7/10
Trying to be fair
14 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This is a good movie and it is biased. It is trying to tie the looting of art to holocaust. That is very wrong. Nazi ideology was wrong, inhumane and evil. Nazis took anything they wanted because they believed they owned Europe. Hitler was not a bad painter; he was against modern art. I have been painting for 39 years and I can assure you he is much better than many artists who are accepted into art schools at the time and today as well as some my students. His art is very much illustrative not lyric in the sense of story telling. In a few of his work that I have seen he has hold perspective and dimension well in place more than I can about a lot of paintings that are in the museums. He loved art and his vision was that he owns Europe and Germans are master race so he is going to take it all and make a very large museum. The reference of Hitler became anti-Semitic because he was rejected at art school is just childish. Hitler became anti-Semitic mainly because he believed Jews are responsible for Germany's defeat in WWI. He formed his Anti-Semitism in later years after his rejection and there is no reference of such in Mein Kampf, (one of the most $%^&ed up books I have ever read in regards to editing and scatter of subject in 4 languages including German). Holocaust was horrible; so was the loss of 23.5 million people of USSR. It also tried to portray USSR soldiers as looters by taking the art back. The efforts of people like Leonid Folinsky, the Soviet artist that discovered the Raphael's Madonna and Rembrandts, Rubens, etc. in salt mines in east Germany area and managed to pull them out of the water is not mentioned other than they were sent to loot for USSR. It ignored the fact that if Nazi's took and destroyed so much of USSR's art then if after the war USSR keeps some of the German art it is just a payment. It almost implies that Hitler's atrocities should be wiped off with the end of Nazi party and Germans should not have to pay any damage into the equation. Obviously every Jewish art dealer descendant (or Holocaust victim) should get all his or her art back. Obviously it helps the fact that as soon as they get it back they can sell it to likely end up in an American museum. . What about the descendants of the art in USSR? While I appreciate the efforts of Americans who did the saving of the artifacts I do not think they were the only ones. Many natives of France, Holland, Austria and other countries helped the underground networks with efforts to save the artifacts and their efforts were downed a little with exception of one. The use of some new footage of the WWII is refreshing. I did not see much reference to the art in Holland or Belgium.

I dislike the title of the movie as "Rape of Europe" as a Nazi "thing". Napoleon did nice job of raping the Europe himself; where do you think all the Italian and Spanish art in Louvers comes from? How about rape of Egypt, Persia, Greece, ... England obviously did not rape India or any of its sub kingdoms! What about rape of Iraq as recent as 2003? 58 years after WWII! I think they were on the level about the bombing of Monte casino but the firebombing of Dresden was played down a lot, considering the loss of the art there.

War is a horrible part of human history and taking booty has always been a part of it. Nazi ideology was wrong, inhumane and evil but taking art works and valuables was not their invention. The part that talks about how they had lists of artwork upfront and before hand due to their "evil" minds... That is just the naive talk of the talker. Germans are born with a list of to do's. Anybody that has spent a little time learning German and their people would know it. Everything is always calculated and documented! They even documented the holocaust themselves with very extreme precise records.
11 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed