Propaganda During World War II Essay

Hitler was an avid fan of films, supporting production of many films. Hitler used films effectively to disseminate Nazi propaganda. “Fascism used its mass arenas as stage-props to construct a new kind of hyper-reality for the movies that left the masses unable to distinguish between reality and representation, between truth and propaganda”. One of the most famous films during this time, “Triumph of the Will,” produced in 1935 by Leni Riefensthal, is both aesthetically and technologically outstanding. The film portrays Germany

During World War II propaganda was ubiquitous. It consisted of a wide range of carriers including leaflets, radio, television, and most importantly posters. Posters were used based on their appeal: they were colorful, creative, concise, and mentally stimulating. Posters often portrayed the artist's views on the war. They demonstrated the artist concern for the war, their hopes for the war, and reflected the way enemies were envisioned. Posters also show a nations political status: they reflect a nations allies and enemies, how the nation saw itself, and its greatest hopes and fears of the war.

World War 1 proved America to be the nation producing the highest amount of propaganda. Through his use of propaganda President Wilson was able to draw American Support for the war. Despite his being elected as the “peace” president. Many Americans believed he’d keep them out of the war, especially after he stated that, “so far as I can remember, this is a government of the people, and this people is not going to choose war.” Before his election, Wilson promoted American neutrality. He pushed for what he believed his Americans wanted. However, through his employment of propaganda, Woodrow Wilson was able

Just like France, the United States, and Russia, Germany also began to make films, as a way to entertain the working class in an inexpensive way. By 1933 Adolf Hitler came to power, creating very harsh social condition that made several writers, actors, and directors flee Germany because they feared that if they stayed they would have gotten killed. Joseph Goebbels later came to run the UFA, as a government owned production company to make films that were shown to civilians and the military as propaganda on March 13 , 1933, and intended to censor German cinema to make the people believe that they were fascist. Numerous movies in that period of time tried to steer clear of talking about the Holocaust to distract people from what was really happening and to make Hitler seem almost godlike. One film in particular directed by Leni Riefenstahl called The Triumph of the Will became a well known example of propaganda in film history. Throughout the film, you really get to experience a sense of historical context that influenced thousands of people during the time of World War 2. Today, several people view The Triumph of the Will and have a difficult time distinguishing whether or not they can conclude if they view the film as propaganda or an actual piece of art.

“Triumph of the Will” and “Night and Fog,” portray Hitler’s vision for Germany, and the findings of Allied liberators of concentration camps in the beginning of World War II. A comparison of the films present two very different views of what Hitler deemed necessary for Germany. They each displayed propaganda in a way they’re eye-catching simply because of the raw footage. It took everything that we knew about pre WWII and corrected it, so that we knew the truth about how the people of Germany felt, and what they saw in those exact moments. The task of viewing these films was quite difficult, and although both films seem to be a highly emotional and factual, I believe that “Night and Fog” was a more superior piece of propaganda. I will

The most propagandistic part of the film was when different men were giving speeches when Von Hindenburg died. They all had glittering and nice things to say about Germany and how the people and their loyalty were making all of it happen. It was giving Germany a sense of pride

Since the end of World War 2 in 1945, Nazism has been used throughout films in order to showcase what life was like leading up to, during and momentarily after the second world war. The different perspectives and viewpoints provide the viewers with an idea as to how extreme propaganda, recruitment and control was in Nazi Germany and to what extent the Nazi’s went to in order to display their power and have jurisdiction over the citizens of Germany. In some cases, movies portray the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany, such as The Lion King, Cabaret and Sophie Scholl, whereas others depict the collapse of Hitler and his Nazi’s, such as Schindler’s List and Downfall. While some movies show an obvious representation of Nazism through the plot line, others use symbolism to subtly express the idea of Nazism.

<br>For differing reasons, one fact was clear - cinema attendance figures were increasing - more people were seeing the Nazi influenced films. In 1933 the number of moviegoers was 250 million, in 1942 was 1,000 million. This was a lot to do with Goebbels addressing of the divide between propaganda and entertainment. This is a key factor to the success of cinema as a medium. Films such as Leni Riefenstahl's ‘ Triumph of the Will' and - though a beautiful showcase of Nazi might at the Nuremberg party rally - was in many respects, in presentation - too extreme. A documentary, but one so very

Leni Riefenstahl was offered the opportunity to film for the Third Reich in 1933. Out of both fear and intimidation to comply, Riefenstahl accepted this offer and in 1934 went on to film the Nuremburg Rally, known as ‘Triumph of the Will’. With a crew of roughly 170, combined with Riefenstahl’s exceptional skills, she achieved the Ministry of Propaganda’s ideal to portray Hitler in a God-like and heroic manner, with the first 10 minutes dedicated solely to him. The purpose of this film was exactly that, to subconsciously coerce the public into viewing and idolising Hitler as the one and only, ‘Fuhrer’. This further added to the primary perception of Riefenstahl as a propagandist due to the nature of the films and their intentions.

When the people of a country come to terms with history, old ideals are replaced with unrestrained viewpoints that provide important insight and valuable lessons. Triumph of the Will, outlawed Nazi propaganda of the highest degree, should be accessible as a learning tool of historical and cinematographic significance. With viewing opportunities in place, the German people would gain education and set an example for progressive flexibility which is shown to serve as a gateway of development.

Having directed and acted in many films, Leni Riefenstahl has become a major figure of the Nazi film industry. Her most well-known film Triumph of the Will (Triumph des Willens, 1935) is still considered the greatest propaganda film of all time. While Riefenstahl claims that the film is a documentary and based on “history”. Susan Sontag 's response is that the film it is seen as a portrayal of a fascist society. A Nazi propaganda tool and not necessarily intended as a fascist viewpoint. Sontag reasons that the film techniques, and the relationship between Leni Riefenstahl and the Nazi leadership as well as the consistent illustration of fascist themes found in the film establishes that Triumph of the Will is fascist and intended to promote and preserve the Nazi ideology.

Seldom has a history classes had film, myth, and Nazis been as integrated as this Nazi Cinema class. Most people watch films as a form of entertainment, were as we are introduced to new form of cinema as well as new ways to study historical merit. This will explain specific aspects of Nazi history ranging from 1930 to 1937. Such as the power of propaganda, the Hitler Youth, and Women in Nazi Germany, while relating it with these films Triumph of the Will (1934), Hitler Youth Quex (1933), and La Habanera (1937).

Heynowski and Scheumann, famous for their Studio H&S during the Cold War, had made extensive films, documentary films in particularly, which focused on West Germany and other ‘imperialist countries’. In particular, one documentary made by Heynoswski, Mord in Lwow,focused on the “alleged Nazi involvement of the West German federal minister.” Similarly, Scheumann had more connections – the Stasi – which provided him to have more political content against the FRG. With this mind, it was no doubt that the collaborations between Heynowski and Scheumann would be focused on “biting critiques against Western imperialism, especially the war in Vietnam, as well as attacks against West Germany.” One of these films was the film Der lachende Mann: Bekenntnisse eines Mörders (The Laughing Man: Confessions of a Murderer). This film focused on a Foreign Legionnaire Siegfried Muller who was a West German; he was depicted as “brutal, unscrupulous murder.” From this, the two filmmakers intended to portray an image of West Germany as ‘brutal’ and ‘imperialists,’ which echoes the GDR’s sentiments toward FRG. Interestingly, this film was not only shown to East German audience, but

Therefore, this film is not only a testimony about the German past but also the German present. It displays the irrational annihilation of six young Germans at the end of WWII, summoning up a very agonizing recollection of Nazi Germany’s futile effort to turn back the Allied invasion by hurling teenage boys into the

In the article “War Stories: The Search for a Usable Past in the Federal Republic of Germany” (1995), Robert G. Moeller, a professor of history at the University of California, Irvine, focuses on the topical question of a treatment of the past by Germans in the post-World War II Germany. The author argues that to find a single viewpoint as for the Third Reich period is difficult and the “binary opposition of perpetrator and victim” tends to impact the process of the national self-awareness and self-identification greatly (1048). This results in an uncertainty of an ethical assessment of the historical past and, what is more important, demonstration of a selective memory. The purpose of this paper is to provide interpretation of the 1979 film The Marriage of Maria Braun directed by Rainer Werner Fassbinder (1945-1982), a West German filmmaker and a representative of the New German Cinema movement of the 1960s-1980s, taking into consideration the ideas revealed in the article by Moeller. In this way, the main idea of the essay is that in his film, Fassbinder reflects Moeller’s concept of the selective memory by means of dehumanization of film characters while showing the historical post-war period of the German Economic Miracle.