This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Generation War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There was no additional research to prepare the Polish scenes (it's what I called sloppily).
Are you sure about the German/Austrian uniforms being correct? I ask because I noticed Iron Cross decoration ribbons being worn during combat at the front. OrodesIII ( talk) 03:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Polish TV interviewed one German consultant and invited the other one to participate in a discussion. Both of them refused to accept their errors. They don't know German history adn they refuse to learn it. No competent German historian was consulted. Xx236 ( talk) 09:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Most definitely, the Polish partisans were shown to have been more antisemitic than the Germans/Austrians with the exception of one SS officer. This had to have been a calculated decision of the production team, as if they truly believed this to have been the case. The casual viewer would want to research this allegation to see if there was any truth to it. OrodesIII ( talk) 03:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you people ever read the template at the top? This NOT a forum! 1812ahill ( talk) 02:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Before and during WWII German soldiers have been brainwashed. This film tries to make understandable how they experienced WWII. But there was more than propaganda and misled patriotism. Soldiers got also systematically drugged: "Tank Chocolate" Everybody has to decide for himself whether this kind of abuse might have added to the skewed views and abominable actions of certain German soldiers of that time. NordhornerII ( talk)_The man from Nordhorn 22:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The first Polish partizan troop led by Hubal 1939/1940 caused cruel German revenge, so AK was rather against partizan war. The ideology of war on any price presented in the movie wasn't an AK ideology. Partizan war was terrible, it wasn't a Robin Hood movie. The movie contrasts philosemitic Germans with antisemitic Poles, both existed but the structure of the Holocaust was German, designed and implemented by educated Germans, not by primitive Poles. Xx236 ( talk) 09:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin is a perfect comment to the German series. Xx236 ( talk) 07:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
45 years ago Polish Communist TV produced a propaganda WWII series Czterej pancerni i pies. Now the German producers of the "Generation war" have fun, they show destroied Polish 102 (Rudy) tank and a dying Polish soldier. (The Polish tanks didn't participate in Kursk battle.) Xx236 ( talk) 07:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I am French Task Force and usually I don't write about German films. I usually don't even watch them, especially not TV films. I have never chosen to be German and I am absolutely no "German Wikipedian" because the German Wikipedia drove me up the wall and I rather quit the Wikipedia globally than to ever write even a single letter for the German Wikipedia. I don't know why I wrote this article but let me assure you anyway that I like the Polish language a lot because no other language sounds that French to me (not even Southern French because my private teacher was a "Bretonne") and well, I am out of here. I think the article is in good hands. There is a similar discussion going on in the German version of this article where it also stated that many mistakes have been made. If anyone wants to have any of that translated, just send me a note and I will be glad to comply, provided I am not expected to translate it into Polish because that I can't deliver. Sorry for that. NordhornerII ( talk)_The man from Nordhorn 12:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have taken this article from my watchlist. However, it is still on the list of my articles and I have to go through all of them again because I have to rectify my usage of references. Neither writing this article nor maintaining it was ever supposed to be any kind of political or historical statement. NordhornerII ( talk)_The man from Nordhorn 23:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
A long time ago I published an article on a film about a Polish post-war hero: Wałęsa (film). When I recently realised that this article is outdated I remembered that this article about a German TV series attracts so many competent experts for Polish history. In Nordhorn we have a bridge which is dedicated to our Polish partner town Malbork but that doens't make me an expert in Polish history. Please have a look at that article about the bio pic Wałęsa. NordhornerII ( talk) I am not a number! I am a Nordhorner. 09:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC) NordhornerII ( talk)
The main BBC article should be updated about their plans to broadcast this series on their BBC2 TV Channel as a prime example of polonophobic bias by the BBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.63.73 ( talk) 22:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I watched this with English subtitles and I noticed the translation took small liberties e.g. Kruppstahl was translated as "steel". Minor, yes, but telling in the context that Adolf Hitler had used the word Kruppstahl to describe the end result of Hitler Youth training in his speech to the HJ at Nürnberg. Another example is the name of Marlene Dietrich being translated as "movie star". Who knows why? OrodesIII ( talk) 03:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The main fault in this three-part serial was its general unbelievability. The manner in which the five prewar friends crossed paths throughout the story turned the whole thing into a soap opera, unworthy of even the silliest daytime TV show. Two of the brothers were actually in the same small unit. Did such a thing happen in reality? Then the nurse was posted to a field hospital where her boyfriend's brother was brought for treatment! The Jewish doctor returned as a Russian officer after escaping when she had been betrayed at the field hospital! The Jewish friend directs traffic dressed at a German/Austrian soldier when his friend happens to pass in a military car! Their singer friend is posted to the front to give a show and finds herself in the same field hospital! Ha Ha Ha. This serial became comical before it was half-way through. OrodesIII ( talk) 03:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
For me, no worse than Doctor Zhivago ...:) Feroshki ( talk) 08:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I had the impression that Charlotte had reported her assistant as suspect, but then when the gestapo arrived, she realised her folly...if not Charlotte, who else made the report ?
German de.Wikipedia has a much better 'Criticism' section than the present English Wikipedia article - which at this moment has almost nothing. Look at 'Unsere Mutter, Unsere Vater' in de.wikipedia, Section 4.3, 'Kritiken':
4.3.1 Positive Kritiken 4.3.2 Negative Kritiken
Section 4.3.1 contains five positive critiques by German writers, and Section 4.3.2 contains six negative critiques by German writers. None of these critiques appears or is quoted in English Wikipedia, as of this moment. Can anyone translate these critiques? My command of German is not good enough - particularly of literary German, as in these critiques - to translate these critiques with perfect accuracy. I might try to translate at most one of these critiques. We need translations. Any volunteers?
Also, comparing 'Criticism,' which is mainly about Polish responses, in English Wikipedia with the corresponding de.wikipedia Section 'Darstellung der polnischen Heimatarmee,' the German section is far, far more detailed, and incomparably better.
Translations from German would be very desirable. Can we catch up with the quality of the German writers? Prospero10 ( talk) 01:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
One interesting aspect of the German review/criticism section is, that it also contains reviews by professional historians, which adds an additional academic layer to it and avoids typical simplifications or historical misconceptions you might find in regular movie reviews.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 18:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
'RECEPTION IN GERMANY' IS MOST IMPORTANT, AND COVERAGE SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED TO SOUND-BITES. In response to
Michael Bednarek who points out above that the 'subject (is) much closer to Germans and their neighbors than to any English speaking countries,' I reply that that DOES NOT JUSTIFY under-reporting the debate in Germany and also in Poland but instead devoting most of the 'Reception' section to English-speaking countries where, as
Michael Bednarek points out, this subject is less important. Note that
Generation War is a Mid-Imporance article in WikiProject Germany (which makes it quite important) and is also within the scope of WikiProject Poland, and the 'Reception' in those two countries should be reported in proper detail for the benefit of English-speaking Wikipedians interested in these two WikiProjects.
Ideally, I think we should have a 'Reception in Germany' section and a 'Reception in Poland,' section, with most of the present 'Reception' section put in a subordinate 'Reception in English-Speaking Countries' section. The first two, Germany and Poland, are by far the most important, and should be treated as such in English Wikipedia. We don't aim to play the role of 'English Provincial Wikipedia,' Wikipedia aims to cover the world. In Germany, 'Generation War' is very important because it aims to recast the image of Germany's World War II generation who fought under Hitler, and has provoked a well-articulated debate which receives excellent coverage in German Wikipedia. We should aim to do as well in English Wikipedia, not reduce that debate to oversimplified one-liners and sound-bites (as certain edits on Janury 16 tend to do). In Poland, 'Generation War' is seen as attempting to transfer the blame for the Holocaust from Germans to Poles. This is threatening to worsen Polish-German relations, which have recently been excellent. The Generation War article shouldn't dodge important issues, it should present what is most important. Prospero10 ( talk) 18:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The lead of the article should highlight the main aspects of the article. In Germany the series was overall well received and prompted much debate. As regards the series and criticism, clearly the Polish outrage at the depiction of the home army as antisemitic is the main point here, as evidenced by the tenor of the sources. Other aspects of the series have also been criticized (or lauded) by various other critics and those are dealt with further down. The current version does not adequately portray that, as is common in Poland, opinions on various aspects of the film vary widely across the political spectrum, but rejection of the antisemitic portrayal of the home army is uniformly shared. -- Lukati ( talk) 13:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
--Removed-- NordhornerII ( talk)I am not a number! I am a Nordhorner. 21:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
This article gives more information about critcism in USA [1]-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
In line with suggestions made above, I propose a restucturing of the 'Reception' section, with headings:
6.1 Reception in Germany 6.2 Reception in Poland 6.3 Reception in the UK and USA
The proposed text follows, below. The material in 6.1 'Reception in Germany' is new, taken from the corresponding section in German Wikipedia (de wikipedia), summarized from the more detailed citations by German commentators. Section 6.2 'Reception in Poland' gives more accurate summaries of the Polish citations, based on the original Polish texts. Section 6.3 collects UK and US reviews in the existng 'Reception' section.
The detailed 'References' are not given in the text below, but indicated as 'REF' to be inserted in the article.
Please post any suggestions or comments below the proposed text. After review of suggestions, I plan to insert this text into the article in about 2 days.
Proposed text follows:
PRAISE: The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote that the film would give the remaining survivors of the World War II generation an opportunity to discuss it with their families. The film had introduced a new phase in historical films on the Nazi era.(REF)(REF)
Several German television magazines praised the film for successfully engaging the attention of viewers.(REFS 2)
The historian Norbert Frei praised the film for showing, for the first time on German television, an unvarnished portrait of Germany’s war against the Soviet Union, including the participation of the Wehrmacht in murdering Jews, the shooting of hostages as reprisals against ‘partisan’ resistance, and the looting of homes vacated by Jews. He wrote that the film did not present idealised one-dimensional figures, but people of broken character who become aware of their shared guilt. (REF)
CRITICISM: Several German historians criticised the film. The historian Ulrich Herbert wrote that the film showed Nazis as ‘0thers,’ different from ‘Our Mothers and Fathers.’ It showed all Germans as victims. The film showed nothing of the love and trust that Hitler inspired in German youth, or of the widespread belief that Germany deserved to rule Europe. In reality, he wrote, these ‘mothers and fathers’ were a highly ideological and politicised generation, who wanted Nazi Germany to win victory, because that would be right. (REF)
The historian Habbo Knoch said that the film failed to show how the Nazi system functioned. The film showed 20-year old characters who became victims of war, but missing were the 30 to 40-year old Germans who built the Nazi system and supported it out of a mixture of conviction and self-interest. The film should have shown those who profited from the Nazi system. (REF)
The Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger called the film kitschy, devoid of deeper meaning, and morally worst, full of pathetic self-pity. The film’s message was “We perpetrators (of war crimes) didn’t have an easy time.” (REF)
The critic of the German Jewish weekly Jüdische Allgemeine Zeitung made a biting comment that the film provided an epiphany for those who had always known that not only Jews were Hitler’s victims, but more important - that all Germans were Hitler’s victims. (REF)
Many Polish viewers were outraged at the depiction of Poles as the greatest anti-semites shown in the film. Tygodnik Powszechny described the film as “falsification of history” (fałszerowanie historyczne) in depicting all Poles as fanatical anti-semites, even more so than the Germans who are shown as “basically good people” misled by the Nazis. (REF< Tygodnik Powszechny) Critics stated that the screenwriters sought to slander the Polish anti-Nazi resistance underground army Armia Krajowa which is shown in the film as rabidly anti-semitic. (REF)(REF)(REF) The Polish ambassador in Austria, Jerzy Marganski, and the Polish embassy in Germany sent a letter of complaint to the German broadcaster ZDF pointing out that the Armia Krajowa had Jewish members, and that Poles constituted nearly one-quarter of the Righteous Among Nations honored at Yad Vashem. The broadcaster issued a statement that it was regrettable that the role of Polish characters had been interpreted as unfair and hurtful: "The deeds and responsibility of the Germans should in no way be relativized."(REF)(REF)(REF)
Poland’s largest daily Gazeta Wyborcza published a review under the title“Who can explain to the Germans that the Armia Krajowa was not the SS?” (REF) The critic said the movie was the newest of a genre of German poor-quality historical films seeking sympathy for Nazi Germany. Their recipe, he wrote, “tastes like a western movie, but in the background waves a flag with a swastika.”
The Polish ambassador to the USA, Ryszard Schnepf, sent a written complaint to Music Box, who had bought the US rights to the series.(REF) He was supported by the director of the Polish Institute of National Remembrance, Łukasz Kamiński, who feared that in America, where people are unfamiliar with European history, the film may convince people that Armia Krajowa members were all anti-semites.(REF)
Plans to broadcast the series in the UK led to a demonstration by Polish activists in London.(REF)
The Economist suggested that the TV series provided excuses justifying German popular participation in the war.(REF)
The Daily Telegraph wrote that Generation War explored "the seductive aspect of Nazism".(REF)
The Irish Times stated the series was designed to make its spectators more sensitive to the complexity of Germany's darkest era. (REF) ' The Hollywood Reporter compared the series to Band of Brothers.(REF)
According to NPR, the series depicts how totalitarianism corrupts almost everything in its path, including individual responsibility.(REF) The American Institute for Contemporary German Studies at the Johns Hopkins University explained that the series tried to show how Germans were lured into Hitler's war and judged it would "not filter the Nazi atrocities".(REF).
The New York Times stated that by steering clear of showing the Nazi death camps, the series perpetuated the notion that ordinary Germans were duped by the Nazis and ignorant of the extent of their crimes. It described the portrayal of the German protagonists as "chaste, self-sacrificing Aryans" who are the heroes of the story, just as they would have been in a German film made in 1943. (REF)
The New Yorker wrote that the movie acknowledged what scholars have established in recent years, that the German regular army (the Wehrmacht) played a major role in committing atrocities in the occupied countries, and that responsibility for atrocities was not confined to the SS and the Gestapo. But while destroying one myth, the filmmakers had built up another – that young German men and women were seduced by the Nazis, and then savagely betrayed. In this mythical account, their complicity with the Nazi regime was forced, never chosen. “”Generation War” is an appeal for forgiveness. But the movie sells dubious innocence in the hope of eliciting reconciliation.” (REF)
(End of proposed text)
Prospero10 (
talk) 16:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The repeated edits by Maxim Musson, where he has repeatedly inserted a review WRITTEN BY HIMSELF for his neo-Nazi website into the text of the Wikipedia page Generation War, violate basic Wikipedia policy WP:SPS which prohibits self-publishing. The review expresses HIS PERSONAL OPINION.
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A BULLETIN BOARD FOR POSTING PERSONAL OPINIONS.
The issue is not that he is expressing a neo-Nazi viewpoint, which is what his 'Western Spring' website represents. The issue is that Wikipedia pages ARE NOT A PLACE FOR POSTING PERSONAL OPINIONS.
I believe that Maxim Musson should be blocked. Prospero10 ( talk) 15:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The Edit by 84.191.175.193 dated 2 March 2014 provides no verifiable basis for the statement that, "Avnery himself...... has given more thought to the underlying questions of the film than have all other reviewers combined." Lacking verifiable justification, this statement is an opinion, which has no place in a Wikipedia article. Therefore I have edited out this statement.
If the editor can justify this statement, please present a justification on this Talk page.
The word 'plausible' describing Avner's theory also expresses an opinion.
In addition, the paragraph gives no Reference for the Avnery review. A Reference would be desirable.
Is Avnery's a 'significant' review? I don't know. One could check whether major newspapers such as Haaretz have commented on Generation War. Prospero10 ( talk) 18:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I have added a summary of a review by Uri Klein of HAARETZ. OrodesIII ( talk) 03:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Lead section says:
"The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."
"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."
The repeated Edits by YvelinesFrance restrict the Lead Section to a first paragraph summariziing only Sections 1 -4 of the article, including 'Plot,' 'Main Characters, 'Cast,' 'Production,' He eliminates the second Lead Section paragraph covering Sections 5 and 6 which cover the controversies which the film has aroused - detailed in Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4, 'Reception in Germany,' 'Reception in Poland.' 'Comments in the UK and US,' 'Israeli review.'
These edits by YvelinesFrance violate the clear language of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, requiring that the Lead Section should give a summary of the "most important aspects" of the article, "including any prominent controversies."
Clearly the edits by YvelinesFrance violate this rule.
Therefore his last edit has been reverted.
If YvelinesFrance wishes to discuss this topic, he should do so on this Talk page. Prospero10 ( talk) 21:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
It is extremely curious that there are sections about reception in Germany, Poland etc. but there is no section about reception in Russia and other post-Soviet states, although almost the whole action (the whole war showed in the movie) takes place in Russia! Dmitri Klimushkin ( talk) 07:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Were any interesting reviews/comments/reactions on 'Generation War' published in Russia or Ukraine? If so, translations in English would be welcome. Prospero10 ( talk) 04:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Episode two shows after about 50 1/2 minutes a close-up of a German firing his general-purpose machine gun.
However, during that shot the film is clearly running backwards with the empty belt moving _into_ the weapon.
Could this be an allusion to Slaughterhouse-Five? Lklundin ( talk) 10:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Generation War. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
http://wpolityce.pl/polityka/154910-w-tygodniku-sieci-prof-musial-ujawnia-kulisy-konsultacji-wokol-skandalicznego-niemieckiego-serialu-nasi-ojcowie-i-matki Xx236 ( talk) 06:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Is the film based on true events and biography? Because in the end of the third episode there is a year of birth and death of the 5 main characters (except Wilhelm), so it made me think that the characters based on real persons. Does anyone knows? It doesn't mention in the article. Sokuya ( talk) 21:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I wondered the same thing. John Link ( talk) 03:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Generation War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There was no additional research to prepare the Polish scenes (it's what I called sloppily).
Are you sure about the German/Austrian uniforms being correct? I ask because I noticed Iron Cross decoration ribbons being worn during combat at the front. OrodesIII ( talk) 03:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Polish TV interviewed one German consultant and invited the other one to participate in a discussion. Both of them refused to accept their errors. They don't know German history adn they refuse to learn it. No competent German historian was consulted. Xx236 ( talk) 09:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Most definitely, the Polish partisans were shown to have been more antisemitic than the Germans/Austrians with the exception of one SS officer. This had to have been a calculated decision of the production team, as if they truly believed this to have been the case. The casual viewer would want to research this allegation to see if there was any truth to it. OrodesIII ( talk) 03:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you people ever read the template at the top? This NOT a forum! 1812ahill ( talk) 02:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Before and during WWII German soldiers have been brainwashed. This film tries to make understandable how they experienced WWII. But there was more than propaganda and misled patriotism. Soldiers got also systematically drugged: "Tank Chocolate" Everybody has to decide for himself whether this kind of abuse might have added to the skewed views and abominable actions of certain German soldiers of that time. NordhornerII ( talk)_The man from Nordhorn 22:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The first Polish partizan troop led by Hubal 1939/1940 caused cruel German revenge, so AK was rather against partizan war. The ideology of war on any price presented in the movie wasn't an AK ideology. Partizan war was terrible, it wasn't a Robin Hood movie. The movie contrasts philosemitic Germans with antisemitic Poles, both existed but the structure of the Holocaust was German, designed and implemented by educated Germans, not by primitive Poles. Xx236 ( talk) 09:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin is a perfect comment to the German series. Xx236 ( talk) 07:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
45 years ago Polish Communist TV produced a propaganda WWII series Czterej pancerni i pies. Now the German producers of the "Generation war" have fun, they show destroied Polish 102 (Rudy) tank and a dying Polish soldier. (The Polish tanks didn't participate in Kursk battle.) Xx236 ( talk) 07:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I am French Task Force and usually I don't write about German films. I usually don't even watch them, especially not TV films. I have never chosen to be German and I am absolutely no "German Wikipedian" because the German Wikipedia drove me up the wall and I rather quit the Wikipedia globally than to ever write even a single letter for the German Wikipedia. I don't know why I wrote this article but let me assure you anyway that I like the Polish language a lot because no other language sounds that French to me (not even Southern French because my private teacher was a "Bretonne") and well, I am out of here. I think the article is in good hands. There is a similar discussion going on in the German version of this article where it also stated that many mistakes have been made. If anyone wants to have any of that translated, just send me a note and I will be glad to comply, provided I am not expected to translate it into Polish because that I can't deliver. Sorry for that. NordhornerII ( talk)_The man from Nordhorn 12:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have taken this article from my watchlist. However, it is still on the list of my articles and I have to go through all of them again because I have to rectify my usage of references. Neither writing this article nor maintaining it was ever supposed to be any kind of political or historical statement. NordhornerII ( talk)_The man from Nordhorn 23:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
A long time ago I published an article on a film about a Polish post-war hero: Wałęsa (film). When I recently realised that this article is outdated I remembered that this article about a German TV series attracts so many competent experts for Polish history. In Nordhorn we have a bridge which is dedicated to our Polish partner town Malbork but that doens't make me an expert in Polish history. Please have a look at that article about the bio pic Wałęsa. NordhornerII ( talk) I am not a number! I am a Nordhorner. 09:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC) NordhornerII ( talk)
The main BBC article should be updated about their plans to broadcast this series on their BBC2 TV Channel as a prime example of polonophobic bias by the BBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.63.73 ( talk) 22:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I watched this with English subtitles and I noticed the translation took small liberties e.g. Kruppstahl was translated as "steel". Minor, yes, but telling in the context that Adolf Hitler had used the word Kruppstahl to describe the end result of Hitler Youth training in his speech to the HJ at Nürnberg. Another example is the name of Marlene Dietrich being translated as "movie star". Who knows why? OrodesIII ( talk) 03:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The main fault in this three-part serial was its general unbelievability. The manner in which the five prewar friends crossed paths throughout the story turned the whole thing into a soap opera, unworthy of even the silliest daytime TV show. Two of the brothers were actually in the same small unit. Did such a thing happen in reality? Then the nurse was posted to a field hospital where her boyfriend's brother was brought for treatment! The Jewish doctor returned as a Russian officer after escaping when she had been betrayed at the field hospital! The Jewish friend directs traffic dressed at a German/Austrian soldier when his friend happens to pass in a military car! Their singer friend is posted to the front to give a show and finds herself in the same field hospital! Ha Ha Ha. This serial became comical before it was half-way through. OrodesIII ( talk) 03:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
For me, no worse than Doctor Zhivago ...:) Feroshki ( talk) 08:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I had the impression that Charlotte had reported her assistant as suspect, but then when the gestapo arrived, she realised her folly...if not Charlotte, who else made the report ?
German de.Wikipedia has a much better 'Criticism' section than the present English Wikipedia article - which at this moment has almost nothing. Look at 'Unsere Mutter, Unsere Vater' in de.wikipedia, Section 4.3, 'Kritiken':
4.3.1 Positive Kritiken 4.3.2 Negative Kritiken
Section 4.3.1 contains five positive critiques by German writers, and Section 4.3.2 contains six negative critiques by German writers. None of these critiques appears or is quoted in English Wikipedia, as of this moment. Can anyone translate these critiques? My command of German is not good enough - particularly of literary German, as in these critiques - to translate these critiques with perfect accuracy. I might try to translate at most one of these critiques. We need translations. Any volunteers?
Also, comparing 'Criticism,' which is mainly about Polish responses, in English Wikipedia with the corresponding de.wikipedia Section 'Darstellung der polnischen Heimatarmee,' the German section is far, far more detailed, and incomparably better.
Translations from German would be very desirable. Can we catch up with the quality of the German writers? Prospero10 ( talk) 01:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
One interesting aspect of the German review/criticism section is, that it also contains reviews by professional historians, which adds an additional academic layer to it and avoids typical simplifications or historical misconceptions you might find in regular movie reviews.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 18:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
'RECEPTION IN GERMANY' IS MOST IMPORTANT, AND COVERAGE SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED TO SOUND-BITES. In response to
Michael Bednarek who points out above that the 'subject (is) much closer to Germans and their neighbors than to any English speaking countries,' I reply that that DOES NOT JUSTIFY under-reporting the debate in Germany and also in Poland but instead devoting most of the 'Reception' section to English-speaking countries where, as
Michael Bednarek points out, this subject is less important. Note that
Generation War is a Mid-Imporance article in WikiProject Germany (which makes it quite important) and is also within the scope of WikiProject Poland, and the 'Reception' in those two countries should be reported in proper detail for the benefit of English-speaking Wikipedians interested in these two WikiProjects.
Ideally, I think we should have a 'Reception in Germany' section and a 'Reception in Poland,' section, with most of the present 'Reception' section put in a subordinate 'Reception in English-Speaking Countries' section. The first two, Germany and Poland, are by far the most important, and should be treated as such in English Wikipedia. We don't aim to play the role of 'English Provincial Wikipedia,' Wikipedia aims to cover the world. In Germany, 'Generation War' is very important because it aims to recast the image of Germany's World War II generation who fought under Hitler, and has provoked a well-articulated debate which receives excellent coverage in German Wikipedia. We should aim to do as well in English Wikipedia, not reduce that debate to oversimplified one-liners and sound-bites (as certain edits on Janury 16 tend to do). In Poland, 'Generation War' is seen as attempting to transfer the blame for the Holocaust from Germans to Poles. This is threatening to worsen Polish-German relations, which have recently been excellent. The Generation War article shouldn't dodge important issues, it should present what is most important. Prospero10 ( talk) 18:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The lead of the article should highlight the main aspects of the article. In Germany the series was overall well received and prompted much debate. As regards the series and criticism, clearly the Polish outrage at the depiction of the home army as antisemitic is the main point here, as evidenced by the tenor of the sources. Other aspects of the series have also been criticized (or lauded) by various other critics and those are dealt with further down. The current version does not adequately portray that, as is common in Poland, opinions on various aspects of the film vary widely across the political spectrum, but rejection of the antisemitic portrayal of the home army is uniformly shared. -- Lukati ( talk) 13:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
--Removed-- NordhornerII ( talk)I am not a number! I am a Nordhorner. 21:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
This article gives more information about critcism in USA [1]-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
In line with suggestions made above, I propose a restucturing of the 'Reception' section, with headings:
6.1 Reception in Germany 6.2 Reception in Poland 6.3 Reception in the UK and USA
The proposed text follows, below. The material in 6.1 'Reception in Germany' is new, taken from the corresponding section in German Wikipedia (de wikipedia), summarized from the more detailed citations by German commentators. Section 6.2 'Reception in Poland' gives more accurate summaries of the Polish citations, based on the original Polish texts. Section 6.3 collects UK and US reviews in the existng 'Reception' section.
The detailed 'References' are not given in the text below, but indicated as 'REF' to be inserted in the article.
Please post any suggestions or comments below the proposed text. After review of suggestions, I plan to insert this text into the article in about 2 days.
Proposed text follows:
PRAISE: The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote that the film would give the remaining survivors of the World War II generation an opportunity to discuss it with their families. The film had introduced a new phase in historical films on the Nazi era.(REF)(REF)
Several German television magazines praised the film for successfully engaging the attention of viewers.(REFS 2)
The historian Norbert Frei praised the film for showing, for the first time on German television, an unvarnished portrait of Germany’s war against the Soviet Union, including the participation of the Wehrmacht in murdering Jews, the shooting of hostages as reprisals against ‘partisan’ resistance, and the looting of homes vacated by Jews. He wrote that the film did not present idealised one-dimensional figures, but people of broken character who become aware of their shared guilt. (REF)
CRITICISM: Several German historians criticised the film. The historian Ulrich Herbert wrote that the film showed Nazis as ‘0thers,’ different from ‘Our Mothers and Fathers.’ It showed all Germans as victims. The film showed nothing of the love and trust that Hitler inspired in German youth, or of the widespread belief that Germany deserved to rule Europe. In reality, he wrote, these ‘mothers and fathers’ were a highly ideological and politicised generation, who wanted Nazi Germany to win victory, because that would be right. (REF)
The historian Habbo Knoch said that the film failed to show how the Nazi system functioned. The film showed 20-year old characters who became victims of war, but missing were the 30 to 40-year old Germans who built the Nazi system and supported it out of a mixture of conviction and self-interest. The film should have shown those who profited from the Nazi system. (REF)
The Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger called the film kitschy, devoid of deeper meaning, and morally worst, full of pathetic self-pity. The film’s message was “We perpetrators (of war crimes) didn’t have an easy time.” (REF)
The critic of the German Jewish weekly Jüdische Allgemeine Zeitung made a biting comment that the film provided an epiphany for those who had always known that not only Jews were Hitler’s victims, but more important - that all Germans were Hitler’s victims. (REF)
Many Polish viewers were outraged at the depiction of Poles as the greatest anti-semites shown in the film. Tygodnik Powszechny described the film as “falsification of history” (fałszerowanie historyczne) in depicting all Poles as fanatical anti-semites, even more so than the Germans who are shown as “basically good people” misled by the Nazis. (REF< Tygodnik Powszechny) Critics stated that the screenwriters sought to slander the Polish anti-Nazi resistance underground army Armia Krajowa which is shown in the film as rabidly anti-semitic. (REF)(REF)(REF) The Polish ambassador in Austria, Jerzy Marganski, and the Polish embassy in Germany sent a letter of complaint to the German broadcaster ZDF pointing out that the Armia Krajowa had Jewish members, and that Poles constituted nearly one-quarter of the Righteous Among Nations honored at Yad Vashem. The broadcaster issued a statement that it was regrettable that the role of Polish characters had been interpreted as unfair and hurtful: "The deeds and responsibility of the Germans should in no way be relativized."(REF)(REF)(REF)
Poland’s largest daily Gazeta Wyborcza published a review under the title“Who can explain to the Germans that the Armia Krajowa was not the SS?” (REF) The critic said the movie was the newest of a genre of German poor-quality historical films seeking sympathy for Nazi Germany. Their recipe, he wrote, “tastes like a western movie, but in the background waves a flag with a swastika.”
The Polish ambassador to the USA, Ryszard Schnepf, sent a written complaint to Music Box, who had bought the US rights to the series.(REF) He was supported by the director of the Polish Institute of National Remembrance, Łukasz Kamiński, who feared that in America, where people are unfamiliar with European history, the film may convince people that Armia Krajowa members were all anti-semites.(REF)
Plans to broadcast the series in the UK led to a demonstration by Polish activists in London.(REF)
The Economist suggested that the TV series provided excuses justifying German popular participation in the war.(REF)
The Daily Telegraph wrote that Generation War explored "the seductive aspect of Nazism".(REF)
The Irish Times stated the series was designed to make its spectators more sensitive to the complexity of Germany's darkest era. (REF) ' The Hollywood Reporter compared the series to Band of Brothers.(REF)
According to NPR, the series depicts how totalitarianism corrupts almost everything in its path, including individual responsibility.(REF) The American Institute for Contemporary German Studies at the Johns Hopkins University explained that the series tried to show how Germans were lured into Hitler's war and judged it would "not filter the Nazi atrocities".(REF).
The New York Times stated that by steering clear of showing the Nazi death camps, the series perpetuated the notion that ordinary Germans were duped by the Nazis and ignorant of the extent of their crimes. It described the portrayal of the German protagonists as "chaste, self-sacrificing Aryans" who are the heroes of the story, just as they would have been in a German film made in 1943. (REF)
The New Yorker wrote that the movie acknowledged what scholars have established in recent years, that the German regular army (the Wehrmacht) played a major role in committing atrocities in the occupied countries, and that responsibility for atrocities was not confined to the SS and the Gestapo. But while destroying one myth, the filmmakers had built up another – that young German men and women were seduced by the Nazis, and then savagely betrayed. In this mythical account, their complicity with the Nazi regime was forced, never chosen. “”Generation War” is an appeal for forgiveness. But the movie sells dubious innocence in the hope of eliciting reconciliation.” (REF)
(End of proposed text)
Prospero10 (
talk) 16:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The repeated edits by Maxim Musson, where he has repeatedly inserted a review WRITTEN BY HIMSELF for his neo-Nazi website into the text of the Wikipedia page Generation War, violate basic Wikipedia policy WP:SPS which prohibits self-publishing. The review expresses HIS PERSONAL OPINION.
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A BULLETIN BOARD FOR POSTING PERSONAL OPINIONS.
The issue is not that he is expressing a neo-Nazi viewpoint, which is what his 'Western Spring' website represents. The issue is that Wikipedia pages ARE NOT A PLACE FOR POSTING PERSONAL OPINIONS.
I believe that Maxim Musson should be blocked. Prospero10 ( talk) 15:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The Edit by 84.191.175.193 dated 2 March 2014 provides no verifiable basis for the statement that, "Avnery himself...... has given more thought to the underlying questions of the film than have all other reviewers combined." Lacking verifiable justification, this statement is an opinion, which has no place in a Wikipedia article. Therefore I have edited out this statement.
If the editor can justify this statement, please present a justification on this Talk page.
The word 'plausible' describing Avner's theory also expresses an opinion.
In addition, the paragraph gives no Reference for the Avnery review. A Reference would be desirable.
Is Avnery's a 'significant' review? I don't know. One could check whether major newspapers such as Haaretz have commented on Generation War. Prospero10 ( talk) 18:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I have added a summary of a review by Uri Klein of HAARETZ. OrodesIII ( talk) 03:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Lead section says:
"The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."
"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."
The repeated Edits by YvelinesFrance restrict the Lead Section to a first paragraph summariziing only Sections 1 -4 of the article, including 'Plot,' 'Main Characters, 'Cast,' 'Production,' He eliminates the second Lead Section paragraph covering Sections 5 and 6 which cover the controversies which the film has aroused - detailed in Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4, 'Reception in Germany,' 'Reception in Poland.' 'Comments in the UK and US,' 'Israeli review.'
These edits by YvelinesFrance violate the clear language of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, requiring that the Lead Section should give a summary of the "most important aspects" of the article, "including any prominent controversies."
Clearly the edits by YvelinesFrance violate this rule.
Therefore his last edit has been reverted.
If YvelinesFrance wishes to discuss this topic, he should do so on this Talk page. Prospero10 ( talk) 21:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
It is extremely curious that there are sections about reception in Germany, Poland etc. but there is no section about reception in Russia and other post-Soviet states, although almost the whole action (the whole war showed in the movie) takes place in Russia! Dmitri Klimushkin ( talk) 07:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Were any interesting reviews/comments/reactions on 'Generation War' published in Russia or Ukraine? If so, translations in English would be welcome. Prospero10 ( talk) 04:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Episode two shows after about 50 1/2 minutes a close-up of a German firing his general-purpose machine gun.
However, during that shot the film is clearly running backwards with the empty belt moving _into_ the weapon.
Could this be an allusion to Slaughterhouse-Five? Lklundin ( talk) 10:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Generation War. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
http://wpolityce.pl/polityka/154910-w-tygodniku-sieci-prof-musial-ujawnia-kulisy-konsultacji-wokol-skandalicznego-niemieckiego-serialu-nasi-ojcowie-i-matki Xx236 ( talk) 06:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Is the film based on true events and biography? Because in the end of the third episode there is a year of birth and death of the 5 main characters (except Wilhelm), so it made me think that the characters based on real persons. Does anyone knows? It doesn't mention in the article. Sokuya ( talk) 21:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I wondered the same thing. John Link ( talk) 03:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)