Rise of the Nazis

They're not my rigid criteria, but those imposed by the forum rules, one of which reads:

"Stay on topic with the OP - Do not drift off topic and discuss something unrelated to the OP. (e.g. no whataboutery)."

There are a number of avenues that could have been raised for discussion without having watched (at least some) of the programme. One obvious angle is why the BBC found it necessary to produce (yet) another docudrama on the Third Reich, and why at this particular time; it's not as though the archives aren't already chock-full of such material. You might respond by saying that they've found something new to say or, more credibly, claim they've felt compelled to re-package the material to appeal to a different audience.

Obviously it helps if you have some familiarity with topic under discussion.

That's one of the reasons I am lobbying for the Mind Zone to be made publically visible, so that more intelligent and qualified people might see there is more on offer than arguments about yesterday's headlines and other ephemera and be inclined to join up.

You don't think I'm making these posts for your benefit do you, or limiting myself to topics that you might find 'riveting'?

The BBC has an extensive catalogue of documentaries and docudramas that describe and explain the events of World War II, and the political changes that led up to it. Between 1989 and 2005 they released ten series on this the theme of the ‘BBC History of World War II’ totalling 30 hours of screen time. Since then there have been further productions such as The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler and Berlin 1945.

The question then arises: Why does the BBC feel compelled to commission a further nine hours of programming on the same theme in 2022? Is there new information to impart? Hardly. Is there a new audience to engage? This might be nearer the mark. It’s likely that the Beeb had its ‘underserved’ audiences in mind when commissioning this series. In the case of WWII and the Nazis history buffs are well catered for already both by the BBC’s own back-catalogue as well as archived programmes from other providers, such as Thames Television’s incomparable ‘World at War’ from the mid-80s. But what about the Youtube generation, women and critically, ethnic minorities. Some new way had to be found to engage them and others in a theme that thus far has held little interest.

The answer seems to have been found in the widespread deployment of talking heads. While in earlier days such roles would have been assigned to actual former participants who were able to expound on their own experiences and lend an air of authority to the narrative, that is of course no longer an option almost 80 years after the events in question. Nevertheless the producers were able to make a virtue out of necessity. Instead of only using pale, stale and boring males why not bring in newer and younger talking heads who looked, talked and thought like the audiences they were trying to attract? This would have the added bonus of ticking the right diversity boxes as well. And they wouldn’t necessarily have to have any real expertise in the topic they were assigned to cover.

Consequently, and although they would need a few grey-haired white males to lend an aura of gravitas and credibility to the proceedings, the programmes featured an astonishing number of persons of gender and of colour in the talking head roles. By my reckoning there were more than such roles, around two thirds of which were millenials, female, PoC or some combination of these characteristics. Amongst the more implausible:

- Self-styled communist liberatarian and one of the last Corbyn groupies still standing, Ash Shakar, recounted the story of Ernst Thälmann, as an example of how beastly the Nazxis were to those of her political ilk.

- Then we had Afua Hirsch, whose principal claim to fame previously had been in calling for Nelsons Column to be demolished. Her special topic was Sophie Scholl a member of the Weisse Rose anti-Nazi resistance group who was executed in 1943. Little mention of Sophie’s brother, Hans, the actual founder and leader of the group but he was a white male so doesn’t really belong in the pantheon of anti-Fascist feminist heroes.

- Then followed a James Bulgin, announced as the ‘Content Leader’ for the newly installed Holocaust Galleries at the Imperial War Museum. His special topic was Claus von Stauffenberg, the Wehrmacht officer who planted the bomb in Hitler’s Rastenburg headquarters on 20 July 1944. It’s unclear whether Mr. Bulgin has any standing in this subject, before he became a ‘Content Leader’ he was employed in the West End theatre as a stage manager.

- Next up, a particularly exotic specimen, billed as the Egyptian revolutionary and historian ‘Professor’ Hannah Elsisi. With an even more luxuriant Afro ‘do than Afua Hirsch and a prominent ring through her nose rather like a prize heifer at an agricultural show, she cut an imposing figure. Her special subject was a particularly obscure one, a French forced labourer named Helene Pobliasky, whose claim to fame appears to have been organising sabotage operations in a factory producing Panzerfaust anti-tank weapons, as well as managing to escape from a death march at the very end of the war. No, I’d never heard of her either but it’s inspiring to hear that such tales of derring-do are not the exclusive property of the pale penis people.

- And still they come. Clare Mulley, no me neither but apparently she’s a big wheel in feminist historian circles as well as a prominent SJW, took up the theme of Eva Braun. Anyone else discerning a pattern here? But anyway, according to Ms Mulley, Eva was not only a commited Nazi (why else would she have stayed loyal to Hitler) but also a dedicated party animal. Raucous scenes of bunker life when der Führer wasn’t around made the point. But in the end what impressed Ms Mulley the most was her effect on Hitler. She’s ‘his cup of tea and packet of crisps at the end of a hard day’. You can’t get more insightful than that. Or can you?

- Another curious one, a Daniel Levin, billed as a hostage negotiator and tasked with setting out the story of Norbert Masur who was assigned by the World Jewish Committee to meet with Heinrich Himmler. Levin’s nationality is uncertain, he sounds vaguely American but I’m inclined to believe he’s actually Israeli (which doesn’t mean to say he can’t be Ameican as well). Anyway he lends a certain pathos to Masur’s story although the parallels between the latter’s objective of getting Himmler to release a thousand Jews in return for getting a favourable attaboy report to the Allies and the resolution of hostage situations in the contemporary Middle East is strained at best.

- Last but not least, perhaps the most curious of the lot. Omar Mohammed, Kurdish refugee, activist and historian (not on any aspect of WWII I hasten to add) is for some unfathomable reason – other than it boosts the BAME score on the Beeb’s spreadsheet – tasked with recounting the story of Robert Limbert. Twenty-year student Robert was unfortunate enough to be caught in the act of cutting telephone wires to Party HQ in his hometown of Ansbach, Bavaria and became another one of the 10,000-odd civilians executed for sabotage, treason or desertion in the dying weeks of the Third Reich. But for Omar, the significant connection is that in the behaviours of the Nazis he can see definite echoes of ISIS and that’s enough for him.

Needless to say none of these ‘experts’ have the slightest standing as historians of the Third Reich. They have been selected as avatars for their their own identity groups and as such are a complete waste of space.

If you haven’t already twigged, the bottom line is don’t waste nine precious hours of your life watching this bilge.

Over and out.

Go for it.

But I'd suggest if it's an understanding of the Second World War and how the Nazis came to power is what you aim to become knowledgable about, then you'd be better off spending your time watching 'The World at War (1973)' and 'The Nazis - A Warning from History (1997)'.

The series in question omits, for instance, all discussion of what happened between the death of Hindenburg and the Fall of France, and completely ignores the contribution of the British Empire and the United States in the defeat of Nazi Germany (a few newsreel clips of Allied bombers notwithstanding).

It's a complete dog's dinner but if that's your cup of tea then feel free.

Eva Braun's backstory is hardly a state secret. In fact it was the subject of a documentary on ITV more than twenty years ago. David Irving also covers the relationship in some detail in 'Hitler's War'.

Her so-called 'Home Movies' were shown on BBC4 even quite recently.