Inglorious basterds: fiction and non
One of my pet peeves is how movies that draw on history often misrepresent it.
The phenomenon is at its worst with Oliver Stone epics that purport to be biopics and are mainly a figment of the director’s imagination. It wouldn’t matter so much if history were properly taught in the schools. But in the absence of basic historical grounding, for way too many viewers (especially youthful ones) the fiction replaces fact and becomes the stuff of history itself.
Now comes the Quentin Tarantino World War II film “Inglorious Basterds.” It’s fiction and presented as such, so that should get Tarantino off the hook.
And to a certain extent it does. Anyone stupid enough to imagine that a Tarantino film has any sort of historical truth to it is probably stupid enough to believe anything.
But I’m still disturbed by the plot point described in the following; I’m utterly convinced that many viewers will come away thinking it’s based on historic fact:
The film tracks the separate attempts to kill Hitler by two disparate forces, one being the “Basterds”, a motley crew of Jewish American soldiers out for revenge against the Nazis. The Basterds have a modus operandi whereby each man must cut off the scalp of a dead Nazi soldier, with orders to get 100 scalps each. The Basterds allow one German soldier to survive each incident so as to spread the news of the terror of their attacks. However, the Basterds carve a swastika into the forehead of that German.
This idea sprang full-blown from the head of Tarantino himself, who conceptualized Aldo, the leader of the Basterds (played by Brad Pitt) as a part Native American non-Jewish Southerner. In a recent interview Tarantino explained:
Basically, Aldo’s this character I’ve had in my mind for a very, very long time…[T]he fact that he’s part Native American is significant, because what he’s doing against the Nazi’s is similar to the Apache resistance, the ambushing of soldiers, desecrating their bodies and leaving them there for other Germans to find. Aldo’s idea is to find Jewish soldiers because he should be able to motivate them more easily because they are essentially warriors in a holy war against an enemy that’s trying to wipe their race off the face of the Earth.
Tarantino is either ignorant of the fact (or doesn’t much care; take your pick) that his fictional unit of scalping and body-carving Jews commit acts that go utterly against Jewish teachings and philosophy. The desecration and/or mutilation of the living or dead human body is strictly forbidden by Judaism—with the single exception of the act of ritual circumcision for Jewish males.
For example, those who follow Jewish law are not allowed to tattoo themselves or even to use cremation instead of burial (so that, in addition to all the other atrocities committed on Jews during the Holocaust, the tattooing of numbers on the arm and the crematoriums for burning the bodies were extra added offenses).
Here’s a fuller explanation:
In Jewish law, the human body belongs to its Creator. It is merely on loan to the person, who is the guardian of the body, but he or she has no right to deface it in any way. The body must be “returned” in its entirety, just as it was given.
Additionally, Man was created in “G”‘d’s image and likeness.”Any violation of the human body is considered, therefore, to be a violation of G”‘d Himself.
This general principle and law governs many [Jewish] laws, like those prohibiting self-mutilation or tattoos…This principle applies after death, too; any mutilation of the dead is prohibited…This is also one of the reasons why Jewish law does not permit autopsies other than in the most extenuating of circumstances.
Many secular Jews obviously violate some of these rules. But the guidelines indicate a very deeply-held and basic cultural and religious attitude of Jews, and Tarantino’s notion that Jews would be especially amenable to Aldo’s scalping and carving orders could not be more incorrect. In fact, respect for the integrity of the body is enshrined in Jewish law for the treatment of the corpse of the stranger and even the criminal (see this).
If you’re interested in historical accuracy, there actually was a secret commando unit composed partly of Jewish refugees from the Nazis during World War II, but it was a British enterprise. Kim Masters, whose father was one of these men, describes their exploits here. She writes:
…[O]ne day a notice was posted seeking anyone “wishing to volunteer for special and hazardous duty.” When my father reported for an interview, he was asked why he wanted to serve. “I think part of this war belongs to me, sir,” he replied.
All the soldiers accepted for the outfit that Winston Churchill called “X Troop” had to have false British identities. Obviously the hazards to them as men in the field would be greatly multiplied if the Germans knew that some of the commandos were European Jews. My father, Peter Arany, became Pvt. Peter Masters, who had been born in London, was a member of the Church of England, and had volunteered for the commandos from the Queen’s Own Royal West Kent Regiment.
Kim’s father is deceased. But she quotes some of the surviving Jewish-British commandos on the subject of the Tarantino movie:
Of course they haven’t seen the film, which opens later this month, but what they hate is the premise that Jewish soldiers would hunt for scalps or bludgeon prisoners with a baseball bat.
“We killed people elegantly, without that sort of thing,” said Tony Firth, now 90.
“Shocking!” said my father’s friend, Peter Terry, now 85. “I mean””really!”…
He never saw anyone abuse prisoners, whom he describes as a dispirited lot for the most part.
Another Jewish former commando named Manfred Ganz (whose cover name during the war was Freddy Gray), isn’t pleased with Tarantino either:
Ganz…doesn’t seem likely to be engaged by Tarantino’s comic-book violence. “To me, the reality was brutal enough,” he says. Ganz allows that Tarantino “has the right to express his fantasies.” But he would much prefer that the real story be told.
I’d much prefer it as well.
[ADDENDUM: Just now I happened to read a spoiler that gave away the end of the film. The ending is clearly fictional, at least to anyone with even a glancing knowledge of history. Perhaps that will help make more viewers consider the whole idea of the Jewish commando unit scalping and carving swastikas into Nazis as fiction, as well. But I wouldn’t bank on it.]
[ADDENDUM II: Here’s someone who seems to agree with me.]
Was it Nabokov who said nothing is more exhilarating than philistine vulgarity? Tarantino has a comic book/drive-in movie mind. He takes trash and does wonders with it but its basis remains trash. He’s ahistorical, practically a barbarian. This is a guy who handed a Silver Lion (or whatever it’s called) to Michael Moore at Cannes, for crissakes. He’s a slob made good. Culture has hit the skids when slobs get touted as geniuses.
Neo, an innocent question: would Jewish law permit the amputation of a limb to save life?
PA Cat: Of course. The need to save a life is considered paramount.
I think I’ll take the position that there is a certain level of ignorance at work here on Tarantino’s part.
Tarantino may have no idea that it’s forbidden under Jewish laws/customs to perform the acts he’s portraying in this movie.
I say this because he seems to be a bit sloppy in his homework.
I read portions of one of his scripts once (widely available at your local bookstore), and just one of the inaccuracies in a certain area kind of jumped out at me.
He was indicating 4 doors on a car that was only ever available as a 2 door.
If he can get something that simple and basic wrong, I have no doubt he could get issues of Jewish practice wrong as well.
Your point is well taken, that many young viewers may take this as their “history lesson” and draw inaccurate conclusions based upon the movie, and I’d certainly empathize with the real men that you describe in your post.
Tarantino is not worthy to hold their hat.
Now I have to put on my own obstinate hat, just for the sake of discussion here…lol..as there is also the American Indian aspect of the Pitt character.
Your comments deal with how the actions the Pitt character commits go against Jewish doctrine, and look at the issue strictly from that viewpoint – but those same actions historically were not forbidden under American Indian customs.
Could it be acceptable to consider, not necessarily accept, but consider, that the character may be more inclined to follow his American Indian traditions than his Jewish traditions when at war?
I would think one belief system would have to supercede the other, but admit I’m not an expert on Jewish customs – nor American Indian customs (though there is one wayyy back in my background).
Or is it possible that the Pitt character is pi$$ed off over how Jews – for whom the character would have an family attachment – are being treated by the na%is and is acting out his anger in a very Apache warrior like manner?
Just thought I’d toss that out for friendly discussion….
Scottie: I’m sure Tarantino doesn’t care about historical accuracy.
If you look at my post, you’ll see that I mention that Aldo, the commander of the Jewish unit in the Tarantino film, is not only part native-American but he is also non-Jewish. As such, he would experience no personal conflict between the two traditions.
Tarantino thinks he can improve on the history of World War II. The most titanic conflict in human history, which saw the most chilling examples of human evil and some of the most awe-inspiring acts of heroism. And he thinks he can improve it.
I have come to appreciate how there was often a practicle reason behind many of the Mosaic laws. There is evidence that Circumcision does help to prevent the transmision of some diseases, including HPV and maybe HIV. (Though circumcision predated Moses in the Jewish heritage, going back to at least Abraham. ) Also, the prohibition on eating pork has obvious pratical reasons behind it as well.
Any of you old geezers up to earning some money? Got a job for you up in Scotland and then over to sunny Tripoli.
Neo- there was one other “mutilation” as I recall allowed in the Mosaic law. It was a voluntary thing that bound one for life-it had to do with the ear—-I will check back and see if anyone here can identify it.
But “Jewish Tattooing Traditions” is one of my primary areas of study! along with:
The Wheel in Precolumbian America
African Literary Tradition
Eskimo alcohol distillation techniques
Chinese Hospitality and Courtesy
My wife and I didn’t have our little son circumcised. We aren’t Jewish or Moslem and I don’t expect him to become a sub-saharan African trucker banging male and female road prostitutes.
I mean, really, why not give every child a preventive appendectomy “cuz you could get an appendicitis.”
No male in my family was ever cut. I’m not a fanatic, I don’t care at all if others do, or don’t….
After looking at his “Kill Bill” series and others of his works and seeing him being interviewed, Tarantino has always struck me as just plain old nuts, and making a fortune out of laying out all of his violent nightmares, dreams and fantasies on the screen.
If you think this bit of agitprop is bad and a falsification of history–and I do think it is more agitprop with a purpose than it is just lousy filmmaking–take a look at how history is shredded and Islam, Muslims and Christians are portrayed in Ridley Scott’s “Kingdom of Heaven,” which had Columbia Professor Hamid Dabashi as it’s technical adviser.
Neo,
Genesis 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:” Is it too much to ask to spell God with an “o”, not G-d? Let us give our Heavenly Father his due.
Is it too much to ask to spell God with an “o”, not G-d? Let us give our Heavenly Father his due.
That didn’t take long: Here we go!
Jon –
I believe it is if a slave, at the point at which they are freed (7 years), decides to stay with the master.
I expected blowback from my remark, but I posted anyway. I will stand firm, in love, in giving Him the honor He deserves.
I will stand firm, in love, in giving Him the honor He deserves.
Who? Do you mean YHVH? Speak clearly, man.
Its just a form of destroying history and culture. It also suggests to the unhinged left what to do with the right come bastille day.
“T]he fact that he’s part Native American is significant, because what he’s doing against the Nazi’s is similar to the Apache resistance, the ambushing of soldiers, desecrating their bodies and leaving them there for other Germans to find.”
Scalping aside, I believe we were told after the Indian wars that many tribe’s ‘desceration’ of bodies (re: that were later found by the army) were signs of respect… that removal of some body parts was a sign that the mutilated individual had been a great warrior in the battle… On one hand it could be typical PC history mucking (lets paper over something distaseful with this story)… on the other, cultures are different so it could be true… in which case, this is just more ahistorical nonsense by the director (if Apaches subsribed to the view that they were honoring the fallen by removing certian body parts after their death).
My friend and I were discussing the problem of history blatantly rewritten in movies with regards to this film earlier. It might be a good idea to put some kind of disclaimer prior to the movie stating to what degree the storyline is based in fact or has any basis in reality whatsoever.
Tarantino’s films have always had a sarcasm to them that bothered me. I’ve always walked away from his films with a bad taste in my mouth.
I might go see it — I like Brad Pitt! And I typical love Tarantino films!
I might fo see it too. I like Tarantino movies. The are so over the top that they are good escapist movies.
They appeal to the side of me that still likes Coyote vs Roadrunner cartoons. You can’t take it seriously, but it’s good fun.
There was a Jewish Brigade that was involved at the conclusion of the war in Europe in hunting down the worst of the Nazis, particularly those associated with the death and concentration camps and in many cases killing them.
I could never understand the global adoration showered on Tarantino. I went to see Pulp Fiction full of great expectations about 15 years ago, having read all those glorious arthouse reviews – and ended up watching the audience instead of the primitive, boring, irrelevant rivers-of-red-paint- scenes on the screen. His alternating between syrupy sentimentality and vulgar colloquialism is bad enough, but mixed with phony symbolism and end quatations from real masters gets me tired pretty soon.
I sat till the end of Kill Bill, but only because that was one of those inertia-ridden evenings. In any case, I find the pretensions and disregard for a plausible story really annoying.
Thank you, Neo, for watching that new non-art film (masquerading as real) for me – so I don’t have to!
Pulp Fiction was truly inspired. However, Tarantino never hit that high note again, and his films have deteriorated into cartoon junk.
I’ll probably rent Basterds from NetFlix but I won’t be expecting much.
Tip: The fast-forward button is your friend. Turn on English subtitles and set the FF to 4x. That way you can zip through disposable sections while not missing the dialog.
I understand the film is yet another remake.
Lucius: I’ll assume you’re unaware of the origins of the tradition of not spelling out the name of the deity for Jews. Some have extended this even to the English word “God.” But as you can see, it’s a sign of respect and reverence (see also this).
Turn on English subtitles and set the FF to 4x.
Wow. You can read fast. Unfortunately, my DVD player won’t show any subtitles on any setting faster than 2x.
I’m not a fan of Tarantino, but I liked his movie, From Dusk Till Dawn. Good vampire flick. I like vampire flicks.
Neo,
Thank you for responding to my post. I have noticed that you are very assiduous in documenting your quotes. So I found it odd that you did not go directly to the source this time. Yes, I am aware of how Jewish people will use substitution the for spelling and the naming God; i.e. Elohim for Yahweh. No condemnation or pharisaic righteousness was intended. I asked a question, and you answered gracefully. If you honor God in all thing great and small, then I bless you for it.
I agree with Neo. At this time, and with all the political correct efforts, this kind of clouds history.
“The desecration and/or mutilation of the living or dead human body is strictly forbidden by Judaism”
I’m not defending Tarantino’s worthless films, but the Israelites certainly weren’t beyond the desecration and/or mutilation of their enemies. David slew Goliath and cut off his head, Jezebel was thrown from the city walls and her body was allowed to be eaten by dogs. There may be other examples. Those are the two that come to mind. No history of scalping though.
Heard Tarantino being interviewed the other day.
He said a writer needs “eureka moments”, and that good writers have more of them.
One he was particularly proud of was to have some film–highly flammable–involved in the destruction of something or other because the enterprise under attack had something to do with movies (they were trying to avoid spoiling the ending).
That’s his idea of a good writer’s eureka moment.
Tarantino is a sick fuck.
James Lileks totally pwned him a couple of years ago, writing about Pulp Fiction. Or maybe Reservoir Dogs. I can’t find it at the moment. I think it’s in here somewhere.
Anyway, I haven’t seen this movie but I was listening to Michael Medved a week or so ago when he reviewed this film. Medved is very annoying sometimes (often), but he is a smart guy. Sometimes (often) he’s worth listening to. He said that a Jewish character in the current movie utilized the tactic of suicide bombing.
That’s just great. So how many historically illiterate American moviegoers will react to the next Muslim atrocity by saying, “The Jews used suicide bombs in World War 2, man. I saw it in a movie. It was based on a true story, dude.”
Jamie- you are right- Exodus 21:6. Though I can see from the text before it might be a situation where the 7 year indentured servant was being freed but his wife and children that he had married/ fathered during the time of his indenture were not being freed so in order to stay with them he did this. Might be hard for some to comprehend in our modern western mind.
I generally enjoy Tarantino’s films, for the fun factor. His films can’t be enjoyed if the viewer truly desires plausible plot.
That said, it is unfortunate that Tarantino portrays Jews as immorally desecrating bodies. Where is the Anti Defamation League? I don’t keep up with them, but: don’t they usually protest slurs quite loudly? Do they refuse to protest against perceived liberal persons?
Tarantino loves revenge movies – definitely including revenge movies from Japan. I wonder if Tarantino recognizes he is projecting the honor/shame codes of tribal societies (i.e. Japan, Apaches) onto a Westernized culture (Judaism) which doesn’t share those honor/shame codes; which doesn’t perceive the same need for revenge and for the reclaiming of honor?
I am sincerely offended that Tarantino portrays Jews as suicide bombers. I find it unlikely that the irony of this depiction failed to occur to Tarantino. There were plenty of ways to kill Nazis which did not involve strapping explosives onto Jews. I wonder if Tarantino was trying to make a statement about “One man’s terrorist is another man’s hero”? If so, Tarantino made a moral miscalculation.
The solution to offensive speech is more speech. I appreciate the opportunity offered by this forum.
BTW: Author Stephen Pressfield has begun blogging
http://blog.stevenpressfield.com/
He has up a series of 5 minute videos about tribalism – especially Arab tribalism – and the War on Terror. The videos are riveting, and are germane to our strategic challenges anywhere in the world in which we encounter tribes which potentially threaten us. Highly recommended. You won’t be able to stop watching until you go through all half dozen or so videos.
I’ll probably watch it at some point on video – Tarantino films seem to improve with a bit of alcohol and can’t do that in a theater (well I can but the drive home gets to be kinda unlawful). If it is like Kill Bill or Pulp Fiction the violence is so over the top to be more kitschy than anything else.
However I will point out on mutilation of bodies there are several instances where either an individual or an army was commanded to mutilate – lets face it King David was asked to bring the foreskins of 100 philistines for his dowry but instead through his favor from God brought 200. If that was an acceptable dowry (and it obviously was, the “bad” part there was that Saul was trying to get David killed) then I can not imagine that a scalp would be worse.
Indeed, were they to be hunting the foreskins of the Germans I bet there would have been some real outcry on this film whereas scalps – not so much.
Lets face it, the Old Testament God was *not* the “Turn the other Cheek” one we get after Jesus – recall that “An Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth” is in there as a Good Thing. It’s is kinda muddied exactly how Jesus changed things for Jews (many now consider him a prophet and delivered Gods word, many do not – my friends in high school came from an orthodox family in Israel and they fell on the “prophet” side) so I’m willing to bet that there were still some Old Testament Kill the Enemy and Collect Foreskins Jews running around fighting.
Lastly for the most part many of those rules *only* applied to them. For instance no work on the Sabbath was a commandment to Jews to separate them from everyone else as God’s Chosen so it was not considered to be causing a gentile to sin to do the work for them on Saturday. I note that the description you give of mutilation are very careful in their wording in that way.
That being said I still think you are mostly correct with the social implications here. However I think there is sufficient historical acts of butchery by Jewish people (indeed, of any people so I’m not singling them out in any other sense than they were the focus of this movie), even against other Jews, to make it not such a stretch that some would fight in this manner against the Nazi’s – especially from the ones that had an idea of what went on in concentration camps. Not that this is good history either (it isn’t and wasn’t meant to be), but I’m willing to bet in *real* history we could easily find worse – the problem here is the inability for many to not realize it is fiction and ultimately the glorification of said violence.
Jamie, I should clarify, as you probably know- the “mutilation” of the ear was a piercing- though I am not sure it was very small.
King David may make reference to this in Psalm 40:6- declaring that God had pierced his ear—in other words- he belonged to God. Though I see a note that in this Psalm it could be “open” rather than “pierce” which might change the meaning of that verse in Psalm…
Vieux Charles: Many people confuse the Israelites of the Bible with Judaism of today. That tends to be because Christians know what they call the “Old Testament” since it is part of their religious literature, but most are quite unaware of all the changes and developments in Judaism since then. The Talmud is actually the source of a great deal of Jewish practice of the more conservative variety, and Reform Judaism is different still. The prohibitions against the practices mentioned here have their origins in this or that Biblical verse, but only as interpreted through millenia of post-Biblical Judaism, which actually represents the bulk of Judaism.
Grey,
if you can’t figure out who “Him” was from me referencing Genesis, than you must be a dolt.
strcpy,
Having read a lot of both the Old Testament and the New Testament, I come away with the impression that in broad general terms the Old Testament is often about National things and the New Testament is often about personal relationships.
This is why I can , say for instance , support the death penalty when applied by a Government for serious crime. – you could point to New Testament Romans chapter 13 which does seems to support government using the sword for punishment.
Also, the “heroes” in both Old and New Testament were often flawed people. So just because it is recorded they did this or that- does not always mean it was condoned by God- though there are situations that were condoned by God that may offend our modern sensibilities.
I loved Inglourious Basterds. It’s not even really a WWII movie, it’s a spaghetti western.
I think a lot of people are taking the whole Jewish thing a bit too seriously. It’s just a movie.
And, by the way, Pulp Fiction wasn’t even a particularly violent movie. Almost all of the violence occurs off-screen, and you only HEAR it, or you hear ABOUT it thru dialogue. QT did this on purpose, to manipulate your expectations (and memory–looks like it worked!).
I think the most violent image in Pulp Fiction may have been the plunging of the adrenaline shot into Mia’s heart. And that wasn’t violent at all.
Neo said “The prohibitions against the practices mentioned here have their origins in this or that Biblical verse, but only as interpreted through millenia of post-Biblical Judaism, which actually represents the bulk of Judaism.”
I have wished on more than one occasion to sit down and discuss this with someone who is a knowledable modern Jew- to get their take on things.
“…but only as interpreted through millenia of post-Biblical Judaism, which actually represents the bulk of Judaism.”
Sounds like case law.
Debbie Schlussel liked it, that might be saying something…
Your misgivings remind me of the controversy surrounding Ron Howard’s film adaptations of Dan Brown’s books ‘Angels & Demons’ and ‘The Da Vinci Code.’ Tarantino and Howard are probably quick to defend their work as art. Somehow I doubt they have the courage to make a film Muslims might find offensive.
I liked Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. They were different and unpredictable. From Dusk Till Dawn was fair. After awhile the unpredictability became capriciousness for its own sake, a cover for unbelievable plot, lackluster dialog and weak story line. I think it must be difficult to make a good movie. It’s an artistic corroboration where no one seems to have complete control.
I like my war movies to have at least a modicum of historical accuracy and realistic detail. I detest Oliver Stone.
The Coen brothers, on the other hand, are geniuses.
The Grand Old Man of drama would side with Tarentino on this one, at least on the idea of playing fast and loose with history.
Aristotle, in his Poetics, wrote that history is finite and settled whereas art is infinite and may approach transcendence, and therefore is superior and may not be constrained by the inferior realm.
Of course, that only settles the dispute between fact and fiction in art without telling us anything about whether or not the art is any good.
I think it might be nice if we had something like the old bard or skald to instruct us on the past, given that academe and the various news media have so completely abdicated their role in conveying our shared historical inheritance, so much so that in a recent interview the Lincoln scholar Harry Jaffa called the universities “evil.”
But we don’t. And frankly I see little difference between Oliver Stone and Sy Hersh.
Interesting take, neo. Just wanted to point out that you spell “Inglourious” wrong in the post’s title.
neo,
I stand corrected. I missed the “non-jewish” part in his description while at the same time picking up the part that it was a “Jewish American” unit led by Pitt’s character. I incorrectly thought that Pitt’s character was also Jewish.
But hey, I was multi-tasking from work! Your site is that interesting…lol.
Expanding on a sliver of this discussion on moral courage in the face of overwhelming evil. Has any one ever heard of the Rosenstrasse protest?
The Rosenstrasse protest was a nonviolent protest in Rosenstrasse (“Rose street”) in Berlin in February and March 1943, carried out by the non-Jewish (“Aryan”) wives and relatives of Jewish men who had been arrested for deportation. The protests escalated until the men were released. It was a significant instance of opposition to the events of the Holocaust.
see more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenstrasse_protest
nyomythus: Not only have I heard about it, but I wrote about it in late 2006, here.
Fifteen years ago Brad Pitt had already played the part of a soldier gone savage in “Legends of the Fall” where he collected enemy scalps to avenge his younger brother’s brutal death.
For some reason, Neo, I missed that excellent post in 2006 you pointed out to. Very well argued.
By coincidence I am reading a book of interviews with Polish sci-fi writer Stanislaw Lem, taken in the 1980’s and then later in 2002, when he was about 80yo.
He was asked about the rumor that he was hiding and saving Jews from Germans while working as an assistant mechanic in a garage in Lwow (Eastern Poland; now the location of the city is changed to “Western Ukraine”).
It is refreshing to read an honest account of a person who doesn’t want to appear more heroic for personal moral gain. Lem said, firstly, there was only one Jew. Second, Lem was about 20 at the time; he was standing in front of the garage when that Jewish guy run into him – he was literally running from a chase; it was completely incidental. He happened to be a high-school acquaintance, so in a spur of the moment Lem had a pity on the guy and without thinking pulled him into the attic of the garage. Few days passed and he come to regret his charity: he figured that his acquaintance will leave physical signs of his presence in the building, and then some employee will rat him out to the Germans, and then he, too, will be at risk. So he came over and asked the Jewish guy to leave. He didn’t want to know where to or what’ll happen to the Jew later. So the guy left, and then another thought had occurred to Lem – that when (not “if”) the Jew will be caught and tortured, he’ll point Germans to him as an accomplice. So even though there were no signs of danger, he moved to a different apartment, quit his job at the garage and bought false documents to change his name. When asked if he knew what then happened to the Jew Lem answered indifferently: “He was probably killed. I never inquired about him”.
Now, this is an honest account – and it illustrates the real attitude of the locals who lived alongside of their Jewish neighbors, acquaintances and fellow citizen for centuries. Lem did more for his former acquaintance than most Polish gentiles. And that was an attitude of a member of intelligent middle class – Lem’s father was a successful doctor and owner of “two stone houses”. Common uneducated people, the majority of population, didn’t go into such ceremonies – they were actively betraying their Jewish neighbors to the Germans, some, in fact, exceeding the occupants in the business of humiliating and torturing of the Jews.
There was a difference between German population and Polish one, of course: Poles risked being killed or jailed for their assistance to the Jews, being themselves of an “inferior” Slavic race while Germans would not be treated as harshly. So it would be unfair to shame the Poles for their inaction (if it was inaction); Germans, however, were a different story.
Neo,
I’m glad that you explained the importance of the Talmud in Judaism. So many people, even Jews, think that Judaism is mainly what’s read in the Old Testament (Tanach).
I’m one of those nonobservant Jews who are not contributing very much to the on-going project of Jewish survival in America. However, I feel bad about that, and have been meaning to take some courses on Judaism and the Talmud.
Maybe someday, when you have nothing else to do (just joking, just joking), you could write a post about the nature and importance of the Talmud. I would never presume to say this, but you are so good at writing about complex subjects that you might find it an interesting project. The importance of the Talmud cannot be underestimated in the Jewish religion.
look not to tarantino..
he is plucked out of a pool of people trying to rise. in the old system we came from, they rose by merit. in the new system the pluckers fund him, and fool him into thinking that he earned his place. other than he is entertaining with their message, he wouldnt exist.
its not the writers of books, its the selecters of books to print…
sigh
Tatyana: If you’ve never read this book, a study of Polish rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust, I think you’ll find it fascinating. There was a wide variety in the motives, classes, and belief systems of the rescuers, and this book discusses it in depth.
Bad history in movies is one of my pet peeves also and Spielberg is also a major offender in that regard. But requiring historical accuracy is a hopeless fight these days, that’s why I stick to cartoons where the fantasy element is part of the genre.
Don’t forget that Palestinians, Arabs, and Leftists like to pretend to believe that Jews harvest the organs of people they kill.
Ymarsakar: Don’t give Tarantino ideas for his next movie!
Thank you, Neo, I didn’t read that book. This Wiki article, necessarily short, seems very much plausible to me, though. I base my impression on the stories I heard while living in Lwov. I lived there for 8 years, and spoke to many people who were witnesses to the occupations – Soviet, then German, then Soviet again.
There were many motives, surely, for saving people as well as for blackmailing them or helping them as long as they were able to pay in gold or valuables. I think I said it here before, how my grandmother once pointed out for me me a woman from her apartment house and said “This [gentile] woman reported her Jewish husband to the Germans. Everybody in the brama know. Don’t you ever say “hello” to her”. On the other hand, the apartment my husband’s family lived in (they moved in in 1947) used to belong to a Polish professor of Polytechnic University who, among many academics, was rounded up and shot by the Germans. Not for helping out Jews, though – just for being a member of educated Polish elite.
Thank you for the book recommendation.
From ADDENDUM II:
“Hollywood sees nothing wrong with portraying Jews as sadistic monsters. But, try and find a movie portraying Islamofascists accurately and you’ll come up empty-handed.”
There is a reason for that. The movie makers of Hollywood have no desire to be murdered by one of the irate devotees of the Religion of Peace.
Plus there seems to be a deep anti Semantic streak in many libs, which they are unable to comprehend or acknowledge. They are also good at brushing aside any mention of that fact.
Ymarsakar: Don’t give Tarantino ideas for his next movie!
Heh ; )
“That tends to be because Christians know what they call the “Old Testament” since it is part of their religious literature, but most are quite unaware of all the changes and developments in Judaism since then.”
Ms. neo-neocon,
That’s a bit insulting. I’m no Jewish scholar, but I do watch the Discovery Channel. Judaism begins with the covenant between God and Abraham, not the Talmud. You’ve about 4,000 years of history to account for.
Love your website.
Vieux Charles . . .
The point is not when Judaism begins, but how it develops in the Talmudic period. Do you know much about the Talmud?
Promethea,
We’re getting off on a tangent. Neo, appears to make an argument that because Judaism forbids gratuitous violence then Jews would be incapable of committing such atrocities. That is as absurd as saying that because Christ asks Christians to turn the other cheek a Christian would be incapable of doing anything else. I used the biblical accounts of David and Jezebel’s persecutor Elisha to frame my premise. Our incomparably sublime hostess then seems to make the argument that these accounts of David and Elisha aren’t part and parcel of the incredible body of divinely inspired works that create the foundation of modern Judaism. I don’t have to be a Talmudic scholar to see the flaw in her argument.
But I concede, I could learn much more about the faith of my Jewish neighbors.
We’re getting off on a tangent.
Don’t give us the Obama rope a dope. It’s really rather unoriginal by now.
that because Judaism forbids gratuitous violence then Jews would be incapable of committing such atrocities.
*BUZZZ* Try again and this time don’t put your hand any deeper into the rotator than you have to. You don’t have much fingers left.
Vieux Charles: I never said Judaism began with the Talmud. Go back and read what I actually wrote.
Also, I would never say something as silly as “because Judaism forbids gratuitous violence then Jews would be incapable of committing such atrocities.” I did say that it is historically inaccurate to imply that they did such things during WWII, and also that it is especially insulting in light of the fact that their religion forbids it in such strong terms.
Neo,
I haven’t seen the movie (probably never will) so I have no idea of what image of Jewish Americans Tarantino is trying to portray. I’d think there is room for poetic license. We are talking about Tarantino after all, not Spielberg or Eastwood. If he’d substituted marauding nuns for Jews I’d feel the same. But, you see I am not a Jew and perhaps I’ve missed the point of this as a skirmish in a broader culture war. If that is the case please accept my apology for being sluggish.
Vieux Charles: No apologies necessary. I agree about Tarantino movies, but unfortunately there a too many people out there for whom movies with a historical theme—even absurd and fantastical ones—become confused with history itself.
Over 70 comments about Inglourious Basterds and not one comment about the actual hero of the movie, a young jewish woman avenging the murder of her family by the Nazis.
Brad Pitt’s character, the Jewish scalpers, and their story arc are secondary to the main story.
Historical inaccuracies? If you haven’t seen the movie, well, let’s just say Tarantino goes way beyond tinkering with the facts.
Reading this blog entry and the comments has been very interesting. Then tonight I received an email from a friend and the subject was:
Irena Sendler a Polish woman who worked to rescue Jewish children during WWII
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/sendler.asp
A Lady Named Irena
There recently was a death of a 98 year old lady named Irena.
During WWII, Irena, got permission to work in the Warsaw Ghetto, as a Plumbing/Sewer specialist.
She had an ulterior motive…
She KNEW what the Nazi’s plans were for the Jews, (being German).
Irena smuggled infants out in the bottom of her tool box she carried, and she carried in the back of her truck a Burlap sack, (for larger kids).
She also had a dog in the back, that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in, and out of the ghetto.
The soldiers of course wanted nothing to do with the dog, and the barking covered the kids/infants noises.
During her time and course of doing this, she managed to smuggle out and save 2500 kids/infants.
She was caught, and the Nazi’s broke both her legs, and arms, and beat her severely.
Irena kept a record of the names of all the kids she smuggled out, and kept them in a glass jar, buried under a tree in her back yard.
After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived it, and reunited the family.
Most of course had been gassed.
Those kids she helped got placed into foster family homes, or adopted.
Last year Irena was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize….
She LOST.
Al Gore won, for doing a slide show on Global Warming.
=========
Evidently there were a few Pols who didn’t mind helping.
“This is why I can , say for instance , support the death penalty when applied by a Government for serious crime. – you could point to New Testament Romans chapter 13 which does seems to support government using the sword for punishment.”
I will point out that this isn’t how I meant to be taken – I am only pointing out that when we say “such and such couldn’t do this” that they have. Were I to make a personal justification for capital punishment that wouldn’t be my personal choice, however against certain arguments that one makes sense.
As such I’ll say the following too:
“Many people confuse the Israelites of the Bible with Judaism of today. That tends to be because Christians know what they call the “Old Testament” since it is part of their religious literature, but most are quite unaware of all the changes and developments in Judaism since then. The Talmud is actually the source of a great deal of Jewish practice of the more conservative variety, and Reform Judaism is different still.”
Much of my personal understanding of Judaism comes from my friends in High school. One was a Russian Jew fleeing death and the other was from Israel (his father was a PhD candidate). I can tell you that your description VERY much disagreed with their ideas on things. And of the Israeli one of his grandparents were Orthodox Jews.
Like it or not there were quite a number if Jewish people that committed worse acts than shown in that movie. Yes, there were ones that considered it an atrocity against God, yet that does *not* invalidate that many did such things.
I had many a discussion about the Old Testament, little about the Talmud. What little I did they were not sure what to make of it as it was a treatise made by man, not by God. But then the ones I knew felt Jesus was a prophet too (not a messiah, they abhorred that idea) so the idea of the Pharisees was something they already agreed with.
We never discussed Nazi Germany so I can’t say what they would have thought, but then again they were not far off the Old Testament thought lines.
I’ll end with saying that just from follwing out links from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising it isn’t hard to find them that committed acts we should not have seen by these descriptions.
I more or less applaud them so do not take this post or an earlier one as bashing anyone (well, other than the Nazi’s). And, as I said, I’m certain Tarrantino botches most historical elements horridly. Howe ever this view of some form of moral high ground warrior who will not do this or that is silly. This is true even if as a whole they were that way – it wouldn’t be that hard to find 15-20 out of thousands any more than being shocked, shocked I say that an American somewhere someplace did something Bad. That is this part of the film is more realistic than not, though if other incidents are an indication ears would be more likely (scalps are less likely than finding a few tens of individuals willing to be *highly* violent).
John, there were Poles like the woman you write about; nobody argues there were none. But here’s a number offered by a researcher (and you’re not one, are you? One anecdote is not an educated estimate):
“Teresa Prekerowa has estimated that between 160,000 and 360,000 Poles assisted in hiding Jews, amounting to between 1 and 2.5% of the 15 million adult Poles she categorizes as “those who could offer help.”
Click on the link in my previous comment you seem to be objecting to.
Tatyana, I wasn’t objecting to anything and I’m not sure what would make you think so. I merely thought it was “providential” that I received the e-mail on the day I was reading this thread. The e-mail was interesting and contributed to this discussion (a little).
When it comes to looking back at the Holocaust and what population stepped up in great numbers to stop the Nazi’s, there were none. For what ever reasons there were not great numbers. Obviously there was too many who chose to look the other way. There was too many who chose to do nothing. My only point was to show what one lady did.
Tatyana, John, et al: You might be interested in reviewing my post about resisting the Nazis. It deals with the subject of how dangerous it was to help Jews in various countries.
Neo, I’m happy to notice that in my first comment down the thread I said approx. the same thing as you did @your Part I post:
“There was a difference between German population and Polish one, of course: Poles risked being killed or jailed for their assistance to the Jews, being themselves of an “inferior” Slavic race while Germans would not be treated as harshly. So it would be unfair to shame the Poles for their inaction (if it was inaction); Germans, however, were a different story.”
If I may repeat myself – this topic is not academic with me, I didn’t learn it from books and documentaries. I used to live for almost 8 years in Lwov (now Lviv), a city that was Polish at the time of Nazi occupation; this subject is very fresh and painful for its inhabitants.
strcpy –
I would venture to say that a Jew who believes Jesus was a prophet, and who also believes the New Testament picture of the Pharisees is correct doesn’t have much of a base of Judaism. I’m not arguing they’re wrong (except about the Pharisees, which I think the NY does mischaracterize), mind you, I’m saying they didn’t have a very strong Jewish religious foundation – Orthodox grandparents or not. I can’t think of one Orthodox Jew I’ve ever met (and that’s a lot) who thinks of Jesus as a prophet.
Sorry – that would be NT, not NY.
strcpy,
“so the idea of the Pharisees”
The Pharisees evolved into modern Judaism, therefore it’d be problematic (read: unlikely) for modern Jews to accept a Christian view of the Pharisees.
After much debate with myself, I saw this film on yesterday. I think most of the commentors are taking the whole thing too seriously. This film is pure fiction- just like Star Wars. I know that the subject matter is very serious and there is danger in taking it lightly but anybody who watches this film has to take it with a grain of salt. I don’t worry about students believing it to be historically accurate. I also know that schools don’t teach much and are sometime downright bad. But I think the most students are bright enough to question much of what is depicted in the movie. In doing so, they might even learn something about the truth.
I wouldn’t bank on it either—not in a country where many people think President Obama was born in Kenya, is a Muslim, or that evolution does not exist. That being said, I enjoyed it immensely.
This is a complete over analyzation of a highly entertaining and creative film. The fact that Jews are forbidden to mutilate dead bodies is irrelevant considering they are also forbidden to murder, steal, and so forth as with most religions yet how many Jewish people actually abide by all the rules their religion dictates? Is it a valid point then that any movie with a character who is identified by their respective religion should be discredited if a character doesn’t abide by all of that religions rules and practices? No. This film is a classic and your analysis takes away from everything that makes it great.
I was recommended this website through my cousin.
I am no longer certain whether this put up is written via him as no
one else know such exact approximately my difficulty. You’re amazing! Thanks!
my blog post … memory foam topper vs gel topper
That is where a roof extends abutting roofing 01060 a vertical wall.
Describe the work that he/she performs. Wood is a beautiful
for residential roofing repair is a substantial investment and you roofing 01060 don’t overshoot the budget.
Even though the roofer seems like a huge bundle of options but the
truth is that too many options lead to too much confusion.
I will right away grasp your rss feed as I can not find your email subscription link or newsletter service.
Do you have any? Kindly allow me know in order that I may just subscribe.
Thanks.