Are there any pieces of media where Nazi's (even women and children) are shown sympathetically?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

Foolproof:
Yeah, I would. I believe in my morals and ethics enough to not stand idly by as my countries servicemen commit atrocities like those in my name and are rewarded and praised for it.

So why are you here and not, say, at your capitol, protesting the various wars your country is involved in? Hm? Those ones are different? Those civilian murders are okay?

Nice to know.

Everyone's a hero with all the moral conviction of Jesus until they actually need to do something, lol.

Grey Day for Elcia:

Foolproof:
Yeah, I would. I believe in my morals and ethics enough to not stand idly by as my countries servicemen commit atrocities like those in my name and are rewarded and praised for it.

So why are you here and not, say, at your capitol, protesting the various wars your country is involved in? Hm? Those ones are different? Those civilian murders are okay?

Nice to know.

Everyone's a hero with all the moral conviction of Jesus until they actually need to do something, lol.

Whereas you're the kind of guy who can't see the difference between civilian casualties over an 11 year conflict, and the systematic rape and slaughter of civilians over six weeks.

For these two things to be even slightly comparable, over 11 years, the Americans would have had to have killed, lets see - 19.6 million Iraqi civilians. No, not combatants, not friendly fires - 19.6 innocent Iraqi civilians killed, directly, by Americans. Nearly two thirds of their entire population.

Into the White shows German and British soldiers together in a quite human light. Based off of a real story, even.

Foolproof:

CrystalShadow:

Foolproof:
Think about what you're saying. You're trying to tell me that a person could live in one of the Axis countries between 1933 and 1945, and never once be made aware there was a war on?

Where have I heard that before? Ah yes.

http://youtu.be/rOfdSy2pSiA?t=1m9s

I guess the good Japanese lived near Kore - oh, right. Well, up north near Chi - ah, that.

Do you even know what you're saying?

There's a big differenc between knowing a war is on, and supporting every horrid, atrocious action taken in your name.

I shudder to hear some of the stories about how parts of the US, UK and Australian militaries behave, yet I don't routinely say anything about it.

Does that make me and everyone else from those countries as bad as the people that did those horrible things?

Considering the people who carry out those actions are then court martialled and usually jailed, no. The difference is when the Japanese carried out atrocities, they were given medals, honour, and promotion

Which... Is why Japan for all intents and purposes no longer has a military right? Or why they don't generally refer to the war much at all?

And when were these medals handed out exactly? During, or after the war? I'm sure the germans handed out medals too. That doesn't mean they're still acknowledged now.

Most germans for instance didn't even know what the Nazis were doing to the jews.

Just because you know there's a war on, doesn't mean you know (or understand - wars and propaganda go hand-in-hand after all) what is really happening, and who is doing what.

Considering the Japanese propaganda post 1936 ignored dehumanising the allies in favour of mocking their weakness and saying they are helpless to stop their own slaughter, I fail to see how you could look at that and say that the Japanese people could only be placated by that. If anything, these theoretical righteous Japanese people should have been spurred to action even harder by these messages.
[/quote]

Because a culture that values conformity and going along with the group is really going to have the same implications as one whose values have more in common with the notion of individual freedom and responsibility right?

Even now, belonging to a group of some kind is considered more important to the Japanese than your individual achievements or thoughts.

It is a culture where speaking out against your leaders is not something you just do...
I fully expect a culture like that to be very unlikely to have much open criticism of those in charge, irrespective of what anyone actually thinks.

It's very easy to characterise the enemy as evil.

Particularly when said enemy regularly engaged in cannibalism of Australian POW's

It doesn't take much. Even if your country is the aggressor...

I'm sorry, who attacked Pearl Harbour and invaded China and Korea? Stay on topic.
[/quote]

What are you even getting at? That is on topic. Like I said, it's easy to make your enemy out to be evil. It doesn't matter if you started the conflict or not.
So... Japan attacked pearl harbour, china and korea.

What's your point exactly? Does that make it impossible for them to try and spin things such that their enemies deserved whatever happened to them?

It seems like you're confusing knowing there's a war on with knowing (and explicitly approving of) every single thing that happens.

I'm stating skepticism that a person could remain ignorant of the Japanese atrocities, considering WWII Japan liked to brag about said atrocities.[/quote]

Foolproof:

Care to address my question? "What do you want them to do?" Be a hero and be executed for speaking out? Yeah, I'm sure you'd do just that, right? Lol.

Yeah, I would. I believe in my morals and ethics enough to not stand idly by as my countries servicemen commit atrocities like those in my name and are rewarded and praised for it.[/quote]

Yeah... And who would remember you if you did that, hmm? You're judging and entire culture, on the basis that not a single person stood up and said something... And you're doing so more than 60 years after the fact, when the actual evidence of what people thought about it has become quite fuzzy.

And I really doubt it's even all that accurate considering how ashamed japan seems to be about the war after the fact.

You don't try to brush something under the carpet if you're proud of it, so I find your claims pretty dubious.

CrystalShadow:

rhizhim:

CrystalShadow:

Something just occurred to me about this.
Now, it may seem like a minor point, but think about it carefully.

The Japanese did some horrible things in WWII, but notice something about the comparison?

The 'evil' people in japan, are "The Japanese". While the innocent civilians merely caught up in the events of the war? Well... They're also "The Japanese".

Now look at Germany. Sure a lot of people were technically nazis even if they didn't exactly agree with what has happening, but notice that in this case the 'evil' people have a distinct name?
They're "Nazis". What about all the innocent german citizens? Well, you can just call them "Germans".
This is actually also helped along by the fact that most of the jews that died because of the nazis were technically also 'german'.

Thus, in Germany, you have the convenient distinction that you can label the nazis as 'evil'. while still being able to say that germans as a whole are not.

Contrast that to Japan, and... Well, how do you make a distinction when the supposedly 'evil' and 'good' japanese are all just... 'the japanese'?

Do you see where that might influence how films about that period depict each group?

After all, you asked if there were any sympathetic depictions of Nazis. Not if there were any sympathetic depictions of Germans from that era.

what are you talking about?
dont you know that the americans and every other force that opposed nazi germany referred them as the germans.
they had to make up and suffer for it for years (to come) just to clarify that not all germans were within the nazi party or symphatised with them.

there were resistance groups
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance
and people who protected their neighbours who payed a high price.

they had to fight to have this 'convenient' distinction between 'the germans' and 'the nazis'.

You do know we're talking about modern day opinions right, not the actual history of any of this stuff?

The point still stands. A 'nazi' is a convenient modern label for the 'evil' germans from that period. Whether that is a valid distinction historically doesn't matter much looking back on it now.

Surely you can see that right?

And there simply is no comparable group you can single out within the japanese. You can't make that distinction.

So... I think you kind of missed the point. Or are you going to claim that the modern idea that it was all down to the nazis is wrong because it wasn't always thought of that way?

Keep in mind we're discussing how WWII era germans and Japanese are depicted in fiction, and much of the fiction mentioned so far is fairly recent, (and the oldest probably still represents a period several decades after the war.)

i am still talkig about 'modern day opinions'.

and people refered to the nazi party as 'the germans' up until the millenium.
just one example from 1969

and there is simply no comparable group because first ,there was almost no resistance within japan. the only i can think of is the Japanese Communist Party and their resistance is debatable.

and second unlike germany where a political party gained power, japan was constitutional monarchy ruled by Hirohito.

japan entered the war as a nation, germany entered the war as nation represented by a political party.

they just do not have something comparable. see the difference?

the germans did a lot to show the world that they recognise/admit and regret their war crimes and that there were active and passive resistance within germany throughout the war and regime of the National Socialism/Nazism, with documents.

something i haven't seen from japan.(if i am wrong please show me some examples)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers#Japan
http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/papers/resistnc.htm
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Resistance_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan

Foolproof:

Grey Day for Elcia:

Foolproof:
Yeah, I would. I believe in my morals and ethics enough to not stand idly by as my countries servicemen commit atrocities like those in my name and are rewarded and praised for it.

So why are you here and not, say, at your capitol, protesting the various wars your country is involved in? Hm? Those ones are different? Those civilian murders are okay?

Nice to know.

Everyone's a hero with all the moral conviction of Jesus until they actually need to do something, lol.

Whereas you're the kind of guy who can't see the difference between civilian casualties over an 11 year conflict, and the systematic rape and slaughter of civilians over six weeks.

For these two things to be even slightly comparable, over 11 years, the Americans would have had to have killed, lets see - 19.6 million Iraqi civilians. No, not combatants, not friendly fires - 19.6 innocent Iraqi civilians killed, directly, by Americans. Nearly two thirds of their entire population.

First you assume I'm male, then you confuse Iran with Iraq (lol), then palm off the deaths of thousands upon thousands because worse has happened before.

But hey, we can't all be as heroic as you. What's a hundred thousand dead civilians right? I'm sure no one over there in Iran is wondering why none of us is standing up and fighting against our people for invading their country, right? I'm sure they don't say things like "What good Americans? They just sit back and let their country invade us." OH WAIT

Oh irony, why you so delicious?

Foolproof:

Superior Mind:
Oskar Schindler for one. Also The Pianist featured Wilm Hosenfeld, the Captain who discovers and shelters Wladyslaw Szpilman. Both were real people and both were Nazis.

This is the sort of stuff I was trying to avoid. Yes,. they were in the loosest technical terms Nazi's, but they are only heroes because they betray the party.

Grey Day for Elcia:

Foolproof:
Someone missed the word Rape.

Someone missed the entire point.

Care to address my question? "What do you want them to do?" Be a hero and be executed for speaking out? Yeah, I'm sure you'd do just that, right? Lol.

Yeah, I would. I believe in my morals and ethics enough to not stand idly by as my countries servicemen commit atrocities like those in my name and are rewarded and praised for it.

Check out Milgram.

I seriously doubt you've ever been in that severe enough a circumstance enough to know how the hell you'd act when shit really goes south, and as Milgrams famous study indicates, far more people than you'd ever think are willing to follow orders to extremes in the right circumstances. 100% of participants were willing to deliver a 300 volt (not fatal, but extremely painful) shock to another human being, 65% were willing to go up to 450 volts (potentially lethal) in the name of authority.

You can bring up the numbers game if you want but you know it's besides the point, you deem the Japanese as a whole responsible for the actions of the few, if that's acceptable by your logic then it's perfectly allowable for me to deem you personally responsible for the torture taking place in Gitmo, or the turmoil in south america caused directly by US involvement, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, so on (I'm assuming american, if not, just replace with whatever your government has been up to lately, none are innocent(by your logic)).

I mean really, this sort of stuff is psychology 101. Ordinary humans are capable of horrendous atrocities, even you or me. There's no real way of knowing what we're capable of in the right(/wrong) situations. History has proven this time and time again. Go down this route of guilt and we'll all be guilty and the word becomes meaningless.

Maybe you're the Gandhi or the Martin Luther King, the guy that will really work against the zeigest despite the difficulties for what they believe in, but considering the enormous amount of shit your country is invariably involved in and your apparent lack of action in doing anything about it, it doesn't seem likely. By your own logic you should be out there campaigning etc or be deemed as guilty as the rest of your countrymen.

rhizhim:

CrystalShadow:

rhizhim:

what are you talking about?
dont you know that the americans and every other force that opposed nazi germany referred them as the germans.
they had to make up and suffer for it for years (to come) just to clarify that not all germans were within the nazi party or symphatised with them.

there were resistance groups
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance
and people who protected their neighbours who payed a high price.

they had to fight to have this 'convenient' distinction between 'the germans' and 'the nazis'.

You do know we're talking about modern day opinions right, not the actual history of any of this stuff?

The point still stands. A 'nazi' is a convenient modern label for the 'evil' germans from that period. Whether that is a valid distinction historically doesn't matter much looking back on it now.

Surely you can see that right?

And there simply is no comparable group you can single out within the japanese. You can't make that distinction.

So... I think you kind of missed the point. Or are you going to claim that the modern idea that it was all down to the nazis is wrong because it wasn't always thought of that way?

Keep in mind we're discussing how WWII era germans and Japanese are depicted in fiction, and much of the fiction mentioned so far is fairly recent, (and the oldest probably still represents a period several decades after the war.)

i am still talkig about 'modern day opinions'.

and people refered to the nazi party as 'the germans' up until the millenium.
just one example from 1969

That really doesn't prove anything. It mentions both germans and nazis, and doesn't make any point about if either is particularly 'evil' or not. Of course nazis are germans. The point is germans aren't nessesarily nazis. Which is why it is even possible to create a devide between the two.

I fail to see how this tells you anything about the point I was making.

and there is simply no comparable group because first ,there was almost no resistance within japan. the only i can think of is the Japanese Communist Party and their resistance is debatable.

and second unlike germany where a political party gained power, japan was constitutional monarchy ruled by Hirohito.

japan entered the war as a nation, germany entered the war as nation represented by a political party.

they just do not have something comparable. see the difference?

What difference? You seem to be supporting my argument here, which is that you can, rightly or not, seperate germans into 'nazis' and 'other', while you cannot do the same with the japanese.

Thus, you can depict a sympathetic german while still claiming the nazis to be undisputably evil, but there is no easy short-hand way of doing the same with the japanese.

Nazi, both as a word, and thanks to their fondness for symbology, can be easily used as a shorthand symbol for 'evil'. Something you cannot do with any nationality regardless of their history without looking like a dick.

You simply cannot say 'everyone from country X was evil', in the same way it seems to be possible to say 'nazis were evil'.

[/quote]

the germans did a lot to show the world that they recognise/admit and regret their war crimes and that there were active and passive resistance within germany throughout the war and regime of the National Socialism/Nazism, with documents.

something i haven't seen from japan.(if i am wrong please show me some examples)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers#Japan
http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/papers/resistnc.htm
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Resistance_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan[/quote]

Ok... Yet modern japan seems very reluctant to even mention the war. Did you know it was a social taboo to even so much as imply that any part of the war, or the period immediately after it was in any way positive?

That really doesn't come across as a nation that is indifferent to their own actions during the war. Trying to look for active resistance during the war itself is another matter entirely, but is that nessesary to demonstrate that it is absurd to try and label the entire population of a country as complicit with something?

Aside from anything else, I will never forget the vastly different attitudes of my two grandfathers.

Both were in German concentration camps during the war, though neither was Jewish. One, bore a lifelong resentment towards Germans, which he managed to pass on to my father just through sheer repetition.

The other said you shouldn't blame the Germans. It would be pointless, and worse, that kind of mentality is exactly what caused many of the worst atrocities that the Germans were involved in.

These kind of blame games just perpetuate a problem. And I don't care what the evidence says, I refuse to believe an entire country didn't care in the slightest about what was done in their name, irrespective of their actions.

(Aside from which research into human psychology shows so many people will defer to authority regardless of their own morals, that the few who will actually resist tend to form a trivial minority anyway. It's easy to sit in judgement of others, when in reality your own nation would probably be pretty similar faced with those kind of circumstances.)

i don't know of any movie movies but i've seen a fair number of documentries that portray the german people, even as Nazis, sympathetically.

CrystalShadow:

That really doesn't prove anything. It mentions both germans and nazis, and doesn't make any point about if either is particularly 'evil' or not. Of course nazis are germans. The point is germans aren't nessesarily nazis. Which is why it is even possible to create a devide between the two.

I fail to see how this tells you anything about the point I was making.

only that it served as an example that until recently, both nazis and germans were called the germans. its the same kind of stigmatisation you are trying to prove on the japanese people.

CrystalShadow:

What difference? You seem to be supporting my argument here, which is that you can, rightly or not, seperate germans into 'nazis' and 'other', while you cannot do the same with the japanese.

Thus, you can depict a sympathetic german while still claiming the nazis to be undisputably evil, but there is no easy short-hand way of doing the same with the japanese.

Nazi, both as a word, and thanks to their fondness for symbology, can be easily used as a shorthand symbol for 'evil'. Something you cannot do with any nationality regardless of their history without looking like a dick.

You simply cannot say 'everyone from country X was evil', in the same way it seems to be possible to say 'nazis were evil'.

yes you can.

every chinese is a maoist.
every russian loved and supported stalin.

both stupid forms of branding on a population. which is retarded in my opinion.

the thing that bothered me the most about your post was this sentence

Thus, in Germany, you have the convenient distinction that you can label the nazis as 'evil'. while still being able to say that germans as a whole are not.

because it was not like that until the millenium and in some parts of the world it still is not like that (having this distinction).

and this 'convienience' you say, was hard earned and still has to be maintained by the german descendants who had nothing to do with all of it.

CrystalShadow:

Ok... Yet modern japan seems very reluctant to even mention the war. Did you know it was a social taboo to even so much as imply that any part of the war, or the period immediately after it was in any way positive?

That really doesn't come across as a nation that is indifferent to their own actions during the war. Trying to look for active resistance during the war itself is another matter entirely, but is that nessesary to demonstrate that it is absurd to try and label the entire population of a country as complicit with something?

yes i know that it was and is somewhat a social taboo in japan.

it was also a social taboo for the german population but they faced their crimes and started to ask themselves how it had come to this and why the fuck they had done these things.

and that is also one of the reasons why in germany video games have/had altered symbols on nazi flags and so on and wolfenstein 3d was banned.

CrystalShadow:

Aside from anything else, I will never forget the vastly different attitudes of my two grandfathers.

Both were in German concentration camps during the war, though neither was Jewish. One, bore a lifelong resentment towards Germans, which he managed to pass on to my father just through sheer repetition.

The other said you shouldn't blame the Germans. It would be pointless, and worse, that kind of mentality is exactly what caused many of the worst atrocities that the Germans were involved in.

These kind of blame games just perpetuate a problem. And I don't care what the evidence says, I refuse to believe an entire country didn't care in the slightest about what was done in their name, irrespective of their actions.

hate only can bear more hate. your grandfather was a wise man.

i do not think that all of japan was happy with their goverment.
and japans population certainly had it harder to oppose their goverment/leader since they almost only had militarism and monarchy as forms of government.(they are more obedient and loyal)

but the thing that bothers me with japan is that they didn't even try to talk about the things they had done (especially to other asian populations; Unit 731, Nanking Massacre etc.) or show some slight remorse.

they seem to hide behind the 'OMG! can you believe they dropped the atom bomb on us' facade.

and before you get it the wrong way:
droping an atom bomb on the was one of the worst things humans could do to other humans.

The book "Europa Europa" is a story told through the eyes of a teenage Jew hiding in plain sight as a German boy. He even enlists to the army as a translator. There you see how he views the people around him, some good and some bad, some pedophiles and some saviors. I recommend it to you whole-heatedly.
By the way, the pedophile is the one that ends up saving the protagonist at a few points in the story. Who said child molesters were wholly evil?

Fuck me, there was a movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099776/

although a bad example


they were sometimes depicted as sympathetic.

Not sure if you'd count one of the organisations in the new World-of-Darkness Hunter setting. It was founded by former members of the Nazi occult research division with the aim of fixing all the supernatural problems that world war 2 caused. The founders accepted that a big chunk of the stuff going wrong was their fault and did the responsible thing and try to correct it. Can't remember the exact name of the faction, but it included mention of something to do with the Thule lot.

It's rather hard to show guys like Himmler and Hitler in a good manner.

Regular German soldiers and Generals? Sure, plenty of books and movies do this but pure Nazi's? That's hard to pull off.

Deutsches Requiem by Jorge Luis Borges is a good sympathetic potrayal of a Nazi, and not a just a German soldier either but a full blown Nazi.

Grey Day for Elcia:

Foolproof:

Grey Day for Elcia:
So why are you here and not, say, at your capitol, protesting the various wars your country is involved in? Hm? Those ones are different? Those civilian murders are okay?

Nice to know.

Everyone's a hero with all the moral conviction of Jesus until they actually need to do something, lol.

Whereas you're the kind of guy who can't see the difference between civilian casualties over an 11 year conflict, and the systematic rape and slaughter of civilians over six weeks.

For these two things to be even slightly comparable, over 11 years, the Americans would have had to have killed, lets see - 19.6 million Iraqi civilians. No, not combatants, not friendly fires - 19.6 innocent Iraqi civilians killed, directly, by Americans. Nearly two thirds of their entire population.

First you assume I'm male, then you confuse Iran with Iraq (lol), then palm off the deaths of thousands upon thousands because worse has happened before.

But hey, we can't all be as heroic as you. What's a hundred thousand dead civilians right? I'm sure no one over there in Iran is wondering why none of us is standing up and fighting against our people for invading their country, right? I'm sure they don't say things like "What good Americans? They just sit back and let their country invade us." OH WAIT

Oh irony, why you so delicious?

Just a small thing but where does Foolproof confuse Iran and Iraq? You say that he does but I can't see where and it's bugging me.

Axolotl:
Deutsches Requiem by Jorge Luis Borges is a good sympathetic potrayal of a Nazi, and not a just a German soldier either but a full blown Nazi.

Grey Day for Elcia:

Foolproof:
Whereas you're the kind of guy who can't see the difference between civilian casualties over an 11 year conflict, and the systematic rape and slaughter of civilians over six weeks.

For these two things to be even slightly comparable, over 11 years, the Americans would have had to have killed, lets see - 19.6 million Iraqi civilians. No, not combatants, not friendly fires - 19.6 innocent Iraqi civilians killed, directly, by Americans. Nearly two thirds of their entire population.

First you assume I'm male, then you confuse Iran with Iraq (lol), then palm off the deaths of thousands upon thousands because worse has happened before.

But hey, we can't all be as heroic as you. What's a hundred thousand dead civilians right? I'm sure no one over there in Iran is wondering why none of us is standing up and fighting against our people for invading their country, right? I'm sure they don't say things like "What good Americans? They just sit back and let their country invade us." OH WAIT

Oh irony, why you so delicious?

Just a small thing but where does Foolproof confuse Iran and Iraq? You say that he does but I can't see where and it's bugging me.

Oh. I gave an example of the death toll among Iranian citizens and then Foolproof began speaking about Iraq.

It's a common thing among a lot of people; they treat "the middle east" like one thing. Example: ask your average U.S. citizen where the 9/11 attackers came from and most of them will say Iraq, when in fact they came from a lot of places, including Turkey.

rhizhim:

CrystalShadow:

That really doesn't prove anything. It mentions both germans and nazis, and doesn't make any point about if either is particularly 'evil' or not. Of course nazis are germans. The point is germans aren't nessesarily nazis. Which is why it is even possible to create a devide between the two.

I fail to see how this tells you anything about the point I was making.

only that it served as an example that until recently, both nazis and germans were called the germans. its the same kind of stigmatisation you are trying to prove on the japanese people.

It actually isn't. Basic logic should make that obvious.

Nazi = german, but german =/= nazi. At no point does that video show anything other than german soldiers, or nazis, and the people being shown with nazi symbols are referred to as nazis, not germans.

It establishes neither that premise that both nazis and germans are referred to as german, nor any moral implications about either, other than that England and Germany were at war with eachother.

As far as I can see, it simply doesn't establish anything at all, and certainly not the idea that nazi and german are interchangable terms (except by the most tenuous of threads.)

CrystalShadow:

What difference? You seem to be supporting my argument here, which is that you can, rightly or not, seperate germans into 'nazis' and 'other', while you cannot do the same with the japanese.

Thus, you can depict a sympathetic german while still claiming the nazis to be undisputably evil, but there is no easy short-hand way of doing the same with the japanese.

Nazi, both as a word, and thanks to their fondness for symbology, can be easily used as a shorthand symbol for 'evil'. Something you cannot do with any nationality regardless of their history without looking like a dick.

You simply cannot say 'everyone from country X was evil', in the same way it seems to be possible to say 'nazis were evil'.

yes you can.

every chinese is a maoist.
every russian loved and supported stalin.

both stupid forms of branding on a population. which is retarded in my opinion.

That's not the same thing. Every german is a nazi, is not the same kind of statement as every german is evil.

Yes, strictly speaking they are logically related, if you tie together every nazi is evil, and every german is a nazi then by inference every german is evil. But the mere fact that it's possible to segregate a subgroup by some means makes it possible to seperate things.

Consider: every japanese person is evil VS. Every japanese person that supported the war effort is evil for one.

Already you have altered the definition by the mere fact of having created a subgroup of some kind. It remains much easier to do if there is already an easily identifiable subgroup though.

Consider for instance, that to do what they did, the nazis had to define jews as being a distinct thing, somehow different from any other german citizen. That works both ways.
[quote[
the thing that bothered me the most about your post was this sentence

Thus, in Germany, you have the convenient distinction that you can label the nazis as 'evil'. while still being able to say that germans as a whole are not.

because it was not like that until the millenium and in some parts of the world it still is not like that (having this distinction).

and this 'convienience' you say, was hard earned and still has to be maintained by the german descendants who had nothing to do with all of it.
[/quote]

I don't know where you get that idea from. I'm sure it must take some effort to convince people, especially those that experienced it directly of this, but it's been my experience that nazis and germans were treated as something distinct for pretty much as far back as I can remember.

And that's back to the mid- 80's at least. I still remember the news of the fall of the berlin wall. And I was pretty close to germany geographically when it happened.

Then again, based on your profile you are in germany, so maybe you do know something I don't. But I've lived in 3 different countries, and this kind of distinction has been pretty obvious to me in just about any depiction of the second world war I've ever seen.

CrystalShadow:

Ok... Yet modern japan seems very reluctant to even mention the war. Did you know it was a social taboo to even so much as imply that any part of the war, or the period immediately after it was in any way positive?

That really doesn't come across as a nation that is indifferent to their own actions during the war. Trying to look for active resistance during the war itself is another matter entirely, but is that nessesary to demonstrate that it is absurd to try and label the entire population of a country as complicit with something?

yes i know that it was and is somewhat a social taboo in japan.

it was also a social taboo for the german population but they faced their crimes and started to ask themselves how it had come to this and why the fuck they had done these things.

and that is also one of the reasons why in germany video games have/had altered symbols on nazi flags and so on and wolfenstein 3d was banned.

I'll have to take your word on that, because I haven't seen anything that really shows that to be the case for either germany or japan. But I haven't particularly looked that deeply into it.

I'm not all that clear on the significance of banning nazi symbols either. (I'm sure there are well-thought out reasons, I'm just not entirely sure what they are.). I have looked into the symbol itself mostly because it turns out to have some religious significance in Buddhism, but that's a slightly different issue. (If it interests anyone, the swastika is a budhist symbol relating to life and death. Oriented with the spokes in one direction it means 'life', the other direction it means 'death'. the version the nazis were using was the one symbolising 'death'. An interesting choice considering whoever designed the nazi symbol was probably aware of it's history.)

And, if I know little about what the german people have done to come to terms with the events of the war, I know even less about what the japanese have done (or haven't done.)

About the only thing I know is that they vastly altered their military, and have declared it to be for defensive purposes only, to the extent that they don't really take part in military action at all, whereas most european countries (germany included) are often involved in military action somewhere in the world.

There also seems to be a concern among the older generation that the younger people in japan have lost sight of why the japanese military is like that to begin with.
Which does imply the matter isn't discussed much, but clearly must be of some concern to at least some people there.

In the end I don't know what else to say. I don't percieve things the way you seem to, but I admit I'm not particularly knowledgeable about any of it.

CrystalShadow:

Aside from anything else, I will never forget the vastly different attitudes of my two grandfathers.

Both were in German concentration camps during the war, though neither was Jewish. One, bore a lifelong resentment towards Germans, which he managed to pass on to my father just through sheer repetition.

The other said you shouldn't blame the Germans. It would be pointless, and worse, that kind of mentality is exactly what caused many of the worst atrocities that the Germans were involved in.

These kind of blame games just perpetuate a problem. And I don't care what the evidence says, I refuse to believe an entire country didn't care in the slightest about what was done in their name, irrespective of their actions.

hate only can bear more hate. your grandfather was a wise man.

i do not think that all of japan was happy with their goverment.
and japans population certainly had it harder to oppose their goverment/leader since they almost only had militarism and monarchy as forms of government.(they are more obedient and loyal)

but the thing that bothers me with japan is that they didn't even try to talk about the things they had done (especially to other asian populations; Unit 731, Nanking Massacre etc.) or show some slight remorse.

they seem to hide behind the 'OMG! can you believe they dropped the atom bomb on us' facade.

and before you get it the wrong way:
droping an atom bomb on the was one of the worst things humans could do to other humans.[/quote]

I get your point. Though I've learnt enough about japanese culture to know it can be very obsessed with appearances.

I don't know what to expect from a culture where people will commit ritual suicide because of some failure they made rather than try to deal with it.

Seems a bit of an all-or nothing kind of idea, with little room for half-measures. So if that were taken to a national level, it'd seem you'd either get some huge, overblown admission of guilt, or nothing at all...

But... I honestly don't know either way what Japan has or has not tried to do as a result of the war, nor what germany has or has not done.

As for my grandfather, well... Yes, he did seem to be a wise man. Very clumsy, but wise. He was chief of police for much of his life, and by all accounts very diplomatic about that too. I've heard stories about how he resolved gang conflicts, and other huge problems not with force or threats, but negotiation, and communication.

I also heard the dutch government, in some kind of desperation to find anyone at all they could call a war hero, tried to give him a medal. But he refused, and said he wasn't a hero.

I'd say based on the stories I've heard many people would think otherwise. But I admire that he could say that, and his apparent ability to avoid resentment and hatred, even knowing what he probably saw and lived through.

Foolproof:

Superior Mind:
Oskar Schindler for one. Also The Pianist featured Wilm Hosenfeld, the Captain who discovers and shelters Wladyslaw Szpilman. Both were real people and both were Nazis.

This is the sort of stuff I was trying to avoid. Yes,. they were in the loosest technical terms Nazi's, but they are only heroes because they betray the party.

You ask for Nazis who are portrayed sympathetically and I give you Nazis who were portrayed sympathetically. Let me ask you this: How is a Nazi able to be portrayed sympathetically if they don't 'betray' the party's most well known ideals of persecution, conquest and genocide?

There is one dutch movie called Zwartboek where the portrayel of the german soldiers differ. I believe there where 3 german officers in the movie. One was a nice guy and even became the main characters love interest, one was a guy who isn't portrayed as evil, but just a jerk doing his job, the last one is a complete monster though.

The dutch resistence is portrayed in the same way. There are good people in their, but also some people who "aren't very nice"

Superior Mind:

Foolproof:

Superior Mind:
Oskar Schindler for one. Also The Pianist featured Wilm Hosenfeld, the Captain who discovers and shelters Wladyslaw Szpilman. Both were real people and both were Nazis.

This is the sort of stuff I was trying to avoid. Yes,. they were in the loosest technical terms Nazi's, but they are only heroes because they betray the party.

You ask for Nazis who are portrayed sympathetically and I give you Nazis who were portrayed sympathetically. Let me ask you this: How is a Nazi able to be portrayed sympathetically if they don't 'betray' the party's most well known ideals of persecution, conquest and genocide?

That was sort of my point in making this thread - asking for examples where Nazi's who did not disavow the parties principles were still treated sympathetically.

I'll agree with Downfall as well. It doesn't necessarily provide a sympathetic view, but it does give them greater depth. They're not instantly demonized.

:3 Um I believe there was a parody in Gundam... The principality of ZEON = NAZI's other then media that referenced similarities in the conflict I am sure works have been produced that were Nazi sympathetic in Germany at the time however they didn't become mainstream or weren't digitally remastered to DVD for you to watch. HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY THE VICTORS.... didn't you learn that in Call of Duty OP.

A film called 'The Believer' which stars Ryan Gosling shows a neo-nazi that struggles with his Jewish heritage. I remember it being a brilliant film. Also, you may want to check out 'Romper Stomper', too, I'd say it portrays a group of neo-nazis as a sad group of people that are just mislead.

Superior Mind:

Foolproof:

Superior Mind:
Oskar Schindler for one. Also The Pianist featured Wilm Hosenfeld, the Captain who discovers and shelters Wladyslaw Szpilman. Both were real people and both were Nazis.

This is the sort of stuff I was trying to avoid. Yes,. they were in the loosest technical terms Nazi's, but they are only heroes because they betray the party.

You ask for Nazis who are portrayed sympathetically and I give you Nazis who were portrayed sympathetically. Let me ask you this: How is a Nazi able to be portrayed sympathetically if they don't 'betray' the party's most well known ideals of persecution, conquest and genocide?

Yah know a lot of individuals that worked for the Nazi party didn't share in all of Hitlers idea's. They may have joined up for survival so they could be well off and so they wouldn't be executed. A lot of Nazi scientist were in it for science and funding of their research. Most of the Nazi scientist weren't executed and prosecuted.... After the war they simply got a new job working for Uncle Sam developing technology. A lot of members of the party did buy into the propeganda simply believing that their race was superior.

Foolproof:

Superior Mind:

Foolproof:
This is the sort of stuff I was trying to avoid. Yes,. they were in the loosest technical terms Nazi's, but they are only heroes because they betray the party.

You ask for Nazis who are portrayed sympathetically and I give you Nazis who were portrayed sympathetically. Let me ask you this: How is a Nazi able to be portrayed sympathetically if they don't 'betray' the party's most well known ideals of persecution, conquest and genocide?

That was sort of my point in making this thread - asking for examples where Nazi's who did not disavow the parties principles were still treated sympathetically.

I think you're narrowing it down too much then. You're basically asking if there were any hard-core Jew-bashing, book-burning, goose-stepping Nazis who were portrayed sympathetically. Of course there isn't because these actions can not be sympathised with. The only people who followed the party's principals to the T were the psychopath like Reinhard Heydrich or Adolf Eichmann and those guys were monsters.

I think I get your point though but I think it's kind of like asking if there are any movies which have portrayed cannibals sympathetically. The Nazi has become something of a movie monster, basically just a hateful racist murder, rather than what most of them were; just citizens who went along with a godawful system that many of them knew or felt was wrong. That's why you get people like Schindler or Hosenfeld or Rommell who took action. You're saying that anyone who differed from this image we have of Nazis doesn't qualify. Well why not? Schindler was a Nazi, Hosenfeld was a Nazi, and so many so-called "good Germans" were Nazis but they don't qualify because they didn't operate concentration camps?

But I think I get where your coming from so I'll try a few more attempts. There was a miniseries about the Nuremberg trials, much of it focussed on Herman Goering. Now Goering was a top Nazi, basically Hitler's #2, and he was also a complete bastard. He gleefully used the confiscation of property from Jews for his own benefit and had no qualms about the death and misery his party was creating. He also swore by the party line until the bitter end. A lot of that series focussed on him as well as what many top Nazis claimed about 'just following orders' in an excuse for their war crimes. I suppose you could say this is a good example of them being portrayed sympathetically and trying to be understanding - or at least in a way that wasn't demonising them.

Another example, probably weaker. Ralph Fiennes' character Amon Göth in Schindler's List. Yes he's the main antagonist and a complete and utter psychopath but there are types where he is looked upon less as a villain and more like a pitiful figure who'd become completely and utterly dehumanised and warped. He certainly couldn't be seen empathetically but a little sympathy could be argued for.

But I'll finish on one last argument to my stance that people like Schindler and Captain Hosenfeld were 'true' Nazis and I'll leave it at that. Now one of the real good guys in the story of Schindler is his accountant Itzhak Stern who originally convinced Schindler to utilise Jewish slave labour in his factories. Stern himself said he saw Schindler as an opportunist and appealed to this side of him to convince him to save as many Jews as possible by using them as cheap labour, gradually convincing him to be more and more lax about who he would "hire". Now this is not taking away from Schindler who was an exceptionally good man but lets look at him: He was an industrialist and a high figure in the Nazi Party. He was an opportunist who was willing to take advantage of the slave labour that came about through the persecution of Jews and other such people. He was a Nazi war profiteer and though I don't think Schindler would have been a completely apathetic figure on the persecution of the Jews, he was certainly influenced by the considerably proactive Itzhak Stern in the good that he did. I don't believe for a second Schindler bought into the party's ideals about race and conquest but as an opportunist I don't think he was above joining a group like the Nazi Party which would boost his business interests despite them having some ideals he presumably found reprehensible. Does that not make him a true Nazi? The thing is that these people like Schindler or Hosenfeld who were "good" Nazis - they are people, and people are complex. Schindler was a war profiteering industrialist, Hosenfeld ran a POW camp in Poland. Yes they were also good men who became disillusioned with the party and ended up doing great things that went against some of the core Nazi ideals. But they were true Nazis.

boy in striped pyjamas for some nazis makes them evil for most part though

I would imagine that the majority of modern day Neo-Nazi or anti-Semitism media would probably portray the Nazi's as good people who were doing the right thing, but I guess that's not really what you were going for..

There is a difference between showing soldiers in the german army sympathetically and showing nazi's sympathetically, the two arent mutually exclusive.
Having said that, hitler had a hell of alot of support from the average german citizen, I hate it when people say 'ohh but most of the germans weren't nazis', because escpecially after he came to power, hitler had the support of the majority of the nation.

Damn, Foolproof really caused a storm. For anyone who needs examples of moral Japanese, read Barefoot Gen and about Tomoyuki Yamashita.

WaReloaded:
A film called 'The Believer' which stars Ryan Gosling shows a neo-nazi that struggles with his Jewish heritage.

I saw that, having Jewish heritage it really hit me in some places.

Ever see a movie called "Das Boot"?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked