Heil You-Know-Who!

Looks like Rodger Debris' Hitler from "The Producers" but he's not...

Recently I was able to watch this German movie (with subtitles.)  Controversial, its one of the first time that a movie made in Germany and in the German language has portrayed Hitler and the Nazis.  This is very controversial stuff in Germany where swastikas and even talking about The Third Reich is literally illegal.

The movie is supposedly a comedy, but European comedy is not like American comedy.  Don't expect a happy ending.  Well, not that you would with a movie about Hitler, but even for the Jewish "speech therapist", there's no happy ending even though this was supposed to be a lighthearted romp.

The movie has also been compared to "The King's Speech" (which I have also seen) in that Hitler is a broken mess and Goebbels sends for a famous actor to teach him to give a great speech during the final dark days of the war.  The actor turns out to be a Jew who's languishing in a concentration camp. 

Okay, the movie is no "Producers."  The main problem is that the movie doesn't really know what it wants to be.  The Jewish family and their subplot are played straight.  They are taken from a concentration camp... a real concentration camp with tortures and threats.  The Jewish characters are all played straight, this is not a Mel Brooks world of thumb-to-nose silliness.   The Nazis are nasty and evil, just as they should be, but not the "bwahahaha" type of villainy where they rub their hands together but the nasty racist "torture you to death in hideous ways rather than look at you" way that most of the inner elite of the Nazi party truly were.

I think that was one of the worst problems with the movie, for me.  I know European tastes are vastly different than standard American tastes, especially in comedy.  But this isn't even a "dark comedy", its just a twisted drama with a couple of attempts at cheap laughs thrown in. 

The subject matter is very limiting as well.  We know that Hitler was ultimate evil, so its just not possible to have character development (although he gets it anyway) or some sort of "realization" or heel-face turn.  There's not even come-uppance as the end of the movie doesn't end with him blowing his brains out.  It ends with someone else getting their brains blown out.  No, the Jewish family doesn't get away on a stolen U-Boat or steal a plane and escape to Switzerland.  No happy endings in European comedies, remember?

There's a couple of other very disturbing moments in the film as well.  Hitler himself is portrayed as a neurotic mess.  But he's a mess because of his abusive father and sucky childhood.  Hitler cries.  He wets the bed, not because he's crazy, but because his father beat him so much.  He whimpers.  

Oh, and he confides in his Jewish instructor that he never really wanted to exterminate the Jews, that was Himmler's idea.  Hitler just wanted to send them away to Madagascar or somewhere to live with the penguins.   This line in itself might not be too bad, but its one of the opening lines of holocaust deniers and neo-nazis like David Icke and others.  I'm even suprised they got away with putting the line in the movie.  Maybe no one noticed.

Other scenes may have been amusing to the German audience, but are old jokes to US and British audiences.  There's the obligatory "Heil Hitler" scene at the beginning where one guy says "Heil Hitler" and the others have to say it too.  On and on, repeating, until they finally run out of 'heils' and calm down... then someone runs up and says 'heil hiter' again sending them all off again.  This joke couldn't have been shown in German cinema until recently but US and British audiences have seen it since Hogan's Heros and Monty Python and its old.  Fingernails on chalkboard old.

To give the movie its due, the acting is very very good though.  The doomed and anguished Jewish actor is played superbly with pathos.   Hitler is played so well that you might forget who this is that you are meant to be feeling sorry for.  Goebbels, while not humorous at all, is played with such sickeningly accurate evil that this actor should have got an award for it.  

Fantasy Nation Building: The Nation of Avalis

Avalis

Head of Government: Briave Curma

Head of State: Emed Erer

Government Type: Social Conservatism.

Government Ideology: Social Conservatism.

            Avalis did not have an easy passage into the early modern era.  The industrial and social revolutions of the last century, as well as the Wars of Revolution on the continent, deeply divided Avalisian society.  The monarchy was overthrown and the nobility abolished.  There was sporadic, low-level, but never ending violence throughout the country for many decades.  Much of the violence was internecine, personal, dividing families, and pitting communities against each other.  Out of this chaos, two major political parties arose.  Both parties believing that government should be strongly involved in social and economic matters but with radically different approaches in their beliefs.

Politics:

            The Free Unionist Movement (FUM) are social liberals who seek to find a balance between individual liberty and social justice.   Going further than classical market liberals, the FUM also believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care and education.  Up to 49% of the population support the FUM (called FUMblies by their opponents) and the party is able to use its power to force through many policies.   At present, the FUM is led by Eovix Markyl, who has made no secret that he seeks to be the next Head of Government (with a FUM Head of State as well).

            The Unified Loyalist Movement (ULM) is the social conservative movement of Avalis.  Many of the early ULM members were royalists who had to change their stripes after the fall of the Avalisian monarchy.  Most of the membership of the ULM is also members of the Church of Avalis, which espouses very traditional social and political beliefs.  The ULM looks back to the last century and wants to keep ancient religious and cultural beliefs as government policy and law.   They are led by Eorin Bude, a church leader, and controlled 35% of the vote in the last elections.  In these last elections, the ULM leveraged support from minor parties and coalitions, as well as appealing to the piously religious among the population, and won.  Briave Curma and Emed Erer are both members of the ULM, as well as practicing members of the Church of Avalis. 

            The friction of a majority of the FUM in the Elective Legislature (the main governing body) with almost half the population in support, and ULM heads of state and government (as well as most of the ministers) is the source of the majority of the political struggles in Avalis today.

            The only other party of note in Avalis is the Progressive Loyalist Party (PLP).  They are social democrats.  They call for a universal welfare state and collective bargaining schemes but yet still support a capitalist economy.  Strong socialist underpinnings among the PLP have kept it from gaining more ground in a country strongly divided between a religious right (The ULM) and a liberal but yet capitalist left (The FUM).  The PLP only garnered 9% of the vote in the last election and are led by the Cotta Grila, leader of the Transport Seaport United (TSU) union.

Fantasy Nation Building: The Country of Thulland

Thulland

Head of Government: King Helgi Stindrison II

Head of State: Froro Horkison

Government Type: Constitutional Monarchy

Government Ideology:  Social Democracy

Politics:

            Since entering the Modern Era, Thulland survived the revolutions of the last century by transforming into a Constitutional Monarcy under King Helgi I.   Under King Helgi II, Thulland now has numerous political parties although only three have widespread power and representation in the National Assembly.

            The Northern Democratic League (NDL) has a national support of around 43% and has a sizeable presence in the National Assembly.  The Head of State, Froro Horkison is a member of the NDL.  The NDL subscribes to a social democratic viewpoint emphasizing universal welfare and collective bargaining schemes within the framework of a capitalist economy.   The current leader of the NDL is Rithe Altirdotr, the daughter of a trade unionist who has so far not chosen to run for Head of State and run things “behind the scenes” as head of the party.

            The Traditional State Coalition (TSC) is a social conservative party.  Although only with a following of 21% of the population during the last elections, the TSC sees itself as the counterbalance to the NDL.  They are lead by Allyg Jalmison, a member of the nobility and distant relative to King Helgi II.  The TSC seeks to preserve traditional beliefs, attitudes and philosophy from the old times before the fall of the monarchies.  The TSC considers itself the “moral compass” of Thulland although most of its “moral” beliefs are rightest and even reactionary.  

            The Moderate Citizens Movement (MCM) are classical market liberals and seek to keep government out of the burgeoning new industries and economy at the beginning of the modern era.  While small, only about 16% of the populations, the MCM’s membership includes powerful businessmen, merchants, and moneymakers.  They are often at loggerheads with the NDL, however, due to their lack of support for trade unions.  The MCM fully supports rule of law and democracy and, at present, seeks to work with the two major parties to further its aims of keeping economic freedom.  The MCM is lead by Feste Algurson, a rich industrialist from Horvaskali, where, it is said, he owns most of the city.

Early Lum

Lum (of the 1980s Japanese anime/manga Urusei Yatsura) was a lot more nasty and “oni-like” in the early part of the original manga.  Here she’s stalking her old rival Shinobu back in the days when she was still a threat to her and Ataru.   I just love this pic of Lum though, great pose, love that kick-ass look on her face :-)

In Defense of the Church

I was raised a Catholic, and its often said that 'once a Catholic, always a Catholic', even with a lapsed one like me.

For me, the final break with the Church was during the great child sex scandals of the 1990s and beyond.  And it wasn't so much that priests were molesting little boys, which was horrible, but how the Church tried to cover it up.

I felt that the way the Church tried to use political power to shelter the accused priests, hide them, and keep them from prosecution was totally without honor.  It was the straw that broke the camel's back for me really.  The act, harkening back to medieval times when the Church and Pope could literally order kings and princes around, was so insensitive and out of touch with modern reality, that I still can't believe they did it.   Perhaps they felt that trying to keep a lid on it and stop more information from getting out was going to save them face, well it didn't.

Anyway, some years later, people really started speaking out more on the Church's involvement in World War II with the Nazis.  There was a well-known book called Hitler's Pope by John Cornwell which seemed to be more rooted in the ancient anti-Catholic feelings of the British than anything else.  

As an armchair amateur historian of the period, I have read quite a bit about the Nazis, and their involvement with the Catholic Church.  Even though I am disgusted by how they handled the child molestation crisis, I cannot agree that Pius XII was going around heiling Hitler and cheer-leading the Nazis.  

Its a bit more complicated than that, as it always is.  

"Even so, the notion that there might be some authoritarian, patriotic, anti-Marxist, residual 'good' in Naziism, that National Socialism, notwithstanding everything, might succeed some day in eliminating from its programme and its activities all that which conflicted in principle and practice with Catholicism."

"...the potential, too, for driving a wedge between 'the god fearing statesman' Hitler and the anti-Christian Party radicals, especially Rosenberg."

The Hitler Myth, Ian Kershaw, p.36-7


This pretty much sums up everything that I've read about the troubled and murky relationship between the Catholic Church and Nazis.   Basically, the Catholics thought they could "handle" Hitler.   The Church of the day feared communism/marxism much more than the up and coming Nazi movement and hoped to use it against the communists.  Also, they believed they could do a "Bene Gesserit" with the Nazis, to use a reference to Frank Herbert's Dune series of books.  They thought they would get into their minds, use them against each other, manipulate them.   The last quote really bears that out when they thought they could separate Hitler (who was still seen as vaguely moderate, had been raised as a Catholic himself, and was still claiming to believe in god) and more pagan members of the Nazi movement like Heinrich Himmler and Alfred Rosenburg (who wrote "The Myth of the 20th Century" advocating a new pagan religion and denigrating Christianity as an evil Jewish plot).

This last part alone indicates why any hope to "handle" the Nazis was doomed to failure.  Hitler was not a moderate believer in God (or even gods) but a master cynic and propagandist who said whatever words he had to to get people to follow him.  Hitler also supported his followers weird beliefs, such as Himmler, although he did break off with Rosenburg eventually when his pagan beliefs went a little too far even for Hitler.  

The main crime of the Church in this period was overlooking the Nazis' plans for the Jewish people.  Many have argued back and forth that while the Church didn't try to put its foot down and condemn what the Nazis were doing, that they did seem to try to save individual Jews.

Also, there is the times themselves.  Its easy to look back in hindsight and make judgements but in 1940, it really did look like Nazi Germany had won!  They had overrun France, Poland and several other countries in Europe.  Britain was purely on the defensive with few choices for offensive action.  And Germany had recently signed a deal with the Soviets (fully planning to reneg this deal and attack very soon).  

The Church was assuming that the Nazis were the new bullies on the block (they'd seen a lot of them come and go over the centuries) and were just getting themselves in a position to try and deal with them.  It was a mistake to try and think they could "handle" them though, mold them.  Nazi Germany was being led not even by megalomaniac dictators but by full on psychopaths and sociopaths who were totally out of touch with reality.  

There was also the fact that the Vatican was smack dab in the heart of fascist Italy and only a stone's throw from Germany.  Any true attempt to stand up against Hitler would probably have brought violent and total retribution.  In fact, Hitler did threaten at one point to send his forces into the Vatican and clear the place out.   

This is the point at which more moral and brave people would have stood up and been counted.  Oh, its easy for us, sitting comfortably behind our computers to say "Yeah, I would have stood up, even if I had been shot, people would have known which side I was on!"  Perhaps Pius XII and his followers were a little cowardly if they did fear provoking Hitler to invade the Vatican and drag them away.  After all, such an act would have turned Catholics worldwide against the Nazis.  Of course, it would have meant the end of Pius XII and his officials' lives, and I suppose Pius XII wasn't ready for that level of martyrdom.  

In conclusion, I do not think Pius XII and the Vatican were Nazi sympathizers.  Scared for their own skin, yes.  Arrogantly and naively thinking they could somehow get some control over a bunch of frothing and foaming psychopaths, yes.   All these accusations and others can be made against them.

And like with the modern scandal, it would have been so much better for the Church to have stood up and been counted.  Even at danger of their own lives.  It would have been so much better for the Church to say "Yes, here's these sicko priests, take them away and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law!"  It would also have been better for the Vatican to have told Hitler to shove his kampf up his stupid butt, even if it meant getting on his shit list.  Lots of cool people and innocents got on his shit list and Pius XII would have been in good company.

Are you a male or a female?

I was trying to learn some Japanese lately and picked up a book called Japanese The Manga Way by Wayne Lammers.  Its a very interesting book and I quite enjoy using it.  

I was reading with interest how Japanese has distinct differences between the way men and women speak, as well as different levels of honorific language.   While these distinctions are not as absolute as they once were, they are still very much a part of Japanese culture and must be taken into account.  

I was thinking to myself how its cool that English doesn't have very many weird distinctions like that... until I noticed something in the way Lammers was writing his book.  

In many European languages there are words and expressions that are distinctly used for people and for animals.  It is considered very rude and wrong to use these words for the wrong thing.  In fact, in French, there's a very nasty phrase Beau cul, belle gueule (sp?) which I don't remember how to spell, mostly on account of it being shortened in speech to BCBG.  It means "nice face, nice ass" and is applied when leering over a member of the opposite sex (or the same sex, I suppose, if you're attracted to them).  Its like swearing and nasty, but mainly because cul and guele (sp?) are words that would only be used with animals, never with humans.

This is seen also in German and in English.  For instance, no one would ever use the verb breed with people, unless they were trying to be insulting.  

Getting back to Lammers, I noticed in his book that he always refered to the differences between men and women speech with 'male' and 'female.'  Not that strange except that's how he always expresses it.

"Males would use..."  "Females would say..."  instead of "Men would use" or "Women would say..."

Seeing this usage over and over in the book was causing me some cognitive dissonance.  Like a trompe d'oeil or a pothole in the road.

It just struck me that, at least in my experience, English speakers usually do not refer to men and women as males and females in general speech.  Its not really rude, I suppose, just strange.  No one asks where the male bathroom is.  No one asks if a shirt is for females or males.  At least not native speakers. 

Au contraire, you say, what about girls and boys?   When one say s "men would say..." does that apply to boys as well?  

Oh come on, other than being a troll pain in the ass, everyone is going to know that "Men say atsui da yo" applies to boys as well since they are just men who's toys are smaller and a lot less expensive.   As far as I know (which could be more, I'm sure) there has never been a human language with age distinctions between men and boys, women and girls. 

So I guess English does have lots of weird distinctions.  I just never notice because I'm a native speaker, and it isn't until another supposed native speaker starts using words in a strange way that I notice.