The Holocaust and Nazism in the Media

 Nazism in the Movies

While the Holocaust and Nazism has been the subject of many deep and moving films like Schindler's List, like in video games, Nazis have served as the villains of many an action movie. From Captain America to Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, Nazis have served as a villain in many a popcorn flick. 

Two of the films that I would like to discuss are two recent films that are action packed movies about Nazis and fighting back. The first is a 2008 film starring Daniel Craig entitled Defiance, and it is the true story of a group of Jewish fighters who survived in the woods and waged a years long guerrilla campaign in Poland against the German army. The second is an extremely ahistorical film, Inglorious Basterds, a 2009 Quentin Tarantino film about a band of American Jews led by Brad Pitt that wage a bloody crusade against the Nazis behind enemy lines. 

Defiance is the true story of the Bielski brothers, three brothers who are able to evade capture and gather a ragtag group of Jews from the surrounding countryside and even from the ghetto of Warsaw, and live in the woods, fighting off German soldiers for years until the Russian advance finally reached their area. 

The film focuses on the harshness of survival, and does not pull any punches portraying the starving and desperate conditions that the Bielski's and their followers faced over the years, yet the film also features an extremely large amount of fighting and killing. While a lot of the films about the Holocaust feature a large amount of slaughter, the difference here is the protagonists are fighting back effectively against the Germans. 

There is a sense of revenge in the film more than mere survival. These people do not want to survive for survival's sake. Instead, they want to fight back against the Germans and not only survive but to thrive. 

The films climax is a lengthy battle between the Jewish militant band fighting a rear guard action against Nazi planes and tanks until the Polish Home Army (the non-Jewish resistance) finally comes and intervenes to save them. Part of the film is about the frictions between the Polish Home Army and the Bielski's unit, as the Home Army does not like Jews and does not want them in their ranks. However, Zus Bielski joins them anyhow due to his skills and desire for a greater ability to fight back against the Nazis. In the end, he returns with a group of the Home Army to save his brother and the Jews, probably against the wishes of the Home Army command. 

This true story married actions and war scenes with the horrors of the Holocaust and the plight of so many refuges during World War II, and made for a memorable film. 

The other film I would like to discuss is 2009's Inglorious Basterds. This film is as ahistorical as it can possibly get while still being a movie about World War II and the Holocaust. The film's climax is when the American squad of Jewish Nazi hunters infiltrate a screening of a Nazi film in Paris and shoot up the theater, killing Hitler and numerous other Nazis in a bloodbath of bullets and fire. 

This film is essentially a 'Western' revenge film, where a group of rag-tag Jews wage a guerrilla campaign across France, killing every German soldier that they come across until they find and kill Hitler. These soldiers scalp the Germans, execute prisoners, and generally act in an inhumane way. Yet because they are doing this to the Nazis, the ultimate evil, they remain the heroes of the story. 

This film, like all of Taratino's film, is a hard R rated film that is excessively violent and features a lot of swearing. The film is completely fictional apart from its World War II setting. And yet, it is strangely compelling as a story due to the sense of revenge that one gets when watching this what if scenario. In slaying Hitler in a hail of bullets, these soldiers get some measure of revenge for the Holocaust that happened in real life. 

Some questions to consider in the comments: Please answer at least two of these questions in the comments, and reply to at least three of your classmates' answers. Please response to any comments on your answers. 

Does a film like Inglorious Basterds serve a greater historical purpose, or is it merely a film about violence and to be watched for fun and amusement only? 

How does the idea of revenge and the Holocaust take place in these films? In real life, how does revenge for such an act even happen? Is revenge something that can be had in the case of the Holocaust? 

Do the films Defiance and Inglorious Basterds seem like they are connected and serve the same story of Jewish resistance to Nazism during World War II? Or are they different in that one is fictional and one is real? 

The Holocaust and Nazism in the Media

 The Holocaust in the Movies

The Holocaust has been the topic of some unforgettable and moving films in recent history. Two of the best of the best are The Pianist (2002) by Roman Polanski and Schindler's List (1993) by Steven Spielberg. Both The Pianist and Schindler's List were critical successes, with Polanski's film winning 3 Academy Awards while Spielberg's won an amazing seven. Schindler's List is notable for being primarily filmed in black and white, an aesthetic choice that adds to the film's sense of realism and timelessness.

The Pianist is a haunting film about the experiences of a Jewish Pianist named Władysław Szpilman (played by Adrian Brody) to survive in Warsaw's ghetto during the Holocaust and both the failed Warsaw Ghetto Uprising where the Jews attempted to resist Nazi attempts to liquidate the population, as well as the later Warsaw Uprising where Polish resistance fighters stepped up attacks on the German occupation. Szpilman's character was that of one of the top pianists in the nation, who played on the national radio and was quite famous. Over the course of the war, from the German invasion in 1939 to the end of the war in 1945, Szpilman was forced to hide in attics and secret spots, and his entire family was killed.

The only thing that kept Szpilman from the same fate as his family and most of the ghetto was his fame and connections as a pianist. He was pulled from a train headed to an extermination camp by a guard who recognized him, and he was sheltered by fellow artists for a time. In the end, however, he was left to hide in the abandoned ghetto and to scrounge for food on his own, until he was found by a German military officer. However, to his surprise, the officer gave him food and aid, and he was able to survive until the end of the war.

Schinder's List is similar to The Pianist in that it is about the kindness and humanity of a German participant in their military-industrial complex. Whereas in The Pianist it was a military officer, in this movie it was Oskar Schindler (played by Liam Neeson), an industrialist who owns factories that make weapons and ammunition for the German army. In the beginning, Schindler is out to make a name for himself and become rich off the war effort, and uses bribes and his friendship with Nazis and the SS to acquire factories and labor. He gains access to the use of Jewish slave labor and sees the value in the skills that many of the Jews had, including the character played by Ben Kingsley, Itzhak Stern. Stern becomes in many ways his business manager, using his pre-war business skills to be useful to Schindler.

Ben Kingsley as Itzhak Stern and Liam Neeson as Oskar Schindler

However, over time, Schindler begins to see the Jews as more than slaves, and his motives change from making money to protecting people. One of the key scenes that show his transformation is when he witnesses the liquidation of the ghetto, and the death of a little girl in a red coat, one of the few instances of color in the film. From this point onward, his focus shifts to using his fortune to protect the Jews that work under him, using bribes, lies, and a willingness to lose money to save their lives.

In the climax of the movie, with the end of the war at hand, Schindler had saved 1100 Jews from certain death. With his status as a Nazi war profiteer and industrialist, Schindler had to fear capture and execution by the Russian and even American forces that were quickly occupying the nation. In an emotional scene, the Jews present Schindler with a document to present that testifies to their experience under Schindler, and the story ends with the idea that "He who saves one life saves the world entire."

These films show the Holocaust at its most desperate, never shying away from the horrible acts of violence and genocide. However, they also show people at their best, striving against the odds to save people. I believe this films are important because they show Nazism and the Holocaust at its worst, but also shows how Nazi Germany was not some monolith. There were a few good people willing to put their lives and fortunes on the line to save people. Both these films should be watched in their whole if one gets the chance.

Some questions to consider in the comments: Please answer at least two of these questions in the comments, and reply to at least three of your classmates' answers. Please response to any comments on your answers. 

What do these films teach us about the Holocaust? Do you think that these films to a good job of portraying what we have learned?

Do these films do the Holocaust a disservice by showing exceptional stories? These stories detail the survival of 1100 Jews and 1 Jew, respectively. These were by far the exception, not the rule. Does looking at the few survivors undermine the scope of those that were not so lucky?

Have you seen other films about the Holocaust? If so, which ones?

The Halocaust and Nazism in the Media

 Nazism in Video Games

Nazi Zombies are a thing in video games. 

World War II and Nazis have become one of the staples of the video game industry over the past few decades. It has even become a overused 'trope' or 'literary device,' and many franchises have even shied away from it in recent years. World War II has been the setting for many games in numerous genres, from first person shooters like Wolfenstein to strategy games like Hearts of Iron and combat simulators like War Thunder. But why was it so popular for so long that the market for World War II games became over-saturated (I would bet that they make a come-back sooner rather than later due to the fatigue now for near-future shooters). For many franchises, setting a game during World War II is a smart idea in that it is in the recent past with fairly modern weaponry, but still has basis in historical facts to draw a plot from. In contrast, a game set in the modern day or future requires much more thought about a plot and the kinds of weapons and technology that is available to the player.

But it is more than that that draws both game publishers and players to World War II games. These games could be set in the Pacific theater pitting the United States versus the Japanese. They could be set in Italy and North Africa fighting the Italians. No, they are disproportionately set in the Western Front pitting American troops against the German military. Why is this?

I think it has something to do with the ingrained nature of rejection of Nazism and Nazi Germany that people grow up with. Nazism has become, rightfully so, the embodiment of evil. Like games where one fights aliens or robots, a player doesn't have to think twice about why they are fighting Nazis. 

I want to highlight a few games that serve as great examples of the World War II first person shooter. The first is one of the first games that I ever played, Medal of Honor: Frontline. This game takes you, an American soldier, across the Western Theater of the the war from missions including D-Day and forward into spy operations deep inside Nazi Germany. This game, dating back to 2002, is the perfect example of a classic World War II shooter. It is extremely black and white, straightforward. You are an American soldier who is fighting against the Nazis in important battles and saving the world. 

The opening level of the game is even a direct homage to the Saving Private Ryan (1998) in the Omaha beach scene. Skip to 3:10 for the scene to actually start, and I included a link to the actual film as well. 

  

One Game that deserves some kudos for breaking the mold set by Medal of Honor here is its successor franchise, Call of Duty. In Call of Duty: World at War, the American war effort in the Pacific is honored with a campaign, while the campaign in Europe is actually limited to the little covered Eastern Front. In reality, the Eastern front was the most important front of the war where more soldiers, both Russian and German, died and more war material was expended. Indeed, on the Eastern front it is estimated that over 5 million German soldiers were killed and an additional 3 million captured on this front, while over 10 million  Russian soldiers were killed. In contrast, only around 200 thousand American, French, and British soldiers were killed in the campaign after D-Day, while Germany suffered, on a high estimate, 650 thousand deaths. These numbers don't even take into account the massive, massive civil casualties on the Eastern front from both warfare and ethnic cleansing like the Holocaust. This is not to trivialize the Western front's losses or say that it was not important. Indeed, the invasion of Germany forced Germany to fight on yet another front and drew military force away from the Russian front, but indeed it should be recognized that the Russian, or Eastern, front was the most contested area. The recognition of this by Call of Duty: World at War thus is worth noting, especially considering the Russians are often depicted as the villains by this very series in more modern iterations. 

Finally, one more recent version of the Nazi Shooter is Wolfenstein: The New Order. This game is similar to the Man in the High Castle in that it depicts a world where the Nazis have won and taken over the world. In contrast, however, Wolfenstein isn't interested in exploring the world that has been created or the role of fascism in America. Instead it plays the Nazis as caricatures, as evil figures with only evil as their goal, and plays up the supernatural and occult inclinations many of the Nazi leaders in real life had, as well as imaging in fantastic ways super technology. Wolfenstein leans hard into the idea of Nazis as supreme evil and has fun with it, using them as cannon fodder. Both the TV show and game are fun to watch and play, but they approach the subject matter in vastly different ways. 

Some questions to consider in the comments: Please answer at least two of these questions in the comments, and reply to at least three of your classmates' answers. Please response to any comments on your answers. 

Have you played any games featuring World War II or Nazism? Which ones?

Why do you think this is a popular time period to feature games in?

Do you think that games like Wolfenstein have a purpose, or are they simply senseless violence? Do you think that games cheapen the impact of Nazism, or make it more real and applicable to young people who have no real life experience with Nazism?

The Holocaust and Nazism in the Media

The Man in the High Castle:  Part 2

The Creation of the 'Other'

One of the core aspects of Fascism in general, and Nazism in general, is the creation of the 'Other' that must be opposed or eliminated. Fascism arose during the troubled economic situation facing the world in the wake of the Great Depression and the stock market crash. Germany was especially vulnerable to the rise of a dictatorship with nationalist leanings, with its poor economy being compounded by the lingering defeat of Imperial Germany in 1918 in World War I. With its defeat, the victorious powers, Great Britain and France in particular, imposed a humiliating treaty, the Treaty of Versailles. This treaty limited German autonomy, set limits on their military, and handed over two regions, Alsace and Lorraine, to France (Germany had previously taken these regions from France in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870).

Adolf Hitler and many other Germans were looking for a scapegoat to blame for the defeat of Germany. A scapegoat is a a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency. A few groups were blamed by Hitler and others, particularly in the German High Command, for the defeat, such as Communists and Jews. They created the myth that these groups 'stabbed Germany in the back' when they were on the cusp of victory, and instead forced Germany into a humiliating defeat. 

In Mein Kampf, or My Struggle, Hitler's manifesto, he gives an example of such a claim. He states that "If at the beginning of the War and during the War twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain." Hitler is doing two things here. First, he is blaming the Jews for the deaths of German workers and soldiers, and for the failure of the war, but secondly, he is creating an 'Other.' 

An 'Other,' is a term that essentially means a person not of one's group. The idea of 'Othering' is a term used to describe describes the reductive action of labeling a person as someone who belongs to a subordinate social category defined as the Other. This basically means the way in which people are excluded and pushed to the margins of society, where the rules do not apply in the same way to the 'other.' When someone is not of one's group, but in fact, an Other, it becomes easier to allow bad things to happen to that Other. 

In real life, the Jews, Communists, the mentally challenged, Gypsies, and numerous other categories of people were Othered by the Nazis. These people were pushed outside the nation. When Hitler talked about the German people and German workers, he was excluding these groups from his pure vision. Instead, these people were insidious outsiders determined to subvert, or destroy from the inside, the nation. 

In the Man in the High Castle, we see this in action repeatedly in the former United States. In the German controlled areas, many people have come to see people such as Jews and handicapped people as the 'Other.' In one scene, a man casually refers to the smoke and ash that is spewing forth as the burnt remains of undesirable groups, without thinking about it. I want you to think about it - these people are likely from this man's local area, yet he does not care, because they are outside the group. They are 'drains upon society' as he says. In another scene, a mother in the Japanese area watches German television and expresses a wish that they were under German control, not Japanese. The Japanese have both Othered the Americans, and been Othered by the Americans. In contrast, this woman sees herself within the German order.

This video is the entire first episode. Watch it if you would like, but I would like you to watch two scenes. First turn to 33:45 and watch that scene (runs to around 36:00). The second clip runs from 13:27 to 14:45.

Some questions to consider in the comments: Please answer at least two of these questions in the comments, and reply to at least three of your classmates' answers. Please response to any comments on your answers. 

What does it mean to Other someone?

What role does Othering take in the Man in the High Castle?

Do you see the creation of the Other in today's society at all? Where do you see it?

The Holocaust and Nazism in the Media

The Man in the High Castle Part 1