Should Triumph of the Will Be Considered a Documentary or Nazi Propaganda

Many people may question, if Germany was a Democratic country, how did Adolf Hitler, a tyrant who orchestrated the largest genocide in human history, rise to power? After World War I in 1918, Germany had lost the war and its imperial government began to downfall. Germany had to undertake full responsibility for the war and pay reparations debilitating its already weakened economy. By many Nationalist and veterans, the forfeiture of the war was seen as a humiliation and degradation as they believed the war could have been won if it wasn’t for protestors and politicians. Hitler, being a German soldier, became obsessed with these views. His narrow-mindedness and misapprehensions, along with many other anti- Semites, led him to pin the fault on Jews. These conspiracy theories were born out of distress, resentment, and racism, not realities (2).

However, as Wolfgang Ruge argues, “the Nazi party developed a propaganda apparatus whose activities far eclipsed all previous heights of the demagogy of German imperialism.” On this note, it is widely agreed by historians that the regime was highly successful in one of Friedreich's principles; control of the increasingly powerful mass media in German society as a mechanism for public control. Primarily coordinated through the work of propaganda minister Goebbels, Hitler was portrayed as a leader who was at the same time moderate and reasonable who put the national good before his own interest. Other themes highlighted images of strength and authority which appealed to the highly nationalist German population; epitomised by Hitler appearing out of the sky to lead the German people depicted in Riefenstahl's 1934 film Triumph of the Will, still widely considered the most influential propaganda film of all time. The radio, state produced to be inexpensive, become the regimes number one weapon as it allowed propaganda to not only infiltrate but permeate as many homes as possible.

“The staging itself reminded the audience of how fascists use such panoramas: […] Hitler at the Nazi Party Conference at Nuremberg in 1934 as reevoked in the monumental Triumph of the Will” (Crowl, 53). The huge red scrolls and banners with Richard’s badge of boar, the vast crowd waving red flags, all these imageries created by Richard Loncraine echo the past “glory” of Hitler when he convinced tamed German citizens with his mouth.

In spite of the fact that it is a commonly known historical piece of the Holocaust, it’s authenticity has been questioned. Some conspiracies deny that it even happened at all. Through the analyzation of Hitler’s own violent anti-Semitism, powerful position, and ability to convey Nazi propaganda into action, one can see how he is the sole cause of the Holocaust.

The film Triumph of the Will was created in 1934 after Hitler was named Fuhrer of Germany. At the time, Hitler was eager to improve the public image of the NSDP (National Socialist German Workers ' Party). After his election as chancellor in Early January 1933, Hitler gave Leni Riefenstahl the job of filming the annual NSDAP conference in Nuremberg, Germany . Riefenstahl accepted the offer and agreed document, direct and edit the Conference. As years pasted, the infamous “documentary” began to be speculated as possible Nazi Propaganda.

The vital element in maintaining Hitler’s regime remains one of the most controversial arguments amongst historians. There are many considerable factors. Historians such as Jaques Delarue and Hans Rothfels argue that terror was the main component to sustain control, whilst David Crew and Dick Geary believe it was propaganda that made it possible. However, there are other factors that are supported, for instance, contextual condition was backed by Ralph Flenly and Hans Rothfels and the people’s consent, as A.J.P. Taylor proposes, was the imperative constituent. Most historians have the same problem evaluating as they have different definitions for people’s consent. “Silent opposition” is the term used for the people who passively opposed.

Leni Riefenstahl was one of the most revolutionary and certainly most controversial filmmakers of the early twentieth century. The lasting influence of her innovative filmmaking techniques on twentieth century cinema is undisputed by scholars throughout history, but the exact nature of her work is surrounded by ongoing controversy. Riefenstahl’s production of the feature films “Triumph of the Will” (Source 3) and “Olympia” (Source 1) have left a lasting imprint on history; these films established Riefenstahl’s influential career as a film director under the years of the Nazi regime. Although these films are attributed by scholars and critics to be Riefenstahl’s greatest achievements they are also considered to be her greatest fault, for

Triumph of the Will is a documentary of the Nazi Party conference in 1934 in Nuremberg. From the first frame of the film, Riefenstahl captures every essence of how worshiped Hitler

As the film opened in Germany and around the world it became obvious that Riefenstahl had achieved overall success, beyond all expectations. In America, specifically New York it was called “flawless” and “a highly fascinating fantasy”. The Blue Light was even awarded a silver medal at the first Venice Biennale that year. Riefenstahl still saw herself primarily as an actress, but after her new found success, expected to continue filmmaking as a career. If The Blue Light had not influenced her career path she would not have reached her prominence with her films such as Triumph of the Will and Olympia to come. Riefenstahl did not only gain wider international fame, she also gained the admiration and support of Adolf Hitler. According to Audrey Salkeld, “Hitler was already an admirer of hers, having been won over by her first dance of fluttering veils in her first movie.......From then on, he had followed her career with interest, The Blue Light in particular catching his imagination.” Indeed the success of The Blue Light was one of the determining influences on Riefenstahl’s rise to prominence as she states, “This film was pivotal in my life, not so much because it was my first successful effort as a producer and director, but because Hitler was so fascinated by this film that he insisted I make a documentary about the Party rally in Nuremberg. The result was Triumph of

The Holocaust is widely considered to be one of the darkest times in history- an abominable genocide with casualties measured in millions. With infamy comes inquiry, leading many to question and examine the exact motives behind the Nazi regime that killed masses. There are various factors to be considered when pinpointing the root causes of the Holocaust, among these being the historical and cultural hatred of Jews, the growing German unrest following WWI, and the Nazi Party’s ability to effectively utilize propaganda as to spread their doctrine. Despite this, anti-semitic ideas and propaganda spread before and during WWII were decidedly some of the most influential causes of the Holocaust.

If Hitler is not on the screen, he is always an assumed to be present. The object of the mass's gaze, the erotic object of the mesmerized, ecstatic women in the crowds. By making it seem as though even the statues and cats stopped to gaze at his wonders. It’s hard to believe than one person is loved by so many; it is almost as if it were to be too good to be true, and it was. It’s hard to see any realism in this film, like it was scripted instead. As said previously, a convincing piece of propaganda shows the viewer hope, but also reality, and in the film, it looks anything but realistic.

Two of the most significant leaders in modern history were Martin Luther King Jr and Adolf Hitler. Although both figures left their mark on their respective nations’ political, social and economic landscape, one is revered while the other remembered with disdain and horror. This essay will compare and contrast key characteristics that were and are central to King and Hitler’s rise to prominence and memory. Some observations will be based on the speeches in the 1963 March on Washington for the former and 1953 propaganda film ‘Triumph of the Will’ for the latter’s references.

Ben Ross teaches his students a remarkable lesson about the Nazi by creating The Wave. The purpose of his experiment is to teach his students how the Nazi was able to manipulate the German people. In this process, propaganda is pivotal; this was used by the Nazi to gather support from German. Nazi propaganda relied heavily on slogans and symbol; for instance, the Swastika was used to symbolize “good fortune” and “well-being”. Likewise, Mr. Ross draws, “a circle with the outline of a wave inside it” (43; ch. 6), as a symbol for The Wave because, “it has movement, direction and impact” (43; ch. 6); or, he uses a simple slogan, “Strength Through Discipline, Strength Through Community, Strength Through Action!” (62; ch. 8), to demonstrate the importance of discipline in reality. Next is the illusion. The Nazi Germany gives people faith in a superior

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

Without propaganda the Nazi would not have gotten as far or as powerful as they were. One powerful piece of work was the Nazi film Jud Süß. This is a Nazi propaganda film was released on September 24, 1940 by a Nazi production company named Terra Filmkunst under the order of Joseph Goebbels. For a lot of people this is considered to be one of the most anti-Semitic films that the Nazi’s have ever put into production. I will be going over the overall message of the film and how they go about being anti-Semitic and how powerful this movie actually was for the Nazi party. What went in to this movie and what happened to the actors after the war was over and what was the true power of this anti-Semitic film are a few questions that will be