As I see it these two men were not heroes, they murdered a little boy and lots of innocent people, I see them more as partisans or terrorists. Does anyone here think they are heroes, if so I wonder: why? What makes them heroes?
shareAs they stood for resistance against Nazi occupation. You must have realised that they were taken advantage of and used. They were very symbolic of resistance, even though they made many mistakes. The little boy, as you know, what a huge mistake, they thought the car was Hoffman's, and they definitely would have been praised for killing him.
shareHero is a strange word...it has come to mean, that someone is almost otherworldly good. That, however, is not how humans are. Hell, even Mother Teresa had penty of detractors.
But to me, they were heroes. They were fighting for my country´s freedom even though they knew, that this would probably, cost them their lives. And to fight a force like the nazis, with their Gestapo and their SS and Danish supporters, you HAD to get mean and dirty.
I agree. Thank goodness tbeir are people like these two men.
Children are often casualties of war. Sad but true.
The innocent people they killed were accidents, they were going on false intelligence that these people were informing. People aren't forced to inform, they make the choice to inform. The Gestapo would have been nothing without the information they got from their network of informants. I believe they are heroes, they wanted to kill the right people for the right reasons and not just let people live because it suited them. So they are heroes to me even though i'm not danish, im scottish.
shareWell, you know the old saying -- whether a person is a freedom fighter or a terrorist rather depends on which side you are on.
In WWII, the Germans called ALL the resistance movements "terrorists."
One reason I liked this movie is that the film-makers did NOT present them as heroes -- or if they were heroes, they were flawed heroes, with the usual combination of virtues and faults.
But if not pristine heroes, they were men of courage and principle.
What is your alternative in a situation such as Denmark in the 1940s? You could stand by and do nothing, flee abroad, or stay and fight undercover. If you choose to stay and go under cover, you can hardly fight in the standard way, in uniforms and respecting the so-called rules of engagement.
They were heroic because they tried to do something and make a stand. They also fought back the only way they knew how. What this films shows is that in a situation like this it's difficult to know who to trust.
shareThe germans did not really use the world terrorist.
shareI agree. I don't think they were heroes. Some people believe that someone who fought Nazis is necessarily a hero. Like someone said partisans aren't exactly heroes. Are soviet heroes too because they fought the Nazis? What about the time after ww2 when they occupied eastern Europe? I would highly doubt they'd be killed heroes.
I mean to call someone a hero you need to define what hero means. We can't simply called someone a hero a hero if they call for their country because then Nazi would be all heroes, and soviets would be heroes, etc etc.
If anyone has any ideas as to what hero is, please let us know. I tend to call someone a hero if they sacrifice life or great to harm to have saved their friends or others, irregardless of affiliation.
I don't understand why you compare the Danish Resistance to the Soviets. The motives are completely different. At the end of your post, you define "hero" as you see it. I feel like in addition to "save their friends or others" you must say "save their country." And that is why the Resistance did anything. This is not like the Soviets at all; Denmark was occupied. They did what they did to save their country. You even here some of them scream something like "Mother Country!" before they are executed.
shareTough question, and I'll try to give a little perspective from my POV.
My stepfather was a native Pole who was 16 when Germany invaded Poland in 1939. He escaped by walking across Europe to France where he found the Polish Gov't In Exile, and after France fell, they ended up in London. Since he was rather young, he had a choice to work in the motor pool or go to school. He chose school....and that turned out to be spy school.
As a 'Special Agent', part of his job along with gathering intel, was to help make contact between the Brit military in London and various partisan resistance groups in France. It is important to have control over the resistance groups because when acting on their own, there is great potential for them to interfere with legitimate military operations and intel gathering.
There were several instances where Dad had to kill partisans who were refusing to come under the operational control of the Allies.
I'm just in the middle of the film, but from this discussion it seems to me that Flame and Citron might have been somewhat loose cannons...
The thorn defends the rose, yet it is peaceful and does not seek conflict.
Many resistance members where Communists, and could definitely be described as partisans.
Personally I find Nazism preferable to Communism.
Both are equally horrific. Stalin/Hitler - where's the difference?
shareMr. Martel - let me get this straight: you find a fascist ideology that promotes the mass extermination of Jews, gypsies, blacks, homosexuals, the mentally and physically disabled, and just about any other group that doesn't fit the Aryan ideal preferable to an ideology that aims to create a classless society where wealth is divided amongst it's citizens? You've either been misinformed or you are just a sad excuse for a human being.
shareBefore I start, let me say that I am not defending Martel. But what Stalin did while in power can easily be viewed as being equally as horrific as what Hitler did. Some sources indicate that more Russians died (by his "policies") under Stalin's rule than from the entire Holocaust. Both are awful and I would hate to have to choose between them.
shareYeah but you forget communism was a global ideology, which required global domination to work. So in the long term supporting communism would have required killing probably a couple of billion people in contrast to nazism which would have been at most 100 million, taking in consideration the 20% population death toll by Stalin and 30% kymer rouge.
Also seeing as communism is stupid and has never worked in real life not once, means that after killing 1-2 billion people, you would have have a permanent police state.
Personally I find Nazism preferable to Communism.
This has to be one of the most inane threads on IMDB. Of course they are 'Heroes'.
They fought and gave their lives for their fellow countrymen and their country. Since when does this not qualify as 'Heroic' ? Never mind, don't bother answering.
Incredible... just freakin' incredible.
It is not surprising, coming from a guy who chose his nickname after this: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/X%C2%AA_Flottiglia_MAS_%28Repubblica_Soc iale_Italiana%29.
share