@Richard - the moment the soldier was unconcious, he was clearly subdued. You can't beat a man to death and not have him become unconcious at some point. The continued beating beyond that point to the point of death was the war crime. They taught us to use the butt of our rifle along with an attached bayonet and our KBar to either kill instantly or render unconcious, but we were also taught that, once unconcious, were were to bind and secure the now prisoner of war. If we got a killing blow in and he died (which was encouraged to try for, especially in the field where prisoners were a liability), great. But oaths and obligations meant we HAD to treat him as a prisoner should he be unconcious.

Well, let's start by saying that I'll apologize for any confusion generated by the discussion of the movie versus the discussion of the historical situation. For one thing, based on the reviews I've seen, I assumed the scene in question was a matter of angry french civilians going nuts with an undercover American or two present, and the comment about a soldier on leave reinforced that. To repeat, if Tarantino is the target here, by all means, make him so - the only reason I'm seeing the movie at all this weekend is, oddly, because my father insists on seeing it for his birthday. Otherwise, I'd reject what already sounds like a simple exercise in torture porn out of hand.

Moving on...

It seems that some of you have a much harsher view than most of the soldiers who fought the war. In interviews many expressed the view that the German soldier was no more than someone fighting for his country. This is from the people who saw all that you denounce, including the camps.

this name invictus, i picked because it sounds like a cool title. not because im a nazi. anyone who knows me well knows i hate nazis.

Draugnar, to your completely fair point with respect to desired military behavior, under normal circumstances, I'd actually sound like a flaming liberal re: the prosecution of warfare. I have not served, and probably wouldn't pass a physical if I tried. However, I come from a military family, which colors my judgment here. Of the forty or so family names I can trace to direct military service back to the Crimean War, at least half would never had had to fire a shot if it wasn't for the Second World War, whether it was with the RAF, the SOE or British and Indian armies.

Do I believe we should aspire to a far higher standard? Absolutely. Do I apply hard standards to Allied forces? Absolutely. For example, I'll cheerfully agree that war crimes were by both sides during the Second World War, and have said so. Given the likely treatment and behavior of Japanese troops in Burma during the '45 advance, I suspect my grandfather probably shot more than a few "subdued" Japanese soldiers himself. But Allied war crimes do not in and of themselves put the Allied cause or the soldiers fighting for it in a morally equal situation with German soldiers, nor is it fair to conclude that a German soldier is a "victim" simply because he takes a bullet from someone's rifle - and THOSE claims have been made earlier in this thread, and they're deeply offensive to me because they imply that millions of soldiers are somehow absolved of responsibility for the actions of their country and government even as they actively made those actions happen.

t's one thing to say "*We* should have done better than that" - which I would say about RAF bombing habits, for example, which were even criticized as extreme during the war itself. I wish we *had* done better. But I wish it for our sake, not for Germany's. It's not like Germany didn't create a situation where it could expect generosity in defence against brutality, and we can't promote a world in which countries that behave like that think they can get away with atrocities or carnage simply because it'll all be seen with the same lazy moral equivelancy.

Happily, while both sides were brutal, the Allies were less brutal on the whole. And I think that's a good thing. But I *understand* why the Allies were brutal, even if I neither celebrate it nor would encourage it.

In other forums, I've argued fiercely against the use of air power in Afghanistan to avoid civilian casualties at all costs. I am deliriously happy at McChrystal's order to the Marines to avoid free fire in civilian areas, even if they have a target. My brother is an Afghan vet (Canadian) and I know these rules mean more Allied casualties. But I think they're necessary to win the war and to protect the people we're aiming to protect.

But what's possible in the Afghan War may not have been rational in the Second World War. We have to be honest about, and account for, the enormous moral and practical stakes at play in the 1940s, which were truly unique in the history of both politics and war. We have to be honest about the level of German support for those activities. I think it's crucial to be frank about how brutal Axis war aims and war practices were precisely to prevent another situation in which a country or whoever feels comfortable in pushing the world into a corner where the rules have to be thrown out because the stakes push reason out the window. There is a big moral difference between saying "I want to kill 1944 Germans brutally" and "I understand morally why some may have been killed brutally given the situation." We should aspire to hate the former - which is why I suspect I'll hate Tarantino's movie. But we can't shrink from the latter, which is a different moral position from what many are taking above.

Reichsfuhrer, if you hate Nazis so much, perhaps you can prove your devotion to the Anti-Nazi cause by naming yourself with a cool name *other* than a title pleasing to the likes of Himmler or Hitler. I managed to turn up the name of a Shakespearean murderer of children, so there are alternatives out there. ;-)

I know it's a big sacrifice, but consider it.

Woah.. You guys type really A LOT.

haha theres just not other many cool military titles out there. i just hate it when people take nazis so serious. which u should have 60 years ago but today they should be a joke.

@ Dingleberry Yes I was might over about the pilots only because we did not capture any. But to say that I was over simplistic to compare Korea with WW2 when it comes to the treatment of captured enemy soldiers perhaps your just trying to over complicate the issue.

You argued that beating an enemy soldier to death (not just till he was unconcious) was not a war crime. I'm just saying it is. I actually have no problem with the French Resistance's bombings and assassinations, but today we would call them terrorists just as we called the PLO and the IRA terrorist organizations, the French Resistance was a terrorist organization. Technically, what they were doing was criminal. Not all crimes are necessarily immoral (although beating an individual to death is immoral, especially for "revenge" for crimes SOMEONE else committed) and not all immoral acts are criminal. Should we allow Guantanamo Bay's guards to take prisoners into rooms and beat them to death, especially when they refused to give up information? That is what we are talking about here.

I am not absolving Germany or any of the soldiers for their involvement in WWII. I'm saying we should hold the Allied forces to a higher standard. That's all. somebody breaks into my house and kills my wife, if I happen to figure out who it was, it isn't right for me to break into his house and kill his family. He should pay the sentence for his actions, but his family, who may have been complicit on some level (knew he did it and didn't turn him in, whatever) shouldn't pay the ultimate price for his actions.

"@ Dingleberry Yes I was might over about the pilots only because we did not capture any. But to say that I was over simplistic to compare Korea with WW2 when it comes to the treatment of captured enemy soldiers perhaps your just trying to over complicate the issue."

we weren't talking about the captured of enemy soldiers. We were discussing how it was portrayed in the media.

Draugnar, with respect to the beating issue, having already clearly made at least one mistake - which I've acknowledge - with respect to what's actually in the Tarantino flick, I'll stand aside until I've seen it.

Otherwise, everything you've said in your last post more or less covers my position from another angle.

Correction " to the media's treatment of captured enemy soldiers in film"

I hate to argue about what we are arguing about Warsprite, but the question was why there was no protest about Russian or Chinese killing during war. I don't recall it being about the killing of captured enemy soldiers.

Reichsfuhrer I really do not think you understand. Nazsis need to be taken serious even today. That is onething everybody else seems to understand inspite are differences.

@Dingle Sorry getting all the posts crossed.

but nazism is only a problem in russia. nazis are evil and need to be destroyed so we can joke about them again

ReichsFuhrer And what planet are you on?

There may come a point where we can make completely offhand jokes about Nazis the same way we do about Genghis Khan and such, but that's a ways off.

The Korean war was not like WW2 true. But comparative lack of outrage at the Chinese and N. Korean atrocities in film, was what I getting at, not the war itself. I seriously do not think anyone could get away with treating in film a N Korean or Chinese soldier in the manner shown in GB.

Well this is really a lot of bla.

I thought this was going to be about the movie, which I've seen recently... and I think it's quite impressive.

For those interested in the original topic instead of straight on Nazi-bashing or justification of war-crimes... I might be able to give you an insight in the way the movie might be seen amoung a German audience.

First of all, QT is very popular in Germany. The reception of this movie in the media was positive, although not much is written about the obvious political context at the moment.

In my personal opinion, QT managed to implement the social conflicts that resulted throughout the 20th century from WWII.
In Germany "the jews", whoever that might be, are in general described as victims. Of the biggest crime known to the western societies. That's the dominating attribute we give to them. Jews are not angry, but rather deeply hurt. And they don't wan't to take revenge on us. Which however would be well understandable. Because they are made the better people we horribly failed to be. A little twisted, but that's basically it.

And that's the first "surprise" for the German audience. First chapter, we see helpless German captives, shitting their pants in fear of death, but still at first showing the heroism to save their comrades from the same fate. We see a blood-lusting gang of jewish commandos committing war crimes and obviously enjoying it. Everything we know about history is turned upside down!

To show one the receiving end of his deeds. That's really the way to make people think about what they -believe- to know. Noone of us was there back then, most of us don't even have relatives to ask anymore. It's very important to think twice or more before we set attributes to whole peoples. Because the acts of an indivudal or minority may never represent the whole. And vice versa. Which is also probably the greatest achievement of American culture compared to the commies... or nazis.

Back to the movie. The middle part is probably a little too long. Although I enjoyed the tension in the bar. War and civil life are brought together very closely. There is only one false move separating a massacre from a cheerful birthday party. Everyone was getting along well. The German actress first signed an autograph for that soldiers little boy and 5 minutes later shoots him in the heart after he surrendered, although they never had any personal conlfict with eachother whatsoever.
What makes people kill eachother? What motivates them? And do they have a choice? Interesting question imho.

The character of soldier Zoller, the German "pride of the nation" is also a very meaningful character. In the scene where he enters the projector room minutes before everything is set ablaze, we have maybe a representation of official post WWII German-Jewish relationship. He at first appears very charming, obviously not very proud of what he is being celebrated for in the theatre. He tries to make Shosanna like him. Love him even. He points out how much he has done for her - economically - by bringing the premiere to her theater.
After he is rejected, he shows his true face. He want's to be redeemed in her eyes at all costs, and is even going to be violent if he has to.

We know how the story ends, they shoot eachother, still unable to apologize, forgive or even understand. It's tragic but it fits the reality pretty well. For the post WWII German society it was and is crucial to be redeemed by Israel and Jews in general. But since many Germans are unable to accept that those who suffered are just people like anyone and probably hate us as stereotypes and will never forgive the nazis or their children and grand-grand-children (whoever they may be)... it's probably never going to happen.

Also, QT was brave enough to show what was a novum to me. We see Hitler die. Brutally. As he deserves. We have seen Hitler dead. Many, many times. But never seen anyone, especially not a vengeful Jew shoot him in the face with a machinegun. This was overdue. Quite a refreshing feeling.

All in all I think the story is brilliant. QT plays masterfully with history and what we made of it. What it should have been like and how some might see it but never admit. The whole plot is revoling around a cinema though. It is made clear, that it is fiction. And the parallel, that the audience is sitting in a cinema as well, should hopefully make one or two visitors think. About themselves. It's worth it.

Great movie. I try not to think if it is realistic or not. Thinking like that usually ruins war movies.

warsprite are you a jew or was one of your family members in the holocaust? because im very sorry if they were and it will never be funny to joke about that but here in america, for americans who arent jews, nazis are a joke. but there is a part where u can cross the line

Don't answer that, warsprite.

With a name like SSReichsFuhrer, he might be keeping a list.

Jews joke about Nazis all the time. The Producers, anyone? Hogan's Heroes?

Nazium only a problem in Russia? How about the Neo-nazi groups or any simular groups in the US, UK and other countries. Jokeing is ok as long as you still take them serious. No I'm not Jewish, I'm American and like most, of mixed extract. But I had several uncles in places like Anzio, or worked the Merchant Marine in the Atlantic, or faught in the Pacific as an precurser to the SEALs, and a father that crew chiefed bombers. I've also read a wide range of subjects on the war. So I'm quite aware of the dangers of taking people like that lightly.

Nazis are alive and well and very much living amongst us. Sometimes they still carry the Swastika and hang pictures of Hitler on their walls, other times they shave their heads and adopt the nickname "skinhead."

Saw the movie last night, and honestly, my reaction was "is that it?"

I think I could probably find 1944-vintage John Wayne movies with more savagery than that. Yeah, "the Bear Jew" committed a war crime against a prisoner. Not exactly a role model, but hardly any more nasty than, for example, the guys picking off prisoners in Saving Private Ryan...?

I don't remember that in Saving Private Ryan, but it's been a few years.

For the life of me I can't recall a John Wayne spaghetti Western which involved carving in people's flesh, scalpings, or even realistic blood for that matter.