1944

[MikoTython]

Found this on amazon :

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3213684/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Dealing w/ Estonians on 'both sides' of the WWII conflict.

Not a great movie, but an interesting, effective thoughtful one. Especially the dicey politics faced by the Baltic nations. The military-age men were subject to being conscripted into the Red Army or SS (because foreigners couldn't be part of the Wehrmacht). This latter fact has created the (false) impression that all these non-Germans fighting for the Germans were (inevitably) rabid fascists, something I hadn't realized, either. So, between a rock and a hard place - for many/most, something perhaps not so obvious to us over here, where the choices were far cleaner.

[3dender]

Not saying this is definitely what it is, but if Baltic Nazis wanted to convince a general audience that fighting on the Nazi side of WWII wasn't actually that bad, this is exactly the kinda propaganda they'd produce about it.

PSA: it's never actually okay to fight alongside Nazis

[MikoTython]

Not saying this is definitely what it is, but if Baltic Nazis wanted to convince a general audience that fighting on the Nazi side of WWII wasn't actually that bad, this is exactly the kinda propaganda they'd produce about it.

PSA: it's never actually okay to fight alongside Nazis

No offense, but I find that incredibly simplistic. If your choice is between the folks who will confiscate everything you own & the Nazis, who won’t, what is the right choice ? Remember, a choice must be made. Put yourself in that position. What choice do you make ? Which is sort of my point, part of what made this film compelling.

[3dender]

Not saying this is definitely what it is, but if Baltic Nazis wanted to convince a general audience that fighting on the Nazi side of WWII wasn't actually that bad, this is exactly the kinda propaganda they'd produce about it.

PSA: it's never actually okay to fight alongside Nazis

No offense, but I find that incredibly simplistic. If your choice is between the folks who will confiscate everything you own & the Nazis, who won’t, what is the right choice ? Remember, a choice must be made. Put yourself in that position. What choice do you make ? Which is sort of my point, part of what made this film compelling.

You choose rhe ones not doing the genocide (y'know, the single worst crime humanity has ever invented, by far). Bc obviously. It's incredibly simple actually!

Unless you're saying that nationalizing private (not personal) property is just as bad as genocide. Is that what you think?

[MikoTython]

Not saying this is definitely what it is, but if Baltic Nazis wanted to convince a general audience that fighting on the Nazi side of WWII wasn't actually that bad, this is exactly the kinda propaganda they'd produce about it.

PSA: it's never actually okay to fight alongside Nazis

No offense, but I find that incredibly simplistic. If your choice is between the folks who will confiscate everything you own & the Nazis, who won’t, what is the right choice ? Remember, a choice must be made. Put yourself in that position. What choice do you make ? Which is sort of my point, part of what made this film compelling.

You choose rhe ones not doing the genocide (y'know, the single worst crime humanity has ever invented, by far). Bc obviously. It's incredibly simple actually!

Unless you're saying that nationalizing private (not personal) property is just as bad as genocide. Is that what you think?

Your take on this is laughably glib. Hope this is an aberration. Here is some history from Wiki on the situation - see if you can discern a path of moral certitude within :

Estonia declared neutrality at the outbreak of World War II (1939–1945), but the country was repeatedly contested, invaded and occupied, first by the Soviet Union in 1940, then by Nazi Germany in 1941, and ultimately reinvaded and reoccupied in 1944 by the Soviet Union.
Background
According to the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact "the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania)" were divided into German and Soviet "spheres of influence" (German copy)

Immediately before the outbreak of World War II, in August 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact (also known as the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, or the 1939 German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact), concerning the partition and disposition of Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, in its Secret Additional Protocol.[1][2]

The territory of until then independent Republic of Estonia was invaded and occupied by the Soviet Red Army on 16–17 June 1940. Mass political arrests, deportations, and executions by the Soviet regime followed. In the Summer War during the German Operation Barbarossa in 1941, the pro-independence Forest Brothers captured large parts of southern Estonia from the Soviet NKVD troops and the 8th Army before the arrival of the German 18th Army in the area.[need quotation to verify] At the same time, in June–August 1941, Soviet paramilitary destruction battalions carried out punitive operations in Estonia, including looting and killing, based on the tactics of scorched earth ordered by Joseph Stalin. Estonia was occupied by Germany and incorporated into Reichskommissariat Ostland in 1941–1944.

Upon the German invasion of the USSR in 1941, thousands of Estonians were conscripted into the Soviet army (including the Soviet 8th Estonian Rifle Corps and other units), and in 1941–1944 to the German armed forces. A number of Estonian men who had avoided these conscriptions were able to flee to Finland, and many of them then formed the Finnish Infantry Regiment 200. About 40% of the Estonian pre-war fleet was requisitioned by British authorities and used in Atlantic convoys. Approximately 1000 Estonian sailors served in the British Merchant Navy, 200 of them as officers. A small number of Estonians served in the Royal Air Force, in the British Army and in the U.S. Army.[5]

From February to September 1944, the German army detachment "Narwa" held back the Soviet Estonian Operation. After breaching the defence of II Army Corps across the Emajõgi river and clashing with the pro-independence Estonian troops, Soviet forces reoccupied mainland Estonia in September 1944. After the war, Estonia remained incorporated into the Soviet Union as the Estonian SSR until 1991, although the Atlantic Charter stated that no territorial arrangements would be made.

World War II losses in Estonia, estimated at around 25% of the population, were among the highest proportion in Europe. War and occupation deaths listed in the current reports total at 81,000. These include deaths in Soviet deportations in 1941, Soviet executions, German deportations, and victims of the Holocaust in Estonia.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia_in_World_War_II

[MikoTython]

I'm not, by the way, trying to represent that I was fully up-to-speed on these complexities, this history, until prompted by the film itself. Its a situation most of us were not presented in our usually abbreviated/cursory historical surveys - which is why I started this thread. Just found out that the SS was the only outfit for foreign German fighters, whether fire-breathing fascists or hapless conscripts, not more than a week ago. Which, for me at least, moves the needle on a lot of my previous mis/pre/conceptions on the Balkan SS fighters.

[3dender]

I'm not, by the way, trying to represent that I was fully up-to-speed on these complexities, this history, until prompted by the film itself. Its a situation most of us were not presented in our usually abbreviated/cursory historical surveys - which is why I started this thread. Just found out that the SS was the only outfit for foreign German fighters, whether fire-breathing fascists or hapless conscripts, not more than a week ago. Which, for me at least, moves the needle on a lot of my previous mis/pre/conceptions on the Balkan SS fighters.

It's obviously complex, but also sometimes it's not.

Throughout Eastern Europe that Nazis exploited nationalist tendencies in order to fight the Soviets. This doesn't make the nationalists right for joining Nazis, it makes the nationalists either dumb to not see what the Soviets correctly analyzed to be a grave threat to all of Europe, or racist in that they didn't really care if the Nazis killed all of the foreigners, as long as they got sovereignty (which the Nazis never would have given them anyway). So basically dumb and racist.

And yes the Soviets were conscripting people in the former Russian Empire to fight, because they were on their way to losing 20M people while being responsible for probably 3/4 of the Nazi defeat, and they correctly assessed that other countries needed to contribute to rid the continent of Nazis. What you're pointing out as nuance is basically just Nazi collaboration on the same spectrum as the Vichy regime or the Jewish Kapos of the ghettos and camps.

[MikoTython]

I'm not, by the way, trying to represent that I was fully up-to-speed on these complexities, this history, until prompted by the film itself. Its a situation most of us were not presented in our usually abbreviated/cursory historical surveys - which is why I started this thread. Just found out that the SS was the only outfit for foreign German fighters, whether fire-breathing fascists or hapless conscripts, not more than a week ago. Which, for me at least, moves the needle on a lot of my previous mis/pre/conceptions on the Balkan SS fighters.

It's obviously complex, but also sometimes it's not.

Throughout Eastern Europe that Nazis exploited nationalist tendencies in order to fight the Soviets. This doesn't make the nationalists right for joining Nazis, it makes the nationalists either dumb to not see what the Soviets correctly analyzed to be a grave threat to all of Europe, or racist in that they didn't really care if the Nazis killed all of the foreigners, as long as they got sovereignty (which the Nazis never would have given them anyway). So basically dumb and racist.

And yes the Soviets were conscripting people in the former Russian Empire to fight, because they were on their way to losing 20M people while being responsible for probably 3/4 of the Nazi defeat, and they correctly assessed that other countries needed to contribute to rid the continent of Nazis. What you're pointing out as nuance is basically just Nazi collaboration on the same spectrum as the Vichy regime or the Jewish Kapos of the ghettos and camps.

Ignoring, of course, the scorched-earth destruction wrought by Stalin and the Red Army. I'm not going to continue this with you. You have your view, I have mine, enough facts/context are on the table for anyone else to pick up their own thread of understanding. If you want to think the 'right side' for Estonians was in any way clear, go right ahead. What did Estonia get out of the war, in any case ? Subjugation.

[BarkCampbell]

From the moment I read the OP I knew that it would only be a short while until our resident forum west-county born and raised proud communist would chime in with his disgust with the movie's premise. I should have placed a bet.

My favorite reply of his in this thred (so far) is simplifying the Soviets' political aim to simply "confiscating private, not personal property." Conveniently overlooking Stalin's purging and genocide of the Ukranians, the Kazakh famine (purposefully initiated by Stalin), the Tatar Deportations in Crimea, the gulags, etc etc. "One side wanted genocide while the other only wanted to take private property!!" ...WOW.... Maybe gullible 18 year old dum dums in their 1st year of college might fall for that commie propaganda. The rest of us who read a thing or two--or might have-ahem-majored in history--can watch 1944 with a clear mind.

Sure, the Nazis are bad. But after the Soviets took over Estonia and the Baltic states in '40, what did they do? They instantly shut down the local institutions, newspapers, arrested the politicians and military officers, and promptly executed half of them. That's a pretty big step away from simply confiscating private property in the state's name. The Soviets got rid of their undesirables. Nazis strolled in, got rid of who *they* thought were the undesirables. Each side conscripted locals into their respective armies. That's a pretty good premise for a movie.

Get out of here with the bolshevik pearl clutching that a movie must not dare to explore the true history of a nation squeezed between two dumb bloodthirsty socialist warring countries.

[3dender]

From the moment I read the OP I knew that it would only be a short while until our resident forum west-county born and raised proud communist would chime in with his disgust with the movie's premise. I should have placed a bet.

My favorite reply of his in this thred (so far) is simplifying the Soviets' political aim to simply "confiscating private, not personal property." Conveniently overlooking Stalin's purging and genocide of the Ukranians, the Kazakh famine (purposefully initiated by Stalin), the Tatar Deportations in Crimea, the gulags, etc etc. "One side wanted genocide while the other only wanted to take private property!!" ...WOW.... Maybe gullible 18 year old dum dums in their 1st year of college might fall for that commie propaganda. The rest of us who read a thing or two--or might have-ahem-majored in history--can watch 1944 with a clear mind.

Sure, the Nazis are bad. But after the Soviets took over Estonia and the Baltic states in '40, what did they do? They instantly shut down the local institutions, newspapers, arrested the politicians and military officers, and promptly executed half of them. That's a pretty big step away from simply confiscating private property in the state's name. The Soviets got rid of their undesirables. Nazis strolled in, got rid of who *they* thought were the undesirables. Each side conscripted locals into their respective armies. That's a pretty good premise for a movie.

Get out of here with the bolshevik pearl clutching that a movie must not dare to explore the true history of a nation squeezed between two dumb bloodthirsty socialist warring countries.

This post is so laughably misinformed that it would be pointless to attempt a serious response. I'll just limit it to pointing out that communist countries are not the only ones who propagandize their citizens, and they're probably not even the worst offenders.

[Wentzville]

From the moment I read the OP I knew that it would only be a short while until our resident forum west-county born and raised proud communist would chime in with his disgust with the movie's premise. I should have placed a bet.

My favorite reply of his in this thred (so far) is simplifying the Soviets' political aim to simply "confiscating private, not personal property." Conveniently overlooking Stalin's purging and genocide of the Ukranians, the Kazakh famine (purposefully initiated by Stalin), the Tatar Deportations in Crimea, the gulags, etc etc. "One side wanted genocide while the other only wanted to take private property!!" ...WOW.... Maybe gullible 18 year old dum dums in their 1st year of college might fall for that commie propaganda. The rest of us who read a thing or two--or might have-ahem-majored in history--can watch 1944 with a clear mind.

Sure, the Nazis are bad. But after the Soviets took over Estonia and the Baltic states in '40, what did they do? They instantly shut down the local institutions, newspapers, arrested the politicians and military officers, and promptly executed half of them. That's a pretty big step away from simply confiscating private property in the state's name. The Soviets got rid of their undesirables. Nazis strolled in, got rid of who *they* thought were the undesirables. Each side conscripted locals into their respective armies. That's a pretty good premise for a movie.

Get out of here with the bolshevik pearl clutching that a movie must not dare to explore the true history of a nation squeezed between two dumb bloodthirsty socialist warring countries.

This post is so laughably misinformed that it would be pointless to attempt a serious response. I'll just limit it to pointing out that communist countries are not the only ones who propagandize their citizens, and they're probably not even the worst offenders.

The Germans arrived just a week or two after over 10K Estonians were deported to Siberia. They had to pick the lessor of two evils, in which that was the Germans to them. It's naive to think they had an easy choice considering most probably didn't even know about the Nazi genocide when they invaded.

[Tony Palazzolo]

From the moment I read the OP I knew that it would only be a short while until our resident forum west-county born and raised proud communist would chime in with his disgust with the movie's premise. I should have placed a bet.

My favorite reply of his in this thred (so far) is simplifying the Soviets' political aim to simply "confiscating private, not personal property." Conveniently overlooking Stalin's purging and genocide of the Ukranians, the Kazakh famine (purposefully initiated by Stalin), the Tatar Deportations in Crimea, the gulags, etc etc. "One side wanted genocide while the other only wanted to take private property!!" ...WOW.... Maybe gullible 18 year old dum dums in their 1st year of college might fall for that commie propaganda. The rest of us who read a thing or two--or might have-ahem-majored in history--can watch 1944 with a clear mind.

Sure, the Nazis are bad. But after the Soviets took over Estonia and the Baltic states in '40, what did they do? They instantly shut down the local institutions, newspapers, arrested the politicians and military officers, and promptly executed half of them. That's a pretty big step away from simply confiscating private property in the state's name. The Soviets got rid of their undesirables. Nazis strolled in, got rid of who *they* thought were the undesirables. Each side conscripted locals into their respective armies. That's a pretty good premise for a movie.

Get out of here with the bolshevik pearl clutching that a movie must not dare to explore the true history of a nation squeezed between two dumb bloodthirsty socialist warring countries.

This post is so laughably misinformed that it would be pointless to attempt a serious response. I'll just limit it to pointing out that communist countries are not the only ones who propagandize their citizens, and they're probably not even the worst offenders.

The Germans arrived just a week or two after over 10K Estonians were deported to Siberia. They had to pick the lessor of two evils, in which that was the Germans to them. It's naive to think they had an easy choice considering most probably didn't even know about the Nazi genocide when they invaded.

The Baltics was a horrible place to live in that era. Stalin killed over 5 million Ukrainians prewar. In fact they considered Germans to be saviors until they quickly wore out their welcome. If you were educated, neither side wanted you in the population. They would roll into town and kill anyone with a college degree. If the Soviets didn't get you, the Germans probably did.

[The Nard]

Not saying this is definitely what it is, but if Baltic Nazis wanted to convince a general audience that fighting on the Nazi side of WWII wasn't actually that bad, this is exactly the kinda propaganda they'd produce about it.

PSA: it's never actually okay to fight alongside Nazis

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Ever hear of that?

And what about the Finns?

[3dender]

Not saying this is definitely what it is, but if Baltic Nazis wanted to convince a general audience that fighting on the Nazi side of WWII wasn't actually that bad, this is exactly the kinda propaganda they'd produce about it.

PSA: it's never actually okay to fight alongside Nazis

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Ever hear of that?

And what about the Finns?

At some point they must have stopped teaching in school that Nazis were basically the ultimate evil, but it was well after I graduated.

[The Nard]

Not saying this is definitely what it is, but if Baltic Nazis wanted to convince a general audience that fighting on the Nazi side of WWII wasn't actually that bad, this is exactly the kinda propaganda they'd produce about it.

PSA: it's never actually okay to fight alongside Nazis

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Ever hear of that?

And what about the Finns?

At some point they must have stopped teaching in school that Nazis were basically the ultimate evil, but it was well after I graduated.

Question for you: which was the worst evil, the Nazis or the Soviets? In the mid-20th century, it was probably the Nazis, due to their initiation of the Holocaust, and they were under-efficient in their murderous rampage; but Stalin wasn’t far behind; just ask any Ukrainian; or the Finns, as I’ve stated.

By the way, I’m close to your age, son of a WW2 vet, and a veteran myself. I know evil when I see it.

[3dender]

Not saying this is definitely what it is, but if Baltic Nazis wanted to convince a general audience that fighting on the Nazi side of WWII wasn't actually that bad, this is exactly the kinda propaganda they'd produce about it.

PSA: it's never actually okay to fight alongside Nazis

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Ever hear of that?

And what about the Finns?

At some point they must have stopped teaching in school that Nazis were basically the ultimate evil, but it was well after I graduated.

Question for you: which was the worst evil, the Nazis or the Soviets? In the mid-20th century, it was probably the Nazis, due to their initiation of the Holocaust, and they were under-efficient in their murderous rampage; but Stalin wasn’t far behind; just ask any Ukrainian; or the Finns, as I’ve stated.

By the way, I’m close to your age, son of a WW2 vet, and a veteran myself. I know evil when I see it.

Nazis were far worse and anyone who thinks it's close between Hitler and Stalin is a victim of generations of anti-communist propaganda.