Talk:Generation War

Sloppy research on Polish topics

There was no additional research to prepare the Polish scenes (it's what I called sloppily).

• AK partizans didn't wear AK armbands in the forest in 1943. They wore them in 1944 during the Warsaw uprising.
• AK partizans weren't active in ethnic Poland in 1943, because of German genocidal reprisals, see Operation Wieniec.
• Any partizans didn't generally stop trains, because Germans defended railways. Partizans were able to hit and run away.
• A transport of prizoners contained hundreds people. Partizans in ethnic Poland didn't have resources to help so many people. Jews in Belarus had such camps (Bielski partisans) but they didn't fight. Either you fight or help people.
• Polish people are stereotypical, like frequently in German movies and books, since about 1848 with the peak during the years 1939-1945. Germman movies don't show stereotypical Jews nor Afroamericans nor Turcs, it would be politically incorrect. Xx236 (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I appreciate your contributions and I intend to support you. I agree with your critique. Words like "sloppy" are somewhat harsh and sound overly judgmental. People might dismiss your critique as biased and you deserve better. From my point of view the production company has just chosen a cheap solution. (Although the production was altogether still very expensive.) Also, if we put this under the the section "Production", it certainly ought to be as clear as possible why it has to be mentioned and why it belongs exactly there. Moreover, a hasty and superficial reader (or a "sloppy" one, if you like) might accidently get it wrong if you critise the deptiction of Polish partisans as "stereotypical" because here this depiction is worse than all clichés and that is the actual low point. However, this fiction was never meant to be a documentary and it mirrors what many Germans have told their children and grandchildren when they were asked about the war. Even if you find thus stories disgusting you might consider it useful after all to (literally) see what a whole lot of Germans have been made believe by the responsible generation ever since. You did need this knowledge in order to have a chance to rectify these (formerly secret) accusations. Well, there is a figure of speech in German: "Gut, dass wir darüber gesprochen haben!" ("What a good thing it was that we came to speak about this matter!") NordhornerII (talk)_The man from Nordhorn 11:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not only the problem of reputation, which made many Poles wild. I mean that the Polish episode misinforms - the tactics, armbands, languge are wrong. As far as I understand the German uniforms, historical events and German language in the series are correct. They don't use African immigrants as SS officers because African Statists are cheaper than German actors.

As far as I understand there existed a break between generations in Nazi Germany - children were indoctrinated since 1933. I have read somewhere a German critics that the series doesn't show the differences. Xx236 (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure about the German/Austrian uniforms being correct? I ask because I noticed Iron Cross decoration ribbons being worn during combat at the front.OrodesIII (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, in case you can get a hold of some US-American WWII-films (no matter which ones in particuliar) and you do watch the OV, just listen to how German soldiers speak. Unbelieveable. It is likewise a severe punishment to watch certain episodes of TV-Shows like "McGyver" or (worst of all) "Alias" if "German" is spoken. "Unsere Mütter, unsere Väter" was supposed to meet Hollywood standards. I envy you for not having to listen all the time to actors who mock and abuse your native language. In regards to authencity we have to admit that this is always a problem of historical films. There are even plenty of mistakes in Ridley Scott's "Gladiator". Why aren't you happy about the sloppy costumes of Polish partisans? Thus it is obvious that they aren't the real deal but just some fictitious guys, created by someone who wasn't there. Anyway, that is not what the film is about. It is about some folks who are just born into difficult times and who have subsequently to make difficult decisions, something inevitably leading to mistakes sooner or later. It is not a documentary. Instead of being about facts it is about feelings. It shows their world in a manner which makes us able to feel like they did. You don't like Kafka, do you? NordhornerII (talk)_The man from Nordhorn 08:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Far from being full of "plenty of mistakes", Ridley Scott's Gladiator is an American romance drawing on a historical theme. Not that that would not belong here. Its mistake is merely to pretend to be intended historically. Generation War, however, is intended historically - which does not mean empty of mistakes. I don't know much about the Poles, but as for the Germans, they are certainly not represented without historical mistakes. According to this article, Greta is executed for Wehrkraftzersetzung, which is the historical thing; but the movie does not say so, it says defeatism (which was no crime of its own) and Volksverhetzung (incitement of hatred, a crime now part of the Penal Code). Soldiers salute all the time without headgear. And that's just the two points I remember without much thinking.--93.133.114.13 (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Polish TV interviewed one German consultant and invited the other one to participate in a discussion. Both of them refused to accept their errors. They don't know German history adn they refuse to learn it. No competent German historian was consulted.Xx236 (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Most definitely, the Polish partisans were shown to have been more antisemitic than the Germans/Austrians with the exception of one SS officer. This had to have been a calculated decision of the production team, as if they truly believed this to have been the case. The casual viewer would want to research this allegation to see if there was any truth to it.OrodesIII (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you people ever read the template at the top? This NOT a forum!1812ahill (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"Tank Chocolate"

Before and during WWII German soldiers have been brainwashed. This film tries to make understandable how they experienced WWII. But there was more than propaganda and misled patriotism. Soldiers got also systematically drugged: "Tank Chocolate" Everybody has to decide for himself whether this kind of abuse might have added to the skewed views and abominable actions of certain German soldiers of that time. NordhornerII (talk)_The man from Nordhorn 22:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• What do you mean Nordhorner? Is it the Nazi prison in the film? That is something to figure out. Surely in that prison the staff were (as for the screenplay) from Poland, Italy, Ukraine, United States, France, Canada, Norway, Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, Israel and Guernsey Island. #178.36.179.28 (talk)

"Tank chocolate" isn't the same as Pervitin, essentially it is dark chocolate with a lot of coffein. Pervitin was used to keep people awake that were on long duties (like pilots). It was however discovered that there is an after-period with it. So the use wasn't as widespread as spread by post-war propaganda. I tested atrocity allegations against Germans, and it turned out that those were actually legitimate reprisals against partisan action or support. --105.8.4.90 (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Problems with the partizans

The first Polish partizan troop led by Hubal 1939/1940 caused cruel German revenge, so AK was rather against partizan war. The ideology of war on any price presented in the movie wasn't an AK ideology. Partizan war was terrible, it wasn't a Robin Hood movie. The movie contrasts philosemitic Germans with antisemitic Poles, both existed but the structure of the Holocaust was German, designed and implemented by educated Germans, not by primitive Poles. Xx236 (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin is a perfect comment to the German series.Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The funny dying Pole

45 years ago Polish Communist TV produced a propaganda WWII series Czterej pancerni i pies. Now the German producers of the "Generation war" have fun, they show destroied Polish 102 (Rudy) tank and a dying Polish soldier. (The Polish tanks didn't participate in Kursk battle.)Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Au revoir

Hello, I am French Task Force and usually I don't write about German films. I usually don't even watch them, especially not TV films. I have never chosen to be German and I am absolutely no "German Wikipedian" because the German Wikipedia drove me up the wall and I rather quit the Wikipedia globally than to ever write even a single letter for the German Wikipedia. I don't know why I wrote this article but let me assure you anyway that I like the Polish language a lot because no other language sounds that French to me (not even Southern French because my private teacher was a "Bretonne") and well, I am out of here. I think the article is in good hands. There is a similar discussion going on in the German version of this article where it also stated that many mistakes have been made. If anyone wants to have any of that translated, just send me a note and I will be glad to comply, provided I am not expected to translate it into Polish because that I can't deliver. Sorry for that. NordhornerII (talk)_The man from Nordhorn 12:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have taken this article from my watchlist. However, it is still on the list of my articles and I have to go through all of them again because I have to rectify my usage of references. Neither writing this article nor maintaining it was ever supposed to be any kind of political or historical statement. NordhornerII (talk)_The man from Nordhorn 23:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Wałęsa (film)

A long time ago I published an article on a film about a Polish post-war hero: Wałęsa (film). When I recently realised that this article is outdated I remembered that this article about a German TV series attracts so many competent experts for Polish history. In Nordhorn we have a bridge which is dedicated to our Polish partner town Malbork but that doens't make me an expert in Polish history. Please have a look at that article about the bio pic Wałęsa. NordhornerII (talk) I am not a number! I am a Nordhorner. 09:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC) NordhornerII (talk)

antipolonism by the BBC

The main BBC article should be updated about their plans to broadcast this series on their BBC2 TV Channel as a prime example of polonophobic bias by the BBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.63.73 (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you should think very carefully before you continue with your join-the-dots conspiracy theories. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

English Subtitles

I watched this with English subtitles and I noticed the translation took small liberties e.g. Kruppstahl was translated as "steel". Minor, yes, but telling in the context that Adolf Hitler had used the word Kruppstahl to describe the end result of Hitler Youth training in his speech to the HJ at Nürnberg. Another example is the name of Marlene Dietrich being translated as "movie star". Who knows why? OrodesIII (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Soap Opera

The main fault in this three-part serial was its general unbelievability. The manner in which the five prewar friends crossed paths throughout the story turned the whole thing into a soap opera, unworthy of even the silliest daytime TV show. Two of the brothers were actually in the same small unit. Did such a thing happen in reality? Then the nurse was posted to a field hospital where her boyfriend's brother was brought for treatment! The Jewish doctor returned as a Russian officer after escaping when she had been betrayed at the field hospital! The Jewish friend directs traffic dressed at a German/Austrian soldier when his friend happens to pass in a military car! Their singer friend is posted to the front to give a show and finds herself in the same field hospital! Ha Ha Ha. This serial became comical before it was half-way through.OrodesIII (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

For me, no worse than Doctor Zhivago ...:) Feroshki (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Who betrayed Lilja? Chalotte, the doctor or somebody else?

I had the impression that Charlotte had reported her assistant as suspect, but then when the gestapo arrived, she realised her folly...if not Charlotte, who else made the report ?

In the German Wikipedia it is clearly stated that Charlotte is the one who reported Lilja. I have not watched the miniseries but this difference seems to be of great importance to me. Is it simply due to a mistake in this article or is the English version of Generation War different from the original? Maybe a mistake in synchronization or subtitles? If the latter is the case, that may contribute to explain why US-critics are so much more critical of the series regarding the white washing of German guilt then German critics were. --Rappatoni (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

She reported her. She admits to it later on in the movie. Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

German Wikipedia has much, much BETTER presentation of 'Criticism' and 'Reception'

German de.Wikipedia has a much better 'Criticism' section than the present English Wikipedia article - which at this moment has almost nothing. Look at 'Unsere Mutter, Unsere Vater' in de.wikipedia, Section 4.3, 'Kritiken':

 4.3.1  Positive Kritiken
 4.3.2  Negative Kritiken

Section 4.3.1 contains five positive critiques by German writers, and Section 4.3.2 contains six negative critiques by German writers. None of these critiques appears or is quoted in English Wikipedia, as of this moment. Can anyone translate these critiques? My command of German is not good enough - particularly of literary German, as in these critiques - to translate these critiques with perfect accuracy. I might try to translate at most one of these critiques. We need translations. Any volunteers?

Also, comparing 'Criticism,' which is mainly about Polish responses, in English Wikipedia with the corresponding de.wikipedia Section 'Darstellung der polnischen Heimatarmee,' the German section is far, far more detailed, and incomparably better.

Translations from German would be very desirable. Can we catch up with the quality of the German writers?Prospero10 (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that there is much more coverage of criticism at de:Unsere Mütter, unsere Väter because the program, which covers a subject much closer to Germans and their neighbours than to any English speaking country, was shown there about 9 months ago, whereas it's only now entering some English speaking markets; this resulted in much wider coverage in the German press than in any English-language papers. Increasing coverage will eventually be reflected in this article; in fact, that has already started, although I'm not sure whether a lengthy paragraph of 190 words from the distinctively left-leaning blog of Andrej Reisin is really needed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

One interesting aspect of the German review/criticism section is, that it also contains reviews by professional historians, which adds an additional academic layer to it and avoids typical simplifications or historical misconceptions you might find in regular movie reviews.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

'RECEPTION IN GERMANY' IS MOST IMPORTANT, AND COVERAGE SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED TO SOUND-BITES. In response to Michael Bednarek who points out above that the 'subject (is) much closer to Germans and their neighbors than to any English speaking countries,' I reply that that DOES NOT JUSTIFY under-reporting the debate in Germany and also in Poland but instead devoting most of the 'Reception' section to English-speaking countries where, as Michael Bednarek points out, this subject is less important. Note that Generation War is a Mid-Imporance article in WikiProject Germany (which makes it quite important) and is also within the scope of WikiProject Poland, and the 'Reception' in those two countries should be reported in proper detail for the benefit of English-speaking Wikipedians interested in these two WikiProjects.

Ideally, I think we should have a 'Reception in Germany' section and a 'Reception in Poland,' section, with most of the present 'Reception' section put in a subordinate 'Reception in English-Speaking Countries' section. The first two, Germany and Poland, are by far the most important, and should be treated as such in English Wikipedia. We don't aim to play the role of 'English Provincial Wikipedia,' Wikipedia aims to cover the world. In Germany, 'Generation War' is very important because it aims to recast the image of Germany's World War II generation who fought under Hitler, and has provoked a well-articulated debate which receives excellent coverage in German Wikipedia. We should aim to do as well in English Wikipedia, not reduce that debate to oversimplified one-liners and sound-bites (as certain edits on Janury 16 tend to do). In Poland, 'Generation War' is seen as attempting to transfer the blame for the Holocaust from Germans to Poles. This is threatening to worsen Polish-German relations, which have recently been excellent. The Generation War article shouldn't dodge important issues, it should present what is most important.Prospero10 (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead needs to reflect Polish outrage

The lead of the article should highlight the main aspects of the article. In Germany the series was overall well received and prompted much debate. As regards the series and criticism, clearly the Polish outrage at the depiction of the home army as antisemitic is the main point here, as evidenced by the tenor of the sources. Other aspects of the series have also been criticized (or lauded) by various other critics and those are dealt with further down. The current version does not adequately portray that, as is common in Poland, opinions on various aspects of the film vary widely across the political spectrum, but rejection of the antisemitic portrayal of the home army is uniformly shared. --Lukati (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The series was also criticized in Germany. Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course it was. But nowhere has criticism been so fierce and so widely shared across the entire political spectrum as in Poland. Your wholesale revert with minimalistic commentary is unwarranted. If there is some you don't like then change it and give a good explanation, preferably on this page. --Lukati (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You're removing sourced text apparently for no reason except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your edits also broke some refs. There also is no reason to remove info from the lede which summarizes the criticism section (of course if you remove stuff from the section first then that's no longer true).Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed some text in the introduction that was not sourced. Refs 2-4 describe the Polish reaction to the series, particularly as it concerns alleged antisemitism. The previous version was much broader and was not sourced. In the review section I condensed all reviews to one sentence not because this is how I personally like it, but because this is how most of the section already presented itself. There was also a banner explicitly criticizing the lengthy NYT review. So I tried to make the reviews uniform and balanced without preferential treatment for any one publication. I also removed a sentence that wasn't grammatically correct and didn't add to the basic fact that some Poles object to the movie being shown in the US and UK. I am not aware that I compromised any reference. --Lukati (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

PS. I think the article needs a better description of the German reception, academic opinion, and journalistic criticism. This is a German film after all. Currently the UK/Polish views predominate. The current description of the German reaction is mostly filtered through English media and the one German source comes from an opinion portal and not an academic or journalistic source. Maybe we should structure the reception section as follows: general reception (general statements, viewer audiences in different countries, etc), reception in Germany (academic and journalistic), reception in Poland (outrage, but otherwise diverse), reception in UK, reception in the US. --Lukati (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you removed text which was in fact sourced (the inline citation was at the end of a paragraph, as is standard practice). This means that you didn't actually bother checking the source before removing text, which is not the way to edit. Also, right now the lede/text makes it seem like the only controversy/criticism of the series is its portrayal of the Home Army but this isn't true - there were other criticisms as well.

On that note, I also see no reason to segregate the criticisms in Poland from the criticisms in Germany, from the criticisms in New York Times etc. Why?

Finally, there's no rule which says "one line of text per review". More substantial reviews should understandably get more text. If you feel that some review is not getting its due, please expand. But don't remove content of substance just so.

I'm reverting your changes. But I'll look for that grammatically incorrect sentence and try to fix it. Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't necessarily use the term segregation, but it might make sense to structur criticism by national/regional/cultural aspects, if the overall review/perception significantly differs in those countries or regions. The apparently rather strong Polish reception seems to differ from the mixed German or English one indeed. I might also be useful to keep in mind that "national psyches" might influence the reception and that aspect can get lost if the review is not structured accordingly.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

--Removed--NordhornerII (talk)I am not a number! I am a Nordhorner. 21:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@NordhornerII:: You ought to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines; after that, you might want to remove the above contribution. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Criticism in USA

This article gives more information about critcism in USA [1]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Restructuring of 'Reception' Section

In line with suggestions made above, I propose a restucturing of the 'Reception' section, with headings:

     6.1  Reception in Germany
     6.2  Reception in Poland
     6.3  Reception in the UK and USA

The proposed text follows, below. The material in 6.1 'Reception in Germany' is new, taken from the corresponding section in German Wikipedia (de wikipedia), summarized from the more detailed citations by German commentators. Section 6.2 'Reception in Poland' gives more accurate summaries of the Polish citations, based on the original Polish texts. Section 6.3 collects UK and US reviews in the existng 'Reception' section.

The detailed 'References' are not given in the text below, but indicated as 'REF' to be inserted in the article.

Please post any suggestions or comments below the proposed text. After review of suggestions, I plan to insert this text into the article in about 2 days.

Proposed text follows:

6.1 Reception in Germany

PRAISE: The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote that the film would give the remaining survivors of the World War II generation an opportunity to discuss it with their families. The film had introduced a new phase in historical films on the Nazi era.(REF)(REF)

Several German television magazines praised the film for successfully engaging the attention of viewers.(REFS 2)

The historian Norbert Frei praised the film for showing, for the first time on German television, an unvarnished portrait of Germany’s war against the Soviet Union, including the participation of the Wehrmacht in murdering Jews, the shooting of hostages as reprisals against ‘partisan’ resistance, and the looting of homes vacated by Jews. He wrote that the film did not present idealised one-dimensional figures, but people of broken character who become aware of their shared guilt. (REF)

CRITICISM: Several German historians criticised the film. The historian Ulrich Herbert wrote that the film showed Nazis as ‘0thers,’ different from ‘Our Mothers and Fathers.’ It showed all Germans as victims. The film showed nothing of the love and trust that Hitler inspired in German youth, or of the widespread belief that Germany deserved to rule Europe. In reality, he wrote, these ‘mothers and fathers’ were a highly ideological and politicised generation, who wanted Nazi Germany to win victory, because that would be right. (REF)

The historian Habbo Knoch said that the film failed to show how the Nazi system functioned. The film showed 20-year old characters who became victims of war, but missing were the 30 to 40-year old Germans who built the Nazi system and supported it out of a mixture of conviction and self-interest. The film should have shown those who profited from the Nazi system. (REF)

The Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger called the film kitschy, devoid of deeper meaning, and morally worst, full of pathetic self-pity. The film’s message was “We perpetrators (of war crimes) didn’t have an easy time.” (REF)

The critic of the German Jewish weekly Jüdische Allgemeine Zeitung made a biting comment that the film provided an epiphany for those who had always known that not only Jews were Hitler’s victims, but more important - that all Germans were Hitler’s victims. (REF)

6.2 Reception in Poland

Many Polish viewers were outraged at the depiction of Poles as the greatest anti-semites shown in the film. Tygodnik Powszechny described the film as “falsification of history” (fałszerowanie historyczne) in depicting all Poles as fanatical anti-semites, even more so than the Germans who are shown as “basically good people” misled by the Nazis. (REF< Tygodnik Powszechny) Critics stated that the screenwriters sought to slander the Polish anti-Nazi resistance underground army Armia Krajowa which is shown in the film as rabidly anti-semitic. (REF)(REF)(REF) The Polish ambassador in Austria, Jerzy Marganski, and the Polish embassy in Germany sent a letter of complaint to the German broadcaster ZDF pointing out that the Armia Krajowa had Jewish members, and that Poles constituted nearly one-quarter of the Righteous Among Nations honored at Yad Vashem. The broadcaster issued a statement that it was regrettable that the role of Polish characters had been interpreted as unfair and hurtful: "The deeds and responsibility of the Germans should in no way be relativized."(REF)(REF)(REF)

Poland’s largest daily Gazeta Wyborcza published a review under the title“Who can explain to the Germans that the Armia Krajowa was not the SS?” (REF) The critic said the movie was the newest of a genre of German poor-quality historical films seeking sympathy for Nazi Germany. Their recipe, he wrote, “tastes like a western movie, but in the background waves a flag with a swastika.”

The Polish ambassador to the USA, Ryszard Schnepf, sent a written complaint to Music Box, who had bought the US rights to the series.(REF) He was supported by the director of the Polish Institute of National Remembrance, Łukasz Kamiński, who feared that in America, where people are unfamiliar with European history, the film may convince people that Armia Krajowa members were all anti-semites.(REF)

Plans to broadcast the series in the UK led to a demonstration by Polish activists in London.(REF)

6.3 Reception in the UK and USA

The Economist suggested that the TV series provided excuses justifying German popular participation in the war.(REF)

The Daily Telegraph wrote that Generation War explored "the seductive aspect of Nazism".(REF)

The Irish Times stated the series was designed to make its spectators more sensitive to the complexity of Germany's darkest era. (REF) 'The Hollywood Reporter compared the series to Band of Brothers.(REF)

According to NPR, the series depicts how totalitarianism corrupts almost everything in its path, including individual responsibility.(REF) The American Institute for Contemporary German Studies at the Johns Hopkins University explained that the series tried to show how Germans were lured into Hitler's war and judged it would "not filter the Nazi atrocities".(REF).

The New York Times stated that by steering clear of showing the Nazi death camps, the series perpetuated the notion that ordinary Germans were duped by the Nazis and ignorant of the extent of their crimes. It described the portrayal of the German protagonists as "chaste, self-sacrificing Aryans" who are the heroes of the story, just as they would have been in a German film made in 1943. (REF)

The New Yorker wrote that the movie acknowledged what scholars have established in recent years, that the German regular army (the Wehrmacht) played a major role in committing atrocities in the occupied countries, and that responsibility for atrocities was not confined to the SS and the Gestapo. But while destroying one myth, the filmmakers had built up another – that young German men and women were seduced by the Nazis, and then savagely betrayed. In this mythical account, their complicity with the Nazi regime was forced, never chosen. “”Generation War” is an appeal for forgiveness. But the movie sells dubious innocence in the hope of eliciting reconciliation.” (REF)

(End of proposed text)Prospero10 (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits by Maxim Musson, Written for neo-Nazi Website, Violate Wikipedia Policy - they Should be Blocked

The repeated edits by Maxim Musson, where he has repeatedly inserted a review WRITTEN BY HIMSELF for his neo-Nazi website into the text of the Wikipedia page Generation War, violate basic Wikipedia policy WP:SPS which prohibits self-publishing. The review expresses HIS PERSONAL OPINION.

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A BULLETIN BOARD FOR POSTING PERSONAL OPINIONS.

The issue is not that he is expressing a neo-Nazi viewpoint, which is what his 'Western Spring' website represents. The issue is that Wikipedia pages ARE NOT A PLACE FOR POSTING PERSONAL OPINIONS.

I believe that Maxim Musson should be blocked. Prospero10 (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Israeli Review by Uri Avnery

The Edit by 84.191.175.193 dated 2 March 2014 provides no verifiable basis for the statement that, "Avnery himself...... has given more thought to the underlying questions of the film than have all other reviewers combined." Lacking verifiable justification, this statement is an opinion, which has no place in a Wikipedia article. Therefore I have edited out this statement.

If the editor can justify this statement, please present a justification on this Talk page.

The word 'plausible' describing Avner's theory also expresses an opinion.

In addition, the paragraph gives no Reference for the Avnery review. A Reference would be desirable.

Is Avnery's a 'significant' review? I don't know. One could check whether major newspapers such as Haaretz have commented on Generation War.Prospero10 (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added a summary of a review by Uri Klein of HAARETZ. OrodesIII (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring by YvelinesFrance, who has repeatedly removed half of the Lead Section.

The Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Lead section says:

"The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

The repeated Edits by YvelinesFrance restrict the Lead Section to a first paragraph summariziing only Sections 1 -4 of the article, including 'Plot,' 'Main Characters, 'Cast,' 'Production,' He eliminates the second Lead Section paragraph covering Sections 5 and 6 which cover the controversies which the film has aroused - detailed in Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4, 'Reception in Germany,' 'Reception in Poland.' 'Comments in the UK and US,' 'Israeli review.'

These edits by YvelinesFrance violate the clear language of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, requiring that the Lead Section should give a summary of the "most important aspects" of the article, "including any prominent controversies."

Clearly the edits by YvelinesFrance violate this rule.

Therefore his last edit has been reverted.

If YvelinesFrance wishes to discuss this topic, he should do so on this Talk page.Prospero10 (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Reception in Russia?

It is extremely curious that there are sections about reception in Germany, Poland etc. but there is no section about reception in Russia and other post-Soviet states, although almost the whole action (the whole war showed in the movie) takes place in Russia! Dmitri Klimushkin (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Er... no, it takes place in the Soviet Union, at least part of it being Ukraine. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, post-Soviet states: partly in modern Ukraine, partly in Russia. In the second eposode, almost all action is in Russia (Kursk battle). Anyway, it is surprising that reception in Russia, Ukraine etc is not reflected in the article. Dmitri Klimushkin (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Were any interesting reviews/comments/reactions on 'Generation War' published in Russia or Ukraine? If so, translations in English would be welcome.Prospero10 (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Part of the action takes place in Russia, eg. in Smolensk, where a Ukrainian policeman catches Jews in August 1941. The authors don't understand the geography of the Ost. Xx236 (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Allusion to Slaughterhouse-Five?

Episode two shows after about 50 1/2 minutes a close-up of a German firing his general-purpose machine gun.

However, during that shot the film is clearly running backwards with the empty belt moving _into_ the weapon.

Could this be an allusion to Slaughterhouse-Five? Lklundin (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Generation War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140302073516/http://www.canvas.be:80/programmas/unsere-muetter-unsere-vaeter/dbc5a533-7223-4de8-979a-ab040c2be95d to http://www.canvas.be/programmas/unsere-muetter-unsere-vaeter/dbc5a533-7223-4de8-979a-ab040c2be95d

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Jan Iluk's tekst

It's the only academic text refrenced in the article.

The text summarises both Polish and German opinions, probably better than the two sections do.Xx236 (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Bogdan Musiał about the series

http://wpolityce.pl/polityka/154910-w-tygodniku-sieci-prof-musial-ujawnia-kulisy-konsultacji-wokol-skandalicznego-niemieckiego-serialu-nasi-ojcowie-i-matki Xx236 (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

True story?

Is the film based on true events and biography? Because in the end of the third episode there is a year of birth and death of the 5 main characters (except Wilhelm), so it made me think that the characters based on real persons. Does anyone knows? It doesn't mention in the article. Sokuya (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not. There are no sources for that nor does the writer claim the events are true. You can think of it as just another nazi apologia film. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC); edited CPCEnjoyer (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Sokuya. I was wondering too. JKeck (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing. John Link (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Charlys Rape

She isn't nearly raped. She is briefly raped. It didn't last long but there were a handful of penetrations/thrusts. Before the rapist is stopped by another Soviet which is a wishful fantasy compared to what took place historically. 2601:40:CA00:DF:9C2C:8925:6504:68E8 (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)