Antisemitic setting in pre-WWII Germany

[Callahan]

A German-born coworker of mine was telling me that her father was in Hitler Youth and was exposed to frequent anti-Jewish propaganda during that time, also that he had expressed a notable amount of antisemitism later in his life, often referring to Jews as "rats" or otherwise. I am aware of there having been a variety of propaganda techniques being employed by Hitler. What do we know of Hitler's propaganda campaigns? Is there anyone who has studied this extensively? Theoretically, is it possible that a nation of soldiers could have been persuaded to unanimously conform to a standard of incessant murder and torturous cruelty to men, women and children without any reasonable, righteous justification? In whose favor does the evidence reside, in this regard-- Revisionists or Believers?

[Hektor]

There were legislation, made statements and I'd say also propaganda against Jews against prior to WW-II. I don't think this is anyhow in dispute. The NSDAP wasn't a monolithic block, not to speak of National Socialists in general. So if the decision maker in the HJ wasn't that fond of Jews, he may have used of that propaganda extensively, while other members of the HJ did not experience it that way. I am saying this, because I frequently run into the argument of NS so and so said so and so, hence "so and so was THE policy of the Nazis". They are assuming that the NSDAP and it's sub-organisations were a monolithic block.

[Steve F]

Under Hitler, I believe it was National Socialist policy to arrest, try, convict, and execute Germans who killed a single Jew; and Germans were even sent to jail for slapping a Jew.
Propaganda doesn't prove murder; if Jews were called rats and parasites by some Germans, it doesn't prove mass murder; it only proves that they wanted to be free of the Jews.

[Callahan]

There were legislation, made statements and I'd say also propaganda against Jews against prior to WW-II. I don't think this is anyhow in dispute. The NSDAP wasn't a monolithic block, not to speak of National Socialists in general. So if the decision maker in the HJ wasn't that fond of Jews, he may have used of that propaganda extensively, while other members of the HJ did not experience it that way. I am saying this, because I frequently run into the argument of NS so and so said so and so, hence "so and so was THE policy of the Nazis". They are assuming that the NSDAP and it's sub-organisations were a monolithic block.

I agree for the most part, although I have read instances where Hitler mentions, in his own speech, a plan to administer Germany's own propaganda to counter the propaganda being put out by the Jewish-dominated media industry. Was there not some level of antisemitism put out on a national level?

Under Hitler, I believe it was National Socialist policy to arrest, try, convict, and execute Germans who killed a single Jew; and Germans were even sent to jail for slapping a Jew.

I've heard this mentioned several times but have had trouble finding original sources for it, which is particularly important considering how shocking such a claim would come off to Believers. Do we have reliable documentation of this?

[Steve F]

Callahan said:

Steve F said:

"Under Hitler, I believe it was National Socialist policy to arrest, try, convict, and execute Germans who killed a single Jew; and Germans were even sent to jail for slapping a Jew"

I've heard this mentioned several times but have had trouble finding original sources for it, which is particularly important considering how shocking such a claim would come off to Believers. Do we have reliable documentation of this?

I don't know; like you, I've heard it mentioned several times.

[Steven Willow]

I will start by questioning how one should define anti-semitism. Did the Nazis have a coordinated view of jewry, and did this policy, outlining the jewish role in Nazi ideology, fit a definition of anti-semitism? Furthermore, is the view of jewry, as Nazi state influenced media portrayed it, one that has a foundation of objective truth? If it can be determined that Nazism simply attempted to portray an objective, detatched vision of the jews in order to facilitate a more egalitarian society in which power and influence were fairly distributed, and taken away from overrepresented jewish power cliques, does this represent anti-semitism? If the Nazis were simply telling the truth in a dispassionate manner, can one condemn them for bias and prejudice?

I believe that this film http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytEzeam4EbM ,The Eternal Jew, had state sponsorship, and thus may losely be taken as a representation of Nazi thinking on jewry that party officials wished to submit for public consideration. It is clear that the film never suggests that jews should be harmed, nor are jews unequivocally portrayed in a negative manner. The documentary clearly acknowledges jewish success in medicine and law, for example. I submit that CODOH members should watch the film and determine for themselves whether this might be seen as an attemp to mobilize a violent reaction to judaism. We all know what believers say about this movie, but how should an objective viewer put it in perspective?

[Kladderadatsch]

I second Steven Willow's suggestion. Der Ewige Jude is worth watching, both for its own sake, and for the perspective it gives on the question of anti-Semitism in NS Germany.

For example, one could argue that the fact that such a film was made at all is all the evidence you need that the Germans were irrational, hate-filled anti-semites of the most unprincipled sort. But then, looking at the problem from another angle, the fact that Goebbels and others in the party hierarchy felt it necessary to make and distribute such a film could be seen as supporting the exact opposite conclusion. After all, you don't need to make propaganda to convince people of something they already believe.

Der Ewige Jude began production in 1939 (shortly after the fall of Poland--the film was largely shot there), and was not released until late November 1940. That's going on eight years since the National Socialists came to power--and it's not like they kept their views on that Jews secret before that. If the propaganda ministry felt it necessary to make a film like DeJ, that can only mean that they were worried that the message still hadn't fully gotten through. That's an indictment of Goebbels and company, if you like (depends on what you think of the message), but it certainly gives the lie to the idea of Germans lining up to be "Hitler's willing executioners" as peddled by the notorious Daniel Goldhagen. In that sense, Der Ewige Jude is not evidence that Germans were anti-semitic; it's evidence that they weren't anti-semitic enough.

Anyway, the film is worth watching. And if you do watch it, then you'll be ready to fully appreciate the Sesame Street (SS!) version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nAxMUDLWGQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eW1MLDU964

Of course, you could skip the original and cut straight to Sesame Strasse, but it's bound to be just that much funnier if you know what it's spoofing on. So it's probably better to do your homework, and watch the original first.

[Mkk]

You can say what you want but there were only 3 anti-Jewish films made during the Third Reich, and one of them wasn't even that well known:

-Der Ewige Jude, already linked too.

-Jude Süss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAlUBw6N7QA

-The lesser known Die Rothschilds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60M2x0zjh60

Compare this with dozens, if not hundreds, of Third Reich and WW2 films that portray Germans or Japanese in a stereotypical way.

[Kladderadatsch]

While we're on the topic of Der Ewige Jude, I would recommend the article "Der ewige Jude (1940): Joseph Goebbels' unequaled monument to anti-Semitism" to anyone who's interested. (The whole article is available on scribd at http://www.scribd.com/doc/73206967/Der-Ewige-Jude.) The authors, Stig Hornshøj-Møller and David Culbert, write from an orthodox (i.e., non-revisionist) perspective, but much of what they say about the film actually tends to support revisionist ideas.

With regard to the reaction of the film's target audience, for example, the section entitled "Distribution and Actual Reception" is extremely interesting. It's a little long, but worth reading. It might help shine some light on Callahan's question in the OP.

Distribution and Actual Reception

If intended response is easy to gauge from the film's contents and its treatment by a controlled press, it is just the opposite when one turns to actual reception. This question is particularly important in discussing such a notorious film, particularly as so many have used this film to prove the average German's support for the Final Solution. The actual record of initial response, while by no means complete, suggests how simplistic it is to argue that the virulent message of DeJ represents the attitudes of the typical German in 1940.

After 1938, it has been asserted, no cinema owner in Germany dared deny the booking of a film which received the proper sort of rating from the Nazi propaganda hierarchy (the so-called Praedikate). The distribution of DeJ disproves this assertion. More curious, given the idea of this film as the ultimate statement of state-directed anti-Semitism, is its failure to receive more than the second-best rating. This meant it was free of the normal entertainment tax and inexpensive to rent, and was distributed through the Gaufilmstellen, owned by the Nazi Party. The Ministry of Propaganda, in a surviving letter to cinema owners in Hessen-Nassau, noted the value of special youth screenings:

Youth attending schools will not see this film in school-groups. Instead they will see it as Hitler-Jugend in special Filmfeierstunden organized by the local HJ-groups. Each HJ-group will be informed directly and asked to communicate with the cinema owners to find a date for such a screening. [19]

These screenings usually took place on Sunday, and included group singing plus 'enlightening' lectures. The SD (Security Police) reported such meetings as effective in small towns, and useful in creating enthusiasm for those soon to enter uniform as soldiers. The film was shown to members of the military; two prints were sent to Luxembourg; two were sent to Cracow, on 22 February 1941. Two prints now in the Danish Filmmuseum came from a wartime German military camp in Denmark. The film was shown in Lodz (renamed Litzmannstadt) in early 1941. But no systematic records survive as to how many persons in youth groups saw the film, nor is there evidence of this film's total distribution within the military [20].

Commercial distribution within Germany was disappointing. The Berlin premiere, 28 November, was the start of the sort of run which has a simple description: flop. Peter Bucher checked actual screenings for Berlin, as listed in the Voelkischer Beobachter, with published reports claiming 66 theaters in Greater Berlin the first week; 30 more, the week after. The actual results for a city where the Jewish issue was particularly salient are instructive: 29 November 1940--36 cinemas; 3 December--20; 6 December--18; 10 December--15; 13 December--1 [21]. Mind you, such a film seems a singular addition to family celebrations for Christmas. The euphoria Nazis felt about Germany's domination of Europe in December 1940 can scarcely have suggested the need to attack the Jewish influence allegedly holding back German greatness. Our best estimate suggests that no more than one million persons paid to see the film, and hence Goebbels quickly turned to non-commercial distribution.

Secret SD reports provide additional evidence as to what German viewers thought of the film. In several towns 'only the politically-active sector' saw the film; the 'typical' film-going audience stayed away. There was 'word-of-mouth propaganda' against the film and its 'realistic' way of presenting material. Attendance fell, sometimes 'very quickly' in northwestern Germany, southwestern Germany, and in Austria. If we deduct those who essentially were obliged to attend or be seen attending the film, there was audience interest only where one had earlier seen orthodox Judaism, such as Berlin and the East. The SD reports noted specific complaints about the full-length version: 'the loathing of the subject itself and the slaughter-scenes' led to an 'exceptional "strain on the nerves" '. That this film followed the enormous success of the anti- Semitic feature film Jew Suess led others to consider 'new, even more extreme documentation' of the Jewish problem 'not necessary'.

SD reports indicate that the film seemed effective to confirmed Nazis, who considered it a 'most impressive document', and 'more enlightening, convincing and impressive than many anti-Jewish writings.' Ardent anti-Semites liked what they saw, but others, even enthusiastic Nazis, had quite different responses. In western Germany but also in Breslau, 'single spectators often left the cinemas in a disgusted mood'. The comment suggests that more than a 'few persons' held such views. When the SD reported comments such as 'We have seen Jew Suess and we have seen enough of this Jewish filth!', it seems clear that DeJ was failing to achieve its objective [22].

Friedrich Knilli has argued that Jew Suess offers a mixture of 'sex and crime to the unpolitical viewer', which is important in understanding its box-office appeal. It has dramatic values and first-rate stars which make it a film which offers far more than vitriolic anti-Semitism. On the other hand, DeJ hammers away relentlessly on anti- Semitism, something an unpolitical viewer would find objectionable, to say nothing of those who simply did not hold such extreme views. Marlis Steinert, among others, has analyzed the attitude of the German people during War War II, and concludes that in assessing popular support for Hitler, 'anti-Semitism did not play the decisive role that, without any doubt, it had in Hitler's ideology' [23]. The material relating to actual distribution of DeJ confirms her thesis.

More interesting still, especially from a revisionist point of view, is this passage from the final section, "Der ewige Jude and the Final Solution":

The film, through its editing, invites the viewer to move from revulsion over the ritual slaughter of innocent animals to Hitler's own prophecy as to what should be done about those who slaughter animals in so brutal a fashion. Hitler, obsessed with anti-Semitism, may well have meant what he said. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that Goebbels had the annihilation of European Jewry in mind, or that DeJ intended viewers to accept literally the idea of the mass extermination. When DeJ was in gestation, the Final Solution meant deportation to Poland, and then, in 1940, deportation to Madagascar [26].

What might the meaning of DeJ be, if not to turn citizens into indulgent mass murderers? Contemporary English commentators considered the anti-Semitic propaganda of 1940-1941 a type of Ersatz-propaganda, intended to fill space in lieu of victory over England. One must remember that discussion within interested political and administrative hierarchies inside Nazi Germany as to the Final Solution changed dramatically during the extended period when DeJ was in production. None of this debate is apparent in the release print.

DeJ uses the medium of film to create a logical, scientific documented explanation for anti-Semitism as state policy, but does not in any way argue for the Final Solution. Goebbels insisted on an overwhelming number of facts and figures to force on viewers the validity of the thesis that Jews are responsible for all that was wrong in German society. Had DeJ argued for the emotional integrative patriotism of Triumph of the Will, its creative impulse might be recognized more easily. But DeJ has a conspiracy to lay bare in a relentlessly negative way. Those seeking escapist fare simply refused to accept such a litany of negativism.

In other words, Hornshoj-Moller and Culbert were basically taking a "functionalist" line: the "final solution" was originally to send the Jews to Madagascar, and certainly had not become anything like a genocidal program as of late 1940. To make it a revisionist argument, all you need to add is, And it never did.

Curiously, Hornshoj-Moller later changed his tune (the article co-authored with Culbert appeared in 1990), and claimed to find a profound connection between the film and the "final solution." But according to this later thesis, it wasn't the effect of the film on German movie-goers that mattered, it was its effect on Hitler himself. To put it in a (literal) nutshell, H-M came to argue that Hitler decided to murder the Jews as a consequence of watching the film, and that the date for the decision, otherwise the subject of so much debate, could be determined on that basis alone:

In the evening of October 16, 1939, Hippler presented about 30 minutes of rushes, showing alleged Jewish ritual slaughter of cows, calves and sheeps to Goebbels. Although Goebbels himself had ordered these recordings to be cruelty to animals, he was nevertheless deeply shocked at what he saw.

He wrote in his diary the next morning:

Scenes so horrific and brutal in their explicitness that one's blood runs cold. One shudders at such barbarism. This Jewry must be annihilated.

Goebbels showed these rushes to Hitler and others present at Hitler's dinner table on October 28, 1939. According to his diary they were all "deeply shocked." And in estimating the effect on Hitler one should not forget his attitude towards animals: he was a lover of animals and almost religiously vegetarian.

To Adolf Hitler these scenes - and later the whole film, in which they were used as the emotional climax - can only have reinforced his paranoid anti-Semitism and his latent wish to exterminate the Jews.

In other words, Hitler decided to murder all of European Jewry because he was a neurotic vegetarian. :lol:

As for the dating:

When the "Führer" finally approved the film on May 20, 1940, it must have - as a visualized and structured externalisation of his own, more vague thinking - become identical with his own "social construction of reality."

As a means of social communication the climax of this film can only be understood as the "Führer"'s unspoken, yet incontrovertible Sentence of Death upon the Jews. Or to use the conceptual notion of Robert Jay Lifton: When Hitler approved the film, he crossed the "Threshold of Genocide." . . .

For a number of reasons - some of them are very briefly presented in my summary - this analysis has made me suggest a very precise chronology with three key moments:

a) Hitler's final approval of "Der ewige Jude" on May 20, 1940, as the moment, which provoked the Holocaust decision.

b) Hitler's visit to Wervicq on June 1, 1940, as the moment, where he took the Holocaust decision.

c) The official capitulation of France on June 22, 1940, as the moment, where he invested Himmler with the responsibility for carrying out the genocide.

I am well aware of the fact that this chronology seems to be in severe conflict with the explanatory frame-works which have evolved from many years of intense scholarly debate on the issue.

It certainly is. But I guess Hornshoj-Moller realized that he was skating on thin ice with his earlier work, and had to find some way to redeem himself. Since his own research had proven that Der Ewige Jude had almost no effect as propaganda among the German people, he decided instead that it must have influenced the Fuehrer himself. No proof for that, of course (true, Goebbels does say some nasty things in his diary), but who needs proof in Holocaust land? Hitler approved of the film, and so it "must have [!] . . . become identical with his own 'social construction of reality' . . . the Führer's unspoken, yet incontrovertible Sentence of Death upon the Jews."

Holocaust logic!

H-M's later articles (but not his earlier, borderline heretical one with Culbert) are available on the Holocaust History site: http://www.holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/. The one I've quoted from above is the oral presentation from June 11, 1997.

[Steven Willow]

A good interpretation, Kladderadatsch, showing that the so called anti-semitism in Der Ewige Jude recieved a luke warm response from the German public, and the film rendered no view of a solution to the so called "jewish problem."

The charges against jewry promoted in the film also seem to be old hat - that jews are drawn to business and banking and often have a negative influence on politics and government. This charge must have been so common and moldy that few viewers would have been shocked or even surprised to learn it. And, of course, there is a core of truth involved.

BTW, thoroughly enjoyed the "Sesame" version of the flick, which helped to defang the movie and put it in its proper perspective as not so powerful as believers would hope that we think.