History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VIII

[Lexicus]

Which is why I find the movie's alleged pro-fascist message to be too muddled and confused to make pro-fascist on a level beyond just about any other action-adventure movie (say, Jackson's Lord of the Rings adaptations).

The Spartans are also still the good guys when they do this. Leonides is portrayed as correct to exclude ephialtes even though the Spartans don't even fight in formation.

 

[Ajidica]

lmao, you really don't know anything about fascist cinema, do you?

Let's recap:
300 is a movie in which a homogenous Western warrior culture is assailed from outside by invaders from the East; a multicultural society comprised of black and brown people, markedly libertine in their sexuality, led by a king who is queer-coded. The Spartans are disciplined, loyal, brave, and devoted to their motherland, and defend it despite the failings of their sister cities who have fallen to depravity. Theirs is the superior culture, as they have held strong to their warrior traditions, and have not allowed weaker pursuits like farming to dilute their blood. They decide to go to war against the wishes of a conniving, deformed priestly class who are drawn in by the allures of Eastern coin and disdainful of the traditional soldierly code of honor of their home. Although the warriors fight bravely in the face of insurmountable odds, and prove themselves individually to be far and away the superior male specimens, they are eventually defeated because one of their own, a deformed degenerate, sells them out to the invaders and they are quickly overrun. Though defeated, the fatherland eventually wins the day, realizing their historical destiny.

tl;dr: the movie is about beautiful white male specimens defending their nation and beautiful, chaste white women from a horde of faceless, depraved brown invaders, and are undone from within by degenerate, disloyal, money-obsessed priests who destabilize the unity of the nation.

Also an obsession with the human form is, like, a mainstay of fascist film. Riefenstahl's oeuvre, and in particular her depiction of the '36 Olympics are tediously replete with ideal male specimens, their rippling muscles on full display as they effortlessly perform feats of supreme athleticism. I don't know if you know this, but fascism is kind of obsessed with the notion of the genetic superiority of the nation, and, as fascism is also typified by hypermasculinity, by the genetic superiority of their male population. They frequently use and have made use of the male body as a metaphor for the health and providence of the nation. The Aryans are destined to rule over all humanity, as clearly demonstrated by the objective beauty of their male exemplars, as contrasted with, say, Jews, who are always portrayed as grimy, ugly, and animalistic.

"Our heroes are good and strong and honorable while our enemies are devious and corrupt and probably into butt stuff" is way older fascism. The fragments we have of the Saga of Hrolf Kraki meets most of those checkboxes.
-The sin that proves the ruin of Hrolf Kraki was his father getting in on with a foreigners and an elf-demon.
-The half-elf daughter is a witch that corrupts the mind of one of Kraki's sub-kings with dreams of money and unmanly pleasures.
-Women are weak and one of Kraki's retainers (Vogg, I think), bites the notes off of his woman.
-The defenders of Leidra are proud and valiant, accepting of death alongside their lord, and only undone by insurmountable odds and the sorcery of the half-elf witch conjuring deformed monstrosities from shadow and night.
Were the norse poets creating fascist propoganda? How about the Battle of Maldon?

Then one stood on the shore, sternly calling out,
a Viking herald, conversing in many words,
he delivered in a vaunt the message of the brim-sailors
to that nobleman where he stood on the riverbank: (25-8)

“They have sent me to you, the hardy sea-men—
they bid you be informed that you must quickly send
rings in exchange for protection, and it would be better
for you to buy off with tribute this storm of spears,
otherwise we should deal in such a hard battle.
We needn’t destroy ourselves if you are sufficiently rich—
we wish to establish a safeguard in exchange for gold.
If you decide this, you who are most powerful here,
and you wish to ransom your people
and give to the sea-men, according to their own discretion,
money in exchange for peace, and take a truce at our hands,
we will go back to our ships with our payment,
and sail away, holding the peace with you.” (29-41)

Byrhtnoth spoke back, raising up his shield,
waving his slender spear, speaking in words,
angry and resolute, giving them answer: (42-4)

“Have you heard, sailor, what these people say?
They wish to give you spears as tribute,
the poisonous points and ancient swords,
this tackle of war that will do you no good in battle.
Herald of the brim-men, deliver this again,
say unto your people a more unpleasant report:
here stands with his troops a renowned earl
who wishes to defend this homeland,
the country of Æthelred, my own lord,
and his citizens and territory. The heathens
shall perish in battle. It seems a humiliation
to let you go to your ships with our treasures
unfought—now you have come thus far
into our country. You must not get our gold
so softly. Points and edges must reconcile us first,
a grim war-playing, before we give you any tribute.” (45-61)

tl;dr: We are brave and honorable who wish only to defend our lord and land, while you are devious and manipulative who try and trick us with words* because you are unmanly and love money.
*We needn't destroy ourselves if you are sufficiently rich - we to establish a safeguard in exchage for gold.... [give us] money in exchange for peace, and take a truce at our hands, we will go back to our ships with out payment, and sail away, holding the peace with you.

And I've certainly seen enough Soviet movies to know they absolutely loved the "honorable clean cut and manly heroes are brave and defiant, rejecting the bought platitudes of their priests and merchants, to stand against hordes of decadent foreigners.
I can't find the scene in Alexander Nevsky on youtube, but the wikipedia summary notes Nevsky rallies the people of Novgorod against the Germans in face of the opposition of the boyars and priests. (Plus the Germans are a faceless horde throwing babies into the fire, following the whims of tyrants and corrupt priests.)
In White Sun of the Desert Sukhov rejects the exotic oriental women, seeking to free them from the decadent and debauched oriental tyrant, while remaining faithful to his lovely white wife.
Similar tropes can be found in The Burning Miles.
In Ivan the Terrible Part 2, the use of color (film) and crossdressing is used to show the immorality, corruption, and decadence of the court; before returning to black and white while Ivan takes revenge on the money-grubbing boyars and women who poisoned his lovely (white) wife.

Or do you consider Alexander Nevsky to be a fascist movie?

The Spartans are also still the good guys when they do this. Leonides is portrayed as correct to exclude ephialtes even though the Spartans don't even fight in formation.

So, I'm not saying this to just win an online argument, but when I watched the movie (years ago), I did not get the impression that the movie was saying Leonidas was correct to do so. Rather, his pride blinded him and he made a decision that lead him to his doom.

 

[Lexicus]

So, I'm not saying this to just win an online argument, but when I watched the movie (years ago), I did not get the impression that the movie was saying Leonidas was correct to do so. Rather, his pride blinded him and he made a decision that lead him to his doom.

Ephialtes wanted some affirmative action. Leonides just explained that the place in the phalanx would go to the most objectively qualified person and also that facts don't care about your feelings

 

[r16]

nazis might be cosplaying Star Wars and stuff but yes , there are those of them knowledgeable enough to know it's anything but .

 

[Takhisis]

Yes, but he only betrayed the Spartans because he was rejected by them and humiliated.
Which is why I find the movie's alleged pro-fascist message to be too muddled and confused to make pro-fascist on a level beyond just about any other action-adventure movie (say, Jackson's Lord of the Rings adaptations).
Treating it as some alt-reich ur-text does far too much respect to a trashy B-movie that was swiftly forgotten.

Regarding Tolkien's stuff, he was explicitly against Aryan purity, even if the portrayal of every enemy in 300 as a monster from the east seems to be an overexaggerated + effeminate Orc.

In any case, as you yourself, which are you making such a mess about a trashy B-movie that was forgotten so swiftly that even the mediocre-at-best neverending Terminator sequels get airtime which it doesn't?

 

[Ajidica]

In any case, as you yourself, which are you making such a mess about a trashy B-movie that was forgotten so swiftly that even the mediocre-at-best neverending Terminator sequels get airtime which it doesn't?

Surely you of all people have been on the internet long enough to know the wonders of PC+1.

 

[Takhisis]

Surely you of all people have been on the internet long enough to know the wonders of PC+1.

Yes, but I am still asking.

 

[Hygro]

I was reminded of the iconic depiction of Xerxes in 300, and wondered -

While this depiction is outrageously unhistoric, can in be somewhat realistic from the point of view of the average Greek or the time?
Is it possible that this is how they viewed Persia?
As an empire of dark overpowered barbarians?

This was the brilliance of it, a movie to demonstrate feelings and perspective,

If 300 is anything, it is homoerotic not fashy. At least, not fashy on any level besides "our heroes are brave and honorable while our enemies are cowardly and devious", which is a trope that goes back to the very first story told by Ug the Caveman.
If you think 300 is a fashy movie, some support for it besides "I think it is" is probably necessary!
It is certainly nowhere near as fashy as, say, Attack on Titan came off as, which I stopped watching because the cryptofascism and thinly veiled support for Japanese militarism was a bit too obvious.

Also, if you are going to use big words like 'diagetic', you should probably make sure you are spelling them right.
Wikitionary just calls it a misspelling of diegetic.

diagetic - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

'Diagetic' is highlighted by chrome spellchecker as incorrect.
Free Dictionary when searching for it autocorrects it to diegetic.

Diagetic

Definition, Synonyms, Translations of Diagetic by The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com

And another dictionary says the word doesn't exist.

What does diagetic mean?

Definition of diagetic in the Definitions.net dictionary. Meaning of diagetic. What does diagetic mean? Information and translations of diagetic in the most comprehensive dictionary definitions resource on the web.

www.definitions.net

I dunno, I think the 'message' of 300 is sufficiently confused that it is difficult to call it the 'ur-text' of the alt-reich on a level greater than, say, the Star Wars movies.
Like, in the movie the Spartans go "the weak can't stand in the phalanx", and send the hunchback away, who then betrays the Spartans to the Persians because he was rejected. Surely that is a rejection of the fashy ideal about the strong needing to cut away the weak. If Leonidas hadn't been "oh you are weak so you are useless and without honor", the Persians wouldn't have been able to defeat the Spartans.
Contrast that with Star Wars. Star Wars is, off the top of my head, the only pop culture franchise where it is widely acceptable to dress up as the in-universe Nazi stand-ins for cosplay, and countless novels have been written about the Empire wasn't all that bad, the Republic and the Jedi had it coming, the galaxy needed strength to restore order, not everyone in the Empire was bad, etc.

that movie seemed 110% fascy when i saw it in theaters as 19 year old Hygro. Great movie but definitely and blatantly fascist.

Interestingly you had to get to the blue team Athenians in 300-2 for the story to be a closer portrayal of literal events.

 

[Birdjaguar]

No, it's not setting the record straight, it's providing one of debatable versions.
Wooden city was plundered by French soldiers for days, when all firefighting teams left the city.

Certainly it can be discussed. Clausewitz, who was there at the time and witness to the negotiations prior to the French entering the city, as well as, the occupation, sequences the eventslike so:
Sept 14: Russian army passes through Moscow; Miloradovitch and Sebastiani meet to discuss delaying the French entrance until after the Russians had left the city. (Clausewitz was there)
Sept 15: French enter the city and find it empty. Troops are under orders not to loot and find bivouacs in city. Fires begin in various parts of the city and burn through the night. French troops spend the night fighting fires.
Sept 16: large portions of the city had been burned destroying resources (including lodging spaces) expected by the French and the French army breaks discipline and spends the next days looting.
Sept 19: Order restored

The city had no firefighting teams once evacuated; The scorched earth practices of the Russian army were implemented to deny the usefulness of the city to the French. It was only after the fire were put out that the army discipline broke down and the plundering began.

 

[red_elk]

Certainly it can be discussed. Clausewitz, who was there at the time and witness to the negotiations prior to the French entering the city, as well as, the occupation, sequences the eventslike so:
Sept 14: Russian army passes through Moscow; Miloradovitch and Sebastiani meet to discuss delaying the French entrance until after the Russians had left the city. (Clausewitz was there)
Sept 15: French enter the city and find it empty. Troops are under orders not to loot and find bivouacs in city. Fires begin in various parts of the city and burn through the night. French troops spend the night fighting fires.
Sept 16: large portions of the city had been burned destroying resources (including lodging spaces) expected by the French and the French army breaks discipline and spends the next days looting.
Sept 19: Order restored

The city had no firefighting teams once evacuated; The scorched earth practices of the Russian army were implemented to deny the usefulness of the city to the French. It was only after the fire were put out that the army discipline broke down and the plundering began.

I read about it in "Napoleon's Invasion of Russia" by Y. Tarle and it was also mentioned in Tolstoy's "War and Peace" - even though the latter is not a historical source, it provides a good explanation which historians also agree it may be a correct one.
French troops were under orders not to loot, but there are evidences that looting started in some places in the very first day as they entered Moscow. It was just not widespread.
Fire started in several places simultaneously, so different versions may be correct.
There are no evidences that order to set the city on fire ever existed. Rostopchin's claims regarding that are contradictory.

 

[Takhisis]

For all we know, the fire might well have been an accident in a city built out of wood and then Rostopchin could've seized the chance to look like a strategist.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@red_elk There was no reason for the French to burn an empty city. On Sept 15 it was likely to be their home for the winter. Looting is not the same as burning the city to the ground. Keep in mind that prior to the French entry into Moscow, Both sides negotiated a peaceful transfer of control. There was no reason for the French to burn it. Burning captured cities was not a general practice in that period. Historians Christopher Duffy and George Nafziger put the responsibility for city's blaze on Rostopchin, the civilian governor.

 

[red_elk]

I'm not arguing that Moscow was burned down by Napoleon's orders while they were staying in the city. Although IIRC he did order to blow up some of the buildings when they were retreating.
Looting can result in fires, which are easily becoming uncontrollable in the city almost completely built of wood and in the absence of firefighters.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It is unlikely that the actual fire starters will ever be known or whether they were deliberate or accidental. What does appear to be known is that the three days of burning/controlling the fires broke down the discipline among some of the French army and resulted in plundering.

 

[Samson]

They needed to study the The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries, which starts "1. Pillage, then burn."

 

[red_elk]

It was relatively recent discovery to me, that they actually spent just a bit more than a month in Moscow.
From all books and movies, if you don't pay attention to the dates, it seems like they spent much more time. Borodino was in early September and retreat seemed like full-blown winter with snow, troops freezing to death, etc. But they started to retreat in mid-October and Berezina battle on the border was end of November. Winter hadn't even started yet!

 

[Snowygerry]

[...] it was also mentioned in Tolstoy's "War and Peace" - even though the latter is not a historical source, it provides a good explanation which historians also agree it may be a correct one.

As I remember it - he writes it somewhat like this :

'...a wooden city deserted by its owners, occupied by a foreign army can not but burn,..'

Tolstoy and fatality go hand in hand do they not ?

I wonder if anyone can reproduce the exact quote here ? Extra points if they specify the difference between the Russian version and the English translation - or did he write in French ?

 

[Birdjaguar]

It was relatively recent discovery to me, that they actually spent just a bit more than a month in Moscow.
From all books and movies, if you don't pay attention to the dates, it seems like they spent much more time. Borodino was in early September and retreat seemed like full-blown winter with snow, troops freezing to death, etc. But they started to retreat in mid-October and Berezina battle on the border was end of November. Winter hadn't even started yet!

One thing folks forget, or ignore, is that the French retreat was a Russian advance and that happened under the same weather circumstances. Estimates put the Russian casualties during the retreat/advance from Moscow to Poland at over 100,000, mostly because of disease (typhus) and frostbite. The campaign (June through December 1812) is likely to have cost in total (both sides) ~600,000 lives and another ~300,000 maimed or in capacitated.

this graphic of the campaign is one of the very best ever done. It is information dense in an easy to read format.

 

[red_elk]

Initially they tried to go South from Moscow, the infographics shows that. After rather fierce battle at Maloyaroslavets, they were forced to turn back to Smolensk, and go through the already pillaged territory.

 

[Kyriakos]

Which ww2 eastern front operation was the most decisive for the conclusion of the war?

There's some talk that, if one doesn't mean to examine the opening stage, with Barbarossa, then the critical point was how little was gained with operation Blau. While the objective had been to secure enough oil, it didn't even reach the main oil-producing regions, and ultimately prepared the ground for the russian counterattack (operation Ouranos).