Issuu on Google+

MORESHET 5

Summer 2008

Shay Hazkani

Forbidden Films An Analysis of the Nazi Propaganda Films The Eternal Jew and Jew Suess and Their Influence on the German Public

Propaganda and Propaganda Movies during the Third Reich

T

he eminent French philosopher and sociologist Jacques Ellul defines propaganda1 as a series of methods applied by an organized group in order to get others involved in its activities, whether actively or passively.2 Propaganda finds expression not only in obvious forms, through the press and through gatherings and conferences, but also at the broader social level, encompassing all areas of the individual’s life, including education, art, and public behavior. According to Ellul, propaganda involves not only the attempt of the political leader to manipulate the people, but also the active participation of the propagandee (the target of the propaganda), who becomes a full partner in the process, and indeed derives tremendous satisfaction from it. Without the consent of the propagandee, there could be no dissemination of propaganda in the modern era. This reflects a need not only of the propagandist but also of the ordinary individual – in regimes defined as “democratic” as well as in those defined as “totalitarian.” The difference lies in the fact that dictatorships have far higher expectations from propaganda – to the point where they expect it to mold a new kind of individual.3


182

Shay Hazkani

MORESHET

The cinema occupies a unique position among the various ways of spreading propaganda. Baruch Gitlis, a historian of the propaganda film, maintained that it was the capacity of the cinema to influence the senses – coined by him the “abdominal muscles” – that makes this medium so unique.4 A movie can cause us to shed tears, feel dryness in the throat, burst into belly-aching laughter, and even drive us to the point of losing consciousness. After reviewing a series of research papers in the field, Gitlis concluded that a film-maker could probably alter the opinions of a viewer on any given issue, provided he or she did not have a firm position on it to begin with.5 Another historian of propaganda films, David Welch, demonstrated, through various studies, that while propaganda can intensify and augment sensations and ideas that already exist in a population, it cannot radically change opinions or induce new sensations and notions that were not present among its members in the first place.6 During the period of the Third Reich (1933-1945), the Nazi party believed propaganda to be vital, and engaged in it not only through the Ministry of Propaganda, which was set up soon after the party seized power, but also through a special apparatus within the party itself. This was the first time that any state had appointed a minister specifically in charge of propaganda. Nazi propaganda made use of every available type of media, ranging from newspapers, magazines (including women’s and children’s periodicals), books, conferences and rallies to theater, art, radio, and of course, films. The production of propaganda films was the sole responsibility of the Ministry of Propaganda under Joseph Goebbels, an enthusiastic supporter of Hitler who, prior to his appointment to the post, had been the chief propagandist of the Nazi party. Goebbels perceived the cinema as “the most comprehensive modern medium that exists to influence the masses.”7 Thus, alongside such image-building propaganda films of Germany under the Nazi party regime as Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph des Willens (Triumph of the will) (1935), Goebbels also harnessed the cinema to spread anti-Jewish propaganda. This was done to a large extent under the inspiration of Hitler himself, who had already dwelt on the importance of propaganda in his notorious book Mein Kampf.8 Almost seventy years have passed since the purported “documentary” movie Der Ewige Jude (The Eternal Jew) (1940) was released to cinemas


MORESHET

Shay Hazkani

in Germany. This film, directed by Fritz Hippler, is today banned from screening in most European countries. Yet, in browsing the Internet, it is easy to come across not only academic discussions of this film but also the following comment, which appears alongside the price offer for the film, on an American white supremacist website:

Best documentary film on the Jews ever produced, with new English sound track. Jews were filmed as they actually lived and worked in Poland in 1940. Jewish history, religion, society, cultural tendencies and business practices are explored. Jewish ritual-slaughter section has most horrifying scenes ever filmed. Shows Jews as they really are.9

Even today, this notorious hate film has not been forgotten; in fact, far from it – it is more accessible than ever before. Another antisemitic film produced in Nazi Germany in 1940 was Jud Süss (Jew Suess) by the director Veit Harlan. What makes this movie so unique is that while it is a fictional feature film, it, too, purports to teach the audience about the character of “the real Jew.” In this paper I shall attempt to uncover which official institutions of the Third Reich were behind the production of these two films, what their objectives were, and whether those goals were achieved. The Ministry of Propaganda produced a number of explicitly anti-Jewish propaganda films, but The Eternal Jew and Jew Suess are regarded as outstanding examples of the antisemitic propaganda film – The Eternal Jew on account of its venomous character, making it into what is acknowledged to be “the most famous Nazi propaganda film of all time, a movie that, as far back as 1968, was described by the researcher Erwin Leiser as a film that ‘turns honest citizens into indulgent mass murderers’”10; and Jew Suess on account of its extraordinary box-office success.

From the Initial Idea to the Premiere On 10 November 1938, Hitler summoned leaders of the German media to a meeting in order to express his anger at the relative lack of support he had received from the public after the events of Kristallnacht. He attacked his listeners and made the following demands for the future:

183


184

Shay Hazkani

MORESHET

But gradually it became necessary to [condition the German people psychologically and slowly] make it grasp that there do exist things that one has to solve with violent means when they cannot be solved by peaceful means. To do so, however, it was necessary not to make propaganda for violence as such, but to elucidate certain events of foreign policy to the German people in such a way that the inner voice of the people by itself slowly began to call for violence [sic].11

Propaganda Minister Goebbels took the reprimand very seriously and decided to harness the film industry (for which he was responsible in his ministerial capacity) for the production of anti-Jewish propaganda that would lead to the required mobilization of the German people. He asked the film companies to submit screenplays for movies of an antisemitic character. What Goebbels hoped to achieve above all, according to Danish film historian Stig Hornshøj-Møller, was the making of a so-called documentary film about the Jews. However this could be done only after the annexation of Poland since there were no Jews in Germany that fitted the description of the Nazi stereotype.12

The Production of The Eternal Jew An exhibition entitled “The Eternal Jew” was opened in Munich in 1937 with the assistance of the Ministry of Propaganda; on display were antisemitic pictures and paintings of Jews. The idea behind it was to “remove the mask from the face of the Jew” by means of pictures from “every-day life” in the East European Jewish quarters. Already at the opening of the exhibition, a short anti-Jewish propaganda film was screened lambasting famous Jewish film stars from the Weimar period. Goebbels apparently did not like this film, for in his diaries he wrote that it was a “bad propaganda film about Jews in cinema; it was made in defiance of my prohibition. I will not give it my approval. It is too burdensome.”13 However, Dr. Eberhard Taubert, head of the Eastern Department (Abteilung Ost) of the Ministry of Propaganda, apparently persuaded Goebbels to give the option of antisemitic propaganda films another chance and soon after the opening of this exhibition, the Polish authorities were asked to allow a film to be shot about the Jews in


MORESHET

Shay Hazkani

their territory, but they refused.14 Two years later, after the German occupation of Poland, officials of the Ministry of Propaganda no longer needed to obtain permission from anyone and could get on with the implementation of their program. Taubert was put in charge of the project, but as a senior propagandist at the ministry, he first concentrated on anti-Bolshevik propaganda in the framework of the General Union of German Anti-communist Organizations (Gesamtverband deutscher antikommunistischer Vereinigungen), known as the AntiKomintern, which he had set up in 1933. This organization had been established outside the Ministry of Propaganda and its affiliation with the ministry was kept secret in order not to upset the Soviet Union, with which Germany in 1934 was still trying to maintain friendly relations. Its principal function was to spread anti-communist propaganda, but Taubert was personally in charge of briefing the press on writing in the “anti-communist spirit” which the authorities were anxious to disseminate. The perception guiding the organization was that it had also to combat world Jewry, since Bolshevism was led by Jews. Before long, Taubert began to disseminate virulently anti-Jewish propaganda in the framework of the Institut zum Studium der Judenfrage (Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question), which had been placed under his authority.15 In order to promote the idea of the movie, Taubert and Goebbels decided to send Fritz Hippler, head of the cinema department at the Ministry of Propaganda, to Lodz to film Jews living there. Hippler, who was only 30 at the time, was the rising star at the Propaganda Ministry’s newsreel department, and had already directed two short propaganda films of Germany’s victories.16 Prior to the start of his career at the ministry, Hippler – then still a student – had been one of the organizers of the burning of Jewish books in Berlin in May 1933.17 On 5 October 1939, Goebbels and Tauber gave the following description of Hippler’s assignment: to produce a Ghettofilm “with typical Jewish characters.” Hippler was further instructed to stage and film a service in the synagogue and the religious ritual of kosher slaughter.18 On 11 October, Hippler and cameraman Erich Stoll arrived in Lodz and began to shoot the film. There is virtually no testimony from the time of the filming process itself, but it is evident that Hippler and Stoll shot the synagogue scenes, as well as the kosher ritual slaughter one, in Lodz; in the latter,

185


186

Shay Hazkani

MORESHET

a “Jewish butcher” is shown tormenting cattle with a disturbing brutality. Unfortunately no source material has come to light revealing details of how this scene was staged or who the participants were. The Israeli scholar Daniel Uziel proved in his research that the propaganda wing of the Wehrmacht (Wehrmachtspropagandaabteiliung)19 played an active role in the filming in Lodz.20 Already on 2 October, even before Hippler and Stoll left for Lodz, the propaganda divisions were ordered to obtain “film footage showing all sorts of Jewish types. We need more than before, from Warsaw and from all the occupied territories. What we want are portraits and images of Jews at work.”21 On 7 October, the commander of the Eighth Army was instructed to give as much assistance as possible to Hippler and Stoll:

The Ministry of Propaganda assigns Dr. Eberhard Taubert and Mr. Fritz Hippler [Cinema Inspector of the Reich] to Warsaw on a special mission; the cameramen Zunf, Endreat, Soll and Tallman will go to Lodz; and [the cameramen] Winterfeld, Kunger, Hartmann and Eschenbach – to Krakow. Please give them every possible assistance in carrying out their task and second them to the PK [the regional propaganda division].22

Uziel demonstrates that there is a real contradiction between Hippler’s later contention that he filmed only in Lodz and the correspondence preserved by the Wehrmacht. From these documents, it appears that the Propaganda Division in Lodz helped Hippler and Stoll in the filming of the infamous slaughter scene. The assistance appears to have been mainly logistic and technical. References to the filming process may be found in written material of a small number of Jews who witnessed the making of The Eternal Jew. One of these was Bernard Goldstein, a resident of Warsaw. In his memoirs, he describes how the film crew deliberately refrained from filming “bodies lying in the street, walking human skeletons and half-naked children.” Gitlis (quoting from an unidentified source) points out that individuals of particularly repulsive appearance were deliberately chosen for the movie, and film techniques and special lenses were used to exaggerate the characters’ appearance. Recalling another film project that took place in the summer of 1942, Emanuel Ringelblum (1900-1944) describes how a scene was staged that shows men and women bathing together in a mikveh (Jewish ritual bath;


MORESHET

Shay Hazkani

a similar scene appears in The Eternal Jew), how the shop-windows of Jewish stores were filled with luxury goods for the shoot and how one of the children was coerced into stealing a loaf of bread.23 On 16 October 1939, Hippler and Stoll returned to Germany and a few days later showed Goebbels the ritual slaughter scene they had staged. Goebbels’ reaction was one of horror but he was not to be deterred: “Scenes so horrific and brutal in their explicitness that one’s blood runs cold. One shudders at such barbarism. This Jewry must be annihilated.”24 On 29 October, Goebbels, in the course of a dinner, showed Hitler and other leading party personalities some of the scenes that had been shot, including the slaughter scene. In his diary he wrote that the gathering was in shock.25 Afterward, the historian Ralf Georg Reuth recorded that Goebbels suggested inserting the ritual slaughter scene into the movie Jew Suess, too, but its director Harlan firmly opposed the idea, arguing that the horrific cruelty in it “would make the audience’s stomach turn over.” Goebbels agreed that the scene be included only in The Eternal Jew.26 One day after the screening before Hitler, Goebbels himself traveled with Taubert and a film crew to the Lodz ghetto. Møller and another researcher, David Culbert, assume that it was on this occasion that additional segments were shot, including the filming of a Talmud Torah, wheeling-and-dealing in a synagogue and “before” and “after” shots of Orthodox Jews “disguised” as west Europeans.27 Upon his return Goebbels wrote in his diary: It was unbelievable. They [the Jews] are not people; they are animals. So it is no longer a humanitarian task but a task for a surgeon. This has to be cut off right here and in the most radical fashion, or else Europe will one day collapse from the Jewish Disease.28

From this point on, work on the film intensified. The cameraman Stoll filmed the “rat-scene” in Berlin – which compares the dispersion of Jews throughout the world with that of rats, and purports to show how both of them spread diseases. Music “with Jewish characteristics” was added to the film and animation segments were constructed – all under the close supervision of Goebbels, who virtually assumed the role of super-producer, according to Møller. Hitler, too, was kept informed of progress on the film, and asked for certain changes, which led to a delay in its premiere.29 The

187


188

Shay Hazkani

MORESHET

first version of the film did not include the scene comparing the external appearance of the Jew to the “Aryan,” or Hitler’s speech at the Reichstag in which he threatened to destroy world Jewry if war broke out. It is not clear why these segments were included only at a later stage: perhaps because of Hitler’s comments. From the memoirs of Goebbels and others, we learn that in December 1939 Hitler fumed at Goebbels, claiming that the propaganda films were being made in amateur fashion. Goebbels took keen note of these remarks and the delays in the editing of The Eternal Jew may have been due to Hitler’s criticism.30 At the beginning of March 1940, the film was shown to a “focus group” of 120 people, including Party personalities and academics. Following their comments, further changes were made, and the film was officially completed in September 1940 after five different versions had been produced. Its general release appears to have been postponed until the completion of Jew Suess. On 8 September, the official screening took place before cabinet ministers, army representatives, the foreign press, academics, and representatives of the Hitler Youth and women’s organizations. According to testimonies quoted by Møller, the reactions to the screening were of horror and some of those present said the movie was too awful to watch and should be allowed for screening only in closed meetings of the Party. These comments prompted Goebbels to give orders that two versions be produced: one, the full version including the slaughter scene, and the second a “watered-down” version more suitable for women and children. On 4 November, the censor gave the go-ahead for public screening of the film, noting that it was “politically and artistically valuable.” The premiere took place on 28 November. At 4 p.m. the shortened version was screened, and at 6.30 p.m. – the full version.31 Everyone who entered the Ufa Palest-am-Zoo cinema in Berlin was given a program with a description of the repulsive scenes about to be screened and a concise outline of what they were about to experience: the movie, it stated, was the story of the Jew who lives in a building not fit to be called a house, a hovel that is always filthy. The Jewish race, it went on, does not work for a living but makes its money out of wheeling-and-dealing at all times, even in the synagogue during prayer services. Moreover, the Jew does know how to assimilate into the population in whose midst he lives, for which


MORESHET

Shay Hazkani

purpose he will shave off his beard and don European apparel. That is how the Jew manages to gain control of high-ranking and important positions. This applies in particular, the writers warn, to Germany itself, where the Jews are to blame for Germany’s defeat in the First World War. Even now the Jews were continuing to exploit the German state. The way the Jews have dispersed around the world – thus the program tells us – is identical to the way rats have spread everywhere. The long program notes conclude with a description of a kosher slaughter ritual which it labeled “inhuman.” “In shining contrast, the film closes with pictures of German people and German order which fill the viewer with a feeling of deep gratification for belonging to a race whose Führer is fundamentally solving the Jewish problem.”32 An article published upon the general release of the film in the monthly bulletin of Nazi Party propagandists (Unser Wille und Weg) states that this film should be screened wherever any doubt is cast on antisemitism. “Rarely will people feel more horror than when watching the desperate and horrible death struggle of the slaughtered animals. One has a deep sense of salvation after seeing this film. This film will be a valuable tool in that struggle.” The reaction anticipated at the end of the movie, it asserts, is “Help, and a powerful desire for victory in the fight against Jewry.” The film, it said, was bound to be a powerful tool in this struggle.33

The Production of Jew Suess Jew Suess was not the first antisemitic feature film to be produced in the Third Reich but it was by far the most popular.34 It was preceded by several movies that displayed a “soft” antisemitism which should be viewed as part of the European antisemitic tradition and not as a deliberately directed endeavor, as well as by several “hard” antisemitic films which were of lesser importance than Jew Suess. Among the latter, one may note Die Rothschilds (The Rothschilds, 1940) – which was in essence an anti-British movie with certain antisemitic elements. It was made in reaction to a pro-Jewish film produced in the United States, The House of Rothschild (1934). The film Jew Suess was also made in response to a pro-Jewish film of the same name

189


190

Shay Hazkani

MORESHET

produced in England in 1935. The film Jew Suess is purportedly based upon the true story of Josef Suess Oppenheimer, financial adviser to Duke Karl Alexander of Württemburg who was sentenced to hanging by a court in 1738. The historical facts about the character of Suess are not at all clear. Gitlis came to the conclusion that Oppenheimer invented some new taxes in order to finance the duke’s new army, a force that was intended to impose Roman Catholicism upon Protestant Württemburg. After the duke’s sudden death from a heart attack, Suess was arrested on the orders of a special committee which, however, could find no evidence that he had cheated the ducal mint. At that stage, an attempt was made to find some immoral elements in his private life, but here, too, the committee seems to have met with little success. Nevertheless, Suess was indicted and interrogated with great cruelty for an entire year. In the end he was hanged inside a cage on 4 February 1738. Gitlis noted that the duke’s ministers, who had, in fact, embezzled public funds, got away scot free. Several historical novels were written about Suess after his death, most of them painting an uncomplimentary or even antisemitic portrait of the Jew. However in none of these was it claimed that Suess was put to death on charges of having raped or had sexual relations with a Christian woman, as depicted in the movie, but rather on various charges of abuse of his high office. There were also several other articles, in which Suess was presented in a positive light.35 Unlike The Eternal Jew, which was produced directly by the Ministry of Propaganda, Jew Suess was made by a private company called Terra, albeit under the close supervision of Goebbels himself. The screenplay was written by Ludwig Metzger who had already, back in 1921, tried to get film companies interested in producing a movie about Suess. Now, with the demand for antisemitic screenplays, he saw his chance.36 Eberhard Moeller participated in the screen adaptation of Metzger’s story. In the film, Suess is executed for the rape of a Christian woman and for abuse of office – accusations that did not appear in any of the historical essays on Suess Oppenheimer.37 Moeller gave the following explanation for their version of the historic story: “We, too, tried to be objective, but our objectivity is different from that of the past, when efforts were made to understand everything and forgive.” 38


MORESHET

Shay Hazkani

Within a short time Veit Harlan assumed the role of director, replacing the previous one who had quit. The historian Rolf Giesen wrote that, contrary to the version generally accepted by researchers of the period – namely that Harlan was coerced into producing the movie (a claim that he himself tried to advocate after the war) – it appears that Harlan himself volunteered for the job.39 Giesen suggested that Harlan’s detestation of the Jews stemmed from an event in his own life, when a group of Jews ousted his father from the post of president of the Association of Dramatists.40 Reading Harlan’s diaries, one can get a glimpse into the production process of the movie which made the director a close friend and ally of Goebbels. Another source of historical information is the record of testimonies at the postwar trial of Harlan on charges of “crimes against humanity.” Ultimately, he was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove that he sought deliberately to promote antisemitism. The biggest problem that faced Harlan in the early stages of production of the movie in 1940 was casting the leading Jewish characters. In a newspaper article, Goebbels, who closely followed the production process, outlined the acting qualities required: “For Jud Süss we are still looking for an actor. He must combine the worldly elegance of the assimilated Jew with the underhand demoniac power and coldness of a greedy, sensual Hebrew.”41 At first no German actor would agree to take on the part of Suess Oppenheimer. Even the actor who eventually took the part – Ferdinand Marianes – did so with undisguised reluctance and under pressure from Goebbels himself, who summoned him to a private meeting and told him (according to Harlan) that the Nazi party had raised German actors to such a high position that they were earning more than scientists, and that “Now, when they are asked to make a contribution, they refuse, with one eye on ‘the Jewish filth’ in Hollywood.”42 Marianes was persuaded, and Goebbels, anxious to assuage the actor’s concern that his status could be undermined if he appeared in the role of the Jew, issued a statement that “Aryan blood” flowed in his veins (Marianes had in the past been married to a Jewess).43 Later, Marianes dropped his adamant refusal, explaining that he now identified completely with the aims of the film; yet after the war he maintained he had been forced to participate in it. He claimed he had tried deliberately to sabotage his screen test in order to be rejected for the role,

191


192

Shay Hazkani

MORESHET

but in the end was coerced into accepting it after it was implied that his halfJewish step-daughter would be harmed.44 The actor Werner Krauss who played the part of Rabbi Loeb in the film, immediately accepted this offer of work and indeed was paid fifty thousand Marks.45 However, not all the actors approached by Harlan to act in the movie acceded to the request: Giesen demonstrated that at least one actor, Albrecht Schoenhals, firmly refused to accept any role in the film due to his opposition to the Nazis – a stand for which he was blacklisted.46 When production began in January 1940, Harlan toured ghettoes in Poland in order to observe the lives of the Jews and to seek out Jewish extras for his film. Film historian Susan Tegel researched the use of Jewish extras in the film and gives a detailed description of Harlan’s journey in Poland.47 In Lublin, Harlan met with the rabbi of the local community and asked him to help find a hundred Jews for scenes in the movie. The rabbi, who believed that Harlan’s intentions were positive and that the participation of members of his congregation would help to refute and obliterate antiJewish prejudices, agreed to help him.48 In return, Harlan promised the rabbi he would see to the return of some ancient books and scrolls that had been seized from the synagogue. In his diary he wrote that the Jews were so grateful that they presented him with a Torah scroll. By the end of his visit, 120 Jews had been mobilized, and travel and accommodation arrangements made for them in Berlin, all under medical supervision. The German press had been given strict instructions not to report the expected arrival of the Jews in the city for work on the movie. However, due to an outbreak of typhus in the ghetto, Harlan was banned by the health supervision authorities from bringing the Jews to Berlin and had to abandon his project. He was able to shoot only one short segment inside the Jewish area in Poland.49 Eventually Harlan sought out Jews to participate in the movie in Prague, where they were filmed in the Barrandov studios. According to some witnesses, Harlan asked for the assistance of S.S. officers in finding candidates and forcing Jews to participate, though it is not clear to what extent this testimony is reliable.50 Harlan himself maintained that it was the chief rabbi of Prague who had cooperated with him; but an examination conducted at the time of his trial produced no rabbi answering to the name he gave. Tegel quotes a number


MORESHET

Shay Hazkani

of testimonies alleging that the Jews who participated in the movie were mobilized at the registration bureau in Prague and received payment. She contends that the claims of Harlan’s aides that these Jews were anxious to participate in the movie should be seen in the context of a severe shortage of food, combined with the anti-Jewish measures taken by the authorities. She explains that in fact they had no choice in the matter.51 The testimonies given by Jews in Harlan’s trial paint a highly complex picture: while one witness maintained that Harlan had resorted to implicit threats of violence if his orders were not obeyed, the wife of one of the Jewish singers in the film said that Harlan displayed a humane attitude.52 In September 1940, the film was released for public screening in Germany. Goebbels noted in his diary: “This is a great success. The work of a genius [i.e., Harlan]. Precisely the antisemitic movie that we wanted.” 53 Goebbels was so delighted that he gave orders for it to be sent immediately to Venice for presentation at the German-Italian film festival.54 The program gives a detailed description of the story of the film: how the Jew Suess lends the duke some money and in exchange, attains financial control over the entire city; how Suess abducts the beautiful Dorothea Strum and brutally rapes her, while his servants torture her husband in the cellars; how Dorothea manages to escape and then commits suicide; how the duke dies, and finally – how Suess is brought to trial and sentenced to death. In conclusion the program tells how the Jews leave the city while the judge who condemned Suess warns: “May the citizens of other countries never forget this lesson.”55 In an interview with a reporter for the periodical Der Film when Jew Suess was released, Harlan noted the connection between the story and the Nuremberg Laws, noting that two centuries earlier a Jew was condemned to death for having sexual relations with a Christian woman:

Here I am depicting authentic Jewry as it was then and as it now continues unchecked in Poland. In contrast to this original Jewry we are presented with Süss, the elegant financial adviser to the Court, the clever politician in short, the Jew in disguise.56

When the movie was released for general viewing in Berlin, journalists were given instructions as to how to write about it. They were asked to point out that Jews like Suess exploited their position and power not for the

193


194

Shay Hazkani

MORESHET

good of the community but for the benefit of their own race:

It is the duty off all newspapers to point out this typically Jewish trait and to take the opportunity of the film’s première to impress on our people the message that every Jew has only his well-being and that of his racial brothers in mind, even when he pretends generous motive.57

Nevertheless, Gitlis points out that the directives issued by the Ministry of Propaganda to the press underlined that the movie should be treated as a feature movie, not a propaganda film.58 Goebbels believed that the message would be well enough understood without too much explicit guidance.59

Cinematic Expression While the primary concern here is with a historical examination of these propaganda films, a brief discussion of the ideas and range of associations that the film-makers sought to trigger in the minds of viewers is in order. As far as possible, an attempt will be made to examine this angle through the memories of the film-makers themselves, and where this is not possible, interpretations of the film by experts in propaganda and cinema will be quoted.

Analysis of The Eternal Jew Gitlis believes the influence of The Eternal Jew was substantially reduced by what he calls a “lack of rational consistency,” despite the sensual stimulations engendered by some of the scenes in the movie which have a particularly powerful impact. Hippler himself comments on the effect he hoped to make on the viewer:

If one allows the images to sink into the consciousness, one must admit that even the most hateful caricatures and actions are far from capturing the reality. Everyone who has seen these images has said the same thing: a symphony of disgust and terror.60

According to Gitlis, the narrator in the movie creates a barrier between the viewers (and himself) and the subject of the film – the Jews. The continual


MORESHET

Shay Hazkani

use of the first person (“To us Germans”) while classifying the Jews as “the Other” implies that a danger lurks beyond the borders of the German community.61 It is these emotions that Hippler tried to reach through his portrayal of figures that arouse the kind of formative and subconscious associations frequently used in propaganda films in order to lead the viewer to conclusions that are illogical, and in our case, to stimulate feelings of hatred against the Jews. Gitlis explained that this was a primitive system used to provoke conditioned reflexes instead of arguments. Once he has set in motion a process of distancing from the Jew, the propagandist is free to resort to whatever manipulation suits him best.62 Following is a description of some of the main scenes and issues in which one can detect a specific subtext beyond the openly hostile remarks and grotesque presentations. A. Insects on the wall in Jewish homes: in the opening scene, the camera focuses on some “typical” Jewish characters, looking at the ways they make their livelihood. Particularly memorable in this scene is a close-up of insects (such as cockroaches, fleas, and ants) crawling on the wall of one of the houses. Gitlis, in his commentary, writes that the message from this scene is that the Jewish family lives in a dishonorable fashion, in filthy and neglected surroundings, lacking the most basic hygiene. The narrator explains that the family shown is not a poor one, and that the Jews prefer to live in filth. This kind of life, he says, is the very opposite of that of the clean, orderly German family. Inevitably the viewer is filled with a sense of disgust.63 B. Juxtaposition of the working man with the Jew: this is attained by showing the Jew as working only in petty trading, in ugly wheeling-anddealing, and in selling contaminated goods. “They have neither ideals nor morals; their religion teaches them to exploit and deceive anyone who is not a Jew,” the narrator asserts. In contra-distinction, the character of the hard-working German is shown. Gitlis explains that the principle of comparison is achieved through close-ups of repulsive-looking characters (Jews) alternating with close-ups of muscular working hands, hammerblows, and a strong torso.64 The German workers are shot from a low angle, to enhance their stature on the screen. The Jews, on the other hand, are shot from up high, making them appear smaller than they really are, like insects and parasites scuttling about in a cage. According to Gitlis, every person

195


196

Shay Hazkani

MORESHET

appearing in the movie clearly belongs to a certain stereotype, to either the German camp or the enemy one (the Jews) – and this is evident at every stage from their outward appearance, which is meant as a reflection of their moral values. This is an objective that the Nazi propagandist successfully attained.65 C. Juxtaposition of the music: when the “Aryan” types are shown in the film, the feeble and discordant background music is replaced by harmonious tones that reach particularly high octaves. D. The crawling snake: the Jew takes control of the world – the historic story line of the Wandering Jew is shown in animation. According to Taubert, who wrote the screenplay, the Wandering Jew began his travels from Mesopotamia to Egypt, and from Egypt to Palestine, from where he set out to conquer all of Europe. This is represented by a crawling snake − an image reminiscent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Gradually, what emerges on the screen is a kind of spider web that covers not only Europe but the entire western hemisphere.66 The visual illustration of these wanderings recalls the outbreak of an epidemic or the spread of cancer through the human body. E. The Jew as a rat: this is perhaps the most famous scene of the entire film. It begins by showing the Asian brown rat, with the narrator informing the audience that it first strayed out of Asia on board ships that plied the seas, eventually reaching every corner of the earth. At first the trail of the wandering rat is shown on the map – and again it is a winding one, like that of the snake. In the second part of this scene, the picture changes and we are given a close-up of the rat itself, and then out of the sewers emerge more and more revolting rats that run about madly until they fill the entire screen, threatening to break out of it and leap out onto the hapless viewer. Only at this stage does the narrator explain to those in the audience who did not figure it out for themselves that the rat is actually the Jew himself.67 Gitlis maintains that the comparison of the Jews to rats not only creates the effect of repulsion but makes the Jew appear inhuman. In that sense the traits attributed to the Jew of being “evil,” “ugly,” or “filthy” refer not only to his external appearance but to his inner being, too.68 He maintains that the effect attained in this scene is a powerful need to stop the Jew from spreading any further: “The general rhythmic synchronization makes this


MORESHET

Shay Hazkani

scene appear (cinematic content) as though it would go on and on for ever – unless it is stopped.”69 F. The “before and after” scene: a group of Jews is shown in their “traditional” garb, with long beards, side-locks, and traditional black robes. But several seconds later, they appear as clean-shaven and dressed in natty European clothing. The cinematic dissolve70 creates a kind of morphing effect in which every face with “original” Jewish characteristics (bearded, etc.) is transformed into a “European” one of an assimilated Jew. Here, according to Gitlis, the film attempts to show that the Jew is trying to camouflage himself and disguise his race.71 The evil, threatening appearance of the Jew in the “before” version is also attained through photographic contrasts. The black-clad Jews are shown against a white background and filmed using a wide-angle lens, so that they look almost like black stains.72 G. Jewish art: in this long segment a series of “authentic” Jewish works of art is shown, juxtaposed with what are presented as “Aryan” works from the classic and Renaissance eras. The “Aryan” works show harmonious, idyllic figures while the figures in the Jewish ones are distorted. The narrator says that “the Jew is instinctively interested in anything that is abnormal and perverted…and seeks ways to undermine the healthy judgment of the race.”73 Gitlis concludes that this is an attempt to persuade the viewer that the Jew is incapable of grasping the Aryan concept of beauty.74 H. Sexual ecstasy in the synagogue: in order to juxtapose the morality of Christianity against the immorality of Judaism, the film seeks to show scenes from Jewish religious life in which wheeling-and-dealing characteristically takes place not only in the street and the marketplace but also in the synagogue itself. The scene of rhythmic prayer is interrupted every few seconds by close-ups of hands exchanging money and goods underneath the synagogue pews, against the background of the chant of the chazan (cantor). Gitlis concluded that the portrayal of the men swaying backwards and forwards in exaggerated fashion in this scene suggests an act of sexual ecstasy of a perverted nature.75 I. Jewish slaughter: this is a particularly gruesome scene to watch. On the screen a cow is bleeding profusely and the Jewish butcher is leaning over it beaming with joy, wiping the blood off his knife with his hand. He and his colleagues laugh at the suffering of the cow whose head has been

197


198

Shay Hazkani

MORESHET

partially severed, writhing in its own blood. In contrast, there are idyllic scenes of cows and sheep at pasture, looking gentle and contented. The narrator condemns kosher Jewish slaughter, which he claims is carried out without anesthesia, and refers to attempts made in several “advanced” European countries to ban this practice – including the Nuremberg laws. Giesen described it as follows: Germans don’t like rats but they like pastoral lambs, and these peaceloving animals are falling victim to the knives of Jewish butchers without anesthesia. It was announced that the slaughter sequence contained the cruelest scenes ever depicted.76

The film researcher Ilan Avisar, concludes that the purpose of the sequence was to legitimize – by way of analogy – the solution to the Jewish problem: by their physical elimination.77 J. Hitler’s speech at the Reichstag: this sequence is defined by Gitlis as “the climax of the film.” On screen we see sections of Hitler’s appearance before the Reichstag on 30 January 1939, when he threatened the destruction of international Jewry if the Jews brought about war in Europe. The film concludes with images of a military parade, with S.S. officers and blonde girls decked out with Nazi symbols, against the background of a narration calling for “the elimination of the ugliness and inhumanity of world Jewry that has so revolted and disgusted us for the last hour.”78 Film critics of the time explained that this concluding scene was “like once again seeing the light after darkness. Once again we are surrounded by Germans and German life. We return from a long journey and are cut off at last from the Jews.”79 After the war, the Allied Commission ruled that The Eternal Jew was one of the most blatant examples of outright antisemitic Nazi propaganda and the most revolting yet astute film ever made for mass consumption.80 Not withstanding good editing of some of the scenes and top-quality camera work, Gitlis concluded that the movie was an artistic failure – as both film and propaganda. The main reason, in his view, was that it went too far in both the artistic and the aesthetic sense, and did not rouse tension in the audience. Møller and Culbert found that “The Eternal Jew did not attain its declared objectives,” the reasons being lack of active audience participation in the film due to the presence of an omniscient narrator, too much horror,


MORESHET

Shay Hazkani

and implausible documentation.81 Was the movie then also a box-office failure? This question will be examined below.

Analysis of Jew Suess Most scholars tend to agree that this movie attained its propaganda objectives. According to Gitlis, the film sought to establish a geographic, moral and racial distance between the Jew – whose place was in the ghetto – and the “Aryan,” whose place was in the city of Stuttgart. So long as the Jew remained within the pale of settlement, this balance was preserved, but once he attained power and influence by means of his wealth and subsequently entered the “Aryan” space, the balance was upset. The danger was not only financial but physical as well: the risk of contaminating the blood of the “Aryan” woman and thereby destroying the entire race. The conclusion to be drawn was self-evident: the Jew must be confined in his own space in order to restore the moral harmony that had been wrecked.82 Gitlis went on to say that the effect of the film was to cause viewers such distress as to lead to an upsurge of emotions and passions, which the filmmakers intensified by resorting to erotic elements. Some of the issues raised in the movie highlight these points: A. The music: the movie opens with a well-known 15th-century German song which is suddenly interrupted by discordant “Jewish” music, and the chant of a chazan in the synagogue. However, before long, the German music crescendos and we see Dorothea and her lover in Stuttgart, far from any troubles. Already at that stage Gitlis realized that the film-makers were trying to demonstrate an attempt by the Jew to step beyond his own space.83 Harlan claimed that, to begin with, the Jewish extras were taken on in the film only because of their familiarity with the extraordinary Jewish music and customs, but Tegel shows that the chants in the film are not at all Jewish in character: in fact, the song used is a Bedouin folksong, to whose melody Zionist activists wrote Hebrew words, calling it “The Camel Song,” and it was chosen deliberately because it sounds non-European. Tegel maintains that most European Jews had never actually heard the song.84 B. The world of the ghetto and the synagogue: the shot of the ducal

199


200

Shay Hazkani

MORESHET

palace is dissolved, and replaced by a Hebrew signpost at the entrance to the ghetto in Frankfurt.85 The ghetto, according to Gitlis, is meant to make the viewer sense that he is seeing something diametrically opposed to the “Aryan” world of Stuttgart. Racial traits attributed to the ghetto Jews are evident in every shot: black hair, thick beard, a stooping, shaky walk, unhygienic appearance, a peculiar language which is a mixture of German and Yiddish, and a grating cough. Suess himself, and Levi his assistant, are typical Jewish stereotypes, as indeed are the other ghetto residents. At a window in the ghetto we see a man blind in one eye with his daughter, her hair unkempt and her breasts half exposed, moving her lips in a suggestive manner. She and her father are arguing or negotiating with the butcher down the road who is concealing his blood-stained knife in his apron. The conversation is not clearly audible but the viewer can figure what the three are talking about. Inside Suess’s house, envoys of the duke are trying to persuade him to sell precious necklaces to their master. But Suess insists on a very high price and is ready to reduce it only on condition that he be allowed into Stuttgart to deliver the necklaces personally. Despite the ban on Jews entering the city, the envoys eventually agree to provide him with the necessary pass. Suess shaves off his beard, combs his hair in the latest court fashion, removes his black cloak and puts on the smart costume of the aristocracy. This segment illustrates the concept of the “Jew in disguise.”86 Tegel discovered that for the synagogue scenes, the director used Jews brought specially for the film and not professional actors – all in order to present “authentic” Jewish characters.87 In the second synagogue scene, when Suess arrives to persuade the rabbi to raise funds to rescue the duke, the Jews are filmed in the course of the prayer service. Harlan claimed later that the Jews had been given a free hand to choose the mise-en-scène themselves, although the screenplay states clearly that the ritual ceremony to be shown should be the Purim festival. Tegel maintained that this was neither a regular weekly synagogue service nor a Purim festival but probably a prayer from the Simchat Torah festival. She concluded that this prayer was chosen because it contains several lines assumed to allude to vengeance: “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” In her view, Harlan was trying to demonstrate that Judaism encourages vengeance against the gentiles. Another reason for choosing Simchat Torah was the special nature of the


MORESHET

Shay Hazkani

ceremony, and particularly the dance with the Torah Scroll. The purpose, as defined in the screenplay, was to create a “demonic effect.”88 The addition of ecstatic movements alien to the music is also intended to create a disturbing effect. However, Tegel asserts that several other elements prove that the entire prayer segment was a fabrication, carefully orchestrated by Harlan and his assistants. Based on research conducted by theologians and interviews with survivors, she discovered that the Jews filmed in the synagogue use the term “Adoshem” for God and not the customary “Adonai,” as that would have been sacrilege: in other words they were aware that the purpose of the entire scene was to show Judaism as ludicrous and demonic. Tegel also found that the prayer was not like any Jewish prayer ritual familiar to the Jews of Germany over the last several centuries, nor was it known to the Jews of Prague, where the scenes were actually shot. Harlan attributed the distortions in the synagogue scene to intervention by Goebbels, who insisted that the Jews be shown in such a way as to provoke antisemitism, as well as to the wishes of the Jewish participants themselves, but Tegel gave little credence to these claims. She concluded that the objective had been to present the stereotypical Jew.89 The testimony of one of the Jewish extras who survived the war throws some light on Harlan’s role and intentions in regard to this scene:

Harlan placed special value on the temple scene: those praying should do so with rocking movements, customary only in the East. Harlan initially acquiesced to objections that these movements could no longer be found in Western Europe, and also have no relationship to praying. Nevertheless during filming he surprised the hitherto committed Jewish singers by unexpectedly bringing in a crowd of 200 non-Jewish extras for the temple scene, and by spurring them on achieved... what the fifty Jewish singers had been unwilling to grant.90

C. Destruction of the house of Bogner the blacksmith: Bogner was a lowerclass resident of Stuttgart. When Suess was appointed financial adviser to the duke, he insisted that Bogner pay a high price for half of his house which, Suess alleged, was built on part of a road that was the property of the duke, and when Bogner was unable to pay, Suess ordered the demolition of half of his house. The scene of the wreckage is particularly distressing. Gitlis concludes that this scene was intended to remind the viewer of the

201


202

Shay Hazkani

MORESHET

image of the Jew as one who is not prepared to waive his “pound of flesh,” and to prove once again that the only thing that interests the Jew is to exploit the gentile and take control of his property. When Bogner tries to kill Suess, the police only just manage to save him.91 D. The Jews enter Stuttgart: after Suess has persuaded the duke to lift the ban on Jews entering Stuttgart, they swarm into the town in great numbers. Tegel writes that, in this scene, Harlan used Jews who were brought specially to the set and not actors. Between seventy and one hundred people, including women, are filmed in this segment in a long shot as they swarm into Stuttgart. The threatening effect of this Jewish invasion is plainly evident to every viewer.92 E. Duke Karl arrives for consultations at the ghetto: we are taken once more to the synagogue. This time Suess brings the duke along so that he can get some astrological counseling from Rabbi Loeb. According to Gitlis, the dramatic effect of this scene is attained through a long shot of a group that is racially heterogeneous: the rabbi in his traditional garb and his long thick beard spits everywhere. Next to him is the duke whose outward appearance – particularly his repulsive obesity, and despite his elegant aristocratic apparel – gives him away at first glance as an “Aryan who has strayed,” due both to his sexual rapacity and the betrayal of his people. Next to the duke stands the black servant who represents an entirely different racial level – low in itself but not as low as that of the Jew. And in the center of the group stands Suess himself – “the Jew in disguise.”93 F. The rape scene: from the onset of the film one can trace a gradual build-up of tension culminating in the rape scene, where Dorothea is ravaged by Suess. In her naïveté, Dorothea, who is from a noble family, takes him in her carriage into the “Aryan” zone –Stuttgart. Gitlis concludes that this act in itself – though performed in all innocence – will, according to Nazi logic, lead to Dorothea’s death later on, for she will be compelled to pay for her mistake. After establishing himself, Suess organizes a ball to which he invites the daughters of all the princes of Württemburg so that the duke may pick himself new girls. For Suess, this is an opportunity once again to meet Dorothea, who has meanwhile become engaged to a man by the name of Faber. Suess forces her to dance with him and their physical proximity is highlighted with a close-up of his face nestling against her


MORESHET

Shay Hazkani

breasts. According to Gitlis, the purpose of this scene is to emphasize the undisguised lust of the Jew.94 Later, when the townspeople, among them Dorothea’s husband Faber (her father arranged for the marriage to take place immediately after the ball), try to rebel against the duke for his permitting the Jews to enter the town, Suess has Faber taken prisoner and brought to a torture cell. Dorothea, desperate to get her husband released, comes to Suess’s room with a petition calling for his release. Here we come to the climax of the film: through the window Dorothea hears the screams of her husband under torture and Suess makes her an offer: he will have the torture stopped if she surrenders herself to him. She gives in and he takes her. In this scene, Gitlis points out, the rape scene is inter-cut with sounds from the torture chamber – Faber’s screams of agony – and then back to Suess’ room, where Dorothea is being raped, producing a powerful psychological effect: “The appeal to the sexual feelings of the audience is heightened even further by the appeal to their sadistic feelings towards the Jews.”95 The sexual act itself is not shown on camera but the visual and vocal suggestions of the act have a very powerful erotic effect. Gitlis explained that at the time the movie was produced the rape motif was frequently used to stir up anger among puritanically-inclined audiences such as the Germans. Thus we find that Suess not only robbed the townspeople of their money and won control over the city, but also contaminated their race. Dorothea, according to Gitlis, was the ideal Nazi woman: naïve, passive, and forbearing. Her cruel fate – her suicide – was the result of the rape and the fact that she missed her proper vocation in life: motherhood and preservation of the “Aryan race.” She was punished for admitting Suess into the gates of the city.96 Gitlis concludes by suggesting that “Jew Suess is not only the tale of the rape of a German woman by a Jew, but of the rape of all of Germany by the Jews.”97 G. The execution of Suess: for the makers of this film, Suess’s execution by hanging represents the victory of good over evil. After the rape, Suess begins to lose his power and gradually returns to his own area. Dorothea commits suicide, and after the duke’s death from a heart attack, Suess is tried and put to death. Gitlis wonders whether, in terms of traditional propaganda, the hanging scene was not likely to rouse feelings of sympathy for Suess, but concludes that at that point the audience, which had opted for

203


204

Shay Hazkani

MORESHET

the Jew as the ultimate evil, could see the execution as a symbolic act of vengeance.98 Welch, in analyzing this segment, concludes that the audience could not help making comparisons between the events of 1738 and those of 1940, and indeed the newspapers of the time helped the viewer make that connection.99 Avisar goes even further, concluding that this scene goes far beyond the film’s actual story line and becomes “an exemplary portrayal of genocide,” the sensual effect of which creates a sadistic enjoyment. Its message is unambiguous: namely the need to kill Jews.100 Summing up his thoughts on the message that the film seeks to convey, Gitlis concludes that the main implement for transmitting it is not Suess but the duke. Through the fate of the duke, the audience is led to understand that the Aryan is duty-bound to preserve the purity of the race and if he fails to do so, he will become enslaved to the Jew. Suess, according to Gitlis, is only a pimp serving the sexual lust of the duke.101

Influence of the Films – according to Intelligence Reports and Other Original Documentation Reports of the S.D. (Sicherheitsdienst – Security Service) and in particular those on public opinion (Stimmungsberichte), together with a series of statistics gathered by the Third Reich, provide us with a source of relatively accurate information on the way these movies were received by the German public. In addition to documents quoted in the research literature, some of the original reports from the collection of Otto Dov Kulka and Eberhard Jäckel published in 2004 will also be examined. Though admittedly there is some evidence of doctoring of the S.D. reports in order to satisfy the higher political echelons, film historians who have studied extracts from the originals, before they became part of the general report submitted to Nazi politicians, found that they reflect the public mood to a reasonably accurate degree.102 After collecting a number of sources, Møller concluded that The Eternal Jew was a box office failure – a “flop” to use his own term – which addressed primarily those who already held antisemitic views. He found that not more than one million people saw this film throughout the years that it was shown, and that most cinemas refused to screen it due to lack of public interest.103


MORESHET

Shay Hazkani

It was distributed by a production company which belonged to the Nazi party and apparently the majority of its screenings in Germany itself were Sunday shows for young audiences. The S.D. reports quoted by Møller and Culbert show that these shows were effective particularly in small groups of youth about to be called up to the army. In addition, the film was distributed widely throughout the German armed forces but no statistics are available on how many actually saw it.104 The movie was also distributed in Poland and even in occupied Paris after 1942. Uziel found sources showing that the Propaganda Corps was responsible for circulation of the movie in the occupied zones, and at least in Paris a French version was screened immediately after the Jews were forced to wear yellow patches on their garments, and after the beginning of the first deportations to the death camps.105 As to audience reaction to the film, the first report of the S.D., dated 10 January 1940 (some two months after the film was released to cinemas in Berlin), stated that anticipation was very high due to the widespread press coverage and publicity. Several viewers wrote to say, it continued, that the film fully lived up to the high expectations placed in it, and that the cinematography was more persuasive and effective than any propaganda film could ever hope to be. The report further notes that the comparison between the Jews and the rats emerging from their holes was particularly impressive, as was the description of American Jewry, which viewers were surprised to discover was so influential in the United States. The scenes in which the Jews were shown “in disguise” were also greeted with applause.106 But the picture soon changed, as demonstrated by historian Ian Kershaw:

While the audience broke out in enthusiastic applause at the scene of Hitler’s Reichstag speech, audiences began to dwindle as time went on. Those who came to the film were horrified by the kosher slaughter scene; some of them passed out and others walked out of the cinema deeply perturbed.107

Møller and Culbert quote references to show that the only people to watch the film in cinemas in eight major cities of Germany were political activists and others who were obligated by their positions to attend. Those who were

205


206

Shay Hazkani

MORESHET

interested in the movie were people who had close contact with Jews, not country people who had never set eyes upon a Jew. The conclusion reached in most of the reports was that there was no need for any more movies about the “Jewish Problem.”108 Thus for example, Welch gives the following quotation:

The film was repeatedly described as being an exceptional “strain on the nerves”. Comments like “We have seen Jud Süss and we’ve had enough of this Jewish filth” were made.109

The low audience numbers were attributed by S.D. agents to the fact that the public never showed much interest in movies without a traditional type of story line. According to the impressions garnered from members of the audience, the descriptions in the movie were accurate, but their presentation was rather boring. By contrast, the reports noted the tremendous success of Jew Suess.110 The public reception of Jew Suess, as noted, was far more enthusiastic. It was one of the most popular movies of the Third Reich period, and the most successful of the antisemitic films. Twenty million people saw it and its box-office returns were 6.2 million Reichsmarks, three times its production budget. Jew Suess came sixth in the ranking of films viewed for the years 1940-1942, and dubbed versions were produced in French, English, and even Hungarian. These were screened prior to the planned expulsion of Jews from the respective areas of occupation by the Reich.111 Uziel showed that in the case of Jew Suess, too, the Propaganda Corps was in charge of distribution throughout the Reich even though it was made by a private production company and not the Ministry of Propaganda.112 The report of the RSHA (Reichssicherheitshauptamt − Reich Security Head Office), dated 28 November 1940, reviewing the reception of the movie in nine cities, stated that the public found it to be “frighteningly authentic” and that its influence on people was reflected in the spontaneous comment, “You feel you have to wash your hands.” It also notes that teachers and parents tended to ask whether this film was suitable for screening to young people, in light of its strong psychological after-effect. According to the agents’ report, the answer to this question almost everywhere was negative.113 It states: Among the scenes especially singled out by the public – apart from the


MORESHET

Shay Hazkani

rape scene – is the entry of the Jews and all their belongings into Stuttgart. In fact this scene has repeatedly prompted demonstrations against Jews. In Berlin, for example, there were shouts of “Drive the Jews from the Kurfürstendamm!” and “Throw the last of the Jews out of Germany!”114

One report after another from the S.D. headquarters in Bielefeld noted the universal agreement that this was indeed a rare cinematic achievement and the general recognition among all segments of the population regarding the outstanding acting abilities of Ferdinand Marianes as the Jew Suess, and of the brilliant performance of Walter Krauss as Rabbi Loeb, representing the “dirty type” of Jew. One report quotes a worker who asked, as he emerged from the cinema, “Why didn’t they show us this kind of movie earlier? Here one can see the Jew as he really is and I would be more than happy to wring his neck.”115 Another report from the same town stated that no other movie had influenced such broad sections of the public and that even people who did not frequent the cinema broke their habit in order to go and see the Jew Suess. The agent expresses his hope that screening of the movie in Bielefeld will continue.116 Agents from other cities agreed that it was a great shame that films of such high quality were shown so rarely in the local cinemas.117 An S.D. report from the town of Hoexter stated that box-office sales everywhere were far above average, and indeed were record-breaking. It is further reported that the only criticism of the film came from women who said the scene of the hanging was too realistic and too disturbing.118 Telling of his childhood in Hamburg, a member of the Hitler Youth who watched the film wrote: I was 13 years old then. I saw the movie together with my comrades.We all regarded the plot of the film as historical truth, and I myself as well as my comrades were deeply impressed by the wickedness of the Jews.119

A 29-year-old member of another Nazi movement, whose memoirs were preserved, wrote that the film formulated the way he and his friends perceived the Jews. A resident of Budapest who attended the film’s premiere in his city recalled that he saw a Jew having his beard ripped off by people

207


208

Shay Hazkani

MORESHET

who had just come out of the cinema.120 Researchers Helmut Blobner and Herbert Helba found evidence that members of the Hitler Youth who emerged from the cinema in Vienna after watching this movie trampled to death a Jew whom they happened to come across.121 A former inmate of the Sachsenhausen concentration camp whose testimony is quoted by Giesen, said that on the day the movie was screened for the S.S. guards in the camp, they “recognized now that the Jews were even worse than they had thought of up to that point.” After they were told that they must receive a warning (Denkzettel), the Jews were taken to a hangar in the camp where they were whipped.122 From other sources we learn that, from 3 September 1940 and upon orders from Heinrich Himmler, all personnel of the S.S. and the German police were ordered to watch the film.123 Already in November 1940, the S.S. Headquarters reported that 700,000 members of the organization had seen the movie.124 However, despite the enthusiasm in most cities there were a few towns whose citizens remained indifferent to it. A report from Heiligenstadt notes that the audience stayed silent throughout the screening, even though they, too, did not like the way the behavior of the Jews was portrayed.125 After a tour of screenings outside of Germany, Goebbels wrote in his diary: “Most impressive…proof that films too can work and rouse enthusiasm that is fully in harmony with our objectives.”126

Can The Eternal Jew Be Viewed as Preparation for the Extermination of the Jews? In viewing The Eternal Jew, one cannot help but ask oneself whether this movie was intended to “prepare” the German public for the notion of the “Final Solution” − the systematic annihilation of the Jews of Europe. It should be noted that most scholars who have examined this question have concluded that from the existing material one cannot postulate any connection between this movie and the decision on the “Final Solution,” for the simple reason that at the time of the movie’s release for general screening, Germany did not yet have a clear strategic plan for the Jews. Nevertheless, there are some dissenting views on this matter.


MORESHET

Shay Hazkani

After the war Hippler was charged with crimes against humanity, on the grounds that his film had played a significant role in persuading the German public to accept the “Final Solution.” But he was found innocent and released from prison because the prosecution was unable to produce any real evidence. In the 1960s, when there was renewed interest in the film and sections of it were used in cinematic and television productions, the question of its part in the “Final Solution” re-emerged. Most researchers tended to believe that the two were inseparable. As proof, the kosher slaughter scene in particular was cited, along with Hitler’s speech which succeeded it and which contains the explicit term “the destruction of the Jews.” The juxtaposition of these two segments, according to some researchers, achieved by sophisticated cinematic editing suggests, like the slaughter of cattle, the notion of the physical elimination of the Jews.127 Møller, however, in an article published in 1992, concludes that there is no evidence that Goebbels, who created the movie, was aware at that stage of Hitler’s plan for the destruction of the Jews, and one cannot be certain that Hitler himself had already conceived it.128 Møller found that, in 1940, the term “Final Solution” was taken to refer to the expulsion of the Jews to Poland and from there to Madagascar, and not to their physical extermination.129 In a lecture given in London in 1997, he elaborated: I concluded that, for chronological reasons, the film could not have been deliberate propaganda for the mass killing of Jews – and started off to show that the opinions of the film historians must have been based on hindsight.130

While Møller began by debunking the notion of a connection between the “Final Solution” and the movie, the deeper he went into his research, the more he found that “the thesis [that there was no link between the film and the “Final Solution”] was beginning to come apart.” 131 Eventually, Møller came to the opposite point of view.132 In an article published in 1997, he presented a new thesis according to which The Eternal Jew was one long advertisement for genocide:

More and more sources indicated that the film expressed a deliberate call for genocide where the “produced reality” in the most reality-like medium at the time was intended to legitimize to the public the “need” to annihilate the Jews of Europe.133

209


210

Shay Hazkani

MORESHET

According to Møller, it was Goebbels who hoped, through The Eternal Jew, to bring Hitler round to taking a decision on the annihilation of the Jews. But Møller’s new thesis is far more complex. In his view, the “Final Solution” was conceived as a gradual process that began with the presentation to Hitler of the movie The Eternal Jew for his approval, as was done with every film in which the Führer himself appeared. Screening the film before Hitler on 20 May 1940 reminded him of his earlier remarks on the annihilation of the Jews:

It must have put him psychologically under pressure for making a move, as the “Savior” of the German people, and thus to adhere to his own “prophecy” of January 30, 1939, which in the film was presented as the solution to the Jewish problem.134

Kershaw, too, in his biography of Hitler agrees with this thesis: “It seems probable that it was the inclusion in the film The Eternal Jew... of a segment of one of his own speeches that reminded Hitler of his earlier declarations on this matter.”135 However, this schedule of events, as presented by Møller, conflicts with that adhered to by most historical researchers who examined the “Final Solution” and who believed that the decisions on it were taken only in spring to winter of 1941. Møller, who realized that his theories were in conflict with the prevailing view of historians, believed that his interpretation could offer a new explanation of the phenomenon of the “genocide mentality” rather than of the annihilation itself. He sought to answer his critics, who accused him of over-simplification: We as historical scientists need to reevaluate our basic thinking and methodology... As the history of the film shows, it is necessary to use a broader approach than the traditional, based as it is on the assumption that only written evidence is permissible in scientific contexts.136

Similarly, Avisar determined unequivocally that The Eternal Jew (and to some extent Jew Suess) provide evidence that in 1941, the early planning stages of the “Final Solution” had already been set in motion.137 Welch also suggested that The Eternal Jew might have been intended to prepare the German nation to accept the “Final Solution.” However, he gives no historical references to substantiate this theory.138 Gitlis for his part


MORESHET

Shay Hazkani

concluded that the implied message of the movie is that the killing of a few Jews is not a crime but a necessity. However, he sees no definite historical connection between the film and the “Final Solution.” 139 In conclusion, it would appear that advocating the idea of annihilating the Jews in 1939 can be clearly identified, and this was explicitly stated by Hitler in his Reichstag speech. However, according to existing research sources, and contrary to Møller’s contention, there is no evidence of any decision or instruction to this effect prior to spring-winter of 1941.

Conclusion The production of the two films The Eternal Jew and Jew Suess was a complex mission in which many branches of the regime in the Third Reich were involved. The Ministry of Propaganda under Goebbels oversaw the work, which involved some of the best directors in Germany at the time, its top-ranking film stars, the Wehrmacht, and other government bodies. Many months of work went into each of these movies, and Jews from the areas of German occupation were forced to take part, some literally under duress, and others due to the constraints and hardships of life at the time in Prague or Poland. The declared aim of the films, as clearly defined by Goebbels, was to expose “authentic Jewry” as he perceived it: a dirty, exploitative people, who must be cut down in order to protect humanity. Thus we have the film The Eternal Jew, which contains, perhaps, some of the most horrifying scenes ever screened. Of particular note are those comparing the Jews to rats and depicting “kosher slaughter.” Watching animals writhing in their own blood as a result of “Jewish barbarism” was bound to provoke feelings of outrage. The producers of the film had hoped that this would help whip up antisemitic sentiment, which would be translated into support for the severe measures the authorities were already planning to take against the Jews. The viewer was supposed to emerge from the movie with the understanding that “a solution must be found to the Jewish problem”; and indeed the film was too much for the simple German viewer, who refused to watch such purely and unabashedly repulsive scenes. Therein lies the cause of its box office fiasco and the disappointment of the public, as reflected in

211


212

Shay Hazkani

MORESHET

intelligence reports. In Jew Suess, however, while the message is as venomous as that of the other film, the manner of presentation is entirely different. This is a long, well-directed feature film in which the tension and the negative sexual context cause the viewer to fully identify with the objective – neutralization of the Jew. Only such a goal, attained by the hanging of Suess and expulsion of the Jews from Stuttgart, could reinstate the proper order of things and restore Germany to its former greatness. From intelligence reports we learn that the film did indeed inflame antisemitic sentiment and passions and its success could be measured in terms of the handsome profits that it brought. Nevertheless, propaganda films were at no stage the chief instrument of propaganda, nor did they compose the majority of the movies made under the Nazi regime. At the beginning of 1943, the production of propaganda films was drastically reduced but not halted altogether. One of the reasons was the bombing of the film studios by the Allies, and another was Goebbels’ wish to concentrate on movies that would help raise the low morale of the German public.140

Epilogue Fritz Hippler, director of the movie The Eternal Jew, died in 2002. To his last day he sought to minimize his role in the production of the movie to which his name is accredited. “Without my collaboration the film would have been made 100% exactly, cut after cut, word after word, as you see it today,” Hippler wrote to Møller in 1991. He claimed that Goebbels was the real spirit behind the project and that his own name appears in the credits at the beginning of the film only as thanks for his work in the newsreels. Interestingly, after a relatively short period of success, from 1940 to 1943, Hippler seems to have lost favor with Goebbels and was dispatched to the front as a cameraman. Though he never denied the massacre of the Jews in the course of World War II, Hippler claimed in his book published in 1981 that the Germans had never used gas chambers, and that most of the accused in the Nuremburg trials had been totally unaware of the systematic annihilation of the Jews. In a later book, he maintained that Hitler’s real


MORESHET

Shay Hazkani

purpose had not been to destroy the Jews of Europe and that he had actually had positive intentions. Yet toward the end of his life, he changed his tune once again and admitted that he had heard of the gas chambers in 1944 and that he was not the only one.141 In his last interview with the Reuters news agency in 2000, he said: “I fully believe that the film can be considered a milestone on the road to the Holocaust... the most miserable piece in a long string of antisemitic mistakes.”142 However, in retrospective, Hippler said that he would not have changed a single thing. This is of particular significance in light of the attempts being made in recent years by right-wing elements in Germany to rehabilitate Hippler’s image and represent him as a politician of the old school whose motivation was love for Germany. His friends even made a movie paying tribute to him.143 Nor did Taubert, who initiated the idea of producing the film, disappear from the stage of history. In 1941, he began to concentrate on anti-Bolshevik propaganda in the eastern occupied areas, for which he was promoted.144 There, where he tried to market the image of Hitler as the “savior” of these nations from communism, he came into conflict with the S.S. and the S.D. when he charged that their harsh treatment of the residents of these zones interfered with the vital propaganda effort.145 After the war, he worked for the British and American secret services helping to produce anti-communist propaganda as part of the Cold War effort, and subsequently joined the Gehlen Organization, an intelligence-gathering apparatus set up by the American CIA to operate in the Eastern bloc.146 In the 1950s, he apparently worked as an adviser to NATO on psychological warfare, and then went on to counsel secret services in various Arab countries. In 1972, he was awarded a medal of appreciation by Helmut Kohl (later, chancellor of Germany). In addition to his friendship with Kohl, Tauber was also a friend of the prime minister of Bavaria, Franz Josef Strauss. Like Hippler’s The Eternal Jew, Harlan’s Jew Suess will probably never fade into obscurity. In 1954, Harlan declared that he had destroyed the negative of the film in his possession (another copy was preserved under lock and key in the West German government’s film archives), but some years later a copy of the film, this time dubbed in Arabic, turned up in Cairo and Beirut. It came to light that an East German company by the name of Sub-

213


214

Shay Hazkani

MORESHET

Export, connected with Terra, the film’s production company, had begun to redistribute it after the fifty-year rights expired. Five years later, in 1959, it was revealed that the merchant who obtained the negative intended to sell it to Ibn Said, brother of the king of Saudi Arabia, for $100,000.147 Even today it is easy for anyone who so wishes to obtain the film. In preparation for writing this paper, I was interested in acquiring a copy. After briefly browsing the Internet, I discovered that the movie was offered for sale on several sites, some of them academic and others outright antisemitic. Wishing to cut down on expenses, I decided to look for the movie on a popular file sharing software program. To my great surprise, I found it with great ease and was able to download it into my own computer within a short time. In the next few months, whenever I wanted to utilize this software to look for material of interest on other subjects, I was amazed to see how popular the film is even today. There was never a moment when there was not someone from some place in the world attempting to download the film from my computer. When I tried to initiate conversations with these people (without revealing my own identity) to find out their motivation, I found that with some, the film had been recommended by friends as a classic thriller, while others admitted that their reasons were political or racial opposition to the Jews and Zionism. While I do not believe any far-reaching conclusions can be drawn from this, one can say that this movie, with its images and the effects it produces, is still alive and within the range of consciousness of certain far-from-negligible groups. While various historians have found that its screening to groups of non-Jewish youth in various parts of the world does not provoke antisemitism, it is evident that the very existence and viewing of this film by people with a proclivity toward antisemitic sentiments could have a very powerful effect.148

Notes 1. 2.

The source of the word is Latin and it was coined by the Catholic Church in the 16th century in connection with propagating the faith. Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, trans. Konrad Kellen and Jean Lerner (New York, 1968), 61, 121, brought by Randall L. Bytwerk, Bending Spines: The Propagandas of Nazi Germany and the German Democratic Republic (East Lansing, Mich., 2004), 3.


MORESHET

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

12. 13. 14. 15.

16. 17. 18.

19.

Shay Hazkani

Ibid. Baruch Gitlis, Hate Films: The Nazi Cinema in the War against the Jews (in Hebrew) (Gali Alfa, 1996), 41; David Bankier, The Germans and the Final Solution: Public Opinion under Nazism (Oxford, 1992). Ibid. David Welch, Propaganda and the German Cinema 1933-1945 (New York, 1985), 302. Gitlis, Hate Films, 38. See: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (New York, 1941), vol. 1, ch. 6, “War Propaganda,” 227-42; http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder= 715 &paper=2499. National Vanguard Books, http://www.natvanbooks.com/cgibin/webc.cgi/ st_ prod.html?p_prodi =500&p_ catid=15 (emphasis added). S. Hornshøj-Møller and D. Cuthert, “Der Ewige Jude (1940): Joseph Goebbels’ Unequaled Monument to Anti-Semitism,” Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 1 (1992): 1. Quoted in Stig Hornshøj-Møller, “Using Authentic Nazi Propaganda in Teaching the Holocaust: Problems, possibilities, dangers and experiences,” Paper presented at the 27th Annual Scholars’ Conference on the Holocaust and the Churches, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, 2-4 March 1997. Ibid. Felix Moeller, The Film Minister: Goebbels and the Cinema in the “Third Reich,” trans. Michael Robinson (Stuttgart, 2000), 97. Gitlis, Hate Films, 137. Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, “The Structure of Nazi Foreign Policy 1933-1945,” in The Third Reich, edited by Christian Leitz (Oxford, 1999), 74-79; Max Weinreich, Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes against the Jewish People (New York, 1946), 112-15, 133. Roel Vande Winkel, “Nazi Germany’s Fritz Hippler, 1909–2002,” Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 2 (2003): 91-92. Ralf Georg Reuth, Goebbels, translated from the German by Krishna Winston (New York, 1993), 261. Stig Hornshøj-Møller, “The Role of ‘Produced Reality’ in the Decision-Making Process Which Led to the Holocaust,” paper presented at the conference, “Genocide and the Modern World,” Association of Genocide Scholars, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada, 11-13 June 1997, http://www.holocaust-history.org/der-ewigejude/montreal-19970611-written.shtml This regards propaganda units first formed during the German invasion of Sudetenland which were subordinate professionally to the Ministry of Propaganda and under the command of the Wehrmacht. These units were designed to gather news material from the areas of military operations, distribute propaganda among the enemy army and civilian population, and organize educational and recreational

215


216

Shay Hazkani

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

MORESHET

activities for German soldiers. They comprised platoons and squads of newspaper and radio journalists, propaganda experts, mobile printing units, and even two transport planes that brought the films directly to the Ministry of Propaganda, in order to be used in the weekly newsreels. Daniel Uziel (see n. 20 below) demonstrated the significant role of the Wehrmacht in antisemitic propaganda, despite the claims of Wehrmacht veterans and some historians. Daniel Uziel, “The Propaganda Corps of the Wehrmacht and the Jews” (in Hebrew), Yad Vashem Studies 29 (2004): 28. Ibid. Ibid. Gitlis, Hate Films, 137. Møller, “Using Authentic Nazi Propaganda in Teaching the Holocaust.” Møller quotes from Elke Froehlich (ed.), Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels. Sämtliche Fragmente. Bd. 1-4. (Munich, 1987), vol. 3, 612. Møller and Cuthbert, “Der Ewige Jude,” 55-56. This information can be found in the diaries of Harlan and Goebbels. The authenticity of Harlan’s diary was disputed in the past; therefore the information should be taken with a grain of salt. Reuth, Goebbels, 261. Møller and Cuthbert, “Der Ewige Jude,” 55-56. Møller, “Using Authentic Nazi Propaganda.” Møller and Cuthbert, “Der Ewige Jude,” 43-45; Moeller, The Film Minister, 98. Reuth, Goebbels, 262-63. Møller and Cuthbert, “Der Ewige Jude,” 46. Inhaltsbeschreibung im Programmheft (Illustrierte Filmkurier, no. 279/1940 (27 Nov. 1940) brought in “Film Program for ‘Der Ewige Jude’ (The Eternal Jew)” (1998), in The Holocaust History Project, http://www.holocaust-history.org/derewige-jude/program.shtml. Unser Wille und Weg 10 (1940), 54-55 brought by Randall Bytwerk, “The Eternal Jew: The Film of a 2000-Year Rat Migration” (1998), in German Propaganda Archive, http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ewig.htm. For more on the topic of the films' success, see below. Gitlis, Hate Films, 14. Ibid. Susan Tegel, “‘The Demonic Effect’: Veit Harlan’s Use of Jewish Extras in Jud Süss, 1940,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies 2 (Fall 2000): 216. Gitlis, Hate Films, 146. Rolf Giesen, Nazi Propaganda Films: A History and Filmography (Jefferson, N.C., 2003), 125. Ibid., 135. Ibid., 131. Reuth, Goebbels, 262. Tegel, “The Demonic Effect,” 216-19.


MORESHET

44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83.

Shay Hazkani

Giesen, Nazi Propaganda Films, 129-30. Reuth, Goebbels, 262. Giesen, Nazi Propaganda Films, 129-30. Tegel, “‘The Demonic Effect’,” 216-41. Ibid., 220. Ibid., 221. Ibid., 227-29. Ibid. Ibid., 231. Møller and Cuthbert, “Der Ewige Jude,” 99. Reuth, Goebbels, 277. Gitlis, Hate Films, 146-47. Welch, Propaganda, 287. Ibid., 288. Gitlis, Hate Films, 155. Reuth, Goebbels, 277. Gitlis, Hate Films, 116. Ibid., 135. Ibid., 138. Ibid., 126. Ibid., 127. Ibid., 137. Ibid., 129. Ibid., 6. Ibid., 130. Ibid., 138. A cinematic effect that permits a gradual, almost seamless transition between one scene and another. Gitlis, Hate Films, 139. Ibid., 138. Ibid., 133. Ibid. Ibid., 134. Giessen, 141. Ilan Avisar, “Documentation and Shaping of Historical Consciousness in Propaganda Films” (in Hebrew), Zmanim 39-40 (1991): 41. Gitlis, Hate Films, 135. Ibid. Welch, Propaganda, 300. Møller and Cuthbert, “Der Ewige Jude,” 10, 12. Gitlis, Hate Films, 147-48. Ibid.

217


218

Shay Hazkani

MORESHET

84. Tegel, “The Demonic Effect,” 223. 85. See n. 61. 86. Gitlis, Hate Films, 148-49. 87. Tegel, “The Demonic Effect,” 222-23. 88. Ibid., 224. 89. Ibid., 226, 231. 90. Ibid., 232-33. 91. Gitlis, Hate Films, 150. 92. Tegel, “The Demonic Effect,” 222. 93. Gitlis, Hate Films, 151. 94. Ibid., 150. 95. Ibid., 152. 96. Ibid., 152-53. 97. Ibid., 155. 98. Ibid., 154. 99. Welch, Propaganda, 290. 100. Avisar, “Documentation,” 41. 101. Gitlis, Hate Films, 153. 102. Bankier, The Germans and the Final Solution, 7-8. 103. For comparison, when The Eternal Jew was released in 1940, 1,834,000 tickets to the movie theaters were sold in Germany. The data appears in Welch, Propaganda, 35. 104. Møller and Cuthbert, “Der Ewige Jude,” 49. 105. Uziel, “Propaganda Corps,” 35. 106. Bericht (“Meldungen aus dem Reich”) (Nr. 155), RSHA, Amt III (SD), Berlin, 20 January. 1941, Kulka and Jäckel collection, document 3205. 107. Ian Kershaw, The Myth of Hitler (Hebrew version, Tel Aviv, 1998), 214. 108. Møller and Cuthbert, “Der Ewige Jude,” 49. 109. Welch, Propaganda, 301. 110. Bericht für April 1941 (“Monatsbericht”), NSDAP Kreisleitung Aachen-Land, Aachen, 28 April 1941; Bericht (“Filmprogramm”), SD Außenstelle Höxter, Höxter, 7 Feb. 1941, Kulka and Jäckel collection, documents 3215, 3243. 111. Tegel, “The Demonic Effect,” 3; Giesen, Nazi Propaganda Films, 133. 112. Uziel, “Propaganda Corps,” 34. 113. Bericht (“Meldungen aus dem Reich (Nr. 145)”), RSHA, Amt III (SD), Berlin, 28 Nov. 1940, Kulka and Jäckel collection, document 3188. 114. Welch, Propaganda, 291. 115. Bericht (“Lagebericht”), SD Außenstelle Bielefeld, Bielefeld, 8 Oct. 1940, Kulka and Jäckel collection, document 3176. 116. Ibid., 15 Oct. 1940, Kulka and Jäckel collection, document 3177. 117. Bericht für Oktober. Bürgermeister Lindenfels, Lindenfels, 8 Nov. 1940, Kulka and Jäckel collection, document 3183.


MORESHET

Shay Hazkani

118. Ibid., document 3215. 119. Giesen, Nazi Propaganda Films, 132-33. 120. Welch, Propaganda, 291. 121. Helmut Blobner and Herbert Helba, “Jackboot Cinema,” Film and Filming 3 (Dec. 1962), brought by Gitlis, Hate Films. 122. Giesen, Nazi Propaganda Films, 133. 123. Gitlis, Hate Films, 156. 124. Giesen, Nazi Propaganda Films, 134. 125. Bericht für November 1941 (“Lagebericht”), Gendarmerie Heiligenstadt, Heiligenstadt, 25 Nov. 1941, Kulka and Jäckel collection, document 3181. 126. Moeller, The Film Minister, 99. 127. Møller and Cuthbert, “Der Ewige Jude,” 11. 128. Ibid. 129. Ibid. 130. Stig Hornshøj-Møller, Oral Presentation at the Imperial War Museum, London, 17 Nov. 1997; http://www.holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/london-19971117. shtml 131. Møller, “The Role of ‘Produced Reality’.” 132. Danish historian Stig Møller died in 1999. In an article written in his memory, K. R. M. Short discerned that Møller did change his view in the last few years and was of the opinion that The Eternal Jew was “was part of the chain of evidence which linked Hitler to the ‘Final Solution.’” K. R. M. Short, “Stig Hornshøj-Møller (1949-1999),” Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 4 (1999): 545-46. 133. Møller, “The Role of Produced Reality.” 134. Ibid. 135. Ian Kershaw Hitler (Hebrew version, Tel Aviv, 2003-2005), 317. 136. Møller, “The Role of Produced Reality.” 137. Avisar, “Documentation,” 40. 138. Welch, Propaganda, 301. 139. Gitlis, Hate Films, 139. 140. Welch, Propaganda, 306. 141. Winkel, “Nazi Germany’s Fritz Hippler,” 93-95. 142. Ibid., 91-99. Fritz Hippler, interview with the Reuters agency reporter Adam Tanner, 11 Dec. 2000. 143. Winkel, “Nazi Germany’s Fritz Hippler,” 96-97. 144. Reuth, Goebbels, 296. 145. Ibid., 234-35. 146. Daniel Uziel, “Army, War, Society and Propaganda: The Propaganda Troops of the Wehrmacht and the German Public 1938-1998” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2001), 337, n. 1238. 147. Gitlis, Hate Films, 156. 148. See Møller, “Using Authentic Nazi Propaganda in Teaching the Holocaust.”

219


Forbidden Films