Rašyti komentarą...
Nuoroda nukopijuota
× Pranešti klaidą
ziurejau filma, puikiai supratau kodel uzdrausta ji rodyti rusijoje. gerbiamas Vytautas teisus, deja parodyta filme dokumentika per daug plika ir baisi, todel atmetimo reakcija labai stipri, ypac pas tuos nuostalgijos kamuojamos individus, kurie negali sugriauti savo iliuziju pasaulelio apie grazia ir sviesia praeiti...
Vikipedija cituoja kitą latvių, atsiprašant, intelektualą:
"Latvian political scientist and cultural commentator Ivars Ījabs offers a mixed review of The Soviet Story. On one hand, it is a well-made and "effective piece of cinematic propaganda in the good sense of this word", whose message is clearly presented to the audience. On the other hand, Ījabs does not agree with a number of historical interpretations in the film, asserting that it contains errors. For example, Ījabs states that, "In late 1930s Hitler did not yet plan a systematic genocide against the Jews", as it is suggested in the film; "Everybody knows that this decision was made in 1942 at the Wannsee Conference in Berlin." Furthermore, Ījabs comments on the notion in the film voiced by the British literary historian George Watson of Cambridge University that Karl Marx is "the ancestor of the modern political genocide"[18]. Ījabs says: "To present Karl Marx as the "progenitor of modern genocide is simply to lie". Ījabs admits, however, Marx using the term "racial trash" (Völkerabfälle) in relation to a number of small European nations."
"Latvian political scientist and cultural commentator Ivars Ījabs offers a mixed review of The Soviet Story. On one hand, it is a well-made and "effective piece of cinematic propaganda in the good sense of this word", whose message is clearly presented to the audience. On the other hand, Ījabs does not agree with a number of historical interpretations in the film, asserting that it contains errors. For example, Ījabs states that, "In late 1930s Hitler did not yet plan a systematic genocide against the Jews", as it is suggested in the film; "Everybody knows that this decision was made in 1942 at the Wannsee Conference in Berlin." Furthermore, Ījabs comments on the notion in the film voiced by the British literary historian George Watson of Cambridge University that Karl Marx is "the ancestor of the modern political genocide"[18]. Ījabs says: "To present Karl Marx as the "progenitor of modern genocide is simply to lie". Ījabs admits, however, Marx using the term "racial trash" (Völkerabfälle) in relation to a number of small European nations."
Pažiūrėjau internete, ką sako "pasipūtę intelektualai" apie Šnorės filmą.
Štai žurnalo "The Economist" skaitytojo (iš Rygos) komentaras:
"Just as The Economist got 1990s Russia wrong in depicting its neoliberal dystopian model as being "dizzy with success," so too does it err in depicting its history with this film review.
Sure, the Soviets and Nazis had a similar aesthetic that combined elements of futurism and socialist realism. Does this make them the same? Yes, and no: for the style was global and could be seen in the art produced by the New Deal in the US, or for that matter, in Latvia itself in the 1930s. In effect, it was a global style and not unique to the USSR and Nazis.
Second, the Hitler/Stalin accommodation is far more complex than portrayed here. The Soviets essentially thought they were clever in outflanking the West (Britain & France), who they held appeased Hitler because they thought he would merely invade East, thus sparing them. After the Soviets failed to get the Brits and France to cooperate in stopping Hitler in Czechoslovakia in 1938, they decided to cooperate with Hitler enough (lots of drinking toasts and raw material) long enough to dissuade him from invading the USSR before they were prepared to fight. In other words, they attempted to make themselves useful enough to prevent an imminent invasion. Of course, they grossly miscalculated in the assessment of this strategy's “success”....
Lastly, who cares if a few Nazis held Lenin's organizational genius as a model to emulate? So did many of the neoliberals that came to Russian in the 1990s from the US. Yes, many of them held Lenin to be the vanguardist model to follow. Or, for that matter, many Nazis, Goebbels, etc., held the American public relations specialist ("propagandist") Edward Bernays as the example to copy. Does this make the Americans and Nazis the same? Of coursed not. Were there global similarities in terms of opinion management strategies to copy? Sure.
This is simply bad history. It selectively presents a pastiche of images to create a reality that never was, while many of its individual facts, of course, are true. The analysis, however, is bereft of any understanding of the period and serves, in the tradition of the Nazis and Soviets, a largely political purpose…. Shame on the The Economist for promoting it.
From Riga...
The Historian1
Štai žurnalo "The Economist" skaitytojo (iš Rygos) komentaras:
"Just as The Economist got 1990s Russia wrong in depicting its neoliberal dystopian model as being "dizzy with success," so too does it err in depicting its history with this film review.
Sure, the Soviets and Nazis had a similar aesthetic that combined elements of futurism and socialist realism. Does this make them the same? Yes, and no: for the style was global and could be seen in the art produced by the New Deal in the US, or for that matter, in Latvia itself in the 1930s. In effect, it was a global style and not unique to the USSR and Nazis.
Second, the Hitler/Stalin accommodation is far more complex than portrayed here. The Soviets essentially thought they were clever in outflanking the West (Britain & France), who they held appeased Hitler because they thought he would merely invade East, thus sparing them. After the Soviets failed to get the Brits and France to cooperate in stopping Hitler in Czechoslovakia in 1938, they decided to cooperate with Hitler enough (lots of drinking toasts and raw material) long enough to dissuade him from invading the USSR before they were prepared to fight. In other words, they attempted to make themselves useful enough to prevent an imminent invasion. Of course, they grossly miscalculated in the assessment of this strategy's “success”....
Lastly, who cares if a few Nazis held Lenin's organizational genius as a model to emulate? So did many of the neoliberals that came to Russian in the 1990s from the US. Yes, many of them held Lenin to be the vanguardist model to follow. Or, for that matter, many Nazis, Goebbels, etc., held the American public relations specialist ("propagandist") Edward Bernays as the example to copy. Does this make the Americans and Nazis the same? Of coursed not. Were there global similarities in terms of opinion management strategies to copy? Sure.
This is simply bad history. It selectively presents a pastiche of images to create a reality that never was, while many of its individual facts, of course, are true. The analysis, however, is bereft of any understanding of the period and serves, in the tradition of the Nazis and Soviets, a largely political purpose…. Shame on the The Economist for promoting it.
From Riga...
The Historian1
Kubiliau, ar nematai, kad autorius nenori prileisti prie jusu naujojo darinio ne vieno naujo rinkejo: grieztai tik megztosios beretes. Visi kiti - zr. gera komentara zemiau (Piktziugiskos....).
Piktžiugiškos recenzento V.L. mintys, pa
"kol išsivalys gana gausių vargšų lietuviakalbių tarybinės smegenys"
"itin aktualus ir signalas pasipūtusiems intelektualams"
"po daugelio metų, kai vėl bus Lietuva"
- p. Landsbergis negaili Lenino raštų vertos pagiežos. (Nustebino, kad naudoja žodį "tarybinis", juk jo politinė partija reikalauja vartoti "sovietinis"?)
Lietuva yra dabar, Lietuva buvo tarybiniais laikais, XIX a., įvairiais sunkiais laikais. Lietuva turi tą privalumą, kad išliko įvairiais laikais. Lietuva išliko lietuvakalbių dėka, ir dauguma tų lietuvakalbių tikrai neatitiko Landsbergio ar Juknevičienės "tikrojo" lietuvio standartų.
Be to pagalvojau, kad Landsbergio "ateities Lietuvos" idealas veda tiesiai į "socialinę inžineriją", kuri yra kritikuojama Šnorės filme.
"itin aktualus ir signalas pasipūtusiems intelektualams"
"po daugelio metų, kai vėl bus Lietuva"
- p. Landsbergis negaili Lenino raštų vertos pagiežos. (Nustebino, kad naudoja žodį "tarybinis", juk jo politinė partija reikalauja vartoti "sovietinis"?)
Lietuva yra dabar, Lietuva buvo tarybiniais laikais, XIX a., įvairiais sunkiais laikais. Lietuva turi tą privalumą, kad išliko įvairiais laikais. Lietuva išliko lietuvakalbių dėka, ir dauguma tų lietuvakalbių tikrai neatitiko Landsbergio ar Juknevičienės "tikrojo" lietuvio standartų.
Be to pagalvojau, kad Landsbergio "ateities Lietuvos" idealas veda tiesiai į "socialinę inžineriją", kuri yra kritikuojama Šnorės filme.
O kas galėtų paneigti ,kad visi tie filmukai, tame tarpe ir šitas - tik šūdina propaganda ?Kiek nori tokių filmukų suka vieni ant kitų.
Gal ir žydų lietuviai nenaikino? Ir vieni kitų neskerdė,gyvų nedegino? Neišdavinėjo,neskundė?Kai blogio įsikūnijimas slypi mumyse-kalti rusai ir Rusija.Gal pirma patys tapkime civilizuota tauta,atsisakykime dvigubų standartų,elkimės padoriai -gal ir pasaulį kitaip imsime mątyti, o ne tik per
radikalų akis? Gal ir sutarti tada imsime ir tauta pagaliau tapsime.
Gal ir žydų lietuviai nenaikino? Ir vieni kitų neskerdė,gyvų nedegino? Neišdavinėjo,neskundė?Kai blogio įsikūnijimas slypi mumyse-kalti rusai ir Rusija.Gal pirma patys tapkime civilizuota tauta,atsisakykime dvigubų standartų,elkimės padoriai -gal ir pasaulį kitaip imsime mątyti, o ne tik per
radikalų akis? Gal ir sutarti tada imsime ir tauta pagaliau tapsime.
O varge, varge... Kas gi šiame tekste nesuprantamai parašyta?
Kam gruziją ginti,jei jie patys nesigina.Rusai išsitiesę ant tankų važinėja ir šaiposi,o gruzinai dejuoja.Savas bazes reikėjo ginti, o tankus turi klajojantys būriai naikinti bazukomis ir automatais.Reikjėjo čečėnų atsivežti, jei patys nepajėgia.Jie su tokiais ginklais ir pasaulio palikymu būtų iki Maskvos nuėję.
čia apie save, kai dėstė marksizmą-leninizmą?
"Sovietų istorija" gal tiksliau. Vakarų Europoje nebuvo įkurta TSRS respublika, todėl jie neturėjo progos išbandyti gulagų patogumus ir kitas socialistinio rojaus paslaugas. O dabar jie maitinasi iš gazpromo pinigų ir dirba daug aktyviau nei tie prieškariniai lietuviai komunistai.
Raudonas kaip šėtonas