Generation War: Fact and Fiction

Good evening and welcome to our discussion on the highly acclaimed,

highly controversial drama Generation War: Our Mothers, Our

Fathers. Is it a German Generation War: Our Mothers, Our

to open up a new debate Generation War: Our Mothers, Our

country's attitude towards the Nazis? Or is it five hours of

self-pity, as one review has it, portraying its German characters too

sympathetically, whilst demonising portraying its German characters too

others? Joining me in the studio tonight to debate the fact and

series, Benjamin Benedict... David Cesarani,

series, Benjamin Benedict... David advised the government on Holocaust

education. Eva Hoffman, Polish story and at the University of Central

London, and Sir Richard Evans, Regius Professor of history at

Wolfson College. Generation War is a story following the lives of five

young Germans from the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 to the end

of the war in 1945. Sir Richard, the opening scene is

set in 1941. How realistic do you think the friendship is? I don't

think it is realistic at all. In 1941, these are kids about 20, 21.

They would have grown up in the Nazi period, reached adolescence in the

Nazi period and they would have been members of the Hitler Youth, they

would have gone through the educational system, been bombarded

with propaganda from Goebbels' Nazi propaganda machine, so they would

have been much more heavily indoctrinated, they would not have

been friends with a Jew, virtually impossible by 1941. These are kids

who are taken from today's Germany and catapulted back in time to 1941.

Virtually impossible in 1941? I would have to disagree on that

point. I would have to point out that in starting the development of

the series what we first did was a lot of research, and we talked to a

lot of people from that generation, born in the years 23, 24, and we had

a lot of personal accounts so we had some very diverse fact that. I agree

that they were highly influenced at the time and it did not happen very

often, but there were accounts of friendship between Jewish and German

childhood friends at the time. If they were friends in childhood it

might have survived the Nazi propaganda? It might have survived

the propaganda, but by June 1941, Jews in Germany were practically

invisible. Most of them were forced to live in so-called choo houses and

the men between the ages of about 16 and 65 were doing forced labour

already. The idea that beyond Jew could go riding around Berlin on a

bicycle, jump off and say shalom to his friends is frankly preposterous.

I have to repeat myself a little bit, because to come to a very basic

point here, is it totally impossible but these events might happen, or is

it implausible or improbable? There is a distinction to draw. We are

dwelling on the fact that they were growing up together and they were

close childhood friends and there are numerous accounts were the

friendship survived the system even for buried and people, there were

accounts of people hiding Jews in Berlin. We were of course referring

to these accounts that were documented several times. Eva, we do

CDs for characters, they are not straightforward, they each commit

war crimes of a kind, Charly betrays a Jewish woman, they each have their

moments of crisis. Indeed, but I would like to say that this is

implausible to the point, it seems to me, of being ahistorical. I

imagine some friendships did survive but for me it is the process of

indoctrination and ideology, I don't see how the innocence would have

been maintained in 1941 and how division of innocence can be

maintained today. The opening scene, it might have been a scene of

young people going off to college, charming, carefree, hopeful. As

producer, I suppose you had to have them like that, they could not be

Nazi from the outset? That is a complex question, in a way. I have

to come to a point -- to the point for that they were as innocent.

There was no innocence, he is saying that in the first statement, the war

will bring out the worst in us, they commit the most horrible crimes,

they kill other people. A failure to understand how this is not portrayed

as something... But the point is they are innocent at the beginning

and then corrupted. It is only after they have been corrupted in many

different ways, and the programme does that brilliantly, but the

problem is they are shown as innocent at the beginning, and that

makes them into victims. A German series that shows young Germans as

victims of the Nazi system, innocent at the beginning and corrupted at

the end. Quite early on, Charly is pretty unsympathetic, she spouts

knotty propaganda, says she is there to represent German order -- spouts

Nazi propaganda. She betrays a Jewish woman who is later sent to

her death. I think that it was possible in Nazi Germany, and we can

see this from letters and diaries from the time, and memoirs, to

believe in the People's community, to throw yourself into it with the

kind of idealism that Charly demonstrates very well. Some of the

soldiers we later see on the Eastern front, we hear them articulating

that sense of doing something wonderful for German people,

conquering land to live in. And yet at the same time feeling warmth

towards a particular Jew, not to see him as the enemy, as the Jews, and

abstract in the propaganda, that is plausible. But I think what the

later scenes bring out is a peculiar positive aspect of National

Socialism. It could mobilise the idealism, the passions of young

people, gave them a pigeon of a Germany in which all people were

equal, treated on their merit -- gave them a vision. The one problem

I have got with that way of singing this group is that Wilhelm has

already served in the German army in Poland. That was not a picnic. The

German army in Poland committed atrocities. More recent research has

shown that from the first moment the German troops crossed the border on

the 1st of September 1939 they were shooting civilians, targeting Jews

specifically. That is the area I want to come onto now because we

have different views about the accuracy and the context of the way

the Germans were portrayed, but what about the weight of the way the

Germans were portrayed, but what about the been protests outside the

BBC about this. A court case in Poland, damning reviews in the

United States. In particular, criticism about the way the Polish

resistance, the AK, is shown. Here is the Polish ambassador

resistance, the AK, is shown. Here Let's look at this film as a film.

It is a fantastic German soap opera. Let's look at this film as a film.

clean, and somehow shown against some filthy partisans from Poland

who are anti-Semites. In general, shown against an American wielding

his cigar and employing a Gestapo officer, Russians who either shoot

someone or molest women, etc. It is a moral equivalence between the

victims and the traitors. When you are a viewer, you like attractive,

beautiful Germans and beautiful are a viewer, you like attractive,

girls and disliked those are a viewer, you like attractive,

partisans from the forests. I'm afraid that a lot of young people

will and will watch this film and not necessarily,

Russia, Other Places, maybe Latin America or Asia, this will be the

Viktor of the Second World America or Asia, this will be the

they can just see Jewish prisoners. This is completely absurd.

In Poland, you had a lot of people who lost their lives. Do you think

they could just open the doors and close the doors? It is completely

absurd and unbelievable. We cannot agree with this kind of stereotypes

and presenting a history which is false. This is not an objective

presentation of history. You hear the criticism, not an objective

representation of history and particular objection to the scene in

the train with the AK, the Polish resistance, did not allow the Jews

the train with the AK, the Polish of the train. There are a variety of

remarks which were made in that statement. I would like to dwell

one thing, the German being portrayed was nice. Once again, I

have two object portrayed was nice. Once again, I

the scene where the main character shoots a Russian officer in the back

of his head. Forgive me, but I cannot agree that they arbitrate in

a positive way. I really cannot agree with that. In the third

episode he shoots a five-year-old child. I fail to understand how this

is a perception of niceness. Somebody might have to explain that

to me. The other thing is there is an SS officer that shoots a Jewish

girl within 30 minutes of the first episode, a clear sign of these

atrocities. They are wholly depicted at that time, and I would have to

point that out. On this particular point, the episode with the train,

this is what has caused particular offence... I will come to that, of

course. Talking in general about four minutes in five hours with the

question of elements of anti-Semitism within the home Army

and I understand, and we have to realise, of course, that we offended

people and did not want to do that, so we already apologised to that

fact. There was no tendency behind it to say be wanted to betray the

niceness of the Germans and the other parties in a different way,

that is something I would have to point out. And also the question of

anti-Semitism within the Army is well documented. But we did not want

to make a portrayal of the home Army, per se. But this has caused a

huge amount of upset, particularly in Poland. Yes. In the Polish

episodes, this is the only time when we see characters who are not

completely marginal or minor aches wrestling very alert personal

anti-Semitism, anti-Semitic conviction. -- expressing personal

anti-Semitism. And of course, this will be taken as a portrayal of the

whole army. And it is a very partial truth about the home Army. Yes,

there were anti-Semitic factions, the home Army on the whole was not

systematically ideological the anti-Semitic. Yet this is what

people would perhaps get of the AK as a whole. Once again, we are

talking about a moment within hours of the series. It is clearly

anti-Semitic. But I can't agree on the point you are making. I

understand the danger, the perception, that it is perceived

that it is a general statement about the whole resistance Army, but for

us, the central element is that our major character, Viktor, only

survives due to the actions of the home Army. It is not the Germans who

save him, it is the Polish army. In the end, the actions which are per

-- portrayed, he is the one who is surviving. We want to show the value

of the home Army. And what is it possible to say about the elements

of anti-Semitism? I think that the historical consensus now is that

Polish society was riven and under incredible rusher. It was flooded

with Nazi propaganda, and Poland was a very diverse society. And for Jews

who were trying to survive in the forest, it was difficult to tell the

home Army from the colonists underground from partisans from

Ukraine or Belarus. I think that we have now got a much more nuanced

understanding of Polish society, and as Eva was saying, the home Army did

contain anti-Semitic elements, but also elements that tried to stamp

out the betrayal of the Jews. And the other side of the story, those

who try to help the Jews, is not detected here, and instead you get

the violent side. Something like 20,000 Jews survived in Warsaw and

they protection of polls. But remember that Viktor survives

because he is thrown out the Home Army unit because they say he can't

guarantee his safety because they never use Edu. It wouldn't have

taken much to have one or two minutes whether members of the

partisan group argue with each other, where you have somebody who

stands up for the anti-Semites and says, you are wrong. So I do think

it is unfair, partial the fiction of the Home Army. Many were not

anti-Semitic, and I can understand quite why Polish people are

offended. And you talk from your own family experience of Jewish people

in Poland. My parents' story, they grew up in a small town in Ukraine

which was one third Ukrainian, one third Polish, one third Jewish,

before the war. They were hidden by Polish and mainly Ukrainian

neighbours, entire families were exterminated. So in a sense, this

gave me a point of entry into understanding the internal

complexities of the Polish situation during the war. And the range of

behaviour, and the range of Polish attitudes towards Jews during the

war. So yes. I totally would agree with everything you are saying. I

produced a movie showing about a Polish partisan who hid a man. But I

wanted to point out what our perception was and why it is

important that he was helped by Polish people as well, even if it is

shown in the ways of storytelling. Interesting that you mentioned

storytelling, because this is what I want to move on to now. We have

discussed the accuracy of the series, but it is a drama, after

all. How much should writers be tied to historical fact when creating

fiction? Generation War is the latest in several films which have

been set during the war. We spoke to two writers who have struggled with

the dilemmas of balancing history and drama. I think you can do

anything you want was a writer. You don't have any responsibility to

inform or educate people. My job is to entertain people. But if you

twist history and tell lies, if you use propaganda or distort, you are

letting down the viewer. What do you mean by historical accuracy? Whose

historical accuracy are we recording? You can look at one set

of viewpoints, and then you read personal testimonies and private

diaries, and they tell you something with a different spin. Dramatists

don't work by rules, and that also applies to German dramatists,

particularly now, 70 or 80 years later. They have the right to

approach the war and write about the war in the way that they want to.

The producers and writers and the cast and crew of Generation War have

created what to my mind was an incredible drama about five very

young people caught up in the Second World War. If they had tried to give

a complete picture of everybody's experience of the war, you would

have ended up with nothing. You are telling the complete of their lives

in the war. Your Tyler McGregor the picture of something that is deeply

personal -- you are telling the picture of some deeply personal. As

a dramatist, you ask what that situation does to them.

An interesting point. This isn't a historical document. It isn't, but

the producers have stressed how much research they did I talked about how

accurate and authentic it is. And as soon as critics point out something

that isn't authentic, they say, it is just a drama. This is not a

lecture. I think this series is let down in some ways by playing fast

and loose with the past. In many respects, it is extremely accurate.

It does capture the mood of the time, and is astonishingly

representative of German points of view. I have to point out that I

didn't mention once the question of poetic licence in this discussion.

It is not my line of argument. But of course there is the broad subject

of how you have to think about a drama which of course depicts a

special period in history which has a reference to historical knowledge,

and that is the situation we have. We wanted to accept this reference

and the demands that come with it. We also wanted to tell a story, so

we chose not to do a documentary or a historical account, which I think

you're history of the Second World War alone has 800 pages. It is

complex. There are hundreds of books. But as a television viewer

rather than just a historian, what did you make of it? We wouldn't be

here discussing it if it wasn't great television. If it didn't carry

you through and make you sympathise with these characters and share

their fate. It is terrific stuff. If it was a rubbish programme, we

wouldn't be bothering. But having said that, what strikes me about

historical drama is that there is an awful lot of it, and it gets people

into the past, so that is great for historians. TV drama is fantastic

when it comes to portraying the background. Every car you see is

going to be of the right date, every tank of the right model, every

uniformed an upright. But when it comes to portraying people, it is a

different matter, because you can't portray the people of the past, even

the relatively recent past accurately. It is another country,

the past is another country, they do things differently there. Seeing

can't have Henry VIII in a drama spouting Tudor English, to start

with. We wouldn't understand him. You wouldn't understand them if they

thought like the people in those days. And viewers might not grasp

that fact. It does have a curacy Molder

message, which is that underneath the skin, the uniform, we are all

the same -- a very culturally modern message. We see them at the

beginning with the implicit message that they are going forward into a

new world. It is remarkable just how many times in the series the

characters literally change uniforms or change sides. Everything becomes

blurred. With a Polish good or bad, the Germans good or bad? The Jews

are always good, they have to be. They can't be bad, certainly in a

German production. But there is a curiously German multicultural

message that if we can overcome petty hatred and blinkers, we will

understand that underneath the skin, we are all the same.

21st-century glasses? I totally have to disagree. At the end, these three

characters I nearly as destroyed as the people who have died. If you

look at their faces, you can see that they are devastated by what

happened, and not at all in the message that we are all the same and

everything is going to be OK. They were influenced by what they are

experiencing is very young people, and these people became our

grandparents, and they rebuild the country. The other thing is, I

disagree as well with what you were saying about the characterisation.

We had so many reactions coming from our audience, and so many people

said, this is my story, my father's story or my mother's story. Will

ease the stories they wanted to believe? I'm simply pointing out

that we had these reactions. If you remember it, 70 years later, that

was your experience. Richard mentioned Henry VIII, but is there

something particular about this period of history that has its own

with an ability when people start to create historical novels dramas? It

is a particularly horrific history, and it is still very charged with

very intense passions and feelings. It is a history which has caused and

hold suffering and is still very close to us, so yes, I suppose there

is a special responsibility to portray accurately. I would like to

just echo Richard in saying that it is a very powerful drama, and I

think the depictions of the war are extremely powerful, and the sense of

the meaninglessness of war. A terrific director, we have. So I do

think that is terrific. I do think that there is a responsibility, and

let me back up a little bit. This is a drama which gains its significance

and import from the history, so there is a responsibility to depict

the history with some accuracy, some balance. So why was the drama

produced? So what does Generation war tell us about the way Germany is

now confronting its past? The journalist and broadcaster Anne

McElvoy has written extensively about the country's history. How

does she think modern Germans now regard the brutality of the war?

I think because the Holocaust has been quite rightly and

understandably centrestage in terms of never being able to be out done

on atrocities it has had the unfortunate effect of making people

perhaps less curious, less aware of things that happened in Poland,

Ukraine, in Belarus, because those countries were under the blanket of

coming as for so long until 1989, other reasons, things were hidden or

turned to the advantage of the coming this regime. It is like going

down into the cellar of history and finding out there is another one

below that that you have never been allowed to go to. Since 1989 there

have been a lot of Germans growing up without, great, job done,

unification, they won't keep coming after us with the question, how

guilty do you feel about the Second World War? If it is a bit like Dan

Tanabe, it is a way of getting people in front of the TV to ask the

question, who do you identify with, and what would you have done? And,

to my mind, that is not a bad thing. I do think it was the right time for

this series to be made because it is the last time in which you will have

living German witnesses who took part in the war, the third Reich.

The television, the television drama, it is much better to have

that sense of connection, even if there are relatively few people

around to still talk about it, it does open up a conversation on a

different level. Sir Richard, an enormous question

for you, how have attitudes in Germany towards the war changed over

time Gus Macrae there was a kind of collective amnesiac after the war,

they wanted to get back to rebuilding the country, having the

economic miracle. From the 70s, there were the beginnings of a

confrontation with the Nazi past. Since 1989, the fall of the Berlin

Wall, the reunification of Germany, the Holocaust has moved very much

centrestage for Germany's self-consciousness. If you ask what

makes Germans German, one of the things is a feeling of historical

responsibility. But it has been tempered since 1990 with a feeling

of victimhood. 11 million Germans were brutally expelled from Eastern

Europe at the end of the war from many Eastern European countries.

They were subject to mass bombing during the war, there is a lot of

resentment. There has been a lot of television and popular works about

that kind of victimhood and I think one of the important things about

the series is it begins to move beyond that, so you showed the young

Germans become perpetrators and that, I think, is something new,

shoving the chairman Army is participating in atrocities on the

Eastern front, something you could not have done 20 years ago. It was

always the SS, not the Wehrmacht, wasn't it? In the 1990s there was an

exhibition about this which caused riots in the streets of Munich

because it betrayed the Army as guilty. You called the series Our

Mothers, Our Fathers because you wanted this to be about people who

were still alive? As I mentioned already, it is the last moment to

have a dialogue between the generations now, because the people

we offer training are at the end of their lives. It needs three

generations to really cover the generation who experienced it, the

one coming after, and the third-generation taking a new view

on it, which is what happened here. The other things are the means of

modern storytelling, quality TV where you really deal with the

characters, so we choose characters who did horrible things but we

wanted to portray them, and wanted to show that these are the oil who

actually built the country and who made everything we are living in

now, in a way, and so it became very personal for everybody, because

everybody in the audience in Germany was referring to their personal

history will stop we started a debate, a new level of awareness. It

is another example of a kind of overcompensation. Juggling the 1950s

and 60s, Germans are particularly West Germany, could not stop talking

about the war. Their were commemorations in towns and cities

that were bombed, there were struggles to get war criminals out

of prison. The Germans had a specific view of the war, able in

which they ended up as victims of a criminal regime, the victims of

Hitler. In the debates that go on about the war in Germany during that

period, the Jews are completely absent. They only come into German

narratives of the war in the 1980s and 1990s, and only become more

prominent. In this series, you have a Jewish character central to a

group of German friends, and it is a peculiar distortion. For most

Germans living through the third Reich, you simply would not have

known they were there. To revisit that period and the consciousness

and memories of Germans who survived the war through the 50s, 60s and

70s, imagining that Jews would be central to their experiences and

their memories is, again, a very subtle but important distortion. You

have to remember they are less than 1% of the population in 1933 and

half of them have gone by the time the series begins. Watched team-mate

of Polish attitudes towards the war, either? Has there been a

similar process of self examination? There has been since

1989. The process was much delayed because of censorship Germans are

called for, so that none of the subjects could be discussed openly

and in a way that allowed for a kind of fixation for a coveted of certain

distortions of history. But, since 1989, there has been a very thorough

and sometimes very painful debate about all aspects of the Polish

participation in the war, including cases of complicity of aggression

towards Jews, as anti-Semitism. So there has been for recognition. In

Poland in particular, once again it is an infernally complicated

problem, the Polish - Jewish dialogue has been very complicated.

As complicated as the German - Jewish dialogue came at some point.

It was clear who the victims were... The question of the Germans

being portrayed as victims once again, it is totally clear to me,

and did my perception we don't show them as victims, we show what it

makes for people to become perpetrators and commit these crimes

and how it influenced a generation. I think we could spark of several

more hours of debate as to what you said, but sadly we have run out of

time. I would like to thank all of my panel, Professor A bit says

wryly, Benjamin Benedict, Eva Hoffman and Sir Richard Evans. If

you missed the last part of Generation War and want to see what

the debate is about, it will be on I play for another week. Good night.

-- it will be on the eye player.