Yay, we got to see Nina again (& Oleg’s father, it took a moment for “Minister of Railways” to click). And does anyone not think Miss Belgium is some kind of plant?
I have to say, ISI officer’s accent is spot on despite being played by an Indian Actor. Kudo’s to them.
A filler episode me thinks for the most part. Was’t the Ms Belgian actress also in Manhattan?
It felt like a long week to get to this episode. There was a lot of setting up and not too much happening, but hopefully it should pay off next week.
Random thoughts:
I suffered through the suitcasing scene. Those sounds… ugh.
I’m so glad that that old guy was Oleg’s father and not some KGB molester like I thought he was.
It’s really not cool that Stan killed Vlad, but he’s determined not to feel bad about it. Or maybe he did feel bad about it. I seriously thought that scene was a dream sequence until Stan ran over to Sandra. I believe that this was the first time in the series that Stan has shown sexual interest in his wife, and it was pretty awkward.
I got a kick out of the defector’s love of Milky Way bars. Wait until she tries Twix. Just don’t give her a Mounds bar or she’ll defect back. But I don’t think she’ll last past episode 5.
I’m very intrigued by ISI man. Is he in over his head or is it an act?
What a list of beers that bar had. I guess I’d have taken a Guinness.
I thought the new Rezidentura lady was hitting on Oleg.
I think Stan can rationalize his killing Vlad because of the murder of his partner. But it’s a tough thing to do since he really doesn’t know who killed his partner. If this show goes on long enough (and I sure hope it does), the writers may well try to make Stan pay for the murder of Vlad.
This episode introduced so many new threads that by the end, my head was spinning. But it went by so quickly. Seemed to me that I was just about to get up for a drink and the episode had ended.
I’m going to have to watch both of this season’s episodes several times just to get on top of what is going on.
The scene where Phillip and Elizabeth are arguing about Paige I thought was pretty intense, and extremely well done. You want life to be easy? “For my daughter? Uh…yeah”. The inflection in his voice was fabulous.
There’s been talk here of whether Elizabeth has a heart. My guess is no…but at the very least, she is clearly an example of patriotism run amok. A fervent desire to defend and serve one’s country might be understandable. However Elizabeth puts that patriotism above all else…even to the point of considering ruining her daughter’s life. I’m even convinced she would kill Phillip if it proved necessary to do so.
Given the choice between Mother Russia and family, Mother Russia will win that battle for the heart of Elizabeth every time.
Off all the characters in this show, Elizabeth is the one that I am really pulling for the FBI to catch…followed by Martha.
We learned something interesting about Elizabeth and that is that her father was shot for cowardice during WWII. Elizabeth and her Mom are overcompensating for that. No wonder her Mom didn’t hesitate to tell her to go into the program.
Yeah, I’m surprised Elizabeth and her mother weren’t shipped off to Siberia after her father was killed.
Interesting how Philip and Elizabeth’s argument about Paige mirrored some of the discussion in this thread. I agree with Philip - if Paige is recruited, no way does it stop with some cushy job at the CIA or FBI. She might not be stuffing bodies into suitcases, but she will be asked to do some pretty difficult shit. Elizabeth is being willfully blind here.
She is a patriotic intelligence operative who goes over and above the call of duty. This of course has effects on her personal life. She wants her daughter to speak up for her beliefs and take on chchallenging career paths. If she had been an American (!) , this show would be hailed as promoting female empowerment. But since she is a foreigner, she is a fanatic. I can understand the fact that a primarily American audience would find it difficult to relate to a character who is after all an enemy agent, but accusations being a fanatic are really far off.
I have few hopes for ISI-Joe’s storyline. It seems to be effected by current political events. The rather anarchonistic bit about “religious” and “moderate” mujahideen, categories which did not exist in 1982 and CIA being obstructed by ISI for instance. IRL the funneling of weapons was done to keep the US involvement deniable.
I think they were living in Siberia, and her mother is still there. No?
Her mother said Elizabeth’s father was a deserter, not shot for cowardice. In the USSR of the 1950s, this probably meant he had been taken prisoner by the Germans and then repatriated through what were called “filtration camps” after the war. Under Stalin, soldiers who surrendered to the Germans were officially considered traitors and were politically suspect. If they survived the filtration camps, they usually ended up in the GULAG; you could also be sent there for the most minor of infractions, like making uncomplimentary remarks about Stalin in a letter home, however well disguised (read the works of Solzhenitsyn if you want to know more).
A great many of these political prisoners were rehabilitated by Khrushchev after he denounced Stalin in 1956.
If I recall correctly it was Philip who grew up somewhere in Siberia. Elizabeth was born in Smolensk, where her mother was a bookkeeper for the local party committee.
Could be. I’d have to go back to the first season to check it out. Smolensk is a pretty big city, though. The shots of where her mother lives have always been pretty bleak and desolate.
Nina is a smart cookie, telling Daddy what Oleg needs to hear. And yeah Belgium is there for info, I think Nina can smell it.
Here it says Elizabeth was born in Smolensk, and her father died at Stalingrad:
Last night, though, her mother said (in Russian) that her father was a deserter and didn’t deserve any sympathy. It’s possible he was still alive, but that the family was told otherwise.
Elizabeth fits perfectly the definition of a fanatic…IE one who possesses “extreme and uncritical zeal”, to quote a dictionary definition.
Remember, it’s been previously revealed that Phillip and Elizabeth together vowed to keep their children out of the spy business. Now Elizabeth is changing her tune, not thinking of the potential harm it might inflict on her daughter.
She is, as another poster described, being willfully blind.
I have read how Russian Commissars were ordered to shoot any Russian soldiers who ran away from the enemy. I have also seen some documentaries about when the war started, Russia did not have enough weapons for all their soldiers. So, they would give one rifle to two men and ordered both of them to advance towards the enemy. If the one with the weapon was shot, the other one was ordered to pick up the weapon and continue.
But can you imagine being ordered to advance towards an enemy with no weapon? It would hardly be a surprise that Elizabeth’s father would flee and would be shot. I couldn’t hold that against him.
The following two cites do not contain any real proof of this. But they do reference other cites which claim to have proof.
Pursuant to Order No. 227, any attempt to retreat without orders, or even a failure to advance was punished by barrier troops (‘zagraditel’nye otriady’) or “anti-retreat” detachments of the Soviet special organization known as SMERSH (Smert shpionam), Russian for “Death to spies”.[1][2] SMERSH units were used to shoot retreating men serving in penal units should the latter commence a retreat after failing either to advance to secure an objective, or to stop a German attack via counter-attack.[1][10] As a result, with nowhere else to go, the penal battalions usually advanced in a frenzy, running forwards until they were killed by enemy minefields, artillery, or heavy machine-gun fire. If the men survived and occupied their objective, they were rounded up and used again in the next assault.[2]
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-423644.html
“One Man has the rifle, the next man has the bullets…” Did this actually happen?
The opening scenes of both the movie Enemy At The Gates and the Russian campaign of the computer game Call Of Duty feature a sequence in which the main character arrives at the docks on Stalingrad in late 1942, and is promptly queued up in front of a truck, in which Commissars are issuing rifles and ammunition to the conscripts.
The catch is, that only every other soldier is getting a rifle. The Commissars are usually saying something like “One man gets the rifle, the next man gets some bullets. The second man follows the man with the rifle, and when he is shot, picks up the rifle and carries on fighting!”
Now, this is exactly the sort of thing the Russians would have done (They also shot anyone who tried to run away from battle in the back, but that’s another story)- but I’ve been unable to find reliable proof of this happening. I’ve got stories of soldiers being sent into battle unarmed because there weren’t enough guns (“Your weapons are in the hands of your enemies- go and get them!”), but nothing reliable on the “One man gets the rifle, the next man gets the bullets” thing.
Anyone know if it actually happened, or was it propaganda that somehow got mixed up with the truth somewhere along the way?
06-05-2007, 06:27 AM
according to Wiki - not at stalingrad - pehaps earlier
Soldiers being sent across the Volga without weapons/soldiers being issued one rifle for every two men, etc: in reality, they were armed before being sent across, otherwise they would be unable to fight back in case of always expected German attacks.The German author Paul Carell mentions attacks made in that fashion in his book “Operation Barbarossa” in the first phase of the German invasion in 1941.
no real cites though
No.
There’s a vast difference between “female empowerment”:
“Whatever you want to do in your life you have our full support, and no one has any right to tell you that you can’t do it because of your gender.”
And fanaticism:
“You will do this or I will beat you until you do, and when you do it, you’ll do it till you win or die trying.”
I think that when Stan killed Vlad he was doing it to avenge his friend and felt fully justified. Now, having learned that Vlad was just some over-his-head nebbish he feels kind of guilty about it.
Heck, I half expected him to ask Oleg if he wanted to go have a beer or two.
And pray when has Elizabeth done the latter?
She did toss her in the pool, when she couldn’t swim.
Elizabeth is still easing into the idea of pulling Paige into her own fanaticism. So far she hasn’t, but that’s what everyone in the thread’s concern is: That she will start to expose her fanaticism to her daughter.
For me it’s not really about fanaticism. It’s about vastly different ideologies, and whether Elizabeth and the KGB even have a chance at turning Paige. They keep saying she’ll have a choice, but c’mon, are they going to just let her walk away if she says no? Paige has been taught her whole life that the Soviet Union is evil. Just the discovery that her parents lied to her for her entire life is enough to destroy her.