Downfall

[tongodeon]

matrushkaka and I went to see "Downfall" last night. Boy howdy does this movie have some Nazis. There are maybe two scenes in which non-Nazis are visible anywhere in the frame. Here's how to make "Downfall": take a Nazi movie like Raiders of the Lost Ark: the Nazis start off all powerful and sharp-dressed until, at the end of Reel Four, they make some sort

Comments

[lexica510]

But it's so much more comforting to refuse to see any humanity in Hitler or the Nazis or the citizens of Germany. Because, y'kno, if they're not human then there's no way we could find ourselves acting like them. Only inhuman monsters do that sort of thing - nothing for us to worry about. We should all just pat ourselves on the back for being Good People and switch the TV channel away from the pesky, pessimistic, non-US-generated news (Sudan? Iran? North Korea? Whaddaya mean, there's something going on over there?) and over to something fun! and patriotic! like reality TV or coverage of celebrities or another everyone-in-agreement talk show. Or Paris Hilton. Surely we haven't heard enough about Paris Hilton, right?

I think Bruno Ganz is a fine actor. I also think if I see Downfall, I should probably be sure that we have a copy of Wings of Desire on hand to watch afterwards, to wash out my brain.

[fizzbang]

I was just about to write a comment that said almost exactly the same thing as this one. Then I looked up and saw that you had already done so, and done a better job than my limited time would have allowed from me. Thanks!

[causticjb]

I've been wanting to see this. I heard many stories of how Hitler was elected, what Germany was like before the election, and before WW1. But, rarely do I hear about the ending period of WW2. Germans seem to be embarrassed of it, nervous at discussion about it, and somewhat frightened of that piece of their history.

I can't blame them, it's pretty damn horrible.

[creepyanonymous]

Hitler was a democratically-elected politician

Aaugh! No he wasn't! He was appointed to the position of Chancellor by Reichspresident von Hindenburg; the only significant national election the Nazis ever won was after the Reichstag fire and after the Nazis had effectively outlawed both the Communist and Social Democratic parties.

(I agree with you that the history of the Nazi rise to power is fascinating and sobering, but the notion that Hitler was democratically elected is a major pet peeve of mine.)

[matrushkaka]

creepyanonymous, I was going to say something to this as well, but you beat me to it.

Hitler was a democratically-elected politician whose personal preferences and rational decisions

He wasn't democratically elected, and which of his decisions would you consider rational? His decision to violate the Treaty of Versailles? His decision to invade and annex the Sudetenland to Germany? The Final Solution? The concept of an Aryan Nation?

The Nazis never won an electoral majority on their own, but Hitler was appointed Chancellor of a coalition government by President Paul von Hindenburg in January 1933. His coalition partners were the right-wing Nationalists led by Alfred Hugenberg, the press baron, and his Vice-Chancellor was the ex-Catholic Centre Party leader and former Chancellor Franz von Papen

[tongodeon]

which of his decisions would you consider rational?

All the ones you listed, for starters.

His decision to violate the Treaty of Versailles?

Yes. He was indignant that the "traitors" who agreed to the terms in the Treaty of Versailles stuck Germany with undeservedly high reparations and an unjustified blame for the war. He frequently said "There is no such thing as treason against the traitors of 1918". If Clinton or Bush had signed a treaty pledging to sell nuclear weapons to North Korea before being removed from power I would argue that it would be rational to break this treaty.

His decision to invade and annex the Sudetenland to Germany?Yes. Hitler claimed that this was a humanitarian necessity to protect the Sudeten Germans from mistreatment at the hands of the Czechs. Clinton and Bush claimed the same basic cause to protect the Marsh Arabs and Kurds from the Sunnis by imposing no-fly-zones in Iraq. If Hitler willfully misstated this cause so that his country could gain regional influence that certainly isn't an

[creepyanonymous]

Their sworn goal of destroying the nation of Israel is founded on erroneous information, but it is not irrational.

This presumes that they are amenable to having that erroneous information corrected. *That's* what makes their behavior (and Hitler's, by extension) irrational: they're not looking for the truth.

his evil was the product of a string of rational, justifiable decisions which persuaded a large and educated population.

That "persuaded" covers a multitude of sins. In fact, if there's one thing I'd say the Nazis *didn't* attempt, it would be rational persuasion.

I'm also not sure how you square this with the constant efforts to keep the Final Solution secret and the recognition that it would be universally regarded as a horrific crime if it were ever discovered.

[magpiebofh]

I want it to be a huge commercial success so that no one, anywhere, thinks this is a good idea:

http://www.newbabynews.net/hospitals/mmc1/public/mmc1birthannouncement.pl?babyID=h1-4161

[tongodeon]

I heard that this might have been a misprint of "Arianne Justice". Nothing on Snopes yet.

[magpiebofh]

If this is to be believed, it's real:

http://www.stormfront.org/archive/t-188434Aryan_Justice.html

[tongodeon]

Stormfront is legit. There's always a chance that someone on Stormfront is claiming credit for the typo, but this certainly lends more credence to the "not a typo" story.