Nazi Comment
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Remains of the Day
justlev — 19 years ago(November 01, 2006 08:54 PM)
When the secret Nazi meeting takes place, one of the Nazi official comments on a painting. The senior Nazi leader says to "mark it for later." (or something to that effect) What was he referring to?
-
choatelodge — 19 years ago(November 04, 2006 09:17 AM)
It was common for the elite German militarised gentry to have art collections and many were filled with artwork looted from conquered countries. The looting of art treasures was done on a staggering scale. Entire trainloads of artistic masterpieces and historical works crossed Europe during the war. One of the largest such collections was ammassed by and for Hermann Goering. I should imagine that this officer had personal designs on artworks he encountered in places that were expected to be under German domination, and directed his adjutant to record this desirable piece for following up on in the event it is not present in its place later during the expected occupation.
It is further evidence that Darlington was being played for a dupe.
But lest you go away thinking in terms of black and white, good guys and bad guys, noble behavior on one side and despicable on the 'other', Nazi Germany was not alone in art looting behavior. Americans also were guilty of mass looting at all political and military levels.
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/goldp11.html
"approximately 11,000 paintings from Germany are stored in permanent retention in the Pentagon. The most valuable of those paintings are stored in the vault at the U.S. Center of Military History."
And it was American military officers postwar, occupying the Hesse castle, who in the course of looting the castle's fine wine cellars for partytime plonk, discovered a freshly poured concrete floor and breaking that open, found and looted the Hesse family's fabulous collection of jewellry that they had hidden from the approaching Nazi's four years earlier. -
bear022013-588-696101 — 10 years ago(September 19, 2015 01:08 PM)
More like 100,000 Jews..the other 500,000 were non-Jews.
Stop the propaganda.
Do you hear the Russians or Irish-Catholics moaning every day ALL DAY! No!
Lying TV/NEWsPAPERS/MOVIES for greedy purpose! -
cyninbend-149-610489 — 10 years ago(January 23, 2016 02:07 AM)
\Unfortunately for deniers of the Holocaust such as yourself, the Nazis kiept incredibly detailed records of their behavior. One of 22 garisons on the Earstern Front in Russia, Ukraine, etc recorded the deaths of nearly 150,000 people in just a few months of the invasion of the East. The other 21 whatever they were called were doing the very same thing! They invaded a town or village and marched every Jewish, Gypsy, and anyone who was crippled, blind, etc out to diches just outside of town and shot them dead, piling bodies on top of one another, coverin g them and digging new ditches when they were full. That one group of the German military killed more than you deniers admit, all by itself, without the camps! It is why, when the Red Army routed the Germans out of Stalingrad and started chasing them back to Germany, they were so ruthless toward the Germans! They killed most who surrendered, and when they got to Germany, engaged in the same rape and genocide toward German civilians that the Germans had done to Russian and Eastern Europeans.
Additionally, there were more that 10,000 camps for prisoners, slave labor, and extermination. They were constructed throughout Germany, Poland, and other European countries. The Nazis tried to destroy many of them at the end of the war, but escapees documented their existence and soil testing and digging has proved what they saysatellite photos also show where buildings were. The lies of deniers are so ignorant, I guess you hope fools think the truth is in the middle somewherebut 6 million people did not disappear. They were killed. Hitler told his generals he wanted to do it, wrote about it, and Himmler organized the Final Solution, Eichman sceduled the trains to run right to the camps that were built next to the tracks with fake stations to keep victims calmand records were carefully kept there as well! Names of those who were sent to be killed, and those to be used for labor. And the Nazis in Berlin kept careful records of each person ordered to report. Too late to deny it now. The Nazis were proud of what they did and wanted to brag to their superiors of their accomplishments. -
chouse1020 — 9 years ago(September 21, 2016 09:19 PM)
this ^^
What I find amazing is that it seems that almost all of the silly folks who deny the Shoah happened on the scale it clearly has been documented to have been
have not read Mein Kampf
.
Read it silly people, and you will see with your own eyes the words that your hero wrote down for all to see. He felt that the Jews, the Slavs, the Roma (Gypsies), and many other groups were subhuman and if he had the chance he would purge them from the world.
They did their best in the time they had - even at the risk of tying up critical trains so they could send those poor victims to the death camps. There were many slave labor camps within all parts of the Greater Reich, many other "concentration camps" which combined slave labor, penal storage for criminals and undesirables (including those of Aryan stock), but they also had the "extermination camps" - whose sole purpose was to "process" the arriving people - to kill with carbon monoxide and later cyanide gas and to dispose of the bodies.
They were really sick people, and to pretend that they didn't intentionally do it is simply ignoring the records kept by the Nazis themselves.
Even the captured Nazis at post war trials (and folks like Eichmann who were caught years later) didn't deny what they had intentionally done - they invoked Fuhrerprinzip - the concept that they were simply following orders. They also make sure that we knew that there were a lot of deaths from typhus and other diseases in the camp, so they hadn't murdered them
all
, but the very fact that they had brought the people into the camps was the very reason those diseases claimed so many victims. They were responsible for it all.
There's nothing to deny - just read and be amazed (and saddened) by what a small group of people can make happen if they want to make it happen, and that group
did
. -
Gothbag — 9 years ago(September 25, 2016 03:56 AM)
More like 100,000 Jews..the other 500,000 were non-Jews.
Stop the propaganda.
Do you hear the Russians or Irish-Catholics moaning every day ALL DAY! No!
Lying TV/NEWsPAPERS/MOVIES for greedy purpose!
Let's play a game, it's called spot the Nazi conspiracist nutjob.
I won! -
thomas_j_brucest — 19 years ago(December 02, 2006 02:49 PM)
All of the several, previous parties who answered your question were quite correct. I thought it might be interesting to note that the character played by Wolf Kahler and credited as German Ambassador would at that period of time have been Joachim von Ribbentrop, that is if the time portrayed is indeed 1936 to 1938. Wolf Kahler, at least in this film, bears an astonishing resemblance to Ribbentrop. You may recall a line where either the PM, or Lord Halifax states something about Germany sorting things out in "her own back garden" in response to Ribbentrop saying something about the Fuhrer and Czechoslovakia, the Czech crisis happening in 1938. During this period, Ribbentrop was ambassador to the Court of St. James for Germany and was indeed involved with Britains upper class, many of whom held views sympathetic to Germany. As regards the comments about "noting for later" Lord Darlingtons paintings, Ribbentrop, although not himself an avid art-collector, did serve as a spotter if you will, for Hitler who was an avid collector.
The character of Lord Darlington is not unlike a real-life British aristocrat of the day, Harold Harmsworth, (Viscount Rothermere) who was a newspaper proprietor (London Daily Mail & Daily Mirror) and very much pro-Nazi up until his death in 1940.
I wonder if anyone knows where the film was shot; what served as Darlington Hall, and were the interiors mainly sets or location interiors?
Thanks,
TJBruce -
sengoku808 — 19 years ago(December 05, 2006 01:31 PM)
"I wonder if anyone knows where the film was shot; what served as Darlington Hall, and were the interiors mainly sets or location interiors?"
this question is answered in the Making Of and Audio Commentary for the Special Edition DVD! They filmed on real spots and there is no Studio used! The Interiors used are alloted of 5 real estates still inhabited by real Aristocrats! The Audio Commentary still holds more Information on this matter and is also very fun to watch! -
jg67 — 19 years ago(December 14, 2006 05:50 PM)
" The Audio Commentary still holds more Information on this matter and is also very fun "
I agree. Interesting how the main house that served as Darlington Hall wouldn't let them open the front door for the hunt scene.
How much did you put out to get in?
http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=5642503 -
pamsfriend — 19 years ago(December 07, 2006 12:41 PM)
Regarding Ribbentrop, the story went that in the runup to one pre-war crisis as tensions mounted in Germany, Nazi bigwigs were told not to worry, that Ribbentrop knew Lord so and so. I believe it was Goering who responded 'that's the problem, Lord so and so knows Ribbentrop.'
-
mark-1589 — 18 years ago(April 11, 2007 02:53 AM)
I also wondered about this comment. While I think the interpretation generally agreed upon here is plausible, it is not the only possible one. I consider it somewhat farfetched that the German ambassador would actually be concerning himself with which pieces of art would be ripe for looting. Not to defend the Nazis in any way, but their plans at that time were to take Poland and the reason they had all these meetings with Britain and France was to convince them not to intervene (in other words, they wanted victory without war). The idea of actually conquering Britain did not become a feasible reality until Britain and France declared war on Germany (Sept. 1939) for its invasion of Poland and then Germany conquered France in about 6 weeks in the May/June 1940. Before that most Germans did not believe they would be able to easily conquer France, much less invade Britain. Although Ribbentrop was a Nazi true believer, I wonder whether in 1939 his mind would have been focused on looting art after they conquered Britain. In my view, the more plausible explanation is that he wanted to impress his host and the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary with his knowledge of English art and with his general level of culture and sophistication. Part of the duping process was to convince Britain that Nazi Germany was a legitimate power, that it was following in Germany's traditional footsteps as a great center of culture, etc. If that point was conveyed, then it would be easier to convince the British that they had nothing to worry about from the Nazi's.
Anyway, that is my alternative reading of this scene.