Skip to main content

A Monstrous Collaboration


In pulling together the non-fiction order for my library, I was browsing a number of new titles when I came across one very intriguing book. After it arrived at our library, I took a closer look at what I judged would either be a fascinating work or an overblown bit of malarky. Fortunately for me, as well as a number of patrons who have checked it out after me, it was the former rather than the latter. The Collaboration: Hollywood's Pact with Hitler is a striking work of excellent scholarship charting the actions that a number of the major Hollywood movie studios took to ensure that their films would still be shown in Germany after the rise of the Nazis. 

While "collaboration" might be too strong a word, the studios were certainly willing to accommodate the objections, and potential objections, that German censors made about certain films. Using material that survives in German archives, Ben Urwand traces the evolution of the relationship between the film executives and the censors to unravel the fascinating, disturbing story of how some of the most well-known names in Hollywood during the 1930's showed an incredible willingness to cut, censor and suppress parts of films, and in several cases entire films, that were deemed offensive to the sensibilities of Nazi officials. In spite of the increasing, known persecution of Jews and other groups, in the name of money the executives of studios like Metro-Goldwyn Mayer continued working with German officials even after the outbreak of war in 1939.

Because of their fear of losing the German market for their films, references to Jews and Jewish characters disappeared from the screen, any attempted or perceived criticisms to the Nazi regime were suppressed, and even one of the most famous anti-fascist films of the period, Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator ended up watered down from the original form. How this relationship developed makes for a disheartening read, but the level of scholarship is impressive. This is a story that deserves to be heard, to shatter the illusion that Hollywood in the 1930's was a stalwart force for anti-fascist ideals. The reality is quite the opposite. 

Comments

  1. Hitler was a master propagandist--a manipulator of emotions at the deepest, darkest level. Hitler did not invent THE BIG LIE but he perfected it and utilized "big lies" as the rationale for committing the most grotesque crimes against humanity imaginable. Hitler's lies were repeated so often, by so many different voices that it became inconceivable that they were not true.

    Urwand is no Hitler but his series of "little lies" lend a pseudo-authority to the "big lie" that Hollywood's Jewish moguls collaborated with Hitler in order to protect their profits from the German market for American films. This lie has been repeated so often, as Brady Clemens has just done, that it has been accepted as 'holy writ" inscribed in stone.

    "THE COLLABORATION: HOLLYWOOD'S PACT WITH HITLER is a striking work of excellent scholarship charting the actions that a number of the major Hollywood movie studios took to ensure that their films would still be shown in Germany after the rise of the Nazis." Ben Urwand's malicious fiction is "an overblown bit of malarkey."

    URWAND'S LITTLE LIES:
    1. Germany was the second largest market for American films and the source of significant profits for American studios. Less than 2% of total revenues for Hollywood films came from Germany between 1933 when Hitler came to power and 1939 when war broke out.
    2. Jewish studio bosses cared more about their pocketbooks than they did about the persecution of other Jews. ALL of the evidence from the 1930s prove this libel is false.
    3. Nazi censors dictated the content of American films and even prevented anti-Nazi films from being made. The treatment of German censorship demands was unique and differed from those of other countries and special interest groups and from the manner German concerns were handled before Hitler came to power. This is a lie. Urwand's claims are made out of ignorance and his so-called evidence is fabricated.
    There are many, many more "little lies" in THE COLLABORATION.

    URWAND'S BIG LIE BUILT ON THE SANDS OF HIS LITTLE LIES:
    Aware of the persecution of their own people, Hollywood Jews chose profit over principle and collaborated with Hitler to further the Nazi agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Demonstrate that his "so-called evidence is fabricated," if you can. The real "big lie" is that Hollywood was vigorously anti-fascist during the 1930's. I suspect that the strength of Urwand's scholarship is what led this to be published by Harvard--they tend not to publish rubbish.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

What Creationists Don't Understand

There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...