Newsgroups: soc.culture.german
From: oliver@cs.toronto.edu (Oliver Schulte)
Subject: Re: Der Film "Zentropa"
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 26 Jul 92 02:52:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.003057.15524@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> ab870@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Rickin) writes:
>
>In America it is called "Zentropa."  I guess that's because most
>American see the word "Europa" and say, "What's that?  DUH!"
>
>(-:
>
>It's a multi-country European film right?  When did it come out in
>Europe?
>>
>-- 
>Eric Rickin (ab870@cleveland.freenet.edu)
>Pro-Choice/Pro-Clinton/Gore '92


First of all, apologies to those who I accused of using the name "Zentropa"
in vain. I know it was called "Europa" in Germany, and I'm 80 % certain it's
called "Europa" here in Toronto. But I don't have a movie schedule on me to
check (and is it THAT important, anyway?).

The director was Danish, and it was at least a German-French-Danish
coproduction, possibly Belgian, too.

It came out in Germany in the summer of 1991, which is when I saw it.

My own reaction was that it was a glimpse into some dark corners of the
German soul that are pretty far hidden away by now. In particular the gloom
after the destruction in WWII and the feelings of guilt and shame about the 
holocaust came through. 

In a famous speech on the anniversary of May 8, the federal president
Richard v. Weizsaecker remarked that every German could have been aware to
some extent of the holocaust. That is hard to swallow for most of our 
grandparents, most of whom (including my grandmother) insist that they just
didn't know such terrible things were happening.

I would say that German society in general has made great efforts to learn
from these crimes, and to ensure that "this will not happen again".

However, this has led to a certain reglementation of the discourse; the 
official line is rather strictly enforced.

If I may EXAGGARATE for the sake of clarity, I would sum up the 
"official line" as follows: 

1. "The holocaust was the worst crime in history." In particular, comparisons
with the American war against the Indians and Stalin's terror are 
inappropriate. For that would be pointing to others rather than accepting
one's own guilt, and it would somehow be making the holocaust appear less
terrible. For someone breaking this rule fairly recently, see Erik Nolte's
theses about the connection between Stalin's and Hitler's terror, and the
wave of disapproval that has swept over him (I should note that personally,
I disagree with everything that Nolte says, most of it being rather
incoherent anyway).

2."Hitler and the Nazis were absolutely bad." In particular, one must not
point to any of their achievements prior to the war. Breaking this rule
is seen as trying to make excuses for those who followed them.

3. "There was nothing about the Jews in German society before the war that 
could be criticized." For making such criticisms is seen as anti-semitic, and 
as making excuses for the anti-semitism of the Nazis and the Germans in that
time.

4. "It is much better to ascribe the rise of the Nazis to such alleged parts
of the alleged German mentality as obedience, belief in duty, authoritarinism
etc., than attempt to understand this as a historical phenomenon arising
from such historical circumstances as WW I, Versailles, the depression etc."
For an example of someone breaking this rule, see the speech of then
president of parliament Jenninger. Without having the time to defend this
interpretation in depth, what I saw of the speech struck me as a fairly 
reasonable attempt at a historical analysis of the sort I just outlined. It
was however seen as Jenninger trying to make the Nazis and their followers
look less bad, and he had to step down.

When I see "official line", I mean what they try to teach in most German
high schools, and what you can say in public media without any fear of being
criticized or contradicted. In North American terms, the politically correct
thing to believe.

I hasten to add that I think what I have called the official line is, in the
final analysis, correct. There are however a lot of people who deviate from
it to a higher or lesser degree (Austrian politician Joerg Haider for
example, has shown himself to be considerably impressed with Hitler's 
policies), and I think it's harmful that they keep these views among themselves
and those who share them, instead of voicing them and having them 
clarified or refuted.

Well, that's my two cents about Germany dealing with its past (the infamous
Vergangenheitsbewaeltigung). Getting back to the movie, I thought it was
good but disturbing to have these things brought up again.

Regards,

Oliver



-- 
Oliver Schulte                        g1oliver@cdf.toronto.edu     
Department of Computer Science        or
University of Toronto                 oliver@ai.toronto.edu