The Nowaks and the Jews

The Jews living in Berlin were some of the most assimilated Jews in all of Europe. Why, then, did the Nazis not face more resistance when they began to ship Jews off to concentration camps? The Jews were clearly different from other Berliners, but how were they viewed before the Nazis came into power? Did other German dislike the Jews and want them to be taken away?

In his short story, “The Nowaks”, Christopher Isherwood captures a few different German views toward Jews. There is a Jewish tailor in the neighborhood who sells clothing to people on credit and never pushes for his money back. He is well liked, even though everyone owes him money. “He enjoyed the status of a public character whom people curse without real malice” (p.117). When discussing the tailor with Christoph, Frau Nowak says, ‘ “when Hitler comes, he’ll show these Jews a thing or two. They won’t be so cheeky then” ’(p.117). But Frau Nowak goes on to clarify that she doesn’t want the Jews taken away, saying ‘ “You ask the people round here, Herr Christoph: they’d never turn out the Jews” ’(p.117).  This statement seems contradictory to her previous one, and in hindsight, is extremely ironic.

In contrast with his wife, Herr Nowak believes that “we’re all equal as God made us. You’re as good as me; I’m as good as you”(p.110). Herr Nowak, even though he is drunk most of the time and is a working class man, is wise, and probably a communist. He discusses how he and a French soldier met on a road during WWI and parted as “aim”(p.110). He also makes fun of both Jews and Catholics equally, imitating how each group prays (p.123).

The Nowaks don’t seem like people who would turn their Jewish neighbors over to the Nazis, but other Germans did. Frau Nowak said herself that the Jewish tailor gives credit like no Christian would and is well liked, so what does he need to be taught by Hitler? Do the people actually secretly resent him because they owe him money?  What was it really about the Jews that bothered Germans?

The Berlin Stories: Mr. Norris Changes Trains

The Berlin Stories by Christoper Isherwood are two stories set in Berlin in the 1930s. The first story, entitled Mr. Norris Changes Trains, is based on the relationship between William Bradshaw, the protagonist, and Arthur Norris, the mysterious stranger he meets on the train. The story follows their relationship and the gradual development of Norris’ character. Norris is soon revealed to be a communist and ex-convict. His past and his present tend to create financial and political troubles for Norris, especially in the changing climate of the newly Nazi state of Germany.

In one scene Norris is shown to be giving a speech at an underground communist party meeting. His speech is about British Imperialism in Asia, following the general theme of Chinese social problems at the time (53-56). This scene is fascinating as it provides an interesting insight into the communist party in Germany. Despite the increasingly hostile environment for communism under the Nazi government, the leading members are organizing conferences on international problems rather than finding domestic solutions. This provides an insight into their naivety and the relative importance they place on theoretical Marxism, rather than their ability or desire to adapt communism to the German situation. Additionally, this may also provide an example of the inability for the different sections of socialism to work within a domestic framework, forcing them to find a common ground in vague demands for World Revolution. If this is true, it may explain their inability to fully capitalize on their popular support before the Great Depression.

Nazis 25 points: Modern eugenics taken to the extreme.

The 25 points, is a document which outlined the main goals of the burgeoning Nazi party in the 1920’s. The party gained mass support for there extreme combination of nationalist,  militarist, and socialist ideas throughout Germany. The party was seen as an organization that would be able to rise Germany from the destruction that followed after the end of World War One. At this time the liberal minded government of the Weimar Republic was seen as weak. The strong armed ideas of the party in regards to the state ex.(2,3,25) and the populous ex.(9,10,11) were met with great acclaim.

The ideas put forth by the Nazi’s seemed to be a policy of extreme eugenics. The Nazi’s wanted to cleanse the country ex. (4.8) of all foreign and especially those of Jewish blood. These unwanted minorities could only pollute the pure aryan blood line, and they were to be expelled the Reich. This could only make the Volk stronger and unadulterated. The party also wanted to unite and strengthen the populous ex. (10,20,21). These policies in specific the movement to increase the health of all Germans, are made by the Party to improve the vitality and power of the entire country. The Nazi’s goal of expansion could not be put into action without a strong population. That is why this party turned to the idea of eugenics. Eugenics in theory creates a healthier population and roots out the undesirables and this fit perfectly with the Nazi’s anti-semetic and militarist view. A land with no Jews and a healthier populous would be ideal. Unlike most other countries the Nazi’s were able to implement there policy of eugenics on a large scale, to horrific results. The complete and total eradication of Jews, the mentally ill, gypsies and many others were systematically targeted and killed. Is there ever a way to implement eugenics without such horrific results?

Spread of Nazism Throughout Europe

In Dark Continent, Mazower briefly discusses Germany’s view of Europe as a racial entity.  The movement to eradicate Jews from the population did not exist only in Germany—it was a genocide that aimed to span the entire continent. Mazower argues that racism was the driving force behind World War II, and the desire to improve and cleanse the population occurred throughout Europe. As the power of the Nazi party strengthened, it expanded outside of Germany and ultimately led to one of the greatest genocides in history.

When comparing these concepts to the 25 Points, there is an interesting contradiction when defining national identity.  The 25 Points was written in 1920, before Germany began to expand into other European countries.  Because the Nazis invaded other countries in the following years, the definition of nationality became somewhat confused.  In order to promote a united front, the Nazis accused Jews of being scapegoats for the hardships that Germany faced during the interwar period.  What ultimately led to Germany’s continental dominance, and the mass extermination of Jews, was the need for a blame for Europe’s dark interwar period. Overall, racism was the catalyst behind German power during the Nazi regime.

How did the increase in German power affect the 25 Points? Did it strengthen or weaken the document?

Industrialization of the Country

This article written by Joseph Stalin in 1928 is a examination of Soviet economic development, and the issues it faced in comparison to other western powers. Stalin wanted to combine the “backward” economy of the peasants with a “large scale and united socialist industry”. Stalin was aware of how far behind Russia was in relation to Germany, France and other large western countries, in regards to the technological advances in each country. Stalin believed that a combination of the Soviet system and Soviet power with advanced technology would trump any nation.

The beginning of the article struck me in particular. In this section Stalin makes a direct comparison of Russia and Germany. He makes this relation in a rather competitive nature, and he writes that the only reason for Russia’s inability to produce like Germany is the head start Germany got in creating a industrial economy. It is obvious to all that Russia and Germany engaged in war only 13 years later. This section could be read as a direct challenge to Germany and an example of the tensions that existed between the two lands. There was another aspect that I thought of however. That is the technological agreements between the two before the war. Could this article have been an acceptance of Germany’s ability in this field and a plea for help? Or was it a combination of grudging respect and a deep desire to achieve success? I think this is a section that can be viewed from a few different historical angles, coming from Stalin himself the rhetoric feels that much more meaningful.

Future of German Film

In Fritz Lang’s “The Future of Feature Film in Germany,” he describes the various forms of expression that were utilized in German film. Lang states that German filmmakers and directors continued to push the limits, and continued to push for creative success. He then argues that Germans, unlike Americans, had a special ability to create film that had a deeper meaning, and resonated with the audience.

When comparing this description to the films we have watched in class, it is clear that the intent of German filmmakers was to make the viewing experience thought-provoking for the audience. Metropolis, for example, was one of the first science-fiction films, and was incredibly difficult and expensive to create. However, there was a deeper political meaning behind the entertainment. For example, the image of the lower-class men working to build skyscrapers for the wealthy was a very clear political statement.

Lang also notes the ability of German films to create a sense of empathy for the viewer. This has certainly been the case with the films that we have watched, because the point of the movie was to make the reader feel deeply connected to the film, and force them to reflect about their own lives.

How do you think political figures in Germany felt about the fact that they were clearly being targeted by filmmakers?

Weimar Sourcebook

The various articles, written by a number of Weimar intellectuals provide us with a snapshot into the cultural life of inter-war Germany. The final article on the death penalty written by E.M. Mungenast, is a pointed criticism of the death penalty that existed in most “civilized” European countries and in the United States. Mungenast calls the death penalty “a remnant of past times.” He argues against the death penalty not from a religious or even a humane standpoint; Mungenast states that the death penalty “contradicts all principles… of a modern civilized state.” He goes on to theorize that the death penalty not only unfairly takes the life of a citizen of the state, but it costs the state any of the “reparations for his misdeed” this inmate would have to preform which might help the state.

Mungenast is a clear example of the growing secularism and liberalism that Germany and the World went through during the inter-war years. He uses the end of his article to critique America and its handling of the Sacco and Vanzetti case, he realizes that the populous is largely disgusted with the breach of justice that was served to these two men. The death penalty does not keep a population in line it scares and angers a them, Mungenast considers it a break of trust by the government to kill these men. These were all interesting points put forth by Mungenast, that were very different from ones put up by groups such as the Nazi party was espousing. Although Mungensat had rather forward and interesting ideas they were not really put to practice in Germany before the Nazi’s came to power.

Is it a brach of limits and civil freedom if a liberal democratic government decides to kill one of its citizens?

“Boycotting French Fashion Goods”

The “Boycott of French Fashion Goods” excerpt from the Weimar Sourcebook focused on French Fashion’s place in German society. This piece encouraged a boycott of all French Fashion. Items could be inspired by French Fashion and made in Germany or other countries, but nothing bought could be of French origin.

It was interesting to discover that this boycott took place in 1933. This was about 15 years after the Treaty of Versailles. The fact that there was still such a level of animosity between the two countries at this point in time is very telling. Fashion was one of the areas of commerce that France was noted for. It was one of the countries that produced the styles that would be worn throughout the world. A boycott from this industry could have had a major impact on the market.

The economic crisis of the early 1930s brought about a series of tariffs in Europe and throughout the world that were meant to protect individual countries’ interests and markets. It could be argued that this boycott was another way to protect German interests. This was probably true; however, this was most certainly not the central reason. If the goal were to protect German markets through tariffs and boycotts, this piece would have encouraged a boycott of clothing from all non-German manufacturers and designers. Instead, this boycott focused on France. This piece specifically cites France’s invasion of the Ruhr Valley as a moment of hostility that made it impossible for Germany to support French businesses as Germans were dying at the hands of these businesses’ countrymen.

The situation between France and Germany was extremely tenuous throughout the Interwar Period due to the Treaty of Versailles and the attitude that the French had when facing the Germans: the idea that Germany was entirely to blame for the war; and that Germany needed to be punished for its actions so that it could never create another grand war again.

This attitude created such animosity between the two nations that Germany sought to punish France in return by attacking important aspects of their economy. Did this impact other areas of the French economy as well? Wine trade for instance? Did this boycott even have a great affect on the French market?

Working Conditions in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis

Fritz Lang’s 1927 science-fiction masterpiece Metropolis depicts a futuristic dystopia ridden with class-struggle. Made in Weimar Germany, the films follows Freder, the son of the city’s overlord, and Maria, his love interest, as they try to disenfranchise the classist nature of this urban society. Throughout the film, there is a stark contrast between the scene’s of the workers slaving endlessly to power the city, and the pleasured lives of rich. The city eventually crumbles due to the rocky internal nature and ends with a reconciliation (despite total destruction) of “head” and “heart.”

The scene that stood out to me the most was when Freder explained the horrific details of an accident on of the machine rooms to his father, Fredersen. Freder was down there out of curiosity of the depths, and was following Maria. He watched in shock when a machine exploded and caused several deaths and injuries. He begs his father to fix these horrible conditions, but his father remains unaffected.

This scene paints a picture of the horrible factory conditions in Weimar Germany, as well of the rest of Europe at the time. Economic output was a top priority as modernization prevailed, even though many times it was at the expense of many workers health and safety. It also depicts how little factory owners cared about these workers. To them, workers were replaceable as everybody was looking for work. Conversely, it also shows that perhaps some wealthy people, such as Freder, were appalled by these conditions and urged immediate change.

Maria prophesized a mediator that would bring the classes together and help the workers, could this be Adolf Hitler?

“The Mediator Between Head & Hands”

Fritz Lang’s Metropolis is a 1927 German science fiction film displaying the heavy influence of the impressionist movement.  The film portrays a dystopian future society (the eponymous “Metropolis”) in which the laborers that maintain the mechanical operations of the city are relegated to an underground living space while the upper classes enjoy a comparative utopia above.  The city’s leader, Joh Fredersen, attempts to augment his power by using the newly invented Machine-Man, who is made to look like the prophetic character Maria, to incite a rebellion in the working class which will simultaneously cripple their underworld home and justify any further punitive measures that he wishes to take against the laborers.  Upon realizing that his son Freder has posited himself amongst the working class and is thus endangered by the rebellion, Joh realizes the error of his ways and begins a policy of symbiotic cooperation with the labor force, due largely to Freder’s impassioned diplomatic efforts between the two.

Thematically, the film is centered around the opening epigram “The mediator between head and hands must be the heart!”  This epithet is invoked both explicitly and implicitly at numerous points throughout the film. One of the more subtle examples of this exultation of emotional literacy occurs approximately halfway through the film when Freder confronts the incarnation of the grim reaper that stands among the seven deadly sins.  Freder admits to the reaper that his death would have meant little to him up to this point in his life.  However, after having discovered his love for Maria, he defiantly warns that death must “stay away from me and my beloved.”  In this manner, Thea van Harbou makes a strong case for the value of the heart; it is so essential that human life without it is not only impossible, but meaningless.

Do you feel that the role of the “mediator” described in the film is as important as Lang and Harbou portray it to be?  In modern society, what offices/positions fill that role?