A Review of Jud Süß, Veit Harlan, 1940

Incitement or constructive criticism?

Jud Süß, or Süss the Jew, has been described as one of the most antisemitic films in history, and was produced at the behest of Joseph Goebbels with the aim of fomenting antisemitic hatred among the German masses. This is a brief summary of the plot:

In this notorious Nazi propaganda historical costume melodrama, a conniving, ambitious Jewish businessman, Süß Oppenheimer, snares a post as treasurer to the Duke of Württemberg by showering the corrupt duke with treasure and promises of even greater riches. As the Jew's schemes grow more elaborate and his actions more brazen, the dukedom nearly erupts into civil war. Persuaded by the Jew, the Duke all but scuttles the constitution and alienates the assembly by lifting the local ban on Jews in Stuttgart. In a final outrage, the Jew rapes a wholesome German girl and tortures her father and fiancée. When the Duke succumbs to a sudden heart attack, the assembly of Elders try the Jew and sentence him to death for having "carnal knowledge of a Christian woman".

The video received rave reviews at the Venice film festival, and enjoyed unbelievable popularity, with over 20 million views. After the war, Harlan was ordered to destroy all remaining copies of the film, but it resurfaced in East Germany and spread to Arab countries, and continues an avid following among anti-Semites to this day.

את חטאי אני מזכיר היום- My sins I mention today.

I couldn’t contain my curiosity, found a copy of the film on the internet, and watched a good portion of it, and found it fascinating. It is amazing to see how a Nazi portrays the Jewish mentality.

When one Jew expresses doubt that Oppenheimer will give the Duke the money he desires, the butcher responds

The entire point of the film is to depict the Jews as selfish parasites, who care nothing about other people, and will stop at nothing to grab as much as they can from them. But let us start from the beginning.

The background of the movie is the Duke of Württemberg, Karl Alexander, who was recently appointed and has a taste for the fine things in life, but unfortunately, his austere Council won’t allow him the expenses for an opera, ballet, and special bodyguards, which they consider a profligate waste of money.

““Nicht die Opera, nicht das Ballett, nicht die Gard?!”

Disappointed by the Council, and seeking other avenues to fund these luxuries, the Duke turns to…DRUM ROLL… the Jews. Specifically, the wealthy banker, Süss Oppenheimer.

Oppenheimer showing the Duke’s servant how much he is willing to provide the Duke- at a price

Oppenheimer is more than willing to become the Duke’s patron, at a price. He demands to deliver the funds in person. When the Duke’s servant objects that no Jews are allowed in Stuttgart, the capital of Württemberg, Oppenheimer tells the servant the Duke can procure papers for him if the Duke so desires, and that he will change his Jewish appearance.

When Oppenheimer’s “shamesh” expresses dismay that Oppenheimer plans on changing his appearance, he responds

Oppenheimer after his transformation

Upon his audience with the Duke, Oppenheimer is appointed the Duke’s “financial advisor” and starts levying taxes on the roads, driving up the price of grain, eggs, meat, and other staples, leading to despair among the duchy’s denizens. In one instance, he flexes his power by demolishing the house of a blacksmith which is too close to the road, and when the infuriated blacksmith attacks Oppenheimer’s carriage, has the blacksmith hung. Oppenheimer further outrages the Duke’s subjects by persuading the Duke to allow Jews to settle in Stuttgart, much to the dismay of its inhabitants. Eventually, the council demands that the Duke fire his financial advisor and expel the Jews, but Oppenheimer’s ambitions only grow. He persuades the Duke that the Duke must dispense with the Constitution of the Duchy, rid himself of the pesky Council, and seize absolute power.

A particularly humorous part is when midway through the film, Oppenheimer tries to convince the Rabbi to stargaze for the Duke in order to persuade the Duke to make this move. The Rabbi initially is having none of it, and argues that Jews should not be playing games of political power and should only be involved in finance.

Oppenheimer responds that his idea is precisely the way that Jews can can leech more money from the goyim, and promises to deliver to the Jews the “Promised Land of Württemberg”.

The Rabbi is not convinced by Oppenheimer’s Biblical exegesis, but Oppenheimer prevails upon him, interpreting the Torah according to his own interests in true Modox tradition.

Eventually, the Rabbi succumbs to Oppenheimer’s arguments, and agrees to carry out the deed.

Shortly afterwards, together with the rest of the Jews of Stuttgart, Oppenheimer funds a mercenary army for the Duke to take absolute power as soon as possible. When the Council finds out about this, it leads to an emergency meeting, in which the Council decides to subvert the Duke’s plans.

There are a whole lot of other details I am leaving out, which involve romance, debauchery, rape, and plenty of interpersonal drama, but this is the bare bones of the film.

Long story short, soon after raising the mercenary force, the Duke suffers a sudden heart attack, and Oppenheimer loses his protector and is brought to trial by the incensed council. Oppenheimer is found guilty, is hung for his crimes, and the Jews are driven out of Stuttgart for good.

Oppenheimer at his trial, ironically foreshadowing the famous Nazi defense of “I was only following orders”

Immediately following the hanging

The question is not if this film is a fair portrayal of us. Of course it is not. It is certainly a spiteful, highly exaggerated portrayal, at the very least. The question is rather if we deserve this criticism, and if we should take it to heart. Is there a sense of truth to the idea that Jews are primarily interested in the welfare of their own communities to the exclusion of the goyim, and act accordingly? Is there a sense in which we are driven to “take, take, take?” Enters the film critic Steven Clark from Counter-Currents publishing, and offers a more nuanced perspective.

Harlan’s film, unlike Mendes’, was an enormous box office success,[1] and it is said that concentration camp guards and the SS were shown this film to remind them of their duties. It is fast-paced, and Harlan shows things: the oppression of Süß’s decrees, Theodora’s corpse, the angry mob, and the people fighting for their rights. Sturm’s calm, civil demeanor is contrasted with Süß’s slick manipulation and George’s overbearing yet sensual Karl. It reminds us that National Socialism was ostensibly a working-class revolution. Hitler wanted little to do with the aristocracy, and had nothing but contempt for Kaiser Wilhelm. And it is interesting to note that in both Süß films, Jewish rights and democracy are shown to be contradictory. If the Jew is to rule wisely through acting for his Duke, then the people’s concerns must be suppressed.

….

Historical context is essential in all discussions of the Third Reich. Our establishment prefers to take the line that Jews have always been mere victims of hate and prejudice. But E. Michael Jones, in The Revolutionary Jew and His Impact on World History, recalls Jewish influence in Poland, where the aristocracy in effect turned over economic power to the Jews, who included selling liquor, leasing rights on land, and other controls on commerce which extended to the point that a church couldn’t even hold weddings or funerals unless they paid a fee to the Jew who owned the land. Moreover, controlling liquor licenses meant they manipulated the price of grain. It is no wonder that Jews flocked to Poland, and that in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries it was the center of world Jewry. The Polish aristocrats still ostensibly ruled, lost control to the point that by the 1790s, it disappeared as a result of being partitioned by its neighbors.

….

Hitler’s obsession with the Jews centered on the Ostjuden, the eastern Jews. Aside from his racial and cultural distaste, he saw what Jewish economic control had done to the Slavic world, and wanted to stop that from happening in Germany. Jud Süß, which in Feuchtwanger’s version is a sympathetic tale, becomes a cautionary one in Harlan’s hands.

….

But was this merely propaganda? One could hardly dispute the Rothschilds’ economic power. They acquired a lock on first European, and then world banking, because true economic power comes from a chain of lending institutions rather than one center. And in Poland, Jewish control brought increasing resentment from ordinary people. When the Jews extended their control into the recently-acquired Cossack lands, the Cossacks revolted. We often hear Jews complain about the mean, hateful Cossacks, but the fact is that this was largely the result of Jewish efforts to bleed their lands dry.

…

Jud Süß remains relevant — not as a relic of vicious anti-Semitism, but a thoughtful perspective on Jewish power when it teams up with a plutocracy and corrupt politicians against public interests. Consider the fact that anyone aspiring to high office in the United States today is required to don the yarmulke and pay his obeisances at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem.

So there we have it. Instead of the most abominable anti-Semitic piece of filth in history, Clark maintains that the film retains eternal relevance and serves as an enduring cautionary tale Jewish world power.

What do you think? Does he have a point? Are we Jews mostly concerned with our own parochial, national self-interest of the Jewish community, and thereby act selfishly to the rest of the world? “…so we can take, take, take”- Is there some accuracy to this line? If there is, does it warrant Harlan’s vicious, albeit highly exaggerated attacks in dramatical art-form? And if not, if you believe that this film is simply vile slander of the basest type, is there any justification for attacks that are no less vicious, and perhaps even more vicious against chareidi Jews? For example, the depiction of the chareidi in the recent Erez Nehederet clip is no less nasty and slanderous than Harlan’s portrayal of Jews. Is that also unjustified? Or would you argue that the chareidim’s self-interest in their own community is somehow worse than the general Jewish self-interest in the welfare of Jews, and therefore deserves such a Goebbels-style assault?

Tell us your opinion in the comments.