.

Your point that Goebbels propaganda was that Red Menace and Slavic people were a "threat" to the Greater German Reich is important here for it is what for nearly a decade the German people had drummed into them from every form of media in place. They should have rejected this pack of lies, but events in North Korea show that even in today's world you can make millions of people believe any lie if you say it often enough.

 

PS: This MY post was ordinary BS. I've deleted it entirely.

 

Belasar, imagine a Japanese film with American soldiers in Japanese hospital murdering wounded soldiers and raping Japanese nurses. A bit too much, isn't it.?

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight here but the use of a Pacific War example is somewhat problamatical. The war was often fought by both sides with little or no quarter offered by either side. US Submarine crews did on more than one occasion (but unofficially) machine gun Japanese survivores in the water. Marine troops knowingly sealed civilians in the caves of Siapan if they did not come out quickly.

In many ways the Pacific War was as close as the Western Allies got fighting as it occured on the Eastern Front.

I mean no disrespect to the Polish or Russian partisan's but I do suspect that on occasion such things or similar ones did occur. You are correct that any implication that it took place in every situation is an injustice to those who opposed the Nazi's. Another way of looking at it however is that in these acts the German's were reaping the misery and degradation they had sowed.

In other words in treating innocent people as something less than human, beasts if you will, it is understandable that they in turn are treated in the same manner when the tide had turned.

 

I understand this just as comparing views, even not confronting them or should I say: we are presenting alternative versions of the same incident.

EDIT: But seriously; would you like to see a Japanese film with American soldiers in hospital murdering wounded Japanese soldiers and raping Japanese nurses. I'm sure you wouldn't.

 

Belasars sentence which I quote here...
in these acts the German's were reaping the misery and degradation they had sowed.
Perfectly sums up a whole lot of things on this program...I use his sentence with apologies, its not meant as a rebound on anyone...But its something that covers numerous threads here on ww2 forums...And the guilt if there is any lives on with Germany and her allies of the period. Germans should watch this drama and realise that that is in fact what most of us feel...We won't have sympathy for the perpertrators....No matter what like for like debates are attempted...No matter what poster comes out with but what about this or that....Reap what you sow.

Germany is and was guilty as where her allies...no excuses, no well we were scared of Russia...No well so would you...Its abrupt maybe, its ugly maybe...But its truth.

 

Do you have anything to prove this except memoirs of Nazi "historians"? (EDIT: I am talking about murdering wounded in hospital and raping nurses which goes beyond any sense for good taste)

My father was a partisan and I know the truth. My father also fought alongside Red Army when they approached from Hungary and Romania. He said that the Russians were formidable warriors, brave, and that they fought as proper soldiers should. Indeed they fought inexorably, but weren't murderers.

It is also sad truth that over the past seventy years Nazi "historians" have managed to significantly distort the western view on events at the Eastern Front.

 

What counts is that we've won and they've lost and we let them go on living in peace. It would have been wrong to retaliate with the same measure of barbarity. We haven't.

 

In a belated answer to your question " How would I feel?" I would not like it if it had no context at all, but I accept that a work of art, as opposed to a product of history, is something that is open to the intrepitation of the observer.

I have seen films from Japan that depict the bombing offensive solely from the perspective of Japanese civilians and the effect it has upon them. Almost never does the actions of Japan (that made the bombing a Allied priority) figure in the narrative, yet I will accept that however disquieting the images of civilians suffering from the bombing, there is still an element of truth to the misery and death caused to unarmed civillians.

There have been depictions of US personel either in the act of rape or periliously close to it and accept at some point somewhere one (or more) occured. The US government admit to at least 400 rapes officialy, but likely the number runs into the thousands. While I can't cite examples I know I have read of them.

Moving back to the Eastern Front, I feel it is not an injustice to point out that rape of German woman occurred in the latter half of the war. Even Soviet/Russian sources admit this much. While I can not condone it, I understand that this happens in every war and the Russians had more provocation than most considering what happened to their homeland.

In the matter of Partisan's we are on somewhat more murky ground. Asymetrical warfare, as we call it now, has never been a terribly
savory kind of war. Curious is it not that those who fight on our side are "Freedom Fighters", while those who oppose us are "Terrorist's".

I am not calling your father a Terrorist, just pointing out that perception is subjective.

More to the point I think, the nature of Partisan warfare makes for a kind of fighting that is often ugly and without remorse. A Partisan cannot take and hold prisoners, so they are killed outright or after they have provided any useful information. A train blown up in the middle of the night makes no distinction between a troop train, munitions, hospital or one carrying woman clerks. It is an "enemy" train and therefor a legitimate target, whatever it may carry.

If a group of partisan's came upon a German First aid camp or Field Hospital are they likely to say "excuse us we were looking for Armed soldiers to kill, we will be going now". or would they take the oppertunity to ensure these soldiers never had a chance to fight again?

 

Why so many assumptions? Why so many generalisations. Why so many prejudices?

Facts?

On this we will disagree entirely. Obviously you want to believe the Nazi sources. You may think whatever you want but partisans were regular soldiers with uniforms, with government and fought according the rules. They had relationships both with British and Soviet governments who recognized them and aknowledged them as regular armed forces. You decided to follow the Nazi truth; for them they were "Banditen" (or terrorists, by using your words). Nazis seldom fought against partizans but they were terrorists in uniforms who captured children, women, unarmed civilians and executed them. Go and learn a little bit about the SS Prinz Eugen to find out who where "regular" Nazi troops.

I must admit that you have surprised me with using a word "terrorist"so easily although you have hesitated so much to say anything wrong about the Nazis. I see. No, you haven't disappointed me; that word denotes reaction to something else.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I think you two are closer than you think.

And being fair to Belasar...he explains in his post the perception of terrorist as perceived by one side to the other...I'm not interceding here...just I see you discussing the same point and agreeing it without even realising.

And Belasar has gone further than most Americans would I'd point out.

As to partisan warfare...again we have been here before in various threads...Forget rules..Forget honour, proffesionalism....I'd like to think that all invaded nations would fight on after the defeat of their respective militaries, against any occupying force in their country....We have based many threads on Such for Britain in ww2 1940...and this is why I understand Iraqi and Afghan nationals...And I would presume Americans are no different as we keep seeing in the gun debate with sometimes loose references to an armed population ready to fight off an imaganery invasion.

Partisan warfare like all warfare will never be pretty...and never be limited...by anything but its groupings own feelings...

And yet there were other partisans in uniform..fighting by the rules of war as understood...Tito...and lots of others in the eastern war...Resistance movements and Partisan movements stroke armies are a different animal...

 

As I typed my reply, Urgh's popped up, so... what he said!

It is claimed that General Maxwell Taylor ordered the 101st to take no prisoners during the Normandy drop. It may not be true - I've never found a source for that claim. But if he did issue such verbal orders, it shouldn't surprise us. The airborne were to drop behind enemy lines and act for a time as uniformed partisans. There would be no facilities (at first) for prisoners, and they had vital missions to perform that in theory may have had made the difference between a successful landing and a disaster. Later, after Malmedy, such orders were unquestionably issued by a number of American divisions. In this case the orders to take no Waffen SS prisoners were simple reprisal. No claim can be made that the taking of prisoners might affect operations.

As far as I'm concerned, what the Soviets did in Germany is unsurprising in light of what had happened in the USSR. I'm sure that not every soldier participated and I'm also sure that any attempts to stop excesses (short of shooting entire companies of men) would have been unsuccessful. And let's face it, spreading terror ahead of the Soviet armies clogged the roads with refugees and spread fear ahead of them. It was total war.

We're going off the rails though, because all of that is nothing next to the German plan where Jews and Gypsies were to be exterminated and surviving Slavs to become worker slaves within a greater Reich.

 

---

 

Partisans could come in all shapes, sizes and clothes.

 

On the photo below you may see a man on gallows before public hanging, with a partizan cap on his head, dressed in a uniform he could afford then. His name was Stevo Filipovic. After the war it was found from documentation that Nazis have tortured him but he carried all secrets in his grave. He knew where was Tito and partizan headquarters. He fought for freedom.

Does he look like a potential murderer of wounded Germans or a rapist?

 

No he does not...but then again they seldom do...Even the mild mannered...Dr. Harold Shipman never looked like what he was either.

I think we are moving off topic a bit....I know I do all the time...But we are in danger of Partisans...good or bad...In my view they are always good. Which can bring me into some moral questions on present conflicts.