The Germans were good at keeping records, when the Germans captured a country they gathered up the Jews and put them onto ghettos and then into camps either to work or to die. This proves scenes in the film were the Jews wore a yellow star and were they were moved into the ghettos as quickly as possible. In source eight it shows a map of the Germans rounding up the Jews and putting them into death camps. Himmlers Order of 19th July 1942, telling the Germans that the deadline was on 31st December 1942 as the final date when the Jewish population must have been depart from the general government.
This piece of evidence proves that it was planned and there was an order to wipe out the Jews from a Nazi Official. This all confirms what happened to the Jews and also supports the historical evidence in the movie for the liquidation of the ghetto scene. There is people who deny that the holocaust happened, with all that evidence there is people who still deny that it happened. Lady Mosley and David Irving, who are not just ordinary people, they are well known revisionist historians, they have received a lot of attention from the media with there views. There not the only well known people who deny the holocaust.
There is two major American politicians, Pat Buchanan and David Duke. Jean Marie Le Pen in France is a major force in national politics and a holocaust denier. Why do these revisionists deny the holocaust? Are they anti Jewish. Do they want to become famous by selling books, or do they just enjoy being controversial and awkward. There are other problems that could backup the movie of not being accurate. The accuracy of the Jewish evidence, the survivors are old and may exaggerate a bit because they forget part and just make it up, or do the Jewish survivors just want people to feel pity on them.
Dramatisation in the movie is another problem that can make the film unreliable, we don’t have evidence that Schindler ever wore a white or he was sitting on top of the hill when he seen the Jews getting put out of the ghetto. In the film, Spielberg made Schindler look like to much a saint person. But I still think with all the evidence and doubts that the movie is still historically accurate. After viewing the movie, could this movie be a “living document” about the holocaust for future generations? “Schindlers List” is based on a true story with a lot of evidence backing the film up.
How can this movie be a lively form of historical record’some people don’t like reading a book because they find it boring and it takes too long to go through the whole book, some people prefer just watching a video because it doesn’t take as long to watch the video and its easier to picture yourself in the movie than just reading a book. Is it a realistic movie based upon a broad amount of quality evidence? Yes, it is a realistic movie and has a lot of evidence backing it up like the fifty survivors or even the book that gave a lot of evidence. Is there need for caution and balance when viewing it as a living historical record?
Of course there is and Spielberg knew this and that’s why he started Survivors of the Shoah. At the end of the movie the Jewish survivors even appeared in the film so that proves they thought the film was all right or they wouldn’t have appeared in the film. My opinion on this is that I think the film will be a living document in the future, and I don’t know how people could deny the holocaust even know there is so much evidence supporting the movie and that the holocaust actually happened, and all the evidence isn’t just from the Jews there is even evidence form the Germans.
I personally feel that the movie is historically accurate for people to watch a bit of what happened to the Jews in the holocaust. The film helps keep alive this memory and brings the past to life about the holocaust. Beyond the film there is a mass of real life evidence and Spielberg helped to gather this up to support his movie by setting up Survivors of the Shoah and its ICT records.
