Hitler: The Rise of Evil

[North Suran]

If this TV series had a tag line, it would have been "The Greatest 1940s Propaganda Film They Never Made".

Recently, I came into contact with an CBS drama called "Hitler: The Rise of Evil". The title alone is indicative of the level of bias that permeates this woeful attempt at a docu-drama. I was watching this in History class, of all things - which is akin to showing a Nazi racial science video in Biology. Basically, it chronicles the life of Hitler up to him becoming Chancellor in 1933. Ostensibly a docu-drama about Hitler's early life and originally known as "Hitler: The Early Years", the title was changed because people started complaining that someone might - gasp - attempt to portray Hitler as slightly less than Satan incarnate! And so, apparantly, was the script.

The biographer they hired as a consultant requested to have his name removed from the TV series, and it is easy to see why. There are Saturday Morning childrens' shows that feature more fleshed-out characters. Hitler, who should - according to the title - be the designated protagonist actually ends up as the antagonist, with a journalist (Fritz Gerlich) taking centre stage. Gerlich is a Mary Sue of epic proportions, seeming to be the only man in the whole of Germany actually opposed to the NSDAP. All his scenes basically consist of him trying to bring Hitler down while being impeded by his obstructive editor-in-chief because HE JUST CAN'T SEE THE BIGGER PICTURE, GOD DAMNIT!

Since Hitler is supposed to be the focus of this tale, it seems appropriate to start off by saying just how pathetic his characterisation is. It seems that the writers decided to base Hitler's personality purely off his appearance in "Captain Planet and the Planeteers" - complete with Hitler Death Stare™! Everything Hitler says and does is accompanied by ominous background music, just so the audience can remember that the anti-Semitic Fascist may have been - you know - a bit of a jerk. Furthermore, Hitler doesn't seem to be capable of having normal conversations or, indeed, of having emotions; all his dialogue is ripped straight from a James Bond villain - and not one of the good ones, either. If this was a Hollywood blockbuster, this villain would have been merely uninspired. As an allegedly faithful docu-drama, it is downright insulting to both history and the intelligence of the viewers.

To paraphrase the great Yahtzee Croshaw, apparantly the real-life Nazis weren't evil enough for the writers. So they decided to ignore that whole annoying "historical basis" nonsense to ham up their evil to epic proportions. Forget about that Hitler who owned a dog, hated hunting and implemented animal safety laws - say hello to the Hitler who mutilates animals as a child and kicks his dog as an adult! Gone is the Hitler who won the Iron Cross for several acts of genuine bravery during the First World War - our Hitler simply whined and begged for one until he received it! Say adios to the Hitler who had an authoritarian yet caring attitude towards his niece - we all know that he was actually sexually abusing her instead!

As you may have gathered, this POS is rife with historical inaccuracies. In fact, Wikipedia has an entire section for them; ranging from the relatively innocuous, like using the wrong ribbons for German uniforms, to the horrific, like the aforementioned fictional sexual abuse. What could have been an informative, insightful drama about the rise of the Nazis instead descends into farce. Even with its black-and-white moralising notwithstanding, it simply fails to even explain why Hitler became so popular. Why did the NSDAP begin to win more seats? Because every German was just a big anti-Semite, of course! The Great Depression - which caused the number of Nazi seats in the Reichstag to rocket from 12 in 1929 to 288 in late 1933 - is mentioned for all of twenty seconds. Anti-Communist sentiment gets an even smaller mention, with no mention of the fact that the Weimar Republic was as likely to fall to Communism in 1933 as it was to Nazism. All of Hitler's other rhetoric - repealling the harsh Treaty of Versailles, restoring Germany as a great power, condemnation of political unrest - is ignored in favour of his anti-Semitic rants. Again, because viewers apparantly need reminding that one of the orchestrators of the Holocaust wasn't too fond of the Jews.

In short, it fails as both an entertaining drama, due to its uninspired acting and poor character development, and as a historical documentary. It is fitting that the TV series is preceded and succeeded by a title card "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing", with the quote being (wrongly) attributed to Edmund Burke; this is an inaccurate piece which sacrifices all historical integrity in favour of demonising the Nazis - and by extension, the German public - to cartoonish levels of malevolence. This is to "Downfall" what "Pearl Harbour" is to "Tora! Tora! Tora!"

[/end blog]

So yeah. What does anyone else think about this uninspiring pile of fecal matter TV series?

[New Manvir]

It's Hollywood, revisionist history is what they do. I looked at the wiki and it says they completely cut out Heinrich Himmler.

[Coccygia]

Yeah, I just hate the way nobody ever gives the Third Reich a fair shake. You'd think they'd done something bad.

[New Manvir]

Yeah, I just hate the way nobody ever gives the Third Reich a fair shake. You'd think they'd done something bad.

Nice. Missed the point completely.

The OP isn't arguing that the Nazis be portrayed favourably, but that they should be portrayed in a manner that is historically accurate.

[Techno-Soviet]

Yeah, I just hate the way nobody ever gives the Third Reich a fair shake. You'd think they'd done something bad.

*whoosh*

[Cybach]

Yeah, I just hate the way nobody ever gives the Third Reich a fair shake. You'd think they'd done something bad.

I'm not sure if you're really dumb or being very witty through facetious satire. So I'll withhold an opinion.

[North Suran]

Yeah, I just hate the way nobody ever gives the Third Reich a fair shake. You'd think they'd done something bad.

Oh, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways...

For one thing, later acts of villainy do not validate historical revisionism. TV Tropes has an entire article about this. When you are making a historical docu-drama, you must abide by the facts - not blatantly alter history to fit your own personal view. Imagine if Germany won the Second World War and subsequently there was a German TV series made about the life of Winston Churchill which portrayed him as a drunk, lecherous paedophile. In the eyes of the Germans, this would be justified by his great crime - in their opinion - of declaring war on them.

Secondly, it reduces history to black-and-white moralising. People constantly complain about attempts to humanise Hitler, because he is 'evil'. Evil is a subjective term; neo-Nazis would not agree with this claim - even though, ironically, Hitler would probably loathe the current crop of white supremacists. Furthermore, viewers are not idiots; they do not need to be shown Hitler doing evil things 24/7 to remind them that the orchestrator of the Holocaust may have been a bit of an asshole. There's a reason why "Downfall" is widely considered to be the best film about Hitler.

Lastly, it completely misses the point. What makes the Holocaust so horrifying is that it was perpetrated by ordinary people, not Saturday morning cartoon villains. By portraying Hitler as the Antichrist, this series is actually devaluing the significance of the Holocaust and ignoring the whole sentiment of the "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" quote - that is to say, that ordinary people can be motivated to commit great acts of evil.

Oh, and for an added bonus, executive producer Ed Gernon violated Godwin's Law when discussing his own production. I think that quite nicely summarises the sheer level of stupidity involved in the creation of this absolute failure of a docu-drama.

[Verzia]

Yeah, I just hate the way nobody ever gives the Third Reich a fair shake. You'd think they'd done something bad.

Nice. Missed the point completely.

The OP isn't arguing that the Nazis be portrayed favourably, but that they should be portrayed in a manner that is historically accurate.

yes, but here is the thing, we beat Hitler. That means, we want to make him look as invincible as possible, to make it looked like we REALLY kicked ass (but yes, we did) The romans did the same thing with Hannnable, in reality, he was an alright general, but the romans beat him, so they made him look like a genius, which made them look like even bigger geniuses.
In reality, Hitler was a human, who genuinely thoughts Jews were half human, most likely his father taught him that. Also, Stalin was far more evil than Hitler, he killed anywhere from 20-40 million people, Hitler, 10 million max (including the Jewish) You see, we DIDN'T beat Stalin, so we want to downplay his evil, we did after all, sit by and let him kill his own people.
Hitler was more or less crazy, it was his inner Nazi followers that were the truly evil ones (however, yes, Hitler was not a very good person)

[The Galirandi]

Yeah, I just hate the way nobody ever gives the Third Reich a fair shake. You'd think they'd done something bad.

Nice. Missed the point completely.

The OP isn't arguing that the Nazis be portrayed favourably, but that they should be portrayed in a manner that is historically accurate.

yes, but here is the thing, we beat Hitler. That means, we want to make him look as invincible as possible, to make it looked like we REALLY kicked ass (but yes, we did) The romans did the same thing with Hannnable, in reality, he was an alright general, but the romans beat him, so they made him look like a genius, which made them look like even bigger geniuses.
In reality, Hitler was a human, who genuinely thoughts Jews were half human, most likely his father taught him that. Also, Stalin was far more evil than Hitler, he killed anywhere from 20-40 million people, Hitler, 10 million max (including the Jewish) You see, we DIDN'T beat Stalin, so we want to downplay his evil, we did after all, sit by and let him kill his own people.
Hitler was more or less crazy, it was his inner Nazi followers that were the truly evil ones (however, yes, Hitler was not a very good person)

Hitler was directly responsible for the Second World War, and is often considered to be to blame for just about everyone killed in the European theatre thereof -- raising his kill count significantly, to a maximum of 54-60 million. Responsibility for quite a few of the Red Army deaths is shared with Stalin, however, due to the latter's mismanagement of the military in many important respects (such as having brilliant commanders fired or executed for failing to be sufficiently loyal to the party line).

Moreover, Hitler's attempts to exterminate entire ethnic groups were far more successful, hence why he's generally regarded as more evil even if in a certain sense he didn't do as much damage as Stalin did. And Stalin's moustache was more awesome, as well.

[Laos Refugees]

Hitler and Stalin never killed anybody, actually.
Now, their regimes did, but that's a different story.
Not like Hitler manually loaded every single Jew into a oven..

[Kalakda]

Forget about that Hitler who owned a dog, hated hunting and implemented animal safety laws

Now, Hitler was an animal rights weirdo, in fact, he probably was one of the first prominent Animal Rights activists, preceding PETA by approximately 40 years or so. In fact, at one point he said that animals were worth more than Humans (or something like that), so yeah, that doesn't sound very black and white to me.

[North Suran]

Hitler was directly responsible for the Second World War, and is often considered to be to blame for just about everyone killed in the European theatre thereof -- raising his kill count significantly, to a maximum of 54-60 million.

It seems rather unfair to saddle Hitler exclusively with responsibility for the Second World War. Do bear in mind that it was the Allies who declared war on Germany, not the other way round. Hitler invaded Poland, somewhat justifiably, as the Versailles Settlement had split German territory in half and left a large number of Germans stranded in Poland. As the French and British had previously pandered to him in the cases of Austria and Czechoslovakia, he believed he would have been allowed to get away with this, too. He must have been quite surprised when the Allies finally grew a spine and stood up for Poland. As A. J. P. Taylor argues, Hitler never aimed for a Second World War. Like Bismarck, he had no overarching foreign policy; he was an opportunist who ruthlessly exploited the weaknesses of his adversaries for his own personal gain. In regards to the Allies, Hitler held enmity only against France, which he wanted to be stripped of its status as a Great Power. In fact, in the 1920s, Hitler had envisioned this coming about through a war with France on one side and Germany, Italy and the British Empire on the other.

So yeah. There is no one person - or country - which can be said to be directly responsible for World War II. Every country was to blame; Hitler for his aggression, Italy for undermining the "collective security" concept offered by the League of Nations through his adventuries in Abyssinia and Spain, Britain and France for failing to take a firm hand with the Fascists and the USSR for manipulating European tensions for its own gain.

But I thoroughly digress.

Responsibility for quite a few of the Red Army deaths is shared with Stalin, however, due to the latter's mismanagement of the military in many important respects (such as having brilliant commanders fired or executed for failing to be sufficiently loyal to the party line).

Or for simply being the target of Stalin's infamously long-lived grudges. If I remember correctly, he had a General and hero of the Russian Civil War purged because - all those years ago - Stalin had a disagreement with him over military tactics. He may have met Hitler in military incompetence, but he far exceeded the former in sheer arrogance.

And Stalin's moustache was more awesome, as well.

I concede this point.

[Sdaeriji]

Geli Raubal and Hitler were generally thought to be lovers, and she did kill herself, so portraying him as sexually abusive doesn't seem like a distant stretch.

[North Suran]

Geli Raubal and Hitler were generally thought to be lovers, and she did kill herself, so portraying him as sexually abusive doesn't seem like a distant stretch.

Except the "They were totally lovers" testimony was taken from after the Second World War, with makes it somewhat unreliable as valid historical claims.

At any rate, to just automatically assume something as extreme as this - rather than just, say, a rather overbearing uncle-niece relationship - is historically inaccurate and again needlessly demonising.

[Coccygia]

Yeah, I just hate the way nobody ever gives the Third Reich a fair shake. You'd think they'd done something bad.

I'm not sure if you're really dumb or being very witty through facetious satire. So I'll withhold an opinion.

I can understand your confusion, after reading some of the other responses. Guess I should have inserted a smilie, but they don't seem to have one for withering sarcasm. Which is the only sane response to this whole thread...guys, you're upset 'cause Hitler is being misrepresented? Hitler?

Riboyne shel oylem!!
(And no, I'm not Jewish...as Charlie Chaplin said, I have not that honor.)

[North Suran]

Yeah, I just hate the way nobody ever gives the Third Reich a fair shake. You'd think they'd done something bad.

I'm not sure if you're really dumb or being very witty through facetious satire. So I'll withhold an opinion.

I can understand your confusion, after reading some of the other responses. Guess I should have inserted a smilie, but they don't seem to have one for withering sarcasm. Which is the only sane response to this whole thread...guys, you're upset 'cause Hitler is being misrepresented? Hitler?

No one deserves to have their history blatantly warped to amp up their evil to cartoonish proportions. Not even Hitler. In fact - and at the risk of violating Godwin's Law - this is the exact thing Hitler would have done to his enemies had he prevailed in the Second World War; created allegedly accurate docu-dramas that portrayed them as complete monsters with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

[Sdaeriji]

Yeah, I just hate the way nobody ever gives the Third Reich a fair shake. You'd think they'd done something bad.

I'm not sure if you're really dumb or being very witty through facetious satire. So I'll withhold an opinion.

I can understand your confusion, after reading some of the other responses. Guess I should have inserted a smilie, but they don't seem to have one for withering sarcasm. Which is the only sane response to this whole thread...guys, you're upset 'cause Hitler is being misrepresented? Hitler?

No one deserves to have their history blatantly warped to amp up their evil to cartoonish proportions. Not even Hitler. In fact - and at the risk of violating Godwin's Law - this is the exact thing Hitler would have done to his enemies had he prevailed in the Second World War; created allegedly accurate docu-dramas that portrayed them as complete monsters with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Woah, there's a whole other level of meta going on in this thread.

[Ract]

I never see why people hate Hitler so much. I am an eighth Jewish and a big fan (of Hitler).

If we wanted to make a list of leaders of state-sponsored mass murders, I think Pol Pot would have to top the list (yes, above Hitler and Stalin) for the sheer percentage of the country's citizens they killed.

[Coccygia]

Yeah, I just hate the way nobody ever gives the Third Reich a fair shake. You'd think they'd done something bad.

I'm not sure if you're really dumb or being very witty through facetious satire. So I'll withhold an opinion.

I can understand your confusion, after reading some of the other responses. Guess I should have inserted a smilie, but they don't seem to have one for withering sarcasm. Which is the only sane response to this whole thread...guys, you're upset 'cause Hitler is being misrepresented? Hitler?

No one deserves to have their history blatantly warped to amp up their evil to cartoonish proportions. Not even Hitler. In fact - and at the risk of violating Godwin's Law - this is the exact thing Hitler would have done to his enemies had he prevailed in the Second World War; created allegedly accurate docu-dramas that portrayed them as complete monsters with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Not even Hitler? See, there's where you lose me. It's Adolf Frackin' Hitler - WHO CARES? Apart from the "Fair Play for the Fuhrer" committee.

[North Suran]

Yeah, I just hate the way nobody ever gives the Third Reich a fair shake. You'd think they'd done something bad.

I'm not sure if you're really dumb or being very witty through facetious satire. So I'll withhold an opinion.

I can understand your confusion, after reading some of the other responses. Guess I should have inserted a smilie, but they don't seem to have one for withering sarcasm. Which is the only sane response to this whole thread...guys, you're upset 'cause Hitler is being misrepresented? Hitler?

No one deserves to have their history blatantly warped to amp up their evil to cartoonish proportions. Not even Hitler. In fact - and at the risk of violating Godwin's Law - this is the exact thing Hitler would have done to his enemies had he prevailed in the Second World War; created allegedly accurate docu-dramas that portrayed them as complete monsters with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Not even Hitler? See, there's where you lose me. It's Adolf Frackin' Hitler - WHO CARES? Apart from the "Fair Play for the Fuhrer" committee.

History should not have a political agenda. It is merely a record of events - not propraganda that we can adjust and alter as it suits our needs.

[Coccygia]

Yeah, I just hate the way nobody ever gives the Third Reich a fair shake. You'd think they'd done something bad.

I'm not sure if you're really dumb or being very witty through facetious satire. So I'll withhold an opinion.

I can understand your confusion, after reading some of the other responses. Guess I should have inserted a smilie, but they don't seem to have one for withering sarcasm. Which is the only sane response to this whole thread...guys, you're upset 'cause Hitler is being misrepresented? Hitler?

No one deserves to have their history blatantly warped to amp up their evil to cartoonish proportions. Not even Hitler. In fact - and at the risk of violating Godwin's Law - this is the exact thing Hitler would have done to his enemies had he prevailed in the Second World War; created allegedly accurate docu-dramas that portrayed them as complete monsters with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Not even Hitler? See, there's where you lose me. It's Adolf Frackin' Hitler - WHO CARES? Apart from the "Fair Play for the Fuhrer" committee.

History should not have a political agenda. It is merely a record of events - not propraganda that we can adjust and alter as it suits our needs.

I agree totally with that statement. I'd even agree - because I am cursed with a sense of fairness - that goddamn Schickelgruber did have a few positive accomplishments. I just don't see why people are so upset about this monster getting a black eye. Kinda like saying, "Remember, Pol Pot was no barrel of laughs, but he certainly did a lot to alleviate overcrowding."

[Pwnshop]

Hitler: Extreme Nazi! is better, simpler and shorter

[Der Teutoniker]

It's Hollywood, revisionist history is what they do. I looked at the wiki and it says they completely cut out Heinrich Himmler.

Pretty sure he wasn't even real. And if he was, he was probably unimportant... like the bagel-delivery-guy or something.

Hollywood doesn't leave out important people.

[Der Teutoniker]

Hitler: Extreme Nazi! is better, simpler and shorter

You make me smile.

[SD_Film Artists]

Uninspired acting? Aww come on, Robert Carlyle was in it. And how does it not show the Weimar Republic being likely to fall to Communism? Hitler's rhetoric about the Treaty of Versailles and the 'German race' were covered in the beer hall scenes. I found the questionable part about the film was how it portrayed Hilter as somekind of underdog 'rags to riches' hero, with the journalist and the audience's own conscience being the only sources of criticism.