I saw Saints and Soldiers with my lovely one and my father last night. I liked it. A lot. But before you rush out to buy the DVD, you should know that I was biased.
The Mormon hero (in one of the film’s masterstrokes, his Mormonism is never explicit, leaving the viewers to imagine in him their own intensely personal experience of faith) is a Cpl. Greer, from Snowflake, Arizona. I grew up in Taylor, about three hundred yards from Snowflake, and I remember visiting the WWII marker on the grounds of the Snowflake Chapel. I remember seeing a Greer there and assuming, probably correctly, that he was a shirt-tail cousin of ours (my grandmother was a Greer). So, I felt a bond of faith to Cpl. ‘Deacon’ Greer, like y’all readers would, but also a bond of blood and bone. I’m biased. Even so, I think you’d like it too.
The characters are fully realized, the conflict between the characters about faith and loving-your-enemies is immense and intense without being heavy-handed, there are flashes of appropriate humor, and the winter in which the film is set is dreary, dreary, dreary, to the point of majesty. The only criticism I’d make is that Deacon’s hallucinations are a major plot point in the first part of the movie but they disappear part way through without adequate explanation.
SPOILERS!
This is not a movie about romance. It is a movie about friendship, sacrifice, and devotion among men. That’s part of the reason I liked it so much, because that’s not a theme that’s often fully plumbed at the movies (with Master and Commander being a recent exception). Unlike Master and Commander, however, in this movie women are a felt absence.
At first, when main characters die, you feel the tragedy through the hearts of their fellow soldiers. You feel that they have given up their lives as soldiers, as comrades, and you feel that this was indeed a sacrifice. Later, when you have time to think, you realize that the men who died were the ones who were defined by absent women. One had never been kissed, he said. Another’s wife was almost due, but she only shows up in the movie as a gray photograph. The third talked about flirting with the shopgirl in his father’s business and speculated, casually but not frivolously, of coming back after the war for a Walloon woman they meet partway through. But all these characters die, and you realize that this absence of normalcy, of women, was part of their sacrifice. In contrast, the characters who survive never talked about those things.
And it turned out they had no sacrifice to make. Love and family would still be available to them.
I also really liked this movie.
Adam, good comments. I have this on DVD, and it’s a very good war movie as well as being good Mormon cinema.
One problem with the DVD is the part where the entire movie is shown over again as a backdrop to the director’s commentary.
Director: “Then I met Robert Roe, a WWII historian and re-enactor, who got really excited about . . .” Backdrop: a man gets shot and dies.
I liked this movie (and that’s saying a lot–I don’t like movies in general and I hate war movies.)
One thing that I struggled with was the very subtle references to his Mormonism. Masterstroke, perhaps. But I wondered if it wasn’t an effort to make the movie palatable to nonLDS, and I’m not sure if it is laudable to get out of the Mormon ghetto (a la Napolean Dynamite) or crass commercialism.
I wavered between ‘gutless’ and ‘admirable ecumenicism’ too, Julie in A. Eventually my sympathy for Catholics and Protestants won out. I wanted them to get inside the skin of the movie the way I had.
I think for LDS cinema to be successful it must perhaps tone down the “obvious” LDS references and simply make dramas anyone would enjoy. (And the quality has to increase)
adam; What was that about hallucinations? I’ve been thinking of buying the movie, but that gives me pause.
I generally liked the film too. Its amateurism showed through at times in the acting and the script (was there a southern yokel and a streetwise Brooklyn kid in EVERY regimen during WWII?), but I was amazed at how well it was shot, and how efficiently the producers used their special effects budget. As for the “subtle references to Mormonism” — it may be that they are only subtle to us. Most of the reviews I read mentioned Mormonism, many of them calling it a “Mormon movie.” Here’s one of the harsher examples:
“A hopelessly old-fashioned Mormon war movie, Ryan Little’s Saints And Soldiers could have been made 50 years ago, when intrepid WWII units were stocked with amiable lunkheads, wiseacre medics, and Bible-thumping heroes itching for self-sacrifice. In the downtime between bloodless skirmishes with the Germans, some stare longingly at pin-ups with nice gams, while others treasure shots of their pregnant sweethearts back home. Forget raping, pillaging, and razing villages: In the heat of battle, these clean-cut gents don’t even swear. It’s an almost charmingly naïve fantasy for 2004, but, then again, the Mormon Church isn’t known for keeping current.”
Shame on you all for watching tawdry PG-13 “cinema”.
Forget raping, pillaging, and razing villages
Yeah, the U.S. army did tons of that in WWII. (Not.) Maybe the reviewer had the U.S. Army confused with the Russian army who was on such a rape frenzy during the war that they even mercilessly gang raped Russian women in the places that they “liberated”?
JF: “the U.S. army did tons of that in WWII. (Not.)”
I don’t know how much raping went on, though I’m sure the Americans had their share. But the US Army did in fact pillage villages in Europe and elsewhere, and razed a good many through firebombing and other techniques (e.g., Hiroshima). It was the Greatest Generation, but war is war.
Greg,
I suspect the reviewers knew Mormons made it going in. There’s little in the movie to suggest Mormonism, though clearly it was made by folks well outside the secularist, demythologizing mainstream.
though I’m sure the Americans had their share.
What makes you so sure of this? Is it because “all men are rapists, and that’s all they are” (Marilyn French)? I think it highly unlikely that the U.S. Army engaged in the widespread rape of the enemy or liberated. Isolated incidents surely occured, since you find criminals in the army just as in society at large, but that is far different from the horrendous depravity of the Red Army. The language of the review seemed to be describing the practice of the Russian Army to gang rape any female (whether enemy or liberated Russian/Polish) rather than acknowledging the possibility of the occasional rape perpetrated by criminals in the U.S. Army.
The U.S. Army was specifically prohibited from causing undue or gratuitous property damage to the places that they passed through. Hence the charge of razing villages to the ground is unfounded in the way it was used. Does this mean that no villages were razed to the ground by the U.S. Army? No. In the course of warfare, many villages were certainly levelled as a result of fighting and ousting the Germans nested there.
Invoking the Air Force’s firebombing of some German and Japanese cities is inapposite here not in the least because it was not the U.S. Army doing it.
I too have wondered if the subtlety wasn’t for the sake of marketing, but either way, it’s probably not fair to judge a work based on suspect motives – a trap I too often fall into. Because Deacon’s religion is not important to the either the story or theme, I tend to think it’s unimportant how subtle or obvious the story is in revealing it.
JF, you’re taking a heck of a lot from “Forget raping, pillaging, and razing villages: In the heat of battle, these clean-cut gents don’t even swear.” From that simple sentence, you get “The language of the review seemed to be describing the practice of the Russian Army to gang rape any female (whether enemy or liberated Russian/Polish) rather than acknowledging the possibility of the occasional rape perpetrated by criminals in the U.S. Army.” Wow!
The fact is, members of the Army did rape, did pillage, and did raze villages. And frankly, separating out the actions of the Air Force because somehow those flyboys’s crazy actions don’t reflect on the groundpounders’ doesn’t make a lot of sense. Soldiers are soldiers in this context.
…but I digress. The real issue is how Adam and the rest of you are sinners for seeing the movie in the first place.
Steve E.,
It’s not amateur night. Step away from the microphone.
Adam, to which of my hilarious antics were you referring? To my questioning of John Fowles’ Russian Army arguments, or to my calling you to repentance?
By the way, thanks as ever for being polite and subtle. Perhaps I shall write a post at BCC, to which you can link in your Notes From All Over, thanking you for your subtle clues that you can’t take a joke.
p.s. JF may find this article to be of interest.
One possible explanation for why the audience isn’t laughing at the comedians on amateur night is that the audience can’t take a joke.
John: Steve is just confused. He is forgetting that WWII wasn’t Vietnam. It’s a common anachronistic mistake to make.
Adam: I’m sure you’re right that many reviewers relied on background knowledge, rather than cues in the script, in emphasizing the film’s Mormon-ness. On the other hand, the makers of S&S were no more Mormon than the makers of Napolean Dynamite, and only rarely did reviewers connect that film with its makers’ religion. I suspect some of that must be attributed to how the two films were marketed and distributed, but this also may be an instance of us underestimating our own distinctiveness in the case of S&S.
Adam, let me preface this by saying that I know this is wrong, but I can’t help myself:
whenever you post, I can assure you the audience is laughing.
Ergo, whenever I post it isn’t amateur night. Ergo, step away from the microphone.
Ergo, this thread is officially JACKED!
Originally the movie was rated R. I wonder what was edited out?
Greg,
I think the difference between Saints and Soldiers and Napoleon Dynamite is that Napoleon Dynamite was not alien to your average reviewer, while Saints and Soldiers was, but in a way that any culturally-conservative religiosity would have been. If the movie had been made by Baptists, I think you’d get the exact same review. I doubt the reviewer would write something like, ‘I thought Baptists were supposed to dislike Mormons? Because the main character seemed more Mormon than Baptist. First of all, ….”
Now, its true that one can’t really remove one’s own blinders, so me disagreeing with you doesn’t prove you wrong. But I’d be more likely to agree with you if there was a reviewer from a conservative type religion who was also put off by the ‘Mormonness’ of the movie.
I’ve heard the violence was more explicit, D. Fletcher, but specifically I don’t know.
As far as I can remember, in the original, there are a couple scenes where we see the bullet make impact and a spurt of blood come out – most notably when a certain character is gunned down at the very end. I don’t recall more than 15 seconds being removed when I saw it at its release.
Steve, the tone of that article in the Guardian is not surprising. After all, it is the Guardian and you wouldn’t expect a friendly view of anything undertaken by Americans or conservative British governments in those pages–especially a view that does not put the Red Army on a pedestal that, objectively speaking, it does not deserve to be on. The fact is that America and Britain were fighting to resist tyranny, regardless of what the motivations of the Russians were (which we know, as a historical fact, were to grab land and influence over and above liberating land that the Germans had invaded). The article you linked makes such statements as this:
All this seems innocent fun, but patriotic myths have sharp edges. The “good war” against Hitler has underwritten 60 years of warmaking. It has become an ethical blank cheque for British and US power. We claim the right to bomb, to maim, to imprison without trial on the basis of direct and implicit appeals to the war against fascism.
Just because this is different than more commonly accepted versions of what WWII was about does not make it more accurate, even if it is more stylish in certain circles to believe this. After all, if I were a socialist or communist, I would likewise not want to see the USSR depicted poorly or the Anglo-American effort throughout the Cold War to resist the spread of Communism described as a good thing. At the very least, this statement from the Guardian article takes a number of unspoke premises for granted. These premises are not at all self-evident, particularly to someone who does not espouse socialism or eschew the calculated exercise of military might to counter tyranny, even while acknowledging that such use also must coincide with national interest and only in the most extreme cases be motivated purely by altruism.
An objective reading of history invites the conclusion that the USSR was a tyrannical state that oppressed every single right and freedom that it gave lip-service to, including egalitarianism and equality (see e.g. the wives of leaders going to Paris to get their hair done while the average citizen could barely get a decent serving of fresh fruit or vegetables).
All this is to say that, while I appreciate the linked Guardian article, I must say that its view has less force because of the paper’s markedly unobjective political agenda.
Again,
Our democratic imperialism prefers to forget that fascism had important Anglo-American roots. Hitler’s dream was inspired, in part, by the British Empire. In eastern Europe, the Nazis hoped to make their America and Australia, where ethnic cleansing and slave labour created a frontier for settlement. In western Europe, they sought their India from which revenues, labour and soldiers might be extracted.
Very poetic and creative but this really is a good example of historical bootstrapping. Actually, Hitler was indeed to some extent inspired by the Anglo-American experience, but in a much more sinister and less copiable way: in Mein Kampf, Hitler praises the fact that the European settlers in North America, unlike those in South America, did not mix in with the natives and attributes the success of the United States of America in comparison to all other Central and South American countries to none other than that fact alone. Also, there is convincing evidence that suggests that Hitler hesitated in an outright invasion of England and attacked the USSR instead because he was reticent uneasy with the idea of outright warfare with Germanic brother race of the English.
We least like to remember that our side also committed war crimes in the 1940s. The destruction of Dresden, a city filled with women, children, the elderly and the wounded, and with no military significance, is only the best known of the atrocities committed by our bombers against civilian populations. We know about the notorious Japanese abuse of prisoners of war, but do not remember the torture and murder of captured Japanese. Edgar Jones, an “embedded” Pacific war correspondent, wrote in 1946: “‘We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats, killed or mistreated enemy civilians, finished off the enemy wounded, tossed the dying into a hole with the dead, and in the Pacific boiled flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments.”
This distorts the historical record in order to support the particular agenda the Guardian is driving in this article. The fact is, the Germans and Japanese were categorically the aggressors in that epic struggle. The bombing of Dresden, which I am the first to label as a tragedy, was calculated to bring a society in the stranglehold of Nazi fanaticism to its knees and arguably had that effect. It may have indeed been unnecessary to win the war, but that is not certain. It is actually negligible in comparison to the death camps.
War has a brutalising momentum. This is the moral of Taken By Force, which shows how American soldiers became increasingly indiscriminate in their sexual violence and military authorities increasingly lax in its prosecution. Even as we remember the evils of nazism, and the courage of those who defeated it, we should begin to remember the second world war with less self- satisfaction. We might, in particular, learn to distrust those who use it to justify contemporary warmongering.
Noone is saying that war is pretty. But in addition to such appeals to “remember the second world war with less self-satisfaction,” we should rightly congratulate our grandparents for their sacrifices in fighting off Naziism. If we hadn’t defeated the Nazis, the writer of that Guardian article and the book reviewed in that article might well be wishing that we would have firebombed Dresden to show German society how serious we were that the Nazi war of aggression and conquest wouldn’t be tolerated.
I haven’t read the book that the Guardian article is reviewing, so I can’t outright deny the claims of tens of thousands of rapes perpetrated by American soldiers, but from everything else I have read aside from this individual’s treatment of the subject matter, this claim appears dubious. But I admit it is probably pretty easy for those of a particular political persuasion to believe, regardless of its merits.
JF, are you really defending the firebombing of Dresden?
…never mind. Your comment makes it clear that you’re not (twice).
I didn’t think the movie was perfect, but it is still better than 90% of the other Mormon-made movies out there.
I haven’t read the book that the Guardian article is reviewing, so I can’t outright deny the claims of tens of thousands of rapes perpetrated by American soldiers, but from everything else I have read aside from this individual’s treatment of the subject matter, this claim appears dubious.
Um — unfortunately, there is a fair amount of documentation from Allied sources regarding forcible rapes committed by U.S. occupying soldiers in the European theater during WWII.
If there was less forcible rape committed by American troops, it appears to be because the women in occupied Germany were sufficiently starving and desperate that a bar of chocolate would induce cooperation. That may not fit the formal definition of rape, but I’m not sure you could call it consensual. It’s pretty unsavory whatever label you want to put on it.
Yes, they did lots of heroic things. They did lots of despicable things, too. That’s how people are.
Show me the money Obi-wan.
Two million (or so) German, Polish, and Russian women raped by the Russian army. Hundreds of thousands of women stolen into slavery by the Japanese and used as “comfort women” during the Japanese occupation–which amounted to millions of rapes.
Yeah. We were good, but not that good.
#19 Steve Evans p.s. JF may find this article to be of interest.
I’ve read enough about the abuses that occurred during WWII that I wondered what our own military personnel were capable of doing. I read the article you linked. Perhaps its allegations are true. I don’t know. I am suspicious of the author’s bias, however, when he (along with many others) characterizes placing underwear on the heads of prisoners as “torture” (Abu Ghraib).
It has been a while since i saw saints and soldiers, but the movie is not about mormonism. there are oblique references “Deacon” doesn’t drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, is from a small Arizona town called “Snowflake.” Greer also carries a small book that he is occasionally seen prayerfully reading. Up til this point, he could be any religious character. The mormonism comes in as he was a missionary to Berlin before the war, which causes him to be empathic to the Germans, which causes his cohorts to be suspicious.
I personally love WWII movies, and so it was interesting to see a modern retro take on the genre. I thought the effects, directing etc were great for such a budget. Better than many of the big budget war films I have seen
Yes, bad things happen in every war: rapes, abusing/killing prisoners, etc.. It is inevitable: between those few ‘bad apples’ and those otherwise good apples who lose connection with right and wrong due to the stresses and strains of the experience and those apples who find they can get away with things they normally can’t, ugly things happen in war. No matter how well organized and vigilant, in the conditions of combat and war it is not possible for any state to wholly prevent this. The difference, however, that is ignored by the Guardian author (and those who might cite it approvingly) is that some states intentionally use these behaviors, encourage them, even compel them (be it de jure or de facto), in essense weaponizing them in their effort to subdue their enemies and occupied populationst. The Soviets and Nazis in WWII and the Serbs in Bosnia are examples of intentional state weaponization of bad behavior; this is not true of the US in either place.
If there was less forcible rape committed by American troops, it appears to be because the women in occupied Germany were sufficiently starving and desperate that a bar of chocolate would induce cooperation. That may not fit the formal definition of rape, but I’m not sure you could call it consensual. It’s pretty unsavory whatever label you want to put on it.
This is a highly cynical view. What does it bring you to view American troops this way? It is, in truth, only your view and divorced from reality.
By the way, for German speakers, the LDS context is unavoidable when the German soldier whom Greer baptized in Berlin before the war addresses him as “Elder Greer.”
Of course American soldiers rape. And when they do, their own army tries them, ties them to a tree and shoots them.
The issue is whether American armies use rape as a tool of war, as did the Russians, and as have other armies throughout time. Of course they do not.
I highly recommend getting the DVD. Also available on Ebay.
Might even be a door-opener for home teaching those inactives who always make excuses to avoid you. Offer to take over the movie and watch it together.
Having served a German-speaking mission, I have to admit that the scene when the German soldier meets his old missionary friend brought a sizeable lump to my throat.
S&S: great film. BUT what is up with Kirby Heyborne’s RAF character? The accent is dreadful and the stereoptyping is worse. Believe it or not, but not every RAF pilot spoke with a plum in his mouth and was called Horatio Montague (or whatever).
Well, I agree with gst’s formulation, which was also well stated by TMD in # 38.
Obi-wan and the Guardian article, by formulating it the way that they do, reveal nothing more than their agenda/biases, rather than something historically useful.
I still contest the allegation of tens of thousands of rapes by American soldiers. The millions of rapes by the Red Army, however, are uncontestable, not only based on historical evidence (see e.g. Antony Beevor’s Berlin, among many others) but also based on my personal discussions with bitter old German ladies in Berlin who have a deep-seated and everlasting hatred for the Russians as a result of the brutal gang rapes and other deprivations they suffered at the hands of the “liberating” Red Army. Speaking with these older Germans, you get a real sense of how the American army was perceived as opposed to the Red Army. Many reported to me that they actually rejoiced when they were liberated by the Americans or British instead of the Russians. Those unfortunate enough to be liberated by the Russians had to conceal themselves in cellars or other hiding places to avoid the guaranteed gang rapes, some of which literally killed the victims, and only ventured out of these hiding places in the early pre-dawn hours to try to scavange something–anything–to eat. We are also talking about little girls here, you realize. This was the situation in the Russian zones of Germany, not the American or British controlled areas.
The movie was only average. Sure, it was much improved from the other Mormon film drivel that has been churned out like green Jell-O, which I suppose makes it remarkable by comparison, but it was nothing earth shattering.
Can a great Mormon movie ever be made? I have my serious doubts and indefatigable hopes.
John Fowles:
You may be interested in some recent discussion of this issue in the Times. Here is the NYT’s review of the new edition of “A Woman in Berlin”:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/books/review/14KANONL.html?ex=1126756800&en=80c8789df6069f5c&ei=5070
And here is a letter to the editor calling the veracity of the book into question (though he does not question the historic fact of mass rapes by the Red Army):
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/books/review/11letters.html?pagewanted=2
I liked the Saints and Soldiers movie as well.
My grandfather served in Pattons Army. He personally was involved in protecting German Civilian women from rape by the Russian troops. In fact he and his squad killed several Russian soldiers who were attempting to rape German civilians. He was serving on the border between US occupied Germany and Soviet occupied Germany. One of his units missions was to protect German women as they fled the Russian sector for the US Sector.
One story is watching a 14 year old German girl fleeing on a bike towards the American lines as a mob of Russians chased her on foot. His unit fired quite a bit at the Russians and soon they stopped chasing her. He never says if they hit any of the Russians with their rifle fire. He will never forget the look on her face as she peddled as hard as she could.
Any attempt to compare the conduct of US troops to the Soviet troops in WW2 is an attempt to revise history for a political agenda.
Take my anecdotal stories to heart. They really happened and I heard them first hand.
I also forgot to mention that I really like the movie and I own a copy of it.
I made a comment that seems lost in cyberspace, so I’ll resubmit it (sorry if both end up here).
Greg, I did not rely “A Woman in Berlin” as a source for information of mass rape by the Red Army, so its authenticity, questioned in the review you linked, is not directly relevant. Some informative sources that I have read, however, are Antony Beevor, The Fall of Berlin 1945 (2002) and Alexandra Richie, Faust’s Metropolis: A History of Berlin (1999).
I can’t say I enjoyed the movie. It’s just too sad. But it had depth and it was touching. I was aware, as I watched it, of the “cheesy” strings it pulled but it did so with an honesty and simpleness that don’t detract but rather enhanced the meaning. Were there less-than-wonderful units in WWII? Where there crimes committed by both sides? Yes. However, there were at least an equal number — and I’d say a greater number — of people who were just decent folks doing what they could in a terrible situation. Many of them were heros. To listen to some of you, the reprehensible actions of a few have wiped out the contributions of many.
I’ve had it with “edgy” and “real” movies where the only “edgieness” comes from being as violent, degrading, disgusting and depressing as possible.
“Saints and Soldiers” may seem unsophisticated to some of you but I find it refreshing. We need to remember the sacrifices that good people make in war. We need to remember that sometimes it is good, right and necessary to fight in defense of something. “Saints and Soldiers” reminds us of that. More importantly, it reminds us that there are good, wholesome and decent people out there. With every other Hollywood character and actor abusing themselves and the people around them, that may be the most important message we can take from this movie.
Amen, Heather. I love the sound of that harp.
Adam or should I say cousin, My mother was a Greer although I come from the Greers who stayed in Utah. My understanding is that part of the Greer clan got sick of Utah and headed for Arizona.
The Arizona Greers sound like a spicey bunch. They are famous for a big gun battle, wish I could find the article that describes it. I’ll keep looking.
It was fun to see the Greer tag on the hero’s uniform and take a little familial pride in that. I enjoyed the movie but have to agree with Ronan, the british character was a bit too stereotyped.
Let me know when the family reunion will be!
Yes, the British character was interesting. There’s nothing wrong with playing to stereotypes, if they have some truth in them, but the fella’s accent was aweful.
John Fowles: I didn’t think you were relying on that book and I wasn’t trying to rebut anything; I just thought you might be generally interested in the two articles.
Thanks Greg. I am interested in the articles, and in reading that book. Despite the disparaging article, it looks like that book is indeed valuable as the notes of someone who lived through that period.
I didn’t even recognize Kirby Heybourne as the pilot. He’s grown up so much since The RM.
This is a highly cynical view. What does it bring you to view American troops this way? It is, in truth, only your view and divorced from reality.
John Fowles: has anyone ever pointed out to you your tendency on this blog to shoot your mouth off on subjects that you don’t seem to know much about?
Some eyewitness accounts:
“The American soldier of all ranks has looted, and I speak only of things I have seen with my own eyes. . . . In the matter of rape, it is probable that more Russian soldiers have been guilty thereof than American, but much of the differential can be explained by the apparent predilection the Continental girl has for the American soldier with his K-ration, chocolate bars and cigarets. . . . I see no fundamental superiority of the American Army in any of its echelons over the Russian Army in reference to the above matters. . . . ”
U.S. Army sergeant (name withheld), stationed in Austria, Time magazine, September 17, 1945
“. . . People who read your article will condemn the Russians for being savages and rapists but will not stop to consider the fact that our own Army and the British Army along with ours have done their share of looting and raping. . . . This offensive attitude among our troops is not at all general, but the percentage is large enough to have given our Army a pretty black name, and we too are considered an army of rapists. . . . This letter is in no way intended to be an apology for misbehavior among the Soviet troops. It is merely an attempt to show that the Soviet Army is no different from the American or British Army when it comes to looting and behavior among women. . . . ”
(A different) U.S. Army sergeant (name withheld), Time magazine, September 17, 1945
“Why is it that in your Sept. 17 issue of TIME you seem to refer to the publications by Domei in regard to the rapes, robberies, and assaults committed here by Americans, as mere statements without logic? Believe me, they are true, for I am in a position to know. The soldiers, sailors and marines appear to have no regard for these people whatsoever. . . ”
U.S. serviceman (name withheld), Time magazine, November 12, 1945
“For a good 45% of the uniformed men over here seem to believe in their own generation that they belong to the master race and some of them conduct themselves like amateur SS troops. No moralist I, but I shiver at the apparent absence of basic human decency displayed by so many G.I.s. Many a sane American family would recoil in horror if they knew how “Our Boys” conduct themselves, with such complete callousness in human relationships, over here. The few of us who try to behave like normal human beings to friend and ex-foe alike are told time & again, ‘But you can’t be an American—they treat us as if we were dogs or slaves!’ ”
U.S. serviceman (name withheld), Time magazine, November 12, 1945.
There are plenty more contemporary sources if you aren’t too divorced from reality to bother to look for them.
obi-wan,
No one here has denied that American soldiers were guilty of the same crimes that other armies have been accused of. If you think someone has, point it out please. The argument has been based on two things: 1) The comparative number of incidents between the U.S. army and other armies, and 2) The U.S. Army code of ethics versus that of other armies. Inasmuch as what you quote above says practically nothing regarding these two points (except in defense of one of them), all I can say is that you need to dig a little deeper to find the skeletons you’re looking for.
Jack — I’m not looking for any skeletons. I’m simply stating what eyewitnesses recounted. Go back and read the earlier comments. In response to John Fowles’ statement that he found the report of “tens of thousands” of rapes by American G.I.s dubious, I said:
Um – unfortunately, there is a fair amount of documentation from Allied sources regarding forcible rapes committed by U.S. occupying soldiers in the European theater during WWII.
If there was less forcible rape committed by American troops, it appears to be because the women in occupied Germany were sufficiently starving and desperate that a bar of chocolate would induce cooperation. That may not fit the formal definition of rape, but I’m not sure you could call it consensual. It’s pretty unsavory whatever label you want to put on it.
Yes, they did lots of heroic things. They did lots of despicable things, too. That’s how people are.
The claim in the second paragraph was then characterized by Fowles as “cynical” and “divorced from reality” and “only [my] view” based on some “agenda.”
Perhaps Mr. Fowles also believes that the troops who were contemporaneously stationed in the occupied Axis countries, and on whose accounts my statement in part relied, had an “agenda” that was “divorced from reality.” Since he wasn’t present, and has produced no evidence to contradict them, how would he know? Other than simply presenting his own “agenda/biases, rather than anything historically useful,” of course.
From one of your sources: It is merely an attempt to show that the Soviet Army is no different from the American or British Army when it comes to looting and behavior among women . . . .
This just isn’t true. The Red Army was very different than the American and British army when it came to raping the locals. The reason that that serviceman could make that statement is that he had no idea of the magnitude of the atrocities committed by the Russians. He could not know that the Red Army had committed literally millions of rapes, violent gang rapes, which sometimes killed the victim. He was too close to what was happening. The immensity of the Red Army’s atrocities surface when looked at from a distance and with the benefit of subsequent research. The serviceman had witnessed American soldiers committing the occasional rape and then made that statement. How could he have known what the Russians were doing in their sector of Berlin or in the hundreds of cities and towns that they passed through as they advanced west?
I have never spoken to an older German (man or woman) who reported that there had been anything to fear from the American or British occupiers. Many, however, have painted the same aweful picture of the Red Army that some of the books I have mentioned also portray. This is of course purely anecdotal. It also does not mean that no American or British soldiers ever raped a German woman. It is just suggestive that there was indeed a palpable difference between the American/British armies and the Red Army. It might also have something to do with the intolerable oppression brought by the “liberating” Russians compared to the way that the Americans and British administered their zones of influence in occupied Germany.
Let alone the American Mormon veterans who out number them by about, what? A hundred to one?
I’m just wondering how Russian Church members, whose fathers and grandfathers are honored for the incredible sacrifices they made in defending and liberating their country, would read some of the above comments on this Mormon thread. But probably none are reading those, so no reason to worry. And if they do, well, after 60 years, it’s about time they know the truth, isn’t it? Tatiana Potapova will just have to revise the way she looks at her father. I’m sure an ardent commenter can provide her the details.
#58 Obi Wan – “There are plenty more contemporary sources if you aren’t too divorced from reality to bother to look for them.”
There were plenty of contemporaneous sources which claimed Joseph Smith did this, or that, or the other. Being contemporaneous does not make them true, however.
Wilfried, I’m not sure how to read your comment. I understand that you want to protect the sensibilities of the descendants of Russian soldiers. But I’m not sure it’s fair to do so at the expense of letting the truth about Russian atrocities come to light. Perhaps you’re just saying that you don’t think this is something to be discussed. Or that you don’t believe what’s being said about the Russians. If so, fine. But if you agree that these despicable acts happened with the frequency alleged here, why shouldn’t that come to light and be condemned?
There were plenty of contemporaneous sources which claimed Joseph Smith did this, or that, or the other. Being contemporaneous does not make them true, however.
Neither does it make them untrue, so it’s hard to see the point of your observation.
You might want to be careful making that argument, though, especially if you are inclined to give credence to the contemporaneous eyewitness sources who claimed Joseph had gold plates.
I chose the accounts from Time specifically because (aside from the fact that the Time archive was handy on-line) 1) I knew it included first-hand accounts from U.S. servicemen, rather than from their critics, in different parts of the occupied Axis nations, who had nothing to personal to gain from their testimony about the atrocities being committed, and 2) I wanted to underscore that what was going on was no secret and no historical revision — it was described and debated in widely circulated publications as it was happening.
Other contemporaneous sources include similar eyewitness accounts by Allied troops, statements by Allied commanders about the conduct and activity of their troops, newspaper and other journalistic accounts, and official governmental or military reports and dispatches.
When those types of contemporaneous sources, independently, and in that number, claim that Joseph did this or that or the other, we generally would conclude that he in fact did this or that or the other.
Somehow comments #63 & 64 got inverted.
obi-wan,
Some may feel a little discomfort at learning–by virtue of contemporaneous sources–that JS had 30-40 some-odd number of wives. The problem with those sources is that they’re not going to paint much of a different picture than we would get in learning about (say) Solomon and his 1000 wives. The proximity of the sources to the situation makes it difficult for them to see the forest for the trees. Basically, what we get are the similarities between the two–even though they may be seen as vastly different from a different perspective.
Ryan, to answer your question in 66: “But if you agree that these despicable acts happened with the frequency alleged here, why shouldn’t that come to light and be condemned?”
As far as we can know it, truth is truth and should not be denied nor forgotten. However I think I noticed in some comments, less a concern for truth and nuance, but a strange eagerness to proclaim total depravity of the other side, their millions of rapes, etc. as if we are still in the Cold War and need to ensure our combativity against looming barbaric danger. History shows that distrust and enmity between nations can be perpetuated by such perceptions because generalized to such an absolute and uncontrollable extent. And then I try to imagine how nowadays a Russian brother or sister would read some of the comments made, when you know what that war meant for them on their own soil in the preceding years.
I think one of the objectives of “Saints and Soldiers” is precisely to help us nuance and come to peace with a certain past which all too often is presented in black and white. That’s why I liked the film very much.
Wilfried,
I cannot see the difference between the Red Army/Soviet Russia and the Nazi regime. I do not see the Red Army as liberators only as a conquering army (Ask the Poles in 1939) with their own concentration camps (Gulag). Ask the Poles, Hungarians, or any other Eastern European who lived thru the experience. 2 evil regimes locked in a battle to the death.
There is value in speaking the truth about what happened and there is no value in hiding from it because of Political Correctness.
B Bell, I said in comment 64: “…Russian Church members, whose fathers and grandfathers are honored for the incredible sacrifices they made in defending and liberating their country”. Their country is Russia, invaded by the Nazis. Of course, you are right for the rest. No one denied that.
I would argue that they were defending a evil regime and that what they liberated was as bad as the occupying Nazis. There was not a good guy between the Nazis and the Soviets.
There was individual heroism on both sides. Many Germans saw themselves as defending their homeland when the Soviets first took German territory in East Prussia. But Germans now recognize that the Nazi regime was evil. History has also shown that the Soviet regime was evil as well.
B bell: “There was not a good guy between the Nazis and the Soviets”.
The film reminds us that we are talking about individuals – Soldiers, also Germans, who were Saints. Let us not forget how tens of thousands of Russian soldiers themselves suffered under a regime that brutalized and sacrificed them. The individual soldier, who could have been my father, brother or son, is not always the same as the regime that compels him to obey and act. Also, many disobeyed, many deserted. Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago reminds us how even Russian soldiers were treated and sent to death camps by the horrific system above them. Again, let us show compassion where compassion for the individual is warranted. Which never means we take the side of oppression or minimize the horror.
The responses to obi wan and Wilfried have been some of the most poorly conceived arguments ever posted on this board. War is war is war is war. There are good soldiers and bad soldiers in any army. The “right” side depends on who writes the history.
“The “right” side depends on who writes the history. ”
No thinking person can believe this for more than two seconds. Nazis v. Allies? A matter of taste. Union v. Confederacy? Indifferent. Cold War? A pox on both houses.
Bunk.
Cyril,
Moroni and Helaman and his stripling warriors do not agree with you. I take the side of Moroni and Helaman. I think that Joseph Smith translated that history thru the U&T.
Just war is taught in the BOM.
I agree that individuals can be good and bad soldiers depending on the battlefield choices they make.
Wilfried: “Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago reminds us how even Russian soldiers were treated and sent to death camps by the horrific system above them. Again, let us show compassion where compassion for the individual is warranted. Which never means we take the side of oppression or minimize the horror.” You are making my point. The Red Army represented oppression. We should never take their side. The Red Army had a policy of turning a blind eye or even encouraging gang rape.
There is a Blue State/ Red State debate over this issue in the above posts seen thru political prisms. One side sees that the US as engaged in a noble cause during WW2. The other side does not make this distinction and frankly is not so sure it likes the US.
Adam, I agree with you, but you must admit that had the Confederacy won, the elementary school textbooks in the South would read differently. That does not mean that those textbooks would be correct, but it remains a fact. That is one reason why I am dubious about relying on information about the United States or its army from old East German elementary school textbooks, or, for that matter, treatments of the Red Army’s virtues by Putin.
Wait, that’s a bad example, since even in Dallas my elementary school teachers still used the term “the war of northern aggression” and never “the Civil War” even though the north won the war. . . .
This thread has become: US WWII army, good, bad, and often better or worse? Thats because of the quotes of some critics who see S&S as hopelessly naive and as uncynical. I believe that S&S was reasonably accurate portrayal. A movie that follows a group that womanizes and pillages could also be reasonably accurate. The fact of the matter is that there was both. The telling point though is what view do you prefer? The vileness of humanity or the nobility. As for me give me S&S, it was good.
(I would just like to add that prefering to see the nobility of humanity doesn’t mean that I am ignorant of its villainy.)
I guess I’m going to have to agree with my alter ego. Good and bad have been done. So nothing good can ever be shown?
You are right, Adam. I have a short-term memory disorder that only allows me to think for 1.9 seconds, so that must explain my island view.
Your opinion is much more learned and wise. In fact, if we were to take a poll of the world, they would probably agree with your American/Mormon take on history.
Of course, I put “right” in quotes because I was not making some final judgment as to which side is “right,” a judgment folks like Adam love to make to keep their world views in tact and their dogma in force. If anyone seriously thinks the victor does not write and thus revise history, whether the victor is the Allies, Captain Moroni, or the playground bully, she is without a basic tool of reasoning.
b bell:
James Bond (or was it Ian Fleming) cautioned us to never say never again. I agree–particularly with regard to your categorical “We should never take their [the Soviet Army's] side.”
First, I refuse to believe that all Soviet soldiers were rapists and pillagers. There were likely thousands, even millions, of Soviet soldiers who simply did what they were commanded, in extraordinarily brutal conditions–and not all of their commanders were ordering them to rape and pillage.
Second, I’ll take the Soviet Army’s side because they contributed mightily to the Allies’ winning the war. Were it not for the sacrifices of the Soviet Army, our friend Wilfried would likely have grown up speaking German and saluting the Hakenkreuz every morning at school.
This is not intended to excuse the horrors that the Soviet Army inflicted on civilian populations, or the post-war policies of the Soviets in Eastern Europe. But, if we had not had the Russians on our side from June 1941 to May 1945, victory over the Germans would have been delayed for years–and the debate about dropping the atomic bomb wouldn’t have been about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but about Duesseldorf or Frankfurt or Berlin.
So, for that reason and those limited purposes, I will ignore your advice and I’ll take the Soviet Army’s side.
Mark,
I never said that they were ALL rapists. Rape was the order of the day though in Soviet occupied Germany per history. Go to some of the links provided above and you will see it was not just some bad apples. History also teaches us that without the Soviets in the EAST the Nazis would have been much harder to defeat. Nobody made that argument that the Soviets did not bear the lions share of breaking the Nazi divisions on the ground while the US Airforce destroyed the nazi war making ability.
However the conquering Soviet army was no better than their enemies the Nazis when it gets all boiled down. My anecdotal stories of my grandfather shooting Russian soldiers in defense of German women are true and a reflection of what was going on in Soviet Occupied Germany.
” The conquering Soviet army was no better than their enemies the Nazis ”
Let’s not go too far. Saying that the Red Army wasn’t as bad as the Nazis (I’m thinking particularly of the SS troops who served in the East) in no way diminishes the Red Army’s evil.
Adam…????? Not sure I am following you.
The SS troops systematically executed prisoners and conquered populations, with the utmost brutality. One way of executing prisoners was to put them in a field, surround it with guards, and them wait while they starved and froze to death. Babies were bashed and mothers shot who complained, that sort of thing.
Were it not for the contributions of the Soviet Army it’s likely that my father’s name would have been on the memorial tablet in Snowflake, Arizona. That’s reason enough for me to be less harsh toward the Soviet Army.
Adam,
The Soviets did the same types of things. They were especially brutal to their own people who had joined up and served in Nazi regiments. Balts Ukranians ETC.
Re: Comment #79:
Hear, hear!
All the people arguing about the Red Army vs. the Allies and how S&S is “naive” are forgetting something important. There is truth on both sides of the issue. If you were to make a movie about Hurricane Katrina (and you know there’ll be one eventually), you could focus on the looting, raping and other unhumane behaviour and it would be true to the situation. Or you could focus on the charity, love and touches of grace that happened, like the person who hotwired a semi and drove 30 people to safety or the five-star restaurant that opened its doors and its kitchens to those in need– and that would be true to the situation as well.
So “S&S” chooses to look at the brighter side. In a world that seems to be sinking ever more deeply into the mire, we need reminders like “S&S” that there is still good to be found out there.