Ok, so some things in the golden era were not too cool...

[Feraud]

Moving this thread back to the Golden Era
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-hollywood-helped-Germany's WWII-era leader-595684

Good to know some things never change. Profits over conscience. I knew Hollywood was very slow to denounce the Germany's WWII-era leaderships or acknowledge what was happening but never knew the extent to which they co-operated with the party.
I'll definitely check out the book when it comes out in September.

 

[LizzieMaine]

There's another doozie in that book -- the author contends that Carl Laemmle was responsible for censoring the Universal production of "The Road Back" in 1936, as part of his pattern of appeasement. Except for the fact that Laemmle and his whole family had been ousted from Universal by a stockholders' revolt and had nothing whatsoever to do with the company when that film went into production. If the author is making such claims to support his thesis, I don't know how much of the thesis to trust.

 

[jamespowers]

There's another doozie in that book -- the author contends that Carl Laemmle was responsible for censoring the Universal production of "The Road Back" in 1936, as part of his pattern of appeasement. Except for the fact that Laemmle and his whole family had been ousted from Universal by a stockholders' revolt and had nothing whatsoever to do with the company when that film went into production. If the author is making such claims to support his thesis, I don't know how much of the thesis to trust.

I think you have hit on two points already that begin to discredit. I would take what is in that book with a whole lot of salt.

 

[John in Covina]

Cowtowing (sp?) to a political party in power is not new. And they say it can't happen here.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think the most important point to keep in mind is that in 1933 and 1934 and 1935, the Germany's WWII-era leaderships were not yet THE Germany's WWII-era leadershipS in the minds of the public. The Americans of the mid-thirties didn't have the advantages of knowing where the events then going on would lead, and most Americans -- businessmen and ordinary citizens alike -- would just as soon avoid thinking about such matters. The only -- the only -- major media figure then denouncing Germany's WWII-era leader was Walter Winchell, and a lot of people thought he was just a muckraking troublemaker. That he turned out to be a prophet ignored in his own country was unfortunate, but it wasn't at all uncommon.

Hollywood wasn't the only American institution trying to placate a distasteful regime in order to keep doing business in Germany, and to single it out as though it was doing anything the least bit unusual makes it look like the author has an axe to grind. Every American corporation doing business in Germany up until the early forties had to do it the way the Germany's WWII-era leaderships wanted it done -- and every American corporation that did business in Germany during that era was perfectly willing to do so as long as the Central European profits continued to roll in. It's not a moral failing of Hollywood that's at issue, it's a moral failing of capitalism.

As for the idea of censorship, movies were not considered subject to the First Amendment until a Supreme Court decision in 1952, and nobody but a few long-hair types talked about film in terms of artistic freedom. The producers before that ruling expected to have their work censored by the Production Code Administration, the National Board of Review, and state and local film censorship boards in every state, as well as various censorship boards in every foreign country. Submitting to Germany's WWII-era leadership censorship was nothing more unusual to them than submitting to the British Board of Film Censors. It might seem horrible by modern standards, but it was nothing but an ordinary part of doing business to the producers of the time.

 

[Stanley Doble]

Things looked different in the thirties to what they did after the war. For one thing everyone remembered the horrors of WW1. They were determined not to repeat the mistakes that escalated into the most destructive war of all time. Pacifism was the order of the day and anyone who felt different was denounced as a war monger.

The second thing was that Germany's WWII-era leader did not show his true colors at first. Everyone forgets what a skillful politician he was. Some very smart and experienced people were taken in by him. With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to say they should have known better but there was no way to know what was coming at the time.

 

[Stanley Doble]

It is ironic that in the thirties capitalism was denounced for making weapons of war, and supposedly fomenting wars for profit.

Any company that had refused to trade with Germany and suggested rearming would have been the biggest villain in the world - before 1940.

Read Neville Shute's autobiography Slide Rule (sold as R100 in some areas). He describes the run up to WW2, and the war itself, from the standpoint of a small aircraft manufacturer (he was the founder and CEO of Airspeed, best know for their Oxford trainer and Horsa glider).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_Ltd.

 

[Fading Fast]

I think the most important point to keep in mind is that in 1933 and 1934 and 1935, the Germany's WWII-era leaderships were not yet THE Germany's WWII-era leadershipS in the minds of the public. The Americans of the mid-thirties didn't have the advantages of knowing where the events then going on would lead, and most Americans -- businessmen and ordinary citizens alike -- would just as soon avoid thinking about such matters. The only -- the only -- major media figure then denouncing Germany's WWII-era leader was Walter Winchell, and a lot of people thought he was just a muckraking troublemaker. That he turned out to be a prophet ignored in his own country was unfortunate, but it wasn't at all uncommon.

Hollywood wasn't the only American institution trying to placate a distasteful regime in order to keep doing business in Germany, and to single it out as though it was doing anything the least bit unusual makes it look like the author has an axe to grind. Every American corporation doing business in Germany up until the early forties had to do it the way the Germany's WWII-era leaderships wanted it done -- and every American corporation that did business in Germany during that era was perfectly willing to do so as long as the Central European profits continued to roll in. It's not a moral failing of Hollywood that's at issue, it's a moral failing of capitalism.

As for the idea of censorship, movies were not considered subject to the First Amendment until a Supreme Court decision in 1952, and nobody but a few long-hair types talked about film in terms of artistic freedom. The producers before that ruling expected to have their work censored by the Production Code Administration, the National Board of Review, and state and local film censorship boards in every state, as well as various censorship boards in every foreign country. Submitting to Germany's WWII-era leadership censorship was nothing more unusual to them than submitting to the British Board of Film Censors. It might seem horrible by modern standards, but it was nothing but an ordinary part of doing business to the producers of the time.

While I agree with most of the above insightful analysis, I would argue that the failing is not one of Capitalism, but one of human nature. As you pointed out, part of it was that the Germany's WWII-era leaderships, then - in the 1930s, before WWII and before all the evidence of their evil was fully revealed (it wasn't until the Allies liberated the concentration camps at the end of the war and fully document them [thankfully, the Allies understood the monstrous wickedness they were seeing so they expended great efforts to document it] that the Holocaust was better understood and evidenced) - weren't viewed the way we view them today. Hence, there wasn't the absolute rejection of Germany's WWII-era leadership Germany in the pre-War 1930s that we have today. But as to Capitalism, it seems broader to me than that. Yes, many profit seeking companies will, many times, do business with unsavory people, groups and countries, but sometimes, some companies won't.

We have some faint echoes of that going on today with how large U.S. internet companies deal with censorship demands from countries run by dictatorships. Some companies comply willingly, some strike compromises that they feel balance many concerns and others pull out believing that is the right thing to do. And some of the ones that stay argue that they are still helping the people of that country by providing a service and perhaps providing a way to get more (albeit circumscribed) information than they would if they simply pulled out. Governments and nonprofits (i.e., not Capitalist entities) face many of these same decisions, and we see the same variety of outcomes: some give in almost fully, some strike balances that they believe are the most moral and some say no deal at all is acceptable.

Be it a private business, a nonprofit or the government, whether the decision is venal or moral, driven by greed (governments and nonprofits can be greedy for power, prestige, influence, more revenue / grants and other uncharitable traits) or conviction, the good and, in the case of many dealings with the Germany's WWII-era leaderships, the bad, I would argue that it is human nature that sometimes the decision will be immoral and sometimes not. Capitalism itself is not the cause of the immorality just like Public Service is not the cause of immoral government or immoral charitable organization decisions. Human nature sit at the center of all three entities.

 

[John in Covina]

Lest we forget this is still the great Depression era and the concept of cutting off a portion of your clients could spell the difference between a company surviving and going down the tubes. Everyone seems to think that companies have unlimited income and can operate under all sorts of circumstances, such as losing ** percentage of sales and still go on.

 

[Otis]

Good job, Fading Fast! I was about to reply along the same lines but you're a much better writer, so best it came from you.

 

[Fading Fast]

Good job, Fading Fast! I was about to reply along the same lines but you're a much better writer, so best it came from you.

That's nice of you to say. Thank you.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Among the American corporations which had deep ties in Germany's WWII-era leadership Germany, and which spent their share of time in bed with Germany's WWII-era leader, we can also number Coca-Cola, IBM, Standard Oil of New Jersey (presently ExxonMobil), the Chase Manhattan Bank, General Motors, and foremost above all, the Ford Motor Company. By comparison, MGM, Paramount, and Fox were lightweights.

 

[Fading Fast]

Among the American corporations which had deep ties in Germany's WWII-era leadership Germany, and which spent their share of time in bed with Germany's WWII-era leader, we can also number Coca-Cola, IBM, Standard Oil of New Jersey (presently ExxonMobil), the Chase Manhattan Bank, General Motors, and foremost above all, the Ford Motor Company. By comparison, MGM, Paramount, and Fox were lightweights.

And many politicians of the time - many famous liberals / progressives - from Joseph Kennedy to Lord Astor were partial apologists for Germany's WWII-era leader during the 30s. Again, human nature is at the cause - some will get it right, some won't and for many reasons. Many politicians were also violently opposed to Germany's WWII-era leader - Churchill for one and he was seen as an extremist at the time.

 

[Atticus Finch]

While I agree with most of the above insightful analysis, I would argue that the failing is not one of Capitalism, but one of human nature. As you pointed out, part of it was that the Germany's WWII-era leaderships, then - in the 1930s, before WWII and before all the evidence of their evil was fully revealed (it wasn't until the Allies liberated the concentration camps at the end of the war and fully document them [thankfully, the Allies understood the monstrous wickedness they were seeing so they expended great efforts to document it] that the Holocaust was better understood and evidenced) - weren't viewed the way we view them today. Hence, there wasn't the absolute rejection of Germany's WWII-era leadership Germany in the pre-War 1930s that we have today. But as to Capitalism, it seems broader to me than that. Yes, many profit seeking companies will, many times, do business with unsavory people, groups and countries, but sometimes, some companies won't.

We have some faint echoes of that going on today with how large U.S. internet companies deal with censorship demands from countries run by dictatorships. Some companies comply willingly, some strike compromises that they feel balance many concerns and others pull out believing that is the right thing to do. And some of the ones that stay argue that they are still helping the people of that country by providing a service and perhaps providing a way to get more (albeit circumscribed) information than they would if they simply pulled out. Governments and nonprofits (i.e., not Capitalist entities) face many of these same decisions, and we see the same variety of outcomes: some give in almost fully, some strike balances that they believe are the most moral and some say no deal at all is acceptable.

Be it a private business, a nonprofit or the government, whether the decision is venal or moral, driven by greed (governments and nonprofits can be greedy for power, prestige, influence, more revenue / grants and other uncharitable traits) or conviction, the good and, in the case of many dealings with the Germany's WWII-era leaderships, the bad, I would argue that it is human nature that sometimes the decision will be immoral and sometimes not. Capitalism itself is not the cause of the immorality just like Public Service is not the cause of immoral government or immoral charitable organization decisions. Human nature sit at the center of all three entities.

I enjoyed reading your post, but I'm not sure that human nature and capitalism can be separated in this context. At least not so as to totally insulate capitalism from blame for motivating business dealing with Germany's WWII-era leaderships.

Human beings, operating within a capitalistic economic framework, typically make decisions that are based on profit optimization. Sometimes these decisions yield results that are very good for the decision maker, but are counter to the goals of society. This doesn’t mean that the human decision maker or the capitalistic system “failed”. It just means that, left unregulated, capitalism can produce social negatives. Child labor was one. Environmental pollution is another. Financial support of national enemies is a third. And there are others. Again, these aren't "failures", as such. They are realities of how the system works.

And it is still arguably the most efficient and productive economic system yet devised.

AF

 

[Gingerella72]

Boy, that's surprising -- I mean, I always took it for granted that The Four Freedoms were considered a bedrock expression of American values -- they weren't "liberal" or "conservative" or Republican or Democratic or any of that stuff. They were simply what America was all about. We were taught about them in grammar school, in Sunday school, in Girl Scouts, people made speeches about them on the Fourth of July -- you get the idea. In fact, when I think of "Golden Era Values," the Four Freedoms are about as definitive a description of what they really were as I can think of. I know modern culture hasn't done much to live up to them, but I didn't realize that they had receded that far from public consciousness.

I'm not saying that to be sarcastic, either -- I really am astonished.

I'm getting caught up reading through this thread, I know that by now this was talked about pages ago but I, too, never heard of the Four Freedoms until I read this today. That's one thing I love about the Lounge, I'm always learning new things.

 

[Story]

For what it's worth, if any of you come across primary source /period information on Germany's WWII-era leaderships (and their American lackies) in Hollywood proper, up to and into 1941, please drop me a line.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm getting caught up reading through this thread, I know that by now this was talked about pages ago but I, too, never heard of the Four Freedoms until I read this today. That's one thing I love about the Lounge, I'm always learning new things.

If any of your fathers or grandfathers have a World War II Victory Medal, ask them to show you the back of it.

They really were the fundamental values of the Era.

 

[Stanley Doble]

Did you know President Eisenhower fought on the same side as the Russian Communists in WW2 (shock horror).

Or that the Four Freedoms were a New Deal construct, no one ever heard of them before Roosevelt. No wonder they were associated with the Democratic Party.

 

[Stanley Doble]

Did you know American Jews cheered when they heard of British soldiers being killed? I have a book written by a popular American writer who said "Every time a British soldier gets killed I have a little holiday in my heart". Yeah, you and Adolf Germany's WWII-era leader. So I checked the publication date in the front of the book, and it was 1948.

 

[Stanley Doble]

History is a lot messier and more complicated than most people believe, even those who consider themselves well informed. Time wears away the sharp edges and leaves a smooth surface. But if you go back to contemporary sources you see some shocking things.

The point is, you can't understand the past unless you understand how people saw things and understood them at the time. To look back and say they should have done this, or saw that, or not done the other thing, is to not understand at all.