Presumably you were at the liquidation of a Byelorussian village in 1943 and know the truth of how it went down?
-
HwajangshilAgashi — 16 years ago(January 09, 2010 10:16 PM)
Like any discipline founded on reason and consensus there is an existing 'history' of the war. You wish to contend that it is false. Absolutely fine. But dont delude yourself that the established history has to defend itself. You have to attack it - and attack it credibly - before it needs to do that. Scientific consensus recognises gravity. It doesn't have to continue proving gravity in the face of scepticism - gravity has to be DISproved. You need to DISprove history rather than denying it.
So far all you've done is express a personal view. You need to reorganise and re-present your unique insights into this matter before you will sound credible.
I completely agree with you. The fact that the German army was extremely organized and obedience was demanded and strictly enforced is a historical fact. Therefore it is on YOU to disprove this, and thereby prove that soldiers were in fact dancing around in shorts, getting drunk and operating in a chaotic fashion. This is also what made me consider the movie more propaganda than anti-war. Though it has some clear anti-war moments, they are discredited by showing a completely distorted view of the Soviets all being innocent and defenseless, while the Germans are clearly enjoying the cruelty and pain they inflict on the villagers. -
combatreview — 15 years ago(July 31, 2010 08:14 AM)
I completely agree with you.
Are you sure? It isn't apparent in what you say here:
The fact that the German army was extremely organized and obedience was demanded and strictly enforced is a historical fact. Therefore it is on YOU to disprove this, and thereby prove that soldiers were in fact dancing around in shorts, getting drunk and operating in a chaotic fashion.
You see, this is what's called a Logical Fallacy. Your contention is two-fold here -
First, you state that the German military was extremely organised, therefore none of the behaviour seen in this film could possibly have happened. This is a fallacious extrapolation - all you've said here is that X=1, and then concluded that Y MUST equal 0, without any attempt to describe a relationship between X and Y. So even on a mechanical level this contention fails.
Second, you claim to agree with my quoted point - by which standard you support the calling into question of the other poster's logical fallacy. Yet you then try and turn my words round, claiming that I have to disprove something they have not proven themselves.
Well, that's Scheisse, isn't it Fraulein?
To make this point credibly, you have to show me data which supports the idea that all acts of genocide committed by the Nazis were done in an orderly and respectable manner. Any data at all. Hitherto this has been absent.
This data must also be observably superior, and specifically contradictory, of data which claims that behaviour of the kind seen in this film DID happen. If you can find data that shows detachment X behaved themselves while committing murder, it proves nothing about claims relating to detachment Y.
This is also what made me consider the movie more propaganda than anti-war. Though it has some clear anti-war moments
WTF? I'm fairly sure that the entire film makes war look quite unattractive.
they are discredited by showing a completely distorted view of the Soviets all being innocent and defenseless
Rubbish.
Was it propaganda? I don't doubt it. Most war films are. Any film pushing an idea is, by definition, propaganda.
Does it give a distorted view of the Soviets? Only if you wish to see it that way. For one thing we never see any Russians in the film, so perhaps we can be spurious and say that the film gives the distorted impression that most Soviets were Byelorussians?
Or perhaps we will use our brains and not be so grindingly literal?
I don't know, maybe small rural villages were full of nasty, armed-to-the-teeth Soviet guerillas? Maybe Stalin hid munitions factories inside haystacks? Or maybe the average Joe Soviet out in the countryside was, indeed, pretty ignorant of the wider world and therefore innocent until Men With Guns started turning up.
Exactly how should one's sympathies be divided when watching any civilian massacre?
Thing is, this is an old and tedious argument. I don't know how many times I've heard people complain that depicting a war crime is somehow being mean in its depiction of the perpetrators. It's usually specious. Sometimes the truth hurts, unfortunately. That's all. -
anspruchsvoiier — 11 years ago(June 23, 2014 04:10 AM)
I realize this reply is pretty late, but who cares
No, but you do need to qualify your authority.
Why? Because you said so? I don't think so
Presently you are personally saying this film gets it wrong.
Exactly. I expressed my personal opinion. This is a forum that was created just for that purpose, not scientific debate. So who's to say I can't do that or have to go through great lengths to prove my point?
I didn't see you write a book in advance proving your point with your one line "Presumably you were at the liquidation of a Byelorussian village in 1943 and know the truth of how it went down?" that was not even an opinion, but merely a worthless bit of sarcasm.
You make no references, cite no sources - merely expect us to regard you as knowing better than the makers of this film.
No, I don't expect you to believe me. Why would I? I was giving my opinion on the question of why women don't like this movie. An answer to this question will always be that: an opinion. Why you're turning this into a history research drama is beyond me. I'm well aware that people's opinions differ, even on very clear cases, so why would I go all out and try to educate people like you who obviously already made up their mind? I mean, you're using a Soviet movie as a basis for historical knowledge. That pretty much says it all.
Or perhaps you just read some books and therefore know better than an educated Byelorussian who was closer to that part of the war than you?
And you do have a verifiable and proper source that this movie is actually based on the real experience of Byelorussians during that time? See, now you're making claims that you should cite sources for instead of just requiring that from other people, unless you love double standards.
First of all - I would offer that 'argument'.
Congratulations for finding this mistake. I guess you're well aware that I'm not a native English speaker, yet you can't help to harp on insignificant mistakes that have nothing to do with the debate you were forcing onto me. I'd be glad to resume this talk in my native tongue, just to offer you a well written and phrased text, but I doubt you could even converse on this level in another language
Since you don't create an argument, merely express a personal opinion as authority, I do indeed question your personal authority on this matter. Give me an actual argument and I'll have to change my position.
How about this: You want me to prove a negative. That is impossible. That's why the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. The movie depicted Germans in a fashion that goes against all what is known about their behavior. Proving the opposite would require sources that cover the behavior of each and every soldier. That is just as impossible to do as to disprove the flying spaghetti monster in the sky. Unless you have a source that can prove that it doesn't existwhich you won't.
So the burden of proof is on the film maker, or since you defend his point of view - on you. If there's a valid source that actually proves this behavior then I'm all to willing to adapt my point of view. Until then, it stays at it is. German war crimes have been well documented, but scenes like these seemed to have never been recorded, reported or otherwise documented it seems. Strange, no?
Cite me validated instances of accounts that have been shown to be dubious and your contention will come into a different light.
Nope, cite me sources that prove that this actually happened like depicted in the movies. That's the only way it's going to work
No sir, I don't wish to debate your opinion any more than I wish to debate the presence of gravity.
Then congratulations on having done just that. You don't really have the integrity to just ignore other people's opinions if they differ from yours, even if you don't want to debate them? Classic
Absolutely fine. But dont delude yourself that the established history has to defend itself.
So it has been established? Great, then cite a source. That's all I'm asking for.
You have to attack it - and attack it credibly - before it needs to do that.
I'm attacking a Soviet propaganda movie, not history. If you have trouble telling both apart, I suggest turning off your TV once in a while
Scientific consensus recognises gravity. It doesn't have to continue proving gravity in the face of scepticism - gravity has to be DISproved. You need to DISprove history rather than denying it.
Uhm noso you're not a scientist. You have to PROVE anything you make a claim about. THAT's how science works Calling anyone who doesn't follow your believe a "denier" is a cheap shot that can be used for all kinds of hollow arguments. That's why you need to prove your point first beyond a doubt. Then you can call me whatever you want.
So far all you've done is express a personal view. You need to reorganise and re-present your unique insights into this matter before you will sound credible.
Again, it might not have occurred to you -
-
Akkarogg — 16 years ago(January 04, 2010 12:40 PM)
23 000 000 million soviets died Mister! This is recorded and Confirmed by history!
So don't make such ridiculous claims!
Conspiracy theorists can't wish these tragedies away.
Or Pherhaps it is because of American apprehensiveness toward Communism that you are reluctant to beleive in this! -
Come_to_Machine — 11 years ago(October 25, 2014 05:48 AM)
Sometimes logic eludes men, even in desperate times and there is no time more desperate than war. I would like to respond to your criticism towards the director and his "lack of knowledge" towards the subject he decided to depict.
Even thought German army and it's soldiers were role models of discipline, obedience and heroism which all came from their Prussian officer class, with the introduction of Nazi ideology those lost some of their edge due to their conflicting nature. It is no secret that the Wehrmacht discouraged their officers (and many of them were descendants of a long line of military men) from being active in politics. It is also no secret that there was an open dislike between the regular army (das Heer) and the military wing of the SS, the Waffen-SS, whose soldiers we see depicted in this movie. The Waffen-SS men were ideological soldiers and were expected to fight along side the regular army, on the front. They also, with some special units from the SS, conducted behind the front operations fighting against the partisans and enforcing racial laws. Even though they were disciplined their main motivation was their ideology, for which they were ready to die for. First divisions were made up of Germans but later in the war Waffen-SS expanded to become, first Germanic (volunteers from Norway, Denmark), European Waffen-SS (Dutch, Belgian, French, Muslims from the Balkans, Volksdeutschers, Ukrainians, Cossacks and even Russians). These troops were in no way true representation of the German Army but they filled the holes that were left by so many dead in the later stages of the war. In the movie we clearly see several Cossacks of which most notable is the man that carries two double-barrel shotguns and jumps from the barn tower after it has already been set on fire which earns him an applause from the troops. One unit that became the most infamous was the Dirlewanger brigade (later renamed to a division) which was run by an convicted rapist Oscar Dirlewanger and consisted of poachers, rapists, Russian POW-s and other convicts who wanted to earn a pardon by wearing a uniform. I say wearing a uniform because they did very little fighting and mostly did atrocities behind the front and when they were thrown into a real battle most of them fled.
I hope I managed in this short segment to show who were the men wearing the German uniform in this movie. They didnt care about the ammo, about the war, they were hedonists with an open tab in war time. They orchestrated their own orgy of violence and should not be identified with the members of the regular German army and even with some more respectable units of the Waffen-SS. They had a job to do, to kill, to purge, and means of doing so were left to them! -
poochiewoochie — 16 years ago(December 24, 2009 01:07 AM)
I'm in that age group and I think Come and See is the best movie about WW2 ever made. Why? Because there is no Hollywood involvement. The movie is graphic, brutal and to the point. One of the reviewers was right-Come and See makes Schindler's List look like Sesame Street.
-
HwajangshilAgashi — 16 years ago(January 09, 2010 10:06 PM)
Does a movie have to be graphic and brutal to qualify as "good" or "the best"? Although this movie is definitely more graphic and brutal than "Schindler's List", the latter is still far superior. It is a better anti-war movie, because, although it clearly shows the Nazis as being wrong, it does not outright vilify Germans, and allows for some humanity even in Nazis.
Germans in "Come and See" are portrayed as a bunch of psychos. Nobody is arguing that many Soviets (among others) were killed. Entire villages, even. It was not, however, done by crazy guys in shorts, and other ridiculous characters, but by a well organized army who strictly adhered to orders. In my opinion, the reason why the German soldiers were portrayed as crazy idiots is to show that they WERE NOT robots (as people like to say when it suits their argument), but individual people who chose to commit these acts purely out of their own enjoyment, and not because they were blindly following orders. One more thing - maybe at the end, when they appeal to our emotions by saying how many villages including the villagers were burnt down, they should have worded it something like this "6xx villages, along with all women, children and men unable to bear arms, were burnt during WWII. All capable men, meanwhile, were out burning villages of their own, raping and killing women and children"
In my opinion, the best war movie ever made is "Die Bruecke" ("The Bridge"). Why? Because (spoiler alert?) there is no enemy to vilify, other than war itself. When the Americans finally make an appearance at the end of the movie, they are the furthest from an enemy one could imagine, and it is clearly shown how the main protagonists (German soldiers) become the victims of the ideas of war, and not the enemy himself.
Another great anti-war movie is "All Quiet on the Western Front", though the book is so much superior to the movie adaptation.
And yet another movie I would strongly recommend is "Joyeux Nol", which has a completely different angle, but makes some very strong points against war.
Strangely enough, all of the above are German (at least based on a partly auto-bigraphical novel by a German soldier and/or German co-operation); you'll have a hard time finding a German war movie that glorifies Germans and vilifies the enemy. Also strangely enough, Germany is the only country that has ever taken any real responsibility for the world wars, and still has a sense of national guilt, even though there were plenty of other nations who were at least as guilty in what happened as Germany. -
mastholte — 15 years ago(July 31, 2010 11:32 PM)
strangely enough, Germany is the only country that has ever taken any real responsibility for the world wars
He, who started, has taken, what's strange about it? Or did you mean that, in this world, it's rather strange to get a square deal? In that case, I agree. Stranger still it would be if a German liked and defended this Soviet movie or - the strangest of all - really feel, at least for a second, what we, former Soviets, feel about this war, and what those, who suffered that very occupation, felt. -
mastholte — 15 years ago(August 02, 2010 11:13 PM)
Mac_Alain, at least you thought better than contesting the second part of my ugly tirade
Well, I reciprocate by assuring you that there are many Russians today who admire the Nazi ideas or the ideas the Nazi drew from, myself having been under the spell a while. -
noblesse_oblige — 14 years ago(May 11, 2011 10:59 PM)
Yeah, but no. The Nazis were pretty bad; they fully deserve to be reviled and vilified at every possible opportunity.
There were, I'm sure, many Nazis who just followed orders. There were also many others who took pleasure/were indifferent in the pain they caused. Both groups helped to commit some of the greatest atrocities ever seen in human history.
There's no amount of fanciful unicorn wishing or nationalistic pride that will whitewash that away. -
sonofindiandelta — 15 years ago(August 03, 2010 09:34 PM)
Basically shows how women are actually worse when it comes to war and war propaganda since they never are expected to do the heavy lifting, they just think war is icky and disregard it's reality. They probably loved Pearl Harbor though.
I am terrified of Palin winning as she would send this country to war in Iran in a heartbeat -
sophiavladimirovna — 15 years ago(September 20, 2010 12:28 PM)
I'm a woman and this is the finest war film I have ever seen. Well, I am Russian, and I have been brought up in reverent terror of WW2, but still, ladies, wake the hell up! Pearl Harbour is a lie made by the government to control you.
Pretty please, with a cherry on top, clean the beep car. -
DaveHedgehog — 15 years ago(October 27, 2010 08:58 AM)
I'm 19 and female. I didn't like it because it was boring. I generally like war movies and I also generally like 'disturbing' movies. I didn't find it disturbing it all. It was just stupid. Although, I did like the barn scene.
But I should also note that my favourite genres are sci-fi and horror and that probably strips me of any credibility regarding movies such as these
I just blue myself.
