Miller-Schindler & Wallenberg

Throughout the Holocaust, people living in Nazi controlled countries opposed the genocide that was happening. In certain instances, people lived right next to the concentration camps. Unfortunately, this was largely a silent resistance; few went publicly against the Nazis, for an understandable fear of reprisal. Schindler’s List, as well as Good Evening, Mr. Wallenberg tells the story of two men who went up against the Nazis, standing up for the persecuted. Both men faced repercussions afterwards for their actions; the source of repercussions in one case was quite surprising.

Through the help of someone with ties to the underground Jewish business community (Itzhak Stern), Oskar Schindler opens a factory supplying products to the Nazis. As an opportunist, Schindler decides to employ Jews to work in his factories, since he is not required to pay them a wage; the wage paid goes directly to the Reich. Workers in Schindler’s factory are permitted to leave the ghetto in order to work, and a portion of the products are given to the Jewish community to sell on the black market, per Schindler’s agreement with Stern. Schindler classifies these workers as “essential” under the Nazi bueracracy, in order to save these employees from being shipped to concentration camps, or other fates. Eventually, Amon Goth arrives, intent on creating a new labor camp, Paszow. Through bribery, Schindler convinces Goth to let him build a sub-camp for his employees; the intent behind this is to save them from the poor treatment of Nazi guards. When Goth receives an order to abandon the construction of the camp and to ship the remaining Jews to Auschwitz, Schindler creates a list of prisoners which are considered essential. These prisoners are moved to a factory in Schindler’s hometown of Moravia. When the war ends, Schindler is forced to flee from the Soviet Army, as he is still a self identified member of the Nazi party.

Raoul Wallenberg, an attaché to the Swedish Embassy, was sent on the behalf of Jewish Swedish businessman. He was on a rescue mission for Hungarian Jews. He issued protective passports to many Hungarian Jews, known as “Wallenberg Passports.” This identified the holders as Swedish subjects and thus prevented deportation to ghettos or concentration camps. In manby instances, it also prevented the application of a yellow star, which the Nazis used to identify Jews.

Individual people can indeed act to save lives. However, it is important to look at motives behind the actions in order to truly interpret the actions. For example, Schindler has been hailed as a hero in many ways. However, he still profited off of the cheap labor offered by the Jewish people. This profiteering would not have been made possible had it not been for the Nazi regime. While Schindler’s actions were indeed admirable, he always maintained that he was a member of the Nazi Party. He did, however, contribute a considerable amount of his own wealth to bribing Nazi officials in order to let prisoners stay with him. Therefore, one has to wonder whether or not he had the prisoner’s best interests at heart.

Wallenberg, on the other hand, stepped in solely to help Jewish prisoners from mistreatment. He never identified with the Nazis, and put himself at great risk in order to help those in need. His contributions went beyond just bribery; he issued nonlegal documents helping prisoners avoid deportation and labor camps. While he was taken prisoner, little is known about his ultimate fate. I view Wallenberg as having a greater personal sacrifice than Schindler, mainly because he did not identify with Nazis.

The above picture is of a sign identifing Raoul Wallenberg Place. I was in DC not too long ago and noticed that a street was named Raoul Wallenberg place, but admittedly, did not understand the historical significance behind it. That street is home to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, among other things.

Coulter-Keeping Jews safe through lists

One of the scenes that has always stuck with me from Schindler's List is the scene in which the Nazi's are marching through the town with a group of Jews being led to the Ghetto and there is a little girl with a red coat among the black and white world. This stark contrast of an individual person is really not about the girl herself, she is not colorized only her coat is, but about the ability for wrong to stand out when it is presented properly. As a viewer our eye is drawn to this girl and the typical response is, 'I don't want that cute little girl to be killed.' But what is really being shown here is something similar to what the people of Europe during the time were dealing with. Your sympathy goes out to the girl in the red coat while the hundreds of other people being lead to their deaths simply blends into the background, they are for the films sake no differently colored than the Nazi soldiers. This is the mentality that was moving over Europe during the Nazi occupation, it was not that any individual person could not see the wrong being done, but that it all seemed to blend together with the war machine that was destroying everything. This same thought is echoed in Good Evening, Mr. Wallenberg when Marja is detailing why she wants to be naked so she can show the soldiers that she is no different than they are that she has the same skin and hair as they do. She is dealing with the same type of blended mentality shown in this picture where only the drastic use of color make this small girl stand out.

Both of these films dealt with men who tried to save as many Jewish people as they could, while Schindler's motivations are easily doubtable and Wallenberg's frantic attitude seems to lead to deaths of most of those Jews on the truck, they are nevertheless men of lists. For each of these men it was not about the individual Jew, Schindler doesn't save the girl in the red coat, it was about the amount of Jews that could be saved over all. While the rest of the worlds views of the Jew had turned to blend them into a mass of black and white people of sad but unchangeable lives for these men each Jew stood out in bright color as a person to be saved.

While I felt that Schindler was in his personal life quite dubious, I still view him as someone good, someone who risked his own life to save others still must be a hero in some way. For Wallenberg the movie makes him out to be obsessive and frantic but still a person who is unwilling to step away from his idea's, no matter the cost.

Otto-A Good Man is Hard to Find

During the time of the Holocaust thousands of people were killed and many, although they considered themselves to be good people, did not help the effort to keep innocent humans alive. This might have happened because they were cowardly, or just looked away because, to be honest, it may not have affected their lives. They were still getting everything they needed, so they may have asked themselves, Why get involved? Why help? This was not the case for Oscar Schindler and Raoul Wallenberg.

In Good Evening, Mr. Wallenberg(1990), Raoul Wallenberg(Stellan Skarsgard) witnesses a horrific scene where a child is thrown dead from a moving train, then an older male jumps out after him only to be shot by one of the officers on the train. Wallenberg describes this scene as the only real thing he has ever seen and begins a journey that takes him to German-occupied Budapest where he helps Jews get to Sweden. Wallenberg risked his life to save many others; he knew that the German army was wrong in murdering thousands, and wanted to help the victims of the situation. Unfortunately, he was abducted into a camp and never to be seen again. What exactly happened to Wallenberg remains to be unseen. Wallenberg was a good man from the start, doing his part in a world crisis where thousands, including himself, were murdered.

In Schindler’s List(1993), Oscar Schindler(Liam Neeson) was a man of class and fanciness. He loved everything glamorous in life and when WWII began he found a way to make money, providing first bowls, plates, and utensils, and then military equipment for the German Nazi Party(although none of it was functional because Schindler didn’t want to help with the effort). In the beginning Schindler was merely a man who wanted to make more money, but as time wore on he grew as a person, to understand what was really going on in the world, and he became attached to his Jews and saved them from the camps. Schindler was not the best guy in the beginning but he eventually saved over a thousand Jew, and he was distraught over the fact that he didn’t save more. Towards the end of his life, Schindler was taken care of by the Jews who he had saved, as if they were thanking him for saving their lives.

These two men did so much to help the Jewish population during WWII. Although not both of them started with the idea of saving people, eventually, they both did their part to save many lives from being murdered. Others could have, however, did not, which begs the question Why? It takes us back to Elie Wiesel’s Night when he describes “I pinched myself: Was I still alive? Was I awake? How was it possible that men, women, and children were being burned and that the world kept silent? No. All this could not be real. A nightmare perhaps...” (p. 32). People did not seem concerned with the fact that thousands were being killed, turning away, because they did not want to take the risk, or saw only what they wanted to see, because these horrific murders did not personally affect them. Both Wallenberg and Schindler were two men who stood up and fought to save lives at their own personal expense. They are the example that should have been followed.

Dacula - Redefining the "Good" Person

From Schindler’s List and Good Evening, Mr. Wallenberg, the idea that just one person cannot make a difference is dramatically disproven. Also, both films challenge what we may subjectively define as a “good” person.

In Schindler’s List, German businessman Oskar Schindler begins the movie as a protagonist who is after one thing and one thing only: financial success. Schindler goes to Krakow, Poland hoping to make money from being a war profiteer. Once in Krakow, he meets Itzhak Stern, a member of the Jewish Council. Stern offers Schindler money for the factory in exchange for a share of the war items that the factory will produce. Schindler agrees. He goes on to hire Jewish workers for his factory because of their willingness to work for cheap labor. A short time after Schindler’s factory is up and running, Operation Reinhard is implemented in Krakow and hundreds of Jews are killed in the area. Schindler is devastated by these mass killings occurring, and commits himself to use his large fortune from the factories to bribe SS soldiers to keep his Jewish workers safe from being killed. He comprises a list of his own workers to be kept off the trains to Auschwitz when the Final Solution, the extermination of all Jews, is implemented in Krakow. In Good Evening, Mr. Wallenberg, Swedish businessman Raoul Wallenberg plays a similar role in persevering to save countless Jewish lives in Budapest. He uses any means he can think of to help save as many Jews as he can, including obtaining passports, a risky endeavor in this context.

Again, the idea that just one person cannot make a difference is dramatically disproven in these two films. Both Schindler and Wallenberg’s actions portrayed in these films challenges us to redefine how we might describe someone as “good.” To describe ourselves as “good” people or to describe someone we know as a “good” person is entirely subjective.  What are we describing as “good” when we say this about ourselves? Is it due to the fact that we’re nice to people around us and volunteer at a soup kitchen every week? Does describing someone else as a “good” person only apply to that person because he or she is constantly there for us or does something positive in relationship to our own lives? The answers to these questions are endless, and again, entirely subjective. However, what if the description of someone as “good” could have a concrete, objective definition? Oskar Schindler and Raoul Wallenberg may likely be the concrete examples of “goodness” in its objective sense. An objective definition of a “good” person, considering the lives of Schindler and Wallenberg, may read something like this: one who utilizes his words and actions to assist another person in any way possible, for the sole reason that that person is a human being, and regardless of the risks that this assistance may have on the assister.  

Weed - Heros?

After watching the actual movie Schindler’s List and the documentary, I believe that Schindler needed the Jewish as much as they needed him. The man was getting free labor. Now think about the circumstances without any emotional attachment or knowledge of who he was as a person. In any business, labor is most likely the highest expense. Plus the food that he fed the Jewish people was most likely provided for him by the Nazi government. Then the Nazi government paid him for his products. Schindler paid very little expenses. He had pretty much had over 100% revenue in my belief. Then he took the money and continued to bribe the Nazis to keep his workers.
Now consider the idea that within 5 years Schindler was able to completely change his product and the location of his company 3 times. Plus he continued to make revenue until the very end How many companies do you know today that have pulled that off? Think of all the times Schindler had to argue with the Nazi’s in order to get his workers. Everyday lost is a loss in revenue. What is revenue? Revenue is Income minus Expenses. He absolutely lost days of work. When losing your workers for multiple days, it is similar to a strike. When you lose your workers, everyday lost is a loss of revenue. Wouldn’t you do everything in your power to come up with a way to get your workers to come back? So Schindler bribed the Nazi’s.
Here is the most interesting factor, it is proven that people are more efficient and have fewer errors if they are relaxed while working rather than rushing. When people rush, errors occur. The people were making the products for him, he wasn’t trying to kill them, and he feeds them. If they do not, there is a possibility of returning to the camp. Therefore the workers will remain calm, take their time, and do a good job. By looking at these factors today would a person think Schindler was a good man?
Wallenberg on the other hand was constantly standing up for the Jewish people, but was constantly being walked over. Although he was able to prevail at the very end, it seemed as if he was not accomplishing anything. Then to read about his capture and how it was covered up; and how the U.S. did little to find him, it is easy to forget that people were going missing all the time. Even if he was captured, he was probably killed on the spot.

Cardon - Schindler & Wallenberg

First I would like to address Raoul Wallenberg by analyzing his emotional demeanor, which was depicted in the film. Grede (the film’s director) depicted Wallenberg’s emotional responses scarcely. Was this done on purpose to show his ability to disconnect from the emotional aspect and completing a job? If he let his innate reactions get the best of him them perhaps he would have been unable to complete such heroic acts. Even after he was advised to return home to Sweden, Wallenberg stayed, because he knew it was wrong if he left the Jews he had been trying so desperately to help, just so he himself could flee danger. Although I had trouble reading his emotional responses throughout the film, his resilience and perseverance came through loud and clear. In present day the question of why more people didn’t stand up in defense of the Jews is often brought up. Hitler and the Nazis were an extreme force to go up against, and the consequences were grave. People feared death and endangering their loved ones. In the beginning of the film Wallenberg mentions that he is familiar with death (b/c of his father). Maybe Wallenberg felt as if he had nothing to loose, therefore he had no plausible excuse not to assist in saving the Jews. One scene that I thought was particularly interesting was when Wallenberg returns to the house where Marja stays, and he takes off his coat, tie, and shirt. He then tells her that his shirt has a tare, remaining in his undershirt. I may be reading too much into this, but I took it as he was trying her method of disrobing. Early on in the film she says that she wants to be naked to remind the soldiers of their humanity (they have real hair, breasts, etc). Was Wallenberg attempting to simply “feel” after all of the horrific events he had just witnessed? I often find myself having trouble being able to separate the individual from the good deed that they have done (i.e. Martin Luther King Jr plagiarizing his dissertation, JFK’s womanizing, etc). I’m not trying to say that what Schindler did is negated by his personal actions, but it does bring up an interesting argument. It does appear that Schindler’s initial intentions (& sentiment) changed over the course of time, because he became aware of the real effect he was having on these peoples’ lives. At first he was simply using the Jews for his own benefit and hell I guess they get to live too. Thankfully in the end we see a change of character in that he ends up spending all his money in an effort to save his workers. He had been driven/compelled in continuing to help the Jews survive even if it were only a few. A lot of this is also because of Schindler’s relationship with Stern. We are able to see Schindler’s transformation from a flawed, greedy, womanizing, Nazi into an open hearted flawed Nazi. One scene in particular really summed up the attitude of the Nazis. As Amon Goeth is standing on his balcony, he begins shooting the Jews for sport, simply because he has the “authority” to do so. Although Schindler didn’t witness this particular occurrence, I believe that it is that sort of behavior that ultimately flicked the switch for him. Goeth’s character throughout the film has a couple of what looks like possible turning points but turns out to be inevitably diabolical.

Campbell- To Save for Morality

After watching Schindler’s List and Good Evening, Mr. Wallenberg, I started thinking about how even though Schindler didn’t save thousands of Jews then and there, he did in the long run by saving the families to grow and prosper. The same can be said for Wallenberg except that he saved more than Schindler. However, I find that the individual person can do a little, but make a big difference.

Schindler was a businessman who just wanted money. He wanted cheap labor and a huge profit for that cheap labor. As his factory produced the supplies, the Nazi Party revered Schindler for what he was accomplishing. Schindler changed his ways of thinking after watching the massacre at Krakow and decided to save “his” Jews. As the story moves forward, however, Schindler wakes up and tries to stop the killing of “his” Jews. How does he do it? Not necessarily in the most smiled upon way. He is quiet about his intentions by bribing soldiers and even bribing Amon Göth into letting him move his workers and continue allowing them to work for him. He did what he could in the best way possible to also keep himself and his wife safe from the Nazi killings. Since he was so careful, he was able to live to an old age as well as be taken care of by someone, or a few someone’s, like “his” Jews.

Wallenberg saved many Jews, but he saved more in a different way. While Schindler was “under the table” with his intentions, Wallenberg wasn’t so much. Wallenberg passed out passports and took care of houses that the Swedish owned to save many Jews. I am not saying that Wallenberg was not secret about his motives, but I am saying that he was not as secret or as sneaky about what he was doing. With Wallenberg’s lack of the element of secrecy, Wallenberg died at a young age and no one knows much about his death. Schindler and Wallenberg did extraordinary work saving Jews. Anyone could have done extraordinary work saving the Jews, but it’s all a matter of moral fiber. Everyone has moral fiber, but when you look at the individual, how much moral fiber does one person have? Schindler had a smaller amount of moral fiber, I believe, than Wallenberg because, Schindler didn’t care in the beginning and was a money making kind of man. Wallenberg from the beginning had a ton of moral fiber because, like Dr. McCay said, he was brought up in a wealthy family, but he chose not to take advantage of that wealth. I think that each person who helped the Jews escape did it for their moral fiber and the people who didn’t help probably did it out of fear of being killed. It’s almost like you could do nothing, be a Schindler and bribe your way to help the Jews and yourself, or be a Wallenberg and purposefully reach out to as many Jews as possible rather than the ones you are with on a daily basis.