What does the propaganda film ‘Theresienstadt: Ein Dokumentarfilm aus dem judischen Siedlungsgebeit’ reveal about the society from which it emerged?

By Isabel King, Second Year History Student

Propaganda and its use in society has been widely debated by historians, with scholars defining it in different ways. A particularly clear definition of propaganda is that put forward by Sheryl Tuttle Ross: propaganda is ‘an epistemically defective message with the intention to persuade a socially significant group of people, on behalf of a political institution, organisation or cause’. The Nazis’ use of propaganda during the Second World War was extensive, becoming even more important following the 1942 Wannsee Conference, where the ‘Final Solution’ was decided. Propaganda often aimed to both cover up the atrocities of the concentration camps and indoctrinate members of society into agreeing with Nazi ideology.

One of the most famous propaganda initiatives was the hybrid ghetto-concentration camp of Theresienstadt (Terezin), and the propaganda film created there in 1944. Previous attempts at creating a propaganda film about the treatment of the Jews in the camp had taken place in 1942, but historiography is limited and this film is rarely mentioned by any survivors. In contrast, the film ‘Theresienstadt: Ein Dokumentarfilm aus dem judischen Siedlungsgebeit’ (‘Theresienstadt: A Documentary Film from the Jewish Settlement Area’, hereafter referred to as Theresienstadt propaganda film), is much more famous. Though not all of it has been recovered, available parts are enough for historians to be able to form a solid idea of the content and nature of the entire film, and the reasons behind it. Analysing Nazi propaganda efforts such as this film can give an insight into the importance of propaganda for the Nazis’ success, as well as the conditions in the ghettos and the nature of anti-Semitism in Nazi society. Though the Theresienstadt film itself is fairly useful for understanding the society from which it emerged, its context is more important than its content, therefore meaning that the source cannot be solely relied on by historians – the film is only truly historically valuable when considering the socio-political situation in which it was filmed.

Typically, historians are cautious about the dependability of photographic/film sources because of the ability of the photographer to manipulate the content to fulfil their own interpretation of reality. In fact, Peter Burke discussed the increase in analysis of ‘post-production’ of images in history in recent years, due to the need to determine what is fake and what is not. In this case, however, the staging of the film is crucial to understanding the importance of Nazi propaganda. Comparing the film footage and the reality of the horror that took place at the Theresienstadt camp is imperative for historians’ understanding of the image that Nazis wanted to portray to viewers, even if the film never actually reached a wide contemporary audience.For example, the title of the film immediately gives an impression of the positive image that the Nazis wanted to convey, as the words ‘settlement area’ make the camp sound safe and relaxing, instead of a place of starvation, disease and death. The film footage itself shows healthy-looking Jews enjoying leisure activities such as football matches and concerts, and no guards are visible. Additionally, in a German newsreel in 1944, an excerpt of the film was edited and shown with a voiceover that is believed to claim that ‘While the Jews sit in Theresienstadt with coffee and cake and dance, our soldiers bear all the burdens of a terrible war, want and deprivation, to defend the homeland’. Here, the differentiation between ‘our soldiers’ and ‘the Jews’ demonstrates the kind of internal warfare that the Holocaust created in society, because the Jews were not considered to be German and were seen as completely separate to those fighting for Germany in the war. For the viewer, Theresienstadt appears to be a controlled but enjoyable environment where the Jewish people had freedom to go about their daily lives within their designated space. However, the reality of the camp was very different. As Margry states, ‘by September 1942, daily deaths averaged 131’, and H.G. Adler argued that in the film, the good health of the Jews presented meant that the true nature of Theresienstadt camp had not been shown. The stark contrast between what the film depicted and what was actually happening in the camp shows the clear intention of the Nazis to deceive viewers into believing that the Jews were healthy and happy in ghetto-camps, and that rumours of the ‘Final Solution’ were just that, and nothing more. However, J. Glass argues that the ‘deteriorating environment of compromise, death and collaboration’ within the ghettos led many Jews to prefer escaping to the forests in order to start living as a human again. Glass’ argument is very contradictory to the image formed by the Theresienstadt film, further emphasising the film’s propaganda motive and lack of truth.

Despite its misleading nature, arguably, the film cannot be considered an official piece of propaganda because it was not shown to any public audiences during the war, and was purely an SS operation, conducted by Karel Peceny’s film company Aktualita, most likely unbeknown to Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels. However, the fact that it was set in Theresienstadt is significant for understanding the extent of propaganda in Nazi society and the high level of Nazi control over the Jewish community itself. Of course, Jews were not the only victims of the Holocaust, as hatred of all those who were not Aryan had been asserted long before the war, but Hitler had been explicit about widespread elimination of the Jews in particular, from the beginning of his rule. Despite this, the method of the Final Solution was never openly addressed. Consequently, Jewish prisoners themselves, just like the public, would not have been aware of the Final Solution. From its creation, Theresienstadt was a ‘model ghetto’, as Jews themselves were told that for the elderly, war veterans and high-status Jews, ‘officially, Theresienstadt would be an end station’ where they could escape the labour camps. As discussed in the work of Brenner, the actions taken by some Jewish leaders who believed that their efforts would save the lives of Jews in the camp actually reinforced the image that the Nazis portrayed in the film – that of Theresienstadt as an ‘autonomous, democratic, self-governing Jewish settlement’. This demonstrates the psychological control of Jews carried out by the Nazis within their own communities in the ghettos, as these Jews truly believed that they were helping their fellow prisoners, but they were unknowingly contributing to the Nazis’ well-entrenched propaganda.

To further aid analysis of this source, it is necessary to examine the Red Cross visit to Theresienstadt on 23rd June 1944, because it further highlights the importance of the context of the film. Arguably, this visit was more significant than the propaganda film itself as it was carried out by an official delegation from the Red Cross who then produced positive reports of the camp. The reports reflected what the men had seen, which had ‘offered little cause for justified complaint’. From this, it can be implied that the deception of the Red Cross was very successful and was likely to have inspired the SS to produce the propaganda film to make such deception more widespread. More importantly, there was a direct link between the Danish government, whose insistence led to the visit, and Nazi society. Since the beginning of Hitler’s rule in 1933, Danish society had refused to exclude Jewish people from their collective national identity because of their heritage. Active Danish protest against the Nazis increased considerably when a deportation of Danish Jews to Theresienstadt took place. By the time that the Danes finally ‘succeeded by constant pressure in obtaining permission…to send a delegation of inspection’, it can be said without a doubt that the work of the Danish authorities and the Red Cross posed a serious problem for the entire Nazi regime. The threat to the strongly anti-Semitic and controlling society that the Nazis had managed to create across occupied Europe perhaps prompted the creation of the film to divert attention away from the Danish protests about treatment of the Jewish population, and continue their successful indoctrination.

To conclude, Aktualita’s propaganda film ‘Theresienstadt: Ein Dokumentarfilm aus dem judischen Siedlungsgebeit’ demonstrates how the Nazis intended to, and did, use propaganda to mask the atrocities they were carrying out in the ghettos and camps. Although the film itself shows a positive image of the Jews, so cannot be used solely by historians to understand the suffering of Jews and power of the Nazis during the Holocaust, alongside its context, this source is reasonably valuable for revealing the nature of the society from which it emerged. By analysing the source within the given context, historians can deduce that Nazi society was strongly anti-Semitic and oppressive, as it appears that only the Danish authorities were truly successful in protesting against the Nazis, and even Danish representatives were fooled by the ‘beautification’ of Theresienstadt in 1944. Furthermore, this source indicates the Nazis’ intentions to brainwash other societies just as they had done with the Jews themselves. This film can also be viewed as an attempt to immortalise Nazi propaganda for future generations, which was (sadly) arguably successful, as even today, Holocaust deniers use the Theresienstadt film to argue that the atrocities carried out against the Jews and many others, were not real. Therefore, it is vital to analyse this film within its socio-political context, as it creates a clearer picture of how the Nazis staged the film for their own gain, and how the reality of the camp was very different.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Peceny, K., Theresienstadt: Ein Dokumentarfilm aus dem judischen Siedlungsgebeit (1944) Available from United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Nazi Propaganda film about Theresienstadt/Terezin <https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn1000172> [Accessed 2nd April 2020]

Secondary Sources

Abrahamsen, S., ‘The Rescue of Denmark’s Jews’, in The Rescue of the Danish Jews: Moral Courage Under Stress, ed. by L. Goldberger (NYU Press, 1987)

Adler, H. G., ‘The “Jewish Settlement Areas”, Summer 1943-September 1944’, Theresienstadt 1941-1945: The Face of a Coerced Community, tr. B. Cooper (New York: World Policy Institute, 2017)

Berenbaum, M., ‘The Uniqueness and Universality of the Holocaust’, American Journal of Theology & Philosophy, vol.2, no.3 (1981)

Brenner, H., ‘Daily Life in the Camp’, The Girls of Room 28: Friendship, Hope, and Survival in Theresienstadt, tr. J. E. Woods and S. Frisch (New York, 2000)

Burke, P., ‘Preface to Second Edition’, Eyewitnessing: The Uses of Images As Historical Evidence (London, 2019)

Drubek, N., ‘The Ghetto as Holocaust Apparatus’ <http://www.apparatusjournal.net/index.php/apparatus/article/view/34/312> [Accessed 7th May 2020]

Glass, J., ‘The Moral Goodness of Violence: Necessity in the Forests’, Jewish Resistance During the Holocaust: Moral Uses of Violence and Will (2004)

Kerner, A., Film and the Holocaust: New Perspectives on Dramas, Documentaries, and Experimental Films (2011)

Levin, J. and D, Uziel, ‘Ordinary Men, Extraordinary Photos’, Yad Vashem Studies XXVI (1998)

Lidegaard, B., Countrymen: The Untold Story of How Denmark’s Jews Escaped the Nazis (Great Britain: Atlantic Books Ltd, 2014)

Margry, K., ‘Theresienstadt (1944-1945): The Nazi Propaganda Film Depicting the Concentration Camp as Paradise’, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 12:2 (1992)

Margry, K., ‘The First Theresienstadt Film (1942)’, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 12:2 (1999)

Margry, K., ‘Newsreels in Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia: Karel Peceny and his newsreel company Aktualita’, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 24:1 (2004)

Mbabuike, M. and A, Evans., ‘Other Victims of the Holocaust’, Dialectical Anthropology, vol. 25, no. 1 (2000)

Prager, B., ‘Interpreting the Visible Traces of Theresienstadt’, Journal of Modern Jewish Studies, vol. 7, issue 2 (2008)

Simpson, K., Soccer Under the Swastika: Stories of Survival and Resistance during the Holocaust (2018)

Tuttle Ross, S., ‘Understanding Propaganda: The Epistemic Merit Model and Its Application to Art’, The Journal of Aesthetic Education, vol. 36, no. 1 (2002)

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, ‘Wannsee Conference and the “Final Solution”’ <https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/wannsee-conference-and-the-final-solution> [Accessed 5th May 2020]

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, ‘Rescue in Denmark’ <https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/rescue-in-denmark> [Accessed 7th May 2020]

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, ‘Deceiving the Public’ <https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/deceiving-the-public> [Accessed 9th May 2020]

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, ‘Theresienstadt: Red Cross Visit’ <https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/theresienstadt-red-cross-visit> [Accessed 9th May 2020]

Cover Image Credit: