More crap from Holllywood- Defiance movie

[danceswithganja]

I cant post links but google Defiance trailer and you will be able to see the trailer for the new movie starring Daniel Craig about the 'Bielski Partisans.'

Do also google Naliboki massacre before allowing Hollywood to make heroes out of Soviet collaborators and murderers of at least 129 civilians, including women and children.

[Damien Evans]

I don't know what you're talking about.

Could you please elaborate?

[sophia8]

The Bielski partisans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielski_partisans).

Bad things - very bad things - happen in war. All the time. "Our" side did some things to be ashamed of as well.
But don't condemm the film until you've seen how it treats that incident.

[RobRoy]

Bad things - very bad things - happen in war. All the time. "Our" side did some things to be ashamed of as well.

Don't we generally vilify "their side" and praise "our side" in movies and other forms of entertainment. I mean Sergeant York and Das Boot and Enemy at the Gates all make heroes of folk who managed to kill a lot of other folk for "our side" as portrayed in the movie.

As I recall, history is written by the victor and those who have hanged heroes.

[dudalb]

Don't we generally vilify "their side" and praise "our side" in movies and other forms of entertainment. I mean Sergeant York and Das Boot and Enemy at the Gates all make heroes of folk who managed to kill a lot of other folk for "our side" as portrayed in the movie.

As I recall, history is written by the victor and those who have hanged heroes.

Oh please.
That last statement is so full of crap I am surprised anybody made it.
The The Nazis were the bad guys in World War 2. End of discussion.
If anything makes me mad it's this "Moral Equvilency" between the Allies and the Axis in World War 2.

[RobRoy]

Oh please.
That last statement is so full of crap I am surprised anybody made it.

ROFL. An excellent riposte, if it wasn't a straw man in itself. Oh, wait, a straw man hardly makes a counter-argument excellent. Perhaps it's "so full of crap I'm surprised anybody made it." <shrug>

Is it your contention that those who win the wars don't tell their own story, through their own eyes, with their own religious, moral, ethical, social, etc. justifications? This seems wholly indefensible, so I'm interested in seeing your response. ;)

The The Nazis were the bad guys in World War 2.

Time to Nazi argument: five posts. Nicely done! :)

End of discussion.

Really? Every last Nazi was a bad guy irregardless of their actions in the war? John Rabe was a "bad guy". Oskar Schindler, Georg Ferdinand Duckwitz, Albert Göring (I can go on if you'd like); are these all "bad guys"?

If anything makes me mad it's this "Moral Equvilency" between the Allies and the Axis in World War 2.

Well, it's a good thing I wasn't trying to make a "moral equivalence" argument, but just stating that entertainers tend to make heroes of those "on our side" and villains of those "on their side." This seems to be irregardless of morality one way or the other. It's entertainment, after all, some of which is quite enjoyable.

[Safe-Keeper]

dudalb: It's a sad fact that history is written by the winners, and what is hated, feared, adored or loved is strongly a cultural thing. Norwegian youngsters hate the Nazis with a passion because of Nazi aggression and the Holocaust, but many of the same youths proudly wear t-shirts with Soviet imagery because it's the 'cool' thing to do (see my avatar:D), despite the fact that Communism killed far more people than Nazism. In Scandinavia the Palestinians are the good guys; in America it's the Israelis. In the West Alexander 'the Great' is regarded as a hero; in the countries he terrorized he's known as 'the Horrible' and is remembered as a cold-blooded butcherer.

To state this is not 'moral equivocation' of any faction, but simply a depressing fact of life.

[Safe-Keeper]

As for the OP: Leave it to Hollywood to present only one side of the story and totally disregard historical accuracy and authenticity. Nothing new there.

[danceswithganja]

I don't know what you're talking about.

Could you please elaborate?

The problem I have with this movie is that it makes heroes out of war criminals. Its based on the book Defiance, by Nechama Tec, which describes the mass murder of civilians, in typical Soviet fasion, as a succesful operation against nazis.

But these particular partisans were Jewish, so we can let the murder of 129 civilians,the pillaging and rape of the local peasant community slide.

[RobRoy]

The problem I have with this movie is that it makes heroes out of war criminals. Its based on the book Defiance, by Nechama Tec, which describes the mass murder of civilians, in typical Soviet fasion, as a succesful operation against nazis.

This is the book Defiance (http://www.amazon.com/Defiance-Bielski-Partisans-Nechama-Tec/dp/0195093909/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207753879&sr=8-1).

Here's the wikipedia article on the Bielski partisans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielski_partisans).

But these particular partisans were Jewish, so we can let the murder of 129 civilians,the pillaging and rape of the local peasant community slide.

Not knowing anything about the book, the events or the controversy, the wiki article I cited goes into brief discussion regarding the accusation of war crimes. They apparently maintained a rather hard line against collaborators, spies, and traitors, as well as any captured soldiers. The morality here is iffy, but similar in many ways to the French Resistance cells and their various treatment of civilians and soldiers.

The specific war crime that is being mentioned by danceswithganja is what's called the Naliboki Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naliboki_massacre) where 128 civilians were killed. There is either an ongoing investigation into this by the Polish Institute of National Remembrance, or it has been concluded. I do not speak or read Polish, so I have no idea what their report says about the incident (http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal.php?serwis=pl&dzial=198&id=3376&search=35098). From the wikipedia article the partisans took part in something with their Soviet backers which turned out quite badly. It is unclear if it was the Soviets who committed the actual massacre or not, but it seems iffy in either case.

Based on the trailer, I have no idea how, or even, the movie intends to handle this particular controversy, thus I couldn't give a reasonable argument for or against the movie, and especially not with such little evidence.

It seems, however, that the accusation against Hollywood with regard to the religion of the partisans is somewhat misapplied. Movies of "heroes", as I stated previously, have been turned into entertainment generally with more consideration to making money, rather than reporting history.

If someone has more information on this, can translate the Polish report, or can point me to a reasonably balanced site regarding the matter, I'd appreciate it.

[Polaris]

As I recall, history is written by the victor and those who have hanged heroes.

Or in some cases, it's written (or at least directed) by those who drive drunk and hate Jews.

[RobRoy]

Or in some cases, it's written (or at least directed) by those who drive drunk and hate Jews.

But appreciate a female officer with a nice rack. :D

[Polaris]

But appreciate a female officer with a nice rack. :D

True, but who can't say that?

[Arkayik]

irregardless

No, actually it is the use of this word which invalidates all your cogent arguments!
:jaw-dropp

[RobRoy]

No, actually it is the use of this word which invalidates all your cogent arguments!
:jaw-dropp

D'oh! I've fallen victim for one of the classic blunders.

[Corsair 115]

I mean Sergeant York and Das Boot and Enemy at the Gates all make heroes of folk who managed to kill a lot of other folk for "our side" as portrayed in the movie.Uh, I really don't recall Das Boot making heroes out of the U-boat crews. Of course, it may be that we are using different defintions of "heroes."

[RobRoy]

Uh, I really don't recall Das Boot making heroes out of the U-boat crews. Of course, it may be that we are using different defintions of "heroes."

I had thought that the crew members were considered the protagonist of the film. That we were meant to root for them and sympathize with their plight. <shrug>

None of which changes the point in regard to the us-verses-them theme of movies, where heroes or villains can come from either perspective depending on the slant of the movie.

[a_unique_person]

I cant post links but google Defiance trailer and you will be able to see the trailer for the new movie starring Daniel Craig about the 'Bielski Partisans.'

Do also google Naliboki massacre before allowing Hollywood to make heroes out of Soviet collaborators and murderers of at least 129 civilians, including women and children.People kill in times of conflict to save their own. News at 11.

[danceswithganja]

People kill in times of conflict to save their own. News at 11.


How does murdering 128 civilians save anyone's life? Did the Nazis save German lives by murdering Jews?

[RobRoy]

How does murdering 128 civilians save anyone's life?

Do you really not see how this is possible? I mean there are just so many different ways in which the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, even to their death. That's not a moral justification on my part, just saying that it's entirely possible to provide examples and make the case.

Did the Nazis save German lives by murdering Jews?

Sorry, this is a strawman. It is fundamentally flawed. You can't compare every situation where a person's death occurs with the Nazi Holocaust.

[danceswithganja]

Here is what happened in Naliboki-

The Nazis arrived and imposed strict qoutas on the amount of food they provide them. Next the Bielskis arrive and murder 128 Polish civilians, including women and children and looted the place. A few months later the Nazis burn down the village, murder most of the people in it or take them as slave workers.

This seems to be the typical way the Bielskis acted. They stole from peasants and fought people who couldnt fight back. There are accounts of them turning away Jews who didnt have money while accepting rich ones or those at least who had a beautiful daughter or two. Its said that Tuvia Bielski had a 'harem' in the forrest. They had such a surplus of food that once a week a transport plane would be filled with their loot bound for Russia while the locals starved.

The Bielskis were thugs and murderers who hid in the woods and stole from peasants instead of fighting invading Nazis and Soviets. To anyone living in that village there is no distinction between the Nazis and Bielskis- they both came in and stole what they wanted and murdered alot of people.

[RobRoy]

Here is what happened in Naliboki- [snip]

Citations for this please?

[danceswithganja]

Can you be specific?

[RobRoy]

Can you be specific?

Sure. For everything you've asserted in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3611383&postcount=21) please provide a citation.

Thanks.

[danceswithganja]

Sure. For everything you've asserted in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3611383&postcount=21) please provide a citation.

Thanks.


What I wrote is a brief summary of what Ive learned about the massacre from various books. I dont have time to look for citations for every sentence for your benefit. This isnt the axis history forum. If you dont belive me, I dont really care. If youre disputing something I wrote, point it out to me specifically and Ill look for a citation.

[RobRoy]

What I wrote is a brief summary of what Ive learned about the massacre from various books. I dont have time to look for citations for every sentence for your benefit. This isnt the axis history forum. If you dont belive me, I dont really care. If youre disputing something I wrote, point it out to me specifically and Ill look for a citation.

What I learned from my, albeit limited, research seems to counter what you've stated . . . and stated as fact. I would like the opportunity to dig deeper into the subject and would appreciate it if you would list some citations. Your "various books" will do nicely.

[danceswithganja]

The Story of Two Shtetls Bransk and Ejszyszki: An Overview of Polish-Jewish Relations in Northeastern Poland During World War II (Part Two) - revised and expanded
(Toronto and Chicago: The Polish Educational Foundation in North America, 1998)
Pages 99, 114-16:
OTHER CIVILIAN MASSACRES:

One of the earliest and most gruesome episodes was the "pacification" of Naliboki, whose aim was the liquidation of the nascent pro-Home Army underground organization in that townlet. The Polish and Byelorussian villagers had formed a self-defence unit to fend off Soviet and Jewish marauders.
In Soviet eyes, their chief "crime" was that they had rebuffed overtures from the Soviet partisan command to fall into line.[1] The joint Soviet-Jewish assault on Naliboki occurred on May 8, 1943.
One hundred and twenty-eight (or nine) innocent civilians, including women and children, were butchered in a heinous pogrom that lasted almost two hours. The Jewish factions that did most of the pillaging and murdering of entire families awakened from their sleep were the Bielski ("Jerusalem") and Zorin ("Pobeda") detachments.

Everyone is in tears. The plunderers did not omit a single homestead. Something was taken from everyone. Because he resisted, they killed the father of my schoolmate and cousin, Marysia Grygorcewiczówna. The "soldiers of Pobeda" and "Jerusalemites" took with them the pigs and chickens which they shot, flour, as well as other provisions. They wanted to live! But they took the lives of others. They did not come to fight. …
In the space of almost two hours, 128 innocent people died, the majority of them, as eyewitnesses later testified, at the hands of the Bielski and "Pobeda" assassins.[2]

The Soviet report prepared by General Platon on May 10, 1943 gave the following-grossly embellished (e.g., there was no German police garrison in Naliboki!)-Version of this reputed "military operation":

On the night of May 8, 1943, the partisan detachments "Dzerzhinsky" … "Bolshevik" … "Suvorov" … under the command of the leader of the "Stalin" Brigade … by surprise destroyed the German garrison of the "self-defence" of the townlet of Naliboki. As a result of two-and-a-half hours of fighting 250 members of the self-defence [referred to by its Byelorussian name of "samokhova"-M.P.] group were killed. We took 4 heavy machine-guns, 15 light machine guns, 4 mortars, 10 automatic pistols, 13 rifles, and more than 20,000 rounds of ammunition (for rifles), and a lot of mines and grenades. We burned down the electrical station, the sawmill, the barracks, and county office. We took 100 cows and 78 horses. …
I order the leaders of the brigade and partisan detachments to present those distinguished in this battle for state awards.
In this battle, our units lost six dead and six wounded. Praise to our brave partisans-patriots of the Fatherland.[3]

Other villages, such as Szczepki and Prowzaly, and the townlet of Kamien Nowogródzki met a similar fate in the early months of 1944.[4] These exploits are strangely missing from memoirs of the Bielski partisans and from sanitized Holocaust histories.[5]

Ironically, in August 1943, a few months after the massacre in Naliboki, as part of a massive anti-partisan operation known as "Operation Hermann," some 60,000 German troops descended and, with the assistance of Lithuanian auxiliary forces (attached to the SS) and Byelorussian police, rounded up the civilian population of dozens of villages in the area of Naliboki forest suspected of supporting the partisans (some 20,000 villagers were deported to the Reich for slave labour) and burned down their homesteads.[6] Among those murdered for the crime of aiding partisans and Jews were a number of priests: Rev. Józef Bajko and Rev. Józef Baradyn from Naliboki, Rev. Pawel Dolzyk from Derewna, and Rev. Leopold Aulich and Rev. Kazimierz Rybaltowski from Kamien.[7]
Tuvia Bielski and many other Jewish partisans vividly recalled this German operation.

"One night I sent Akiba and a number of people with him to the village of Kletishtze [Kleciszcze]. Perhaps it would be possible to get some food.
When our people came to the village, they saw numerous German forces. The village was illuminated with the powerful lights of military vehicles.
Akiba returned with empty hands, but the information he had was important. Some time later the farmers told us that the number of Germans that were in the village that night was in the thousands. … After a while we found out that the Germans had gathered all the farmers of the village of Kletishtze and had taken them away from their village in trucks. They burned the village. The farmers were taken to Germany and only about a score managed to escape. Cattle, which they could not take with them, the Germans shot if the fire did not succeed in consuming them.

In the same way, the Germans burned at that time seventeen villages and hundreds of farmers' homesteads. Also, the village of Nalibuki [Naliboki] was consumed by fire.
The intention of the Germans was, as our agents informed us later, to destroy the villages which were close to the forest in order that the Partisans would not be helped by them with supplies and places to hide.[8]

NOTES:

[1] According to Krajewski, the foremost authority on these events, a self-defence group was created in Naliboki in August 1942, at the urging of the Germans, as a condition of not carrying out a "pacification" of this small town in the wake of a nearby assault by Soviet partisans on German troops. The townspeople were given a small quantity of rifles (22) and basically guarded the town against marauding bands. The self-defence group did not engage in military confrontations with the regular Soviet partisans and in March 1943, under the leadership of the local Home Army commander, Eugeniusz Klimowicz, reached a non-aggression agreement with Major Rafail Vasilevich, the local leader of the Soviet partisans. In April, when the self-defence group was summoned to the village of Niescierowicze to fend off a violent assault by marauders, two of its members were killed. The local Soviet command did not question the validity of such interventions. A surprise attack on Naliboki was launched on May 8, 1943 by the Stalin Brigade, with the participation of the Bielski detachment (which reported to it at that time), under the command of Major Vasilevich. A large part of the town was burned to the ground and 129 people were killed. See Krajewski, Na Ziemi Nowogródzkiej, 387-88. See also Komisja Historyczna Polskiego Sztabu Glównego w Londynie, Polskie Sily Zbrojne w Drugiej wojnie swiatowej 3: Armia Krajowa, 529; Antoni Boguslawski's afterword in Tadeusz Lopalewski, Miedzy Niemnem a Dzwina: Ziemia Wilenska i Nowogródzka (London: Wydawnictwo Polskie and Tern (Rybitwa) Book, 1955), 245; Adolf Pilch, Partyzanci trzech puszcz (Warszawa: Editions Spotkania, 1992), 135; Waclaw Nowicki, "W imie prawdy o zolnierzach AK: List otwarty do prof. A. Hackiewicza," Slowo- Dziennik katolicki, no. 141, August 11, 1993; Zygmunt Boradyn, "Rozbrojenie," Karta, no 16 (1995): 127; Tadeusz Piotrowski, Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947 (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 1998), 102; Tadeusz Gasztold, "Sowietyzacja i rusyfikacja Wilenszczyzny i Nowogródczyzny w dzialalnosci partyzantki sowieckiej w latach 1941-1944," in Adam Sudol, ed., Sowietyzacja Kresów Wschodnich II Rzeczypospolitej po 17 wrzesnia 1939 (Bydgoszcz: Wyzsza Szkola Pedagogiczna w Bydgoszczy, 1998), 277-78, 281-82; Zygmunt Boradyn, Niemen rzeka niezgody: Polsko-sowiecka wojna partyzancka na Nowogródczyznie 1943-1944 (Warsaw: Rytm, 1999), 100-101; Marek J. Chodakiewicz, Piotr Gontarczyk and Leszek Zebrowski, eds., Tajne oblicze GL-AL i PPR: Dokumenty (Warsaw: Burchard Edition, 1999), vol. 3, 251, 253.

[2] Waclaw Nowicki, Zywe echa (Warsaw: Antyk, 1993), 98, 100.

[3] This order is reproduced, in Polish translation, in Gasztold, "Sowietyzacja i rusyfikacja Wilenszczyzny i Nowogródczyzny w dzialalnosci partyzantki sowieckiej w latach 1941-1944," in Sudol, ed., Sowietyzacja Kresów Wschodnich II Rzeczypospolitej po 17 wrzesnia 1939, 281-82.
Eugeniusz Klimowicz, the Home Army commander, was charged with various crimes in Stalinist Poland, among them for activities directed against Soviet partisans! The death sentence imposed on him by a military tribunal in Warsaw was commuted to life imprisonment. Klimowicz described the events leading up to the pacification of Naliboki in a petition he sent to the head of the Supreme Military Tribunal, dated May 30, 1956 (Sygn. Akt Sr 749/51; pismo: Do Ob. Prezesa Najwyzszego Sadu Wojskowego w Warszawie).

[4] Kazimierz Krajewski, "Nowogródzki Okreg Armii Krajowej," in Jaroslaw Wolkonowski, ed., Sympozjum historyczne "Rok 1944 na Wilenszczyznie": Wilno 30 czerwca-1 lipca 1994r., (Warsaw: Biblioteka "Kuriera Wilenskiego," 1996), 54; Krajewski, Na Ziemi Nowogródzkiej, 388; Gasztold, "Sowietyzacja i rusyfikacja Wilenszczyzny i Nowogródczyzny w dzialalnosci partyzantki sowieckiej w latach 1941-1944," in Sudol, ed., Sowietyzacja Kresów Wschodnich II Rzeczypospolitej po 17 wrzesnia 1939, 277. According to Krajewski, 14 villagers were killed in Prowzaly in retaliation for an attempt to organize a local self-defence group. Seven families were wiped out in Szczepki.

[5] The only Jewish account the author has come across that appears to refer to the massacre in Naliboki is one related by one of the Jewish partisans involved in the assault to Sulia Wolozhinski Rubin, his mistress (at the time), and recorded by her almost twenty years later. It is replete with lapses, obvious concoctions and a remarkable lack of detail (place name, date, chronology, etc.), which is surprising given that her husband is said to hail from Naliboki and would have taken part in the massacre of his former neighbours.
The reason given for the assault is also highly dubious, since there was no compelling reason for anyone to have to pass through the isolated townlet of Naliboki (which was not in proximity to Dworzec) other than to forage. Moreover, the decision to launch the assault was entirely in the hands of the local Soviet partisan command.

Sulia Rubin's hearsay account is as follows: "There was a village not far from the [Dworzec] ghetto which escaping Jews would have to pass on the way to the forest, or partisans would pass on the way from the woods. These villagers would signal with bells and beat copper pots to alert other villages around. Peasants would run out with axes, sickles-anything that could kill-and would slaughter everybody and then divide among themselves whatever the unfortunate had had. Boris' [Rubizhewski] group decided to stop this once and for all. They sent a few people into the village and lay in ambush on all the roads. Soon enough signaling began and the peasants ran out with their weapons to kill the 'lousy Jews'. Well, the barrage started and they were mown down on all sides. Caskets were made for three days and more than 130 bodies buried. Never again were Jews or partisans killed on those roads." See Sulia Wolozhinski Rubin, Against the Tide: The Story of an Unknown Partisan (Jerusalem: Posner & Sons, 1980), 126-27.

As for the hostility of the local population, in another part of her memoir, Rubin recalls that when she fell sick, she was sheltered by villagers in nearby "Kletishtche" [Kleciszcze] for three weeks until she recovered her strength. "Kletishtche was a planlessly scattered, muddy village laid between two deep forests. The houses were wooden and primitive, but as clean as possible and the local peasants were good people." Ibid., 134-35.

However, in an interview conducted in 1993 for the documentary film "The Bielsky Brothers: The Unknown Partisans" (Soma Productions-written and produced by David Herman; reissued in 1996 by Films for the Humanities & Sciences), Sulia Rubin, who is interviewed together with her husband Boris Rubin at her side, provides a different version, now claiming that the assault on Naliboki was carried out by her husband when he learned that his father had been nailed to a tree by some villagers: "His father Shlomko … was crucified on a tree … Boris found out. That village doesn't exist anymore. … 130 people they buried that day."
It is difficult to understand how a pivotal event like that, had it occurred, could have been omitted from her detailed memoir. Moreover, the claim that the decision to attack Naliboki was Boris Rubin's is quite simply a concoction. This documentary, however, does inadvertently underscore the true source of the conflict with the local population. As one of the interviewed partisans put it, "The biggest problem was … feeding so many people. Groups of 10 to 12 partisans used to go out for a march of 80 to 90 kilometres, rob the villages, and bring food to the partisans [i.e. partisan base and family camp]."

[6] Zygmunt Boradyn, "Stosunki Armii Krajowej z partyzantka sowiecka na Nowogródczyznie," in Zygmunt Boradyn, Andrzej Chmielarz, and Henryk Piskunowicz, eds., Armia Krajowa na Nowogródczyznie i Wilenszczyznie (1941-1945) (Warsaw: Instytut Studiów Politycznych PAN, 1997), 112. Other "pacifications" carried out by the Germans on a massive scale in this part of Poland are described in Maria Wardzynska, "Radziecki ruch partyzancki i jego zwalczanie w Generalnym Komisariacie Bialorusi," Pamiec i sprawiedliwosc: Biuletyn Glównej Komisji Badania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu-Instytutu Pamieci Narodowej 39 (1996): 46-50. The author points out that the armed Soviet partisans would flee the area leaving the defenceless local population to fend for itself.

[7] Mieczyslaw Suwala, "'Boze, cos Polske' w Puszczy Nalibockiej," in Udzial kapelanów wojskowych w Drugiej wojnie swiatowej (Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1984), 386.

[8] Albert Nirenstein, A Tower from the Enemy: Contributions to a History of Jewish Resistance in Poland (New York: The Orion Press, 1959), 371-72.

Excerpt from the Mark Paul--s book "The Story of Two Shtetls", Canadian Polish Congress, 0000-00-00

[Corsair 115]

How does murdering 128 civilians save anyone's life?Possible candidate: strategic bombing.

One could argue strategic bombing is an example of murdering civilians for a greater cause (the destruction of the enemy's ability to wage war). It depends on how one wants to define "murder" in this particular situation.

[TriskettheKid]

Forgive me for kind of diverting the conversation a bit, but as someone who, well, I guess could be said to have been "trained" in History, the following statement stood out to me:


As I recall, history is written by the victor and those who have hanged heroes.

Few things irritate me as much as this mindset.

History is not written by the winners. It's written by everyone. Yes, the winners do write history. But so do the losers. So do the bystanders. So do people far removed from the events. So do, in some cases, the victims. It is written by leaders and civilians, those heavily involved and those who stood by.

In essence, it is a myth that history is written by the winners.

Using WWII as an example, it's easy to see. Look at how many pieces were written by Germans of all walks of life, from those heavily involved in the Shoah, to those who served in the Kriegsmarine, to those who served in the Luftwaffe, to those who were prisoners of the Nazis themselves. All offering different points of view in regards to some of the same events.

The other problem is that it implies that there is a single voice in regards to historical events. It implies that, with an event like the Shoah, there is only one view, and that is because of the winners. It implies that, with an event like the American Revolution, there is only one accepted view of what happened.

And it's all folly. Just look at the History section of a bookstore or library. Look at how many books are written on the Holocaust, the American Revolution, Medieval Europe, Feudal Japan, or any topic you want to read about.

So please, for the love of the subject that I cared enough about to get a degree in, PLEASE don't fall prey to such ridiculous sentiments as "History is written by the winners."

[I Ratant]

Or in some cases, it's written (or at least directed) by those who drive drunk and hate Jews.
.
But isn't THE history book written by Jews? :p
Who did write it from the standpoint of victory.
And "crap" & "Hollywood" are the same word.

[RobRoy]

Forgive me for kind of diverting the conversation a bit, but as someone who, well, I guess could be said to have been "trained" in History, the following statement stood out to me:

This was not the point of the statement that I was putting forth, and it's more than a little disconcerting to have it so taken out of the context for which it was offered, especially by someone who claims to love history so much. Context should be reasonably important, otherwise we can pull out statements all day long and offer lengthy, semantic arguments which serve no end.

[TriskettheKid]

This was not the point of the statement that I was putting forth, and it's more than a little disconcerting to have it so taken out of the context for which it was offered, especially by someone who claims to love history so much. Context should be reasonably important, otherwise we can pull out statements all day long and offer lengthy, semantic arguments which serve no end.

Taken out of context?

Would you care to explain the context of your quote?

Specifically, this one:
As I recall, history is written by the victor and those who have hanged heroes.

Also, I'm curious to see why you brought up Das Boot and Enemy at the Gates. They are two movies that, when viewed, do not really "villify" the enemy in the truest sense of the phrase. Das Boot CERTAINLY does not villify the Nazis (though it does take shots at the Nazis who were not exactly fighting on the front lines), and I can recall only one part of Enemy at the Gates which could be said to villify Ed Harris' character.

Looking at other movies, like Tora! Tora! Tora!, the enemy is, again, not villified.

So, you might want to explain the first part of that post to me.

[RobRoy]

Taken out of context?

Yes, your post made my statements seem to be absolute, and applicable across all examples. That's taking my contentions out of context to make this case, which is false.

Would you care to explain the context of your quote?

Sure, the point was: "[W]e generally vilify "their side" and praise "our side" in movies and other forms of entertainment."

Sorry if that was confusing the first time around.

Also, I'm curious to see why you brought up Das Boot and Enemy at the Gates. They are two movies that, when viewed, do not really "villify" the enemy in the truest sense of the phrase. Das Boot CERTAINLY does not villify the Nazis (though it does take shots at the Nazis who were not exactly fighting on the front lines), and I can recall only one part of Enemy at the Gates which could be said to villify Ed Harris' character.

Perfect. Your explanation highlights exactly why I used them as examples. Das Boot makes sympathetic heroes of German soldiers, though not necessarily the Nazis (as someone trained in history, you know as well as I do that not all soldiers were members of the Nazi party). Enemy at the Gates makes sympathetic heroes of the defending Russians. In both cases, the heroes are members of groups who in previous Hollywood movies were often vilified in one fashion or another.

Looking at other movies, like Tora! Tora! Tora!, the enemy is, again, not villified.

Tora, Tora, Tora was not one of the movies that I cited. Not all movies fit the bill. If that's your point, then you won't find me in disagreement. My contention was not meant to be a universal absolute, which is why I used the term "generally" and applied it to "movies and other forms of entertainment".

[dudalb]

I have noted that the people who say "History Is Written By Winners' inevitably are either ignorant history or are promoting some crackpot version of history.
That is has become the battle cry of the Holocaust Deniers should make people hesitent about using it.
And not that the Nazis do not deserve to be vilified.

[RobRoy]

The Story of Two Shtetls Bransk and Ejszyszki: [snip]

This passage doesn't really seem to lend credence to anyone's arguments. It seems like the author was reflecting that a number of people claimed a number of things and that most of those claims have large, gaping holes in them.

Would you care to provide some other citations, or did you just have the one book?

[TriskettheKid]

RobRoy:

I suggest going back over your first post, as it is confusing.

While I understand your point now, the fact is that I was honestly confused because of your use of Das Boot while making claims about "our side," which is where the confusion began.

However, the point I made about history being written by the winners still stands, though it is not a shot at something you posted. It's just that when I see the phrase, it really irks me. Usually to the point where I respond.

[RobRoy]

RobRoy:

I suggest going back over your first post, as it is confusing.

Could be. In the future, I'd simply suggest asking questions for clarification before going into a rant, especially one regarding context. :D

While I understand your point now, the fact is that I was honestly confused because of your use of Das Boot while making claims about "our side," which is where the confusion began.

That's why "our side" is in quotations, because it all depends on whose side is "our side" and "their side". I'm not certain how I could have made this more clear, but perhaps it's because others use quotation marks out of this standard context that it is confusing. <shrug>

Still, my original statement about questions of clarification would stand. ;)

However, the point I made about history being written by the winners still stands, though it is not a shot at something you posted. It's just that when I see the phrase, it really irks me. Usually to the point where I respond.

On this point, we would disagree, but in a much more friendly manner, and outside of the context of the current discussion. :) While I see your point, in the main history has been written by the victors. Only in more recent, modern times, has there been the capacity for multiple views to be realized, and a reflection of presenting more, if not all, sides of a particular event.

[gumboot]

For what it's worth, the OP is totally false - this is not a "Hollywood" film. In fact it wasn't even funded from the USA at all.

[danceswithganja]

This passage doesn't really seem to lend credence to anyone's arguments. It seems like the author was reflecting that a number of people claimed a number of things and that most of those claims have large, gaping holes in them.

Would you care to provide some other citations, or did you just have the one book?


I have plenty, unfortunetly, they are merely claims from eyewitnesses published in books and will be dismissed by as easily as you dismissed these. The Polish Institute of National Memory concluded that the Bielskis were involved in the massacre. It didnt investigate further as the perpetrators were all dead. Can you read Polish? I can provide a link.
The only surviving Bielski is Aron who recently kidnapped a Polish woman and concentration camp survivor (non-jewish), put her in a nursing home in Poland and stole 250,000 from her account. 60 years later and young Aron is still fighting the Nazis just like his brothers ;)


Florida - A man credited with helping save hundreds of Jews during World War II has agreed to repay a fellow Holocaust survivor that he and his wife were accused of swindling out of about $260 000.
Aron Bell, 80, and his wife, Henryka, 58, were charged last year with scheming to defraud 90-year-old Janina Zaniewska, exploitation of the elderly and theft. In a plea deal, the Bells agreed to repay Zaniewska $260 000, according to court documents released on Tuesday. Authorities said prosecution will be deferred if the Bells stay out of trouble and repay the money.

Zaniewska claimed the Bells kidnapped her and left her in a nursing home in Poland last year, then returned to Palm Beach and spent nearly all her money. The three lived in the same condominium complex.
The Bells have said they were merely helping their neighbour with her finances as the elderly woman grew frail and mentally unstable. They said Zaniewska, who is Polish and was once imprisoned by the Nazis alongside Jews, wanted to return to her native country. She has since returned to Palm Beach.
As a young boy in Eastern Europe during World War II, Bell, then known as Aron Bielski, helped his three older brothers in what has been described as the biggest armed rescue of Jews by Jews during the Holocaust.
The Bielski brothers were acclaimed as heroes, and their exploits were chronicled in books, a documentary and a Hollywood movie set to come out later this year.
As the Nazis invaded what was then the Soviet Union in 1941, killing or imprisoning Jews by the thousands, the Bielski brothers fled their home near Stankiewicze in what is now Belarus and hid out in the forest, determined to resist and fight. They saved about 1 200 Jews. Bell's three brothers often receive most of the credit since they were much older and ran the operations. Bell, who was only about 11 or 12 at the time, served largely as a messenger in the forests around the brothers' hidden encampment.

[danceswithganja]

For what it's worth, the OP is totally false - this is not a "Hollywood" film. In fact it wasn't even funded from the USA at all.


The director, production company, etc are American. From imdb.

Country:

USA (http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Countries/USA/)
Language:

English (http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Languages/English/)
Color:

Color (http://www.imdb.com/List?color-info=Color&&heading=13;Color)
Filming Locations:

Lithuania (http://www.imdb.com/List?endings=on&&locations=Lithuania&&heading=18;with+locations+including;Lithuania)

[gumboot]

The director, production company, etc are American. From imdb.

Country:

USA (http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Countries/USA/)
Language:

English (http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Languages/English/)
Color:

Color (http://www.imdb.com/List?color-info=Color&&heading=13;Color)
Filming Locations:

Lithuania (http://www.imdb.com/List?endings=on&&locations=Lithuania&&heading=18;with+locations+including;Lithuania)


American =/ Hollywood... and you'd be wrong anyway. Defiance was financed by Grosvenor Park Productions which is a London-based company.

[RobRoy]

I have plenty, unfortunetly, they are merely claims from eyewitnesses published in books and will be dismissed by as easily as you dismissed these.

The ones you provided weren't dismissed. They don't seem to say anything conclusive one way or the other. If I've misread them, then please advise where.

The Polish Institute of National Memory concluded that the Bielskis were involved in the massacre. It didnt investigate further as the perpetrators were all dead. Can you read Polish? I can provide a link.

I believe that's the report I already provided, though I've already stated that I can't read Polish. I'm more than willing to read a translation if someone has one though. My understanding from second-hand review of the report was that the Bielskis were present, but did not take part in the massacre. The massacre was committed by the Soviets. That's hardly an exoneration, but there it is.

American =/ Hollywood... and you'd be wrong anyway. Defiance was financed by Grosvenor Park Productions which is a London-based company.

Not that you're wrong about the automated connection between a U.S. based film and Hollywood. Some very Hollywood independent films have been shot in the U.S. But in addition to Grosvenor, the film is at least partially financed by a U.S. company, The Bedford Falls Company. <shrug>

[Tolls]

Perfect. Your explanation highlights exactly why I used them as examples. Das Boot makes sympathetic heroes of German soldiers, though not necessarily the Nazis (as someone trained in history, you know as well as I do that not all soldiers were members of the Nazi party).

Sorry to bring this bit up again. Only just read this thread.

I'm really not sure Das Boot fits the bill, unless you feel that All Quiet on the Western Front (which it is sort of styled on) somehow makes the German squaddies heroes, rather than simply poor sods caught up in a mess. Throw in Stalingrad (by the same lot that made Das Boot, IIRC), and these are films more about that (a mix of often unpleasant people in a rather grim situation) than about any sort of, I don't know, general "our boys were heroes" thing.

Maybe I'm misreading it, but when you throw in Sergeant York (which is clearly an "our boys were heroes" film) I really don't see how Das Boot (not seen Enemy at the gates. so couldn't say) fits.

[gumboot]

Not that you're wrong about the automated connection between a U.S. based film and Hollywood. Some very Hollywood independent films have been shot in the U.S. But in addition to Grosvenor, the film is at least partially financed by a U.S. company, The Bedford Falls Company. <shrug>


This is incorrect. Bedford Falls is Edward Zwick's production company, and they developed the film. It was entirely financed by Grosvenor Park ($50 million).

[RobRoy]

Sorry to bring this bit up again. Only just read this thread.

It's just a list of movies. I've already explained my use of Das Boot, and you're welcome to read my responses and even open a new thread in which we can discuss whether or not the movie has sympathetic protagonists or not.

None of which has much to do with the OP or my questions and concerns regarding the assertions made there.

This is incorrect. Bedford Falls is Edward Zwick's production company, and they developed the film. It was entirely financed by Grosvenor Park ($50 million).

Citation please? I'm not saying you're wrong, but your information is in conflict with what I have. My information came from the credits listed on IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034303/companycredits). IMDB isn't 100% correct all the time, every time, but they usually have their ducks in a row. Bedford is listed as one of the producers, which means in some way they financially contributed to the making of the film. <shrug>

It still doesn't make Defiance a Hollywood film, nor the OP correct in his assertions. <double shrug>

[Dragoonster]

Using WWII as an example, it's easy to see. Look at how many pieces were written by Germans of all walks of life, from those heavily involved in the Shoah, to those who served in the Kriegsmarine, to those who served in the Luftwaffe, to those who were prisoners of the Nazis themselves. All offering different points of view in regards to some of the same events.

The other problem is that it implies that there is a single voice in regards to historical events. It implies that, with an event like the Shoah, there is only one view, and that is because of the winners. It implies that, with an event like the American Revolution, there is only one accepted view of what happened.

And it's all folly. Just look at the History section of a bookstore or library. Look at how many books are written on the Holocaust, the American Revolution, Medieval Europe, Feudal Japan, or any topic you want to read about.

So please, for the love of the subject that I cared enough about to get a degree in, PLEASE don't fall prey to such ridiculous sentiments as "History is written by the winners."

Well since Godwin's has already been invoked, look at a bookstore in Austria. Or (not sure of all the laws), 12 other countries. You won't see any Holocaust Denial/Revionism books, because such books (and thus the loser's take on history) are illegal. From googling, it also looks like similar laws against a take on history, by losers, has been or is being discussed for the EU as a whole.

That may be a unique example of course, but it's a pretty blatant case of the victors writing history (by outlawing the opposing view, even if the opposing view is bunk. Sometimes extreme opposing views to also extreme conventional views at least succeed in moving both towards reality).

The ones you provided weren't dismissed. They don't seem to say anything conclusive one way or the other. If I've misread them, then please advise where.

You seem to be moving the goalposts. First you asked for citations in order to dig deeper into the possible event. Then complained that those given didn't offer anything conclusive (even though they explicitly did, with their claims supported by citations of their own). I don't know, maybe you're honestly seeking information. But if so, just what quality of citation/reference would suffice? Only ones that claim things that would meet your preconceptions?

[gumboot]

Citation please? I'm not saying you're wrong, but your information is in conflict with what I have. My information came from the credits listed on IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034303/companycredits). IMDB isn't 100% correct all the time, every time, but they usually have their ducks in a row. Bedford is listed as one of the producers, which means in some way they financially contributed to the making of the film. <shrug>

No it doesn't...

Film production is fairly complicated - there's basically four typical levels.

Level one is the Film Production Company - this is often simply the name of the film, or some other reference to an aspect of the film (such as 3foot6 for the Lord of the Rings films in reference to the height of Hobbits). This company is solely associated with the movie and is created specifically so that, if for some reason the film goes under, the companies that made it will not be hurt by it. Every single film will have a separate company like this. In most cases, once the film is completed this company will sell it to one of the upper level companies. Film crews will typically be contracted to the Film Production Company.

Level Two is the Production Company itself. The Production Company is permanent and may have multiple films to its credits. The Production Company will be cited in the film credits. Often the Production Company is owned by one of the key personalities working on the film such as the director or lead actor (for example the Production Company for Lord of the Rings was Peter Jackson's Wingnut Films).

The "owners" of the film typically own or work for the Production Company. They will typically receive the "Producer" credit. A producer in film does not finance a film, but is in charge of developing it and owns it. Often the Production Company will also receive the "A [name of production company] production" credit in a film, or alternatively the producer might.

Typically the Production Company will also develop the film - either purchasing rights for an adaptation or purchasing screenplays from writers, or funding writers to develop new scripts.

Key personnel for the film such as producers, directors and key cast work for the Production Company as opposed to the Film Production Company these are referred to as "Above The Line".

The Production Company may or may not purchase the finished film off the Film Production Company, and may or may not then on sell it to higher level companies. Production Companies sometimes finance the films themselves, but typically financing is provided by higher level companies.

Level Three is the film Financier. This is the company that provides the money to the Production Company to fund the film. They are listed at IMDB as one of the Production Companies - for example New Line Cinemas financed Lord of the Rings and are listed as one of the Production Companies. For Hollywood productions the financier will be a major studio, and a financier may have many films being financed with many different production companies at a time. Those working in relation to a particular film for the financier will receive the "Executive Producer" credit on that film.

The Executive Producers do not own the film, however often the financier will purchase the film back off the production company - often this will be built into initial contract agreements.

Level Four is distribution. This is the company that markets and distributes the finished film around the world. Typically for large studio productions the financier will have distribution rights for domestic USA theatrical release while a partner studio will have distribution rights for all foreign theatrical releases. Alternatively the distribution rights may be awarded to multiple different companies for different markets, and different companies may earn the ongoing DVD and video distribution rights.

For example The Fellowship of the Ring - the first film in the Lord of the Rings trilogy - had 21 different distributors.

In the case of Defiance we don't know the Film Production Company (it's likely to be something like "Defiance Movie" or similar) however we know the Production Company is Bedford Falls which is owned by Edward Zwick who developed the film and is directing it.

The Film Financiers are Grosvenor Park which is a London-based company.

Locations are reportedly being scouted in Canada and Eastern Europe. Grosvenor Park is financing the $50+ million pic.

Source (http://au.movies.ign.com/articles/788/788799p1.html)

London-based Grosvenor Park is financing the film, whose budget is set at around $50 million.

Source (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117965112.html?categoryid=13&cs=1)

Founded 25 years ago, Grosvenor Park is a specialist provider of financial solutions to the entertainment industry.

Grosvenor Park has raised over $5 billion of financing for film and television production for over 400 projects. Its clients include most Hollywood studios and producers, as well as leading independent production companies around the globe.

Source (http://www.grosvenorpark.com/)

[UnrepentantSinner]

In essence, it is a myth that history is written by the winners.

A pefect example of this is the man who we can credit for history as we know it - Thucydides (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides) was an Athenian.

[RobRoy]

You seem to be moving the goalposts. First you asked for citations in order to dig deeper into the possible event. Then complained that those given didn't offer anything conclusive (even though they explicitly did, with their claims supported by citations of their own).

Not at all. In reading through the post, which is from a single source, the claims run the gambit from vilifying the Bielski's as part of the massacre, merely placing them at or near the massacre, or exonerating them due to a conflict from the eyewitness. There's no conclusiveness offered by this single reference. That's not moving the goalposts. That's offering a 10 yard field goal for 100 points and watching the ball travel only one yard.

I've also said that I may have missed something in the post and if so, anyone is free to point it out to me. No one has. You can feel free to do so as well. I've just re-read the citation post, and it still seems full of contradictions and lacking in any conclusion regarding the Bielski's.

I don't know, maybe you're honestly seeking information. But if so, just what quality of citation/reference would suffice? Only ones that claim things that would meet your preconceptions?

I have no preconceptions on this matter. I knew nothing about it when I read the OP. I did some research, offered the results, and have asked for citations when accusations without citations were made. A single citation with contradictions doesn't really help me much. Did it help you form an opinion?

[RobRoy]

No it doesn't...

Yes it does. I understand what a production company is, which is why I'm confused by the contradiction between what you're reporting and what IMDB has reported. There is some financial outlay by any company who gets a Production Company credit. It may only be a percentage, and even a small percentage, but there is a financial outlay, otherwise they can't be listed in the credits that way.

I'm not denying that the majority of this film is being financed by one company, but there is a second company being listed on the credits, and that means there is additional financing being provided in some fashion.

[dudalb]

Do I smell a certain whiff of Anti Semitism in the air here with this vilification of Bielski and the implication about "Hollywood" (which we all know is ran by the Jews) distorting history?

[GreyICE]

Do I smell a certain whiff of Anti Semitism in the air here with this vilification of Bielski and the implication about "Hollywood" (which we all know is ran by the Jews) distorting history?

Damn it people, could you stop sucking?

There may have been one, even two or three Jews in history who weren't saints. And Hollywood might be known to be about as accurate and reliable for obtaining historical information as your average Ouija board.

Yet somehow, as soon as something vaguely Jewish pops up, accusations of antisemitism start flying. The same garbage happens anytime someone questions the sacred cow, Israel.

[RobRoy]

Damn it people, could you stop sucking?

Since only one post in this entire thread even hinted at antisemitism, this smacks of a rant looking for a place to happen, rather than a justifiable response to any of the current discussions.

There may have been one, even two or three Jews in history who weren't saints.

Well of course they aren't saints. They aren't Catholics. Sheesh, thought that would have been pretty obvious. :D

[gumboot]

Yes it does. I understand what a production company is, which is why I'm confused by the contradiction between what you're reporting and what IMDB has reported. There is some financial outlay by any company who gets a Production Company credit.

No there is not. Use the example I cited, Lord of the Rings, if you like. Wingnut Films are listed as a Production Company at IMDB. Wingnut Films were the primary production company for the films. Wingnut Films received the "A Wingnut Films Production" credit on the head of the films themselves. Wingnut Films did not contribute any of the expense of the film's budget.

Being a Production Company means you made the film - it does not mean you paid for it.

In fact I do not believe I have ever worked on a film, TV series, or commercial in which the primary production company contributed financing to the production.

[gumboot]

Damn it people, could you stop sucking?

There may have been one, even two or three Jews in history who weren't saints. And Hollywood might be known to be about as accurate and reliable for obtaining historical information as your average Ouija board.

Yet somehow, as soon as something vaguely Jewish pops up, accusations of antisemitism start flying. The same garbage happens anytime someone questions the sacred cow, Israel.


Heh.

[RobRoy]

No there is not. Use the example I cited, Lord of the Rings, if you like. Wingnut Films are listed as a Production Company at IMDB. Wingnut Films were the primary production company for the films. Wingnut Films received the "A Wingnut Films Production" credit on the head of the films themselves. Wingnut Films did not contribute any of the expense of the film's budget.

<sigh> This is so far off from the original discussion, I have no idea why we're still on it is except for a point of arguing. Still, Wingnut Films, as you know, is Peter Jackson's production company. They certainly did have a financial stake in the movies, hence the whole lawsuit from Peter Jackson's production company against New Line Cinema for the millions owed them.

But here, was can easily settle this. You show me a citation where Bedford Parks has not contributed a single dime to the production, marketing, or distribution of Defiance and I'll gladly bow out of the whole thing.

[dudalb]

It think we are splitting hairs here about whether "Defiance" is an Hollywood film or not.
As far as what we see on the screen, It is going to be Zwick who decides that, and he is a major Hollywood filmmaker. The finiancing is sort of an minor issues.
As for marketing, I am betting that Bedford Parks will be in charge of that.That is SOP for a film.regardless of whose money was used to finance it.

[RobRoy]

It think we are splitting hairs here about whether "Defiance" is an Hollywood film or not.
As far as what we see on the screen, It is going to be Zwick who decides that, and he is a major Hollywood filmmaker. The finiancing is sort of an minor issues.
As for marketing, I am betting that Bedford Parks will be in charge of that.That is SOP for a film.regardless of whose money was used to finance it.

Agreed. We're quite off from the original subject, which really didn't pertain to the money used to finance the film one way or the other.