February and March of 1943

I thought one of the most interesting portions of the chronology in Rentschler's appendix occurs in 1943. The points of interest for me begin with “Surrender of the Sixth Army under General von Paulus at Stalingrad.” This occurs at the beginning of February. Clearly, when this information reaches the public, they will feel disheartened and probably panic. This is why the speech by Goebbels on February 18th is not surprising. He “calls for total war.” Obviously he is trying to bolster the hope of the people and call them to action. These events are jarring shocks of the realities of war. They exude defeat and sacrifice. That is why the film released two weeks later, Münchhausen, is so interesting to me. This film does not focus on defeat or sacrifice at all; in fact, it does the opposite. Its themes centralize around self-indulgence and personal gratification. The film is contrary to the adamant demands made by Goebbels and, in fact, by the situation around them. Furthermore, a report just one day after the release of the film confirms that “newsreels have been unable to regain their former popularity” This seems to show that people are not interested in the war. They are not interested in being called to total war. They want to engage in escapism and be relieved from the constant reminders of the war that encompasses their lives. This is why Münchhausen gained popularity while newsreels declined.

March 1, 1942

March 1, 1942, Goebbels wrote in his diary, “Even entertainment can be politically of special value, because the moment a person is conscious of propaganda, propaganda becomes ineffective.” [Rentschler, 259]

 

I found the timing of this entry interesting, as it is clear at this point that Goebbels knew the power of propaganda but also how necessary it was going to be in the near future.  In December of 1941, the German troops got frozen in outside of Moscow, a terrible blow for the army of the Third Reich.  Furthermore, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in the same month, Germany was also facing the prospect of fighting a fresh army from the most powerful industrial nation in the World.  These external blows aside, Goebbels was also going to have to control information from within the Reich.  On January 20, 1942, at the Wannsee Conference, the “final solution” of the Jewish people was decided, followed shortly thereafter by the beginning of deportation of the Jews to the death camps.  While many Germans were anti-Semitic, the extreme nature of the “final solution” was going to have to be artfully concealed.  Luckily for Goebbels, German audiences attended the movies 14 times a year on average, and all film distribution was under a central authority.  His entertainment was most certainly going to have to be goods and of special value, because of all times it is at this moment when Goebbels needed effective propaganda.

die Weiße Rose

'22 February [1943] Hans and Sophie Scholl, prominent members of the 'White Rose' resistance group are executed.' [Rentschler 263]

I didn't know what the White rose even was, so it naturally caught my attention. The White Rose was composed mostly of students, and a few professors at the University of Munich who wrote and printed leaflets that were decidedly anti nazi.

The leaflets dealt with deportation and murder of Jews and were opposed to the blind nationalism and militarism in Germany. The students called for justice, and the leaflets were widely distributed in many major German cities.

Hans and Sophie Scholl were arrested by the Gestapo on the 18th after distributing leaflets at the university. They were extensively interrogated, but reportedly remained firm. On the 22nd they were tried by the Volksgerichtshof, and beheaded later that day, on account of treason.

 I am impressed with the courage [or perhaps idealistic naivete] of these students. Although it may appear that their efforts may have been rather futile, the fast and harsh action against them by the Gestapo suggest that they were being effective, insofar as they were noticed and considered threatening.

Investments in Propaganda

The initial creation of the Ministry for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda in March of 1933 was declared by Hitler as responsible “for all tasks related to the spiritual guidance of the nation, to the promotion of the state, culture, and the economy, to the promulgation of information to domestic and foreign sources about the nation as well as the administration of all the agencies responsible for these endeavors” (228). The investments that the Third Reich made in radio, press, film, and theater throughout the duration of the war reveal the importance of the role that all types propaganda played in the promotion of Nazi ideology. In the film industry alone the Third Reich released over 1,000 feature films from 1933 to 1945 (225). Although many of these films were successful in propagating Nazi ideology to the masses, I find it particularly interesting that as the Third Reich began to fall to the Allies in 1945, Goebbels stoically declared: “The great hour has arrived for German propaganda” (269). Ironically, Goebbels was most likely well aware of the Reich’s fast approaching collapse, and we now know that German propaganda alone, 'emotionally engineered' intellectually based, would not be enough to sustain the future of Nazi Germany.

Holding out till the bitter end

On February 8, 1940, Goebbles said, "I keep impressing my people with one basic truth: repeat everything until the last, most stupid person has understood." While somewhat harsh, Goebbles statement truly emphasizes the mentally of the Reich with regards to their media propaganda. Throughout this class we have witnessed a variety of continuous themes in the movies including the idea of the Heimat, the parasitic nature of the Jews, the importance of hygiene and strength for the Nazi party, and the necessary recruitment of the German youth, among other things. He and members of the propaganda crew reached the masses through melodramas, comedies, and "documentaries", finding a way to reiterate the Nazi party ideology across the movie theater screens. At first I was unsure how to react to this quote since it seemed confrontational and even insulting, but as unfortunate this may be, it does ring true to what we have witnessed from their films.

I also found it interesting when Goebbles said, "Gentleman, in a hundred years' time, they will be showing another fine color film describing the terrible days we are undergoing now. Don't you want to play a part in this film, to be brought back to life in a hundred years' time?" He finishes by saying, "Hold out now, so that a hundred years from now the audience does not hoot and whistle when you appear on the screen." I found this quote somewhat eerie in nature and am still unsure as to how to react to it. Throughout this class, no matter how much I do not like Goebbles, I cannot deny the fact that his evil and disgusting creativity worked to grab hold of the German masses and led them to blindly accept and follow the Party's ideology. Since he made this comment on April 17, 1945, it was as if we was willing, and sort of pleading, with his people to hang on for just a bit longer, even thought it was evident they were going to lose the war. I wonder if in this moment Goebbles thought that after the war he would be able to continue heading up propaganda and making movies. It is as if for this one split second he believed that if everyone could stay together and fight for what they believed in, then they could keep things going, even if the war ended. Goebbles is the propaganda industry's hero and in his last "battle speech" he continues to will his people to fight until the end.

"... because the moment a person is conscious of propaganda, propaganda becomes ineffective. However, when propaganda as a tendency, as a characteristic, as an attitude remains in the background and becomes apparent through human beings, then propaganda becomes effective in every respect" page 259. This quote taken from Greobbels was imperative to the mindset of the Nazi party. In order to successfully saturate the mindset of the Germans, the Nazis had to keep their true intentions in the background. The most powerful effect of the propaganda was the inability to notice its existence at all. I think it was imperative that Greobbels was able to identify the fact that once a person becomes conscious that they are watching propaganda...it no longer works to engrain ideas in peoples minds because they are not as open. As 'devil's advocate as it may be to give credit to the Nazi's- the fact of the matter is that they did an excellent job at disguising their attitudes behind bigger ideas and bigger pictures. You saw a monster as dirty and dark and in your mind dirty and dark was associated with fear and hatred. This idea transferred to the prejudices faced by Jews because the Germans were so infiltrated with anti-Semitism in film that they were unable to disengage these feelings in their real lives.

Allied forces and their understanding of propaganda

I found many of the events mentioned in Rentschler's appendix to be worthy of discussion or further research, but one that stood out to me as particularly relevant to this class was the criteria at the very end for the censorship of German films by Allied forces (September 28, 1945). Aside from the issue of the merits censorship itself, which could easily be brought in, what comes to mind is: exactly which films were these 700 that were banned by the Allies? And what implications does this have? If I had to guess, I would surmise that blatantly offensive films such as Jud Suss would be on the list, but what about the films in which the propaganda is more subtle? Because, by definition of what Goebbels and his entire branch set out to do with films under the Third Reich, wouldn't all films produced in that era qualify as violating the new rules for postwar censorship, since they were supposed to be infused in some way or other with Nazi sentiment? Or if not, did that mean that Goebbels & co. failed to produce the kinds of films they were aiming to produce? What probably happened was neither of the above, but instead the Allied rules simply had a different understanding of what was offensive/harmful/propaganda. They probably only screened out those films which were overtly offensive-- but in the end, we seem to have learned, the overtly offensive films usually are the most ineffective and easily rejected. Which means that they left all the truly dangerous ones loose to do the kinds of damage Goebbels intended.

Basically, it would be interesting to know which films the Allied forces censored, and where they fit on the "successful/unsuccessful" and "overtly/covertly propaganda" spectrums -- to see how much overlap there is between the various categories.

Shareholders of the Third Reich

15 February: Goebbels speaks to the film industry: "Now that film has come into the possession of the Reich, we have essentially experienced the following change: whereas film used to be governed by majority shareholders, it now is governed by the national leadership."

This passage on p. 255 of Rentschler's book typified the position of the Third Reich in response to many of its actions in the early 1940s; we do it for the good of the nation, therefore it is a justifiably good thing. Yet there really is no distinction between the former "majority shareholders" that ran the film industry and the film industry under the rule of Hitler and Goebbels. Just as they did with the German government, the Nazi party organized a hostile takeover of the film industry insuring that they were the ones in charge. More importantly, this was done without a democratic means as chosen by the people. Hitler, Goebbels, and the rest of the Ministry of Propaganda were as much shareholders as their predecessors in the film industry. Their chief profit goal may not have been financial, but they invested a lot of time, money, and resources into the film industry in order to win the support of the German people. Therefore, it's clear that there is very little difference between the former "majority shareholders" and the then-current "national leadership."

Striving for Mediocrity?

One thing that struck me from the appendix was Goebbels’ quote on page 251, where he says that “we have only good films and bad films. We lack the serviceable middle range.” The first thing that is interesting about this quote is that Goebbels seems to want mediocre films. Instead of striving for only good films, he wants films that are good, bad and in the middle. I don’t know if he is referring to the quality of the film or the quality of the propaganda but either way, it seems odd that a high ranking Nazi officer would strive for mediocrity instead of demanding the best. The second thing that strikes me is that maybe Goebbels’ mind works on a binary scale that can only register movies as good or bad. Since he views the films in terms of their quality of propaganda and the message that they send to the audience, he might make one conclusive decision on a film instead of wavering. This seems to me to be similar to the binaries that were prevalent in Nazi thinking, like good vs. bad, clean vs. dirty, German vs. the other. 

Flight to the Moon

In his address on the 4th-5th of March in 1938 at the annual meeting of the RFK in Berlin, Goebbels called for "productions with greater verisimilitude (Lebensnähe)" and that film "should hold up a mirror to the world and everyday life.

So the question we have for you, Herr Goebbels, is this - Where or how does such a film as Münchhausen, in all its absurdity and even surreptitious argument against your cause, fall into this category of proper films? Does this still somehow fall under your propaganda plans? Fortunately, as you yourself stated, propaganda must be a subtle thing, lest it immediately lose its effectiveness, and this film is certainly subtle in varying nuances.

But surely not that subtle.

Herr Goebbels, it seems you have fallen prey to propaganda yourself. The fact that Münchhausen was clearly allowed under your permission to be produced and shown to the audiences of Germany shows nothing but your blindness to the film's propaganda, surfacing time and time again throughout the piece, just under your very nose. Or perhaps we could say that with the hard times, Herr Goebbels, the faltering hope of the Nazi party led to your own faltering strictness and formerly stern regulations on what moves the powerful propaganda pawn of the film industry could execute in the game against Germany's enemies. It seems that being cornered ever more tightly, Münchhausen was a final sign of surrender when there were no other moves left.

Appendix 1940-1945

I found this reading to be very interesting, because the chronology was so random. For example it says on March 29, 1940 that "Goebbels stresses the important political role of comedies and musicals" (252). Following this it says on April 27, 1940 "Heinrich Himmler orders that a concentration camp be established at Auschwitz" (251). I found this to be very odd how the listing of a need for musicals was right by the listing of an opening of a concentration camp. These two topics are complete opposites of each other, therefore with them listed on the same page it is odd because the level of importance between the two is not equal at all. I also found it to be kind of funny that Goebbels had so many comments about the propaganda films, that they almost overshadowed the war. Obviously that was his job, but he clearly took it extremely seriously to the point that it was all he was thinking about. Goebbels rally tries to tie together theatrics and the war effort as a means of success in both areas. I feel that in some areas Goebbels is in a state of dillusion. I think he has this idea that germany is going to be indistructable and with the help of all the propaganda that he is spreading people are going to side with Germany in all countries. Goebbels is constantly coming up with new ideas in hopes to spark some interest in German films. Since sometimes he even hires banned writers because he knows that they are very talented and he hopes that people will be receptive to his work. The more receptive people are, the more poeple will love Germany, and the better chance Hitler has of succeeding in ruling the world.

They're Onto You, Mr. Goebbels

Germany’s extensive use of film as propaganda during WW II was no secret to the Allies, who recognized the role cinema played in generating desired perceptions of the war and of the world at the time. I found it very interesting to read that by August 1, 1943, the Allies’ bombings had destroyed 237 cinemas within Germany. For some reason, I tend to think of either residential or industrial areas as common targets for bombings, and had never thought about buildings such as cinemas being affected by wars. Although more than 6,000 cinemas still stood at the end of the year, the loss of hundreds of cinemas must have nevertheless made it increasingly difficult to spread propaganda. On a related note, I also found it interesting that between 1933 and 1940 Germany released more than 80 feature films every year, a quantity that was never reached between 1941 and 1945. In 1945, for instance, only 12 feature films were premiered in Germany. This fact, combined with the decreased number of cinemas in Germany as a result of bombings, indicates that Germany was much more successful at generating and distributing propaganda while leading the war, and was unable to maintain the same level of production and distribution once the tables had turned.

To carry on with the topic of the Allied understanding of the threat of German propaganda, I found it very interesting to read that MGM was ordered in August of 1940 to close its German offices. This is a clear indication that the non-German film industry was starting to understand how works were being used for manipulative purposes. This brings me to the last point I wanted to touch on. On September 28, 1945, the Allies met to decide how German films were to be censored following the war, which shows very clearly that films were viewed as potentially dangerous. The result was that German films were not allowed to be shown in German cinemas that met certain criteria. I thought this was especially intriguing because I had never previously considered how a cinema can influence an audience’s political views. It is obvious how films can do such things, but it had never occurred to me that certain atmospheres can project specified political messages. This is likely due to the fact that modern American cinemas generally consist of neon lights and lots of bright colors advertising whatever food and drinks are available, which all the more displays the stark contrast between what is now the “normal” cinematic experience in America and what the experience was in Germany 65 years ago.

Censorship

One thing I found interesting in the chronology in Rentschler’s book was the guidelines for postwar censorship of German films at the end of the appendix. The guidelines bring up the question of free speech, and whether it is ok to censor something, even when it is obviously bad. One of the most interesting of the ten guidelines was number 5, which states that films would be banned that “ridicule, or seem derogatory or uncomplimentary of, Allied peoples, their governments, their political or national leaders.” Like the other guidelines on the list, one can easily see why the allies would have wanted to follow this policy. As they were engaged in a complicated and extensive process of reconstruction in Germany, the last thing they would have wanted was a film stirring up resentment of allied actions among the German population. However, the stipulation banning “uncomplimentary” works is something I find particularly intriguing. Not only does this seem like a loose term that can be applied to a lot of things, but rather than just preventing films glorifying Germany or the German Army or fascist ideals, it bans films that go against the allied cause. In other words, instead of defining censorship as an effort against a National Socialist past, it becomes an effort in support of a future under an Allied system. That the allies wanted to prescribe Germany’s political future is not surprising. After all, the BRD and DDR are examples of the direct influence of the western and Soviet powers respectively. However, it is interesting that this subtle guideline seems to suggest an awareness of the necessity of film to do so.

Some thoughts on what Goebbels has to say...

After spending some time with the Appendix in Rentschler's book, I came across this interesting quote (pg 251) that Goebbels stated on February 8, 1940: "I keep impressing my people with one basic truth: repeat everything until the last, most stupid person has understood." I was struck by this quote because of how simplistic and provocative it is as it seems to sum up, quite well, what we have learned about the way Nazis used their ideological rhetoric, particularly through film. From the very earliest days of the Nazi party through the end of the war, the Nazis continually repeated the same overarching ideological ideas in speeches and through propoganda (like film). Although Goebbels and his people may not have been able to get "the last, most stupid person" to understand, they were able to get most people to understand, and that is pretty scary when one takes the time to think about it. In another quote, taken from his diary from March 1, 1942, Goebbels states that "Even entertainment can be politically of special value, because the moment a person is conscious of propaganda, propaganda becomes ineffective. However, when propaganda as a tendency, as a characteristic, as an attitude remains in the background and becomes apparent through human beings, then propaganda becomes effective in every respect" (259). This quote, then, sums up how it was they were able to get so many to buy the propaganda that was repeated, as it was always so subtle, working behind the scenes, particularly in entertainment like the movies we have watched and discussed. In ending, I would like to mention that I believe what drew me to these quotes is in that they point in the direction as to how/why Germany allowed the Nazis to take over. Although there were countless reasons for the rise of the Nazis, as we read in the Benz book, a question that is asked by many is how/why did the German people allow this (this = everything from 1933-1945) to happen? In the Divinity school, there is much talk at times about the indifferance and complacency of the Germany people, discussing those few Germans (like Bonhoeffer) who resisted the Nazis. Yet, I can not help but wonder...given the meticulous time and energy that Goebbels and the Nazis put into propaganda, making it so subtle and repeating it in so many different ways, is it really any surprise that the overwhelming majority of the German people accepted Nazi rule and power? If nothing else, this class and all that we have studied has given me a lot to think about...

Blog post for December 1-3

This week, review the chronology of films and events from 1940-1945 in Rentschler's Appendix. Find one event, film, industry event, or political happening to explore however you like. If you respond to a film, please post on the film blog; otherwise, please post on the reading blog.

Renschler is clearly enamored with the films cinematic scope and its propagandistic means. The question for me was a film's ability to be both escapist and a piece of heavy propaganda. A propagandistic film intuitively connotes an engagement with the material that is active--a piece escapist theater connotes a disengagement from the faculties to the point of transcendence. Many films more or less fall into one category--to bridge both requires specific subject matter. The storyline must be fantastical nature to fulfill the demands of both propaganda and escapist art. The disengagement of the faculties as the audience settles into an alternate reality engenders a total receptivity. Because the film is a suspension of reality and natural law from the onset, the authorial power increases exponentially. The film can consider even the most far fetched ideologies with little regard to any 'normal' standards of thought and action. The audience will consider them because they have been conditioned to do so, and after all, its only "a movie".

Münchhausen Post

In doing the readings for this week, I was struck by how differently Schulte-Sasse and Rentschler interpreted this film. To make a very broad generalization, Schulte-Sasse reads Münchhausen as a subversive, anti-Nazi movie and reads the main character as Jewish, while Rentschler reads Münchhausen as a clever scheme of Goebbel's "to control all sectors of experience includ[ing] alternative perspectives" (Rentschler 203) and the liar baron as a strong representation of the Fascist ideal- a man unaffected by the passage of time who is master of his own destiny and "those forces that... might hinder his unencumbered movement" (Rentschler 207). To have come to such radically different conclusions, one might think that the authors had read each scene completely differently, but surprisingly, they didn't. They both look at the winking picture and the baron's ride on the cannonball as indications of self-reference, and both interpret this gesture as showing the illusion that is film-making. Schulte-Sasse even references some of Rentschler's own conclusions, but then recognizes that hers are generally much different.

I have a feeling that if I tried to figure out at exactly which point in their logic the two authors began to disagree, I'd be writing an essay, not a blog, so I'm only going to talk about one particular scene in which they took different opinions.

At the end of the film, the butler turns off the electric light, signaling the end of the film. But the painting of the baron comes to life once more to blow out the candles, and the smoke from the candles signals the real ending of the film by spelling out "Ende." According to Schulte-Sasse, this double ending has two functions. First, it highlights our ambivalence to the ending of the film (and our recognition that it is a film!) in much the same way that Münchhausen prefers Christian's death on the moon where he fades into smoke rather than the rot of earthly death. Second, it also shows more generally Nazi cinema as an apparatus of propaganda; Münchhausen sits in his portrait and is subject to his place in time, but there is some other element which makes him not content to stay there, so he reaches out of his portrait into a new time.

Rentschler, on the other hand, sees this as a final demonstration of the ultimate Fascist power. Baron Münchhausen has such control over his destiny that he even "stages his final act and thus determines how he will enter history" (Rentschler 210). This reminds me of how Hitler asked for drawings of his grandiose buildings hundreds of years in the future, as they lay in ruins. Rentschler also suggests that this ending in smoke, when viewed with the death of Kuchenreutter, represents the Nazis desire to make mortality more poetic and intimate. This was especially important to the Nazi propaganda machine after the disaster of Stalingrad.

Moon Fantasy

One scene discussed in Rentschler’s article about Munchhausen that struck me the most was the moon scene. Rentschler discussed the significance of the fantasy planet where women’s heads could be separated from their bodies so that the men would not have to worry about promiscuity and the women would be able to stay home and do housework. This reading did not even cross my mind as I was viewing the film but it is interesting to discuss in terms of the Nazi fantasy of male domination. While I can definitely see this reading, I wonder what the role of the moon in the film says about this fantasy.

The flight to the moon is obviously not a realistic venture, as one could not fly in a hot-air balloon and end up landing right on the moon. In fact, the moon setting is so unrealistic and mocking that it cannot be considered to be a plausible reality. Additionally, man cannot survive on the moon for very long (except for Munchhausen) because each day is a year. These facts seem to suggest that the idea of the ideal woman (whose head can be separated from her body) who can be controlled and monitored is not only implausible but also undesirable. While that one aspect of the moon can be read as being in line with Nazi fantasy, because it is combined with quick aging, a lack of appropriate nourishment and a short life span, it becomes undesirable and may not be able to be viewed as an attractive fantasy. Perhaps this means that the ideal is unattainable or it could even be mocking it but it does not seem to me that the film portrays it in a positive light.

"I Thought I'd Be Welcomed with Turkish Coffee"

Either take issue with Rentschler's reading of some scene in Münchhausen (1943), or discuss the operation of the film's narrative framing device.

I greatly appreciated Rentschler's approach to Münchhausen as it helped explain in many ways how the Nazis, and particularly Goebbels, were capable of using this film to their advantage, paying no expense in the process. However, I am curious about one thing in particular that I would like to raise here in the form of a question...why did Rentschler not focus on the fact that many parts of this film are out right hilarious? I ask this realizing that it could be that I am reading my own viewing of this film into it way to much, and maybe the film was not meant to be funny when it was released in 1943. However, I do not see how one could not possibly laugh at what Münchhausen says to the Turks after his cannonball flight is over. To me, this scene and what he says is absolutely hysterical. Vehemently, Münchhausen apologizes for his intrusion, explains he had meant a reconnaissance but his gunner aimed at their priceless fortress. Then, he yells a traditional Arab greeting (Asalaam 'Alaykum...peace be upon you) and proceeds to say that he will come down, introduces himself, and once he is tied up, says that he thought he would be welcomed with Turkish coffee. This is only one example, and it certainly plays into the fantastic nature of the film, and so I just wonder if the fantasy was supposed to act in a comedic way at all since it was so outrageous at times. It seems that humor, along with fantasy, would have been increasingly important as a means of distraction in Germany at that time, given, as Rentschler points out, the country had just suffered a major defeat at Stalingrad and was under constant air raids by the Allies.