learntoquestion ltq discussions

Questions to Consider:

1. What makes Triumph of the Will a powerful propaganda tool? What impact did specific scenes or images have on ordinary Germans? What impact did specific scenes or images have on Germans who were not considered Aryan or were different from mainstream German culture?

2. What responsibility does Leni Riefenstahl have for what happened during the Nazi era and the Holocaust? Should she be held responsible for what the film contains and the very powerful effect that it had on audiences? Was she simply doing what she was commissioned to do effectively, or did she serve as an enabler for the Nazi regime?

3. How should Leni Riefenstahl be remembered? In retrospect, can we believe Reifenstahl’s assertion that she, personally, was“apolitical” and did not believe in the Nazi ideology? Should her legacy as a filmmaker and artist always be tied to her propaganda work for the Nazi regime? Can the artist be separated from the art when the art has such profound and dark consequences?

Word Count Requirement: 400-500 words

Sources to Reference:

Please refer to the ideas, either using a description, quote or paraphrasing, from at least two of the sources in your response and please respond in some way to at least one of the question sets.

Clips from Triumph of the Will (1935):

1. Beginning of the film to Hitler’s arrival at his hotel in Nuremberg (0:00 through 9:08)
2. The Hitler youth preparing for their rally (12:23 through 17:57)
3. The labor ceremony of loyalty; Hitler addresses the Reich Labor Corps (31:23 through 35:56)
4. Hitler addresses the Nazi youth rally and does a motor tour of the crowds (45:36 through 51:31)
5. The parade of stormtroopers with the flags and insignias from regions throughout Germany (1:01:08 through 1:04:52)

The Mass Psychology of Fascist Cinema (Tomasulo,1998).

Clip from The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl (1993). (1:03:55 though 1:32:04)

Rubric to Review: LTQ Rubric

Triumph of the Will is such a powerful propaganda tool because it glorifies Hitler and gives people a sense of pride for being a part of the Nazi party. She changes up the camera angles and cuts up the speech to place emphasis on Hitlers main points and aims to cut to the chase. This captures peoples attention quickly and maintains it. Seeing assemblies of Nazis gives people a major sense of belonging, to be a part of something bigger than yourself is a feeling many chase. It also enforces an idea against people who aren’t in those groups, and evokes a feeling of being scared to be different. The constant camera on the Nazi flag also creates immense influence on people because the flag is tied to a group, which brings back to people together and conformity and belonging. She portrays Hitler as a hero, which he couldn’t be farther from but the German people wouldn’t know that because they have been indoctrinated into thinking that the Jews were plotting to destroy Germany. The film can also be directed to the youth. Imagine seeing it as a young child, you want to be proud of who you are, and protect your country. Children looked up to Hitler because they saw him the way the film portrayed him as- a hero. While Leni Riefenstahl didn’t directly cause any of the atrocities of WW2 and the Holocust, she did influence people to be okay and normalize mass murder. We can’t blame Hitlers rise to power on her since he already had immense power before her documentary, but we can blame her for a dramatic increase of followers of the Nazi party. She was an enabler, and promoted the growth of the regime and should be held responsible for its growth. Her legacy should be tied to her film because she is famous for that particular one, not a different one. Her fame comes off of glorifying people’s oppression. The film isn’t solely a piece of cinema, but it is a piece of propaganda and there is a reconizable difference. While it is important to acknowledge that she may have been forced into creating the film (Hitler threatens her or her loved ones lives), in the documentry the Triumph of the Will, she seems proud of her work, and either doesn’t realize how awful her portrayal of Hitler is and what he was doing, or does know but refuses to acknowledge it. If she really was forced into making it or didn’t want to, she wouldn’t want to conitnue to talk about it and promote the film.

Actions speak louder than words, and Leni Reifenstahl’s pure glee at her film Triumph of the Will is no exception. This film, produced and released in 1935, has proved to be one of the most radical and convincing pieces of propaganda, especially considering the time it was made. Triumph of the Will was so revolutionary due to its artistic take, one that is still replicated in films and media today. It is so powerful because it displays Hitler and the Nazi regime in an almost god-like manner, and it makes anyone who is not included have the desire to become that ingroup. Described as, “Propaganda films such as Triumph of the Will not only promote the mythic rebirth of their nations, they also celebrate the rebirth of myth itself,” in the article “The Mass Psychology of Fascist Cinema,” this idea comes to life with Riefenstahl and her influence. In tandem with this idea, it also forces a sense of fear onto anyone who is not in this group as again it highlights their oppressors and their power.

In an interview for the film The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl, she seems to constantly reinforce the idea that her film “has nothing to do with politics.” This may be true in her mind, yet her utter joy at watching the film almost 50 years after it was made was undeniable. The film has nothing to do with politics because she ignores the consequences of her art, focusing more on how difficult the action shots were rather than the disgusting acts of the Nazi Party, or the 6 million Jewish people that were killed. In my opinion, she is someone who should be held just as responsible, if not judicially, at the very least both morally and critically. If someone should be criticized simply for their attitude, Riefenstahl would be one of the very first on the list as she lacks any empathy toward the survivors of the Holocaust and those killed during it.

While she may have not grasped the full extent of the harm her film was going to do, Riefenstahl along with those in the Nazi Party and army should be held responsible in some way. Even now, we should not go back and romanticize this era of hatred but rather reflect on what caused it to happen. Viewing the propaganda or the films of this time is not inherently harmful, however it is important to keep a critical eye out when doing this. Inherently it may be true that Triumph of the Will was created as a piece of art however it also was a piece of political propaganda. People were moved by it because of its artistic ability, which inherently uplifted the Nazi Party and their schemes. There is no way to truly separate those two, which is why it is vital to consider this when viewing these films. Rather than encouraging people to not acknowledge the past, we must be open to new ideas on how we can move forward, which is why recognizing the harm that not only Triumph of the Will had on society, but all propaganda produced. With this, we may be able to take a step forward to understanding, rather than taking the step of hatred that so many have.

Effective and persistent propaganda is crucial for influencing the movement of a nation, especially when tied to fascism. Propaganda has been used by nearly every political entity throughout history, whether to mobilize a people for a war effort, glorify and justify the actions of authorities, or change the ideology of a nation. Triumph of the Will, though by no means alone in its messaging, was one such piece of propaganda. What made this movie so overwhelming and effective towards Germans at the time was not only the magnitude of displayed Nazi power, but the artistic way in which it was embodied. Leni Riefenstahl bears much of the responsibility for this, regardless of where her motivation was placed. Very intentionally, Leni worked tirelessly to make the Triumph of the Will a film which would hold people’s attention and evoke an emotional connection to the Nazi party. Ultimately, her motivation, though physically impossible to prove one way or another, is unimportant. Her work should be viewed as what it is, a piece of propaganda aimed towards those most susceptible to fascist ideology. Her claim that the piece was only made out of an artistic vision, and not for political reasons, is negligible when we look at its effects. In a way, it is similar to a nation claiming it will stay out of a global conflict for “neutrality,” such as Switzerland in World War II. Staying out of a conflict such as WWII effectively only acts as enabling the oppressor, like Leni Riefenstahl with Triumph of the Will. The film places Hitler as a savior, along with imagery of overwhelming support of his words, evoking “the self confidence that the individual derives from the ‘greatness of a nation’”(Reich 63). Images such as these, with thousands upon thousands of Aryan Germans celebrating their leader, would be incredibly effective in both making Germans feel immense pride towards their nation, and deterring and frightening anyone with contrary views. Of course, Leni Riefenstahl is not responsible for the Holocaust, but that does not make her innocent either. If she had refused to create the film, there is no doubt that something similar would have been made by someone else. Nevertheless, the way we study and view her work is not insignificant, as it reminds us of the danger of staying “apolitical” in the face of blatantly oppressive regimes.

Triumph of the Will has been called the greatest piece of propaganda ever created and it served an important role in displaying the Nazi regime’s appeal to skeptical Germans. The power of the film comes in its artistic excellence and cinematic invitation. It was created when movies were still a novel form of entertainment to the world and Leni Riefenstahl used new techniques to make it even more compelling. Separate from the historical significance of the film, it is a true work of artistic genius that Leni has right to be proud of, however, the historical significance paints it in a very different light. For Germans, the film not only promoted a sense of nationalism and importance of the Aryan people, but also gave them a whole new experience in the Nuremberg rally; They were able to see Hitler’s face. They saw his expressions and his gestures. They felt close to him because of the intimacy of the shots. It didn’t feel like a piece of propaganda either. It wasn’t a stuffy, narrated film put together by the Nazi elite, it was directed by a well regarded actress and model and felt like a true movie. The effect was that the Nazis could use the film as their most powerful propaganda to invoke hope and pride in the German people. For Jewish Germans and other minorities, it was a warning. The Nazis were powerful. The shots from inside of the rally grounds showed thousands, in pin-straight formation, eagerly listening to their Fureur.

Leni Riefenstahl has been put under fire for her role in making Nazis with her film. She holds strong with her argument that she was seeking to make a piece of art, that it's silly that her work was the cause for the Holocaust, and that she had no choice regardless. It is likely true that she didn’t have a choice in the matter. When Hitler wants you to do something, what choice do you have? Make a film, one film, which will bring you wealth and notoriety, or refuse and face the wrath of the Nazis. Her argument of innocence falls apart, however, because of her inability to admit the effect of the film. If she took the position of acknowledgment of the power and use of her film and stated that she had no choice, she would come across much more credible. But she won’t say that. Riefenstahl is proud of her work and doesn’t think it was used as propaganda. The assertion that this makes her automatically a Nazi, and responsible for the Holocaust is overblown, however. Both can be true, that she simply did the best job she could with what she was commissioned to do, and that her work enabled the Holocaust to happen. But she wasn’t Adolf Hitler, Eichmann, Goebbles, or Hienrich. It is very possible that she didn’t know or see the aims of the Nazis and her film didn’t send millions to their deaths. What her film did was ease the acceptance of the Nazi regime that had already gained power.

Triumph of the Will serves as a powerful propaganda tool for the Nazi regime and Hitler in particular as it combines innovative filmmaking techniques of the time with ideological messaging. Scenes such as those depicting Hitler’s plane ride from his point of view would affect both ordinary Germans as well as those not considered Aryan. In this first scene from the propaganda film, the footage was taken from above, movement through the clouds and images of Germans marching below created a utopian setting. This scene in particular depicts Hitler as a God-like figure that is ruling over an orderly and strong society. While ordinary Germans would feel empowered and even proud of this image it is easy to see how “non-Aryan” Germans would feel anxious and threatened as they are part of the “out-group” in this case.

In my opinion Leni Riefenstahl holds a significant amount of responsibility for what happened during the Nazi era and the Holocaust. Despite her claim that she was only doing the work she was commissioned to do she should still be held accountable for the contents of the film and its effect as she took part in most of the decisions made regarding the contents and the way in which she created the film was catered towards generating a positive response supportive of the Nazi regime. I believe that it is true that she was doing what she was commissioned to do effectively however I do not think that this takes away from the fact that through doing this she was enabling the Nazi regime.

I believe that Leni Riefenstahl should be remembered firstly as someone who enabled and pushed the nati-semetic Nazi propaganda in addition to being a filmmaker. In retrospect, we can not believe in Reifenstahl’s assertion that she was “apolitical” because it is hard to believe that as someone that was part of German society and had met Hitler himself, she did not know the significance and the desired effect that her work would have on the German population. If Reifenstahl knew the effects that her film would have then she must have also supported the ideas that were being promoted. Due to these things her legacy as a filmmaker and artist should always be tied to the Nai regime. Since she knew the effects of her work, and likely supported them, in this case the artist cannot be separated from the art. This is because not only did the art have such a profound impact on humanity at the time but the impact was not made unknowingly, Reifenstahl was aware of the consequences for her actions and chose to continue working with the Nazi party and Hitler.

Triumph of the Will is a propaganda documentary film directed and edited by Leni Riefenstahl. It is said that this documentary is one of the most powerful propaganda tools used throughout WWll. The documentary portrays the parades and rallies that were held in support of Hitler and the Nazi Regime. It shows scenes of powerful leaders, during this time, giving hopeful and inspiring speeches to the people of Germany. There are multiple aspects which make this film so powerful including the way it was filmed, what it filmed, and its impact it left on the people of Germany. The documentary was filmed using certain techniques that could better capture the power of the Nazi Regime. For example Leni filmed with lower camera angles making Hitler appear larger with a more “god-like” essence. She would film the substantial crowds with a wider angle to show just how many people were there, ultimately portraying the unity of the party and its supporters. Leni filmed multiple shots of Hitler whether he was giving a speech, conversing with those in the crowd, or even just walking down the center aisle of the crowds of people. The shots of Hitler giving a speech (minute 48.06 Triumph of the Will), show his passion and drive for success for Germany, whether you were one of those in Nuremberg or one at home watching you could experience this and feel this. That was the whole point of this documentary to capture his force of hope and motivation of achievement within the country. The scene of Hitler conversing with a soldier in the crowd (minute 21.02 of Triumph of the Will) shows how although he is a figure of power and control he is also just like one of us, one who converses with others and has personal conversations. Seeing a person in power act as though someone just like us would make you feel safe in a way knowing that they are just like us and that they are human too. It portrays them as more personable. The whole documentary was filmed in an area of Germany known as Nuremberg. Here, the largest of the rallies and parades were held, and the ones that Hitler would mostly attend. As an ordinary German living out of Nuremberg, getting to see what the parades were like out there was incredibly exciting. People were already full of pride for their country and seeing a film like this just drove that pride farther. They knew that whether they were there with Hitler and the crowds in Nuremberg or at home with their own community they would still feel the impacts and nationalistic pride of their country. For those that did not align with German or Aryan identities they would most likely feel like outcasts. Seeing the massive crowds of German and Aryan people supporting a leader who wanted to wipe out your entire race, would most definitely inflict some kind of fear and intimidation in one. This kind of fear could be paralyzing to these people causing them to be too scared to converse with others in fear of what might happen to themselves for not being German or Aryan or even causing them to not want to leave their homes. Overall “The Triumph of the Will” film was a major piece of Propaganda during WWii that left lasting impacts not only on the German and Aryan people but as well as those who felt as outcasts, ultimately inflicting more fear and solidarity in them.

During our unit on The Rise of Facism, we were introduced to Leni Riefenstahl’s film Triumph of the Will that takes place during the1935 of Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg. The film captures key timestamps during the rise of Hitler, such as The labor ceremony of loyalty, the Nazis youth rally, and daily life for Germans. To understand the rise of Facism, it’s crucial to observe how propaganda showcases a false solution to economic issues and promotes their nationalist values. Riefenstahl’s production is an example of how the media was used as a tool for gaining political support and leverage. Through its cinematic style and real life scenes, the film heightens the mass manipulation of the Germans and others. Specifically the immense pride instilled in the German population.

While watching parts of Triumph of the Will, I noticed there were constant moments where thousands of German men dressed in their military uniform were standing in still formation and repeating Hitler’s words of self-praise. During the scene of the Nuremberg rally that had thousands of participants, along with the senseful background music, it presented a strong sense of strength and unity. In this moment, I'm sure the ordinary Germans accomplished their sole reason of being there - finding a sense of belonging. Frank Tomasulo’s article analyzes how, “Feeling at one with the authoritarian father figure makes a person feel at one with the fatherland…produces self-confidence that the individual derives from the ‘greatness of the nation’” (Tomasulo 100). An individual who finally aligns with a mass group will simply follow the behavior of its leader, as seen in the scene of the soldiers repeating the words of ‘Here we stand. We are ready to carry Germany into a new era…employed in supplying material” (Riefenstahl 28:50). These visual techniques and behavior is not only convincing the Germans are doing the better deed, but those watching that the Nazi’s are a powerful movement aligned with solidarity.

The film Triumph of the WIll is a film which for decades has served as such a powerful propaganda tool for the Nazi Party. It does so by displaying the size and power of the Nazi rallies, in a way that makes them seem energetic and appealing to the film's viewers. In the clips of the film we see thousands of people in perfect array standing, listening, and displaying their support for Hitler and his ideologies. Using overhead views to show the viewer everything, it sends the message that the Nazi party is energetic, and is necessary to restore the prosperity of Germany. This makes it such a powerful piece of propaganda, because for those who were struggling in German society, it made them believe that the work of the Nazi party could fix all of their problems, and restore Germany’s dignity and power. Although Riefenstahl claims that she is merely doing the job which she was commissioned to do, by displaying the rallies this way she is very much serving as an enabler of the nazi party. This can also be displayed by the way she claims that she had said she was only going to do something for them once, then repeatedly worked for the Nazi party. She also holds a decent amount of responsibility for the events which occurred during the Nazi era and Holocaust because she contributed to the out pour of propaganda, to the German people. By doing so, she helped to brainwash and control the German people, resulting in an uprising of support for the Nazi party and all of the horrific things which they were doing. Therefore I believe that she should be held accountable for the contributions which she made to the amount of propaganda into mainstream German media at the time. Her film not only impacted German citizens, but also impacted non-German citizens. It once again did so by displaying the size and power of this party, playing into the intimidation sensation which people get when they see something as grand-scale as those rallies. Due to this immense effect which her film had on society at the time, and the negative contributions which it made to society, I do not think that in this case the art should be separated from the artist. By separating from the film, you would therefore be taking away any baseline of accountability, therefore letting her get away from the damage she caused unscathed.

Triumph of the Will (1935) is one of the most powerful propaganda films in history. Commissioned by the Nazi regime to document the 1934 Nuremberg rally, Leni Riefenstahl directed the film with the purpose of glorifying Adolph Hitler. The film evokes strong feelings of unity and nationality through its technical sophistication. The opening sequence, showing Hitler’s arrival in Nuremberg at his hotel, is shown through artistic shots. This creates an image of Hitler as a larger-than-life figure who was perfect for leading Germany. As Frank P. Tomasulo says in his essay “The Mass Psychology of Fascist Cinema” “The film's spectacle often connects its heroic leader with the sky, earth and animals.” This shows how the film glorified Hitler and made him seem otherworldly to the German people. The impact on those not considered “Aryan” was certainly different. The film’s portrayal of the “Aryan” people led to no other undesirable races being in the film, making them seem invisible to the national narrative that Triumph of the Will made.

Riefenstahl’s role in the creation of Triumph of the Will certainly raises many ethical questions. While she claimed to be “apolitical” and forced to create the film as a commissioned filmmaker, her work undeniably gave the Nazi regime the perfect propaganda film. While she might say she's just an observer, she was clearly more than that as she shaped a film that glorifies Hitler and the Nazis in every way possible. It is important to note that her technical and filmmaking skill could have been used to make something not political in nature. While she may have not directly worked to participate within the Nazi party, she definitely contributed to the creation of propaganda which would be used to justify many of the Nazi’s actions. In all, Riefenstahl was most definitely an enabler for the Nazi party by glorifying Adolph Hitler in her production of Triumph of the Will.

I think that Riefenstahl’s legacy is very complex, as a filmmaker she was revolutionary at her time. But, her association with the Nazi regime and also having almost an uncaring attitude to her involvement with them raises questions about her legacy. Separating the art from the artist is an age -old question, but I find it really difficult to remember her in a positive light. While she may have been a gifted filmmaker, it is impossible to separate her from her association and collaboration with the Nazi party.

Triumph of the Will is such a powerful propaganda tool because it showcased how powerful the Nazi movement was within society. The camera would pan to show humongous masses of people attending Nazi rallies, all orderly, and obeying Hitler. This would promote the Social Identity Theory within society. Seeing all of the people attending Hitler’s rallies, would make people want to be a part of this huge movement and group of people as well, wanting to feel important. This film also generates feelings of nationalism. Of course when people have a feeling of nationalism, it also gives them a feeling of pride to be a part of their country and to support their government. These same images of seeing so many people apart of these rallies, was most likely terrifying for those in the country who weren’t Aryan. Imagine having to see hundreds of thousands of people, who didn’t want you in their country, let alone who didn’t believe you deserved to live, all in one setting together, essentially, rallying against you. Showcasing, how heavily the Nazi Party relied on the “us vs. them” tactics.

Leni Riefenstahl has a huge responsibility for what happened during the Nazi Era and during the Holocaust. She would purposefully only use shots where Hitler looked inspiring and empowering in order to skew and manipulate people’s perspectives on him as a person. This made him look like such an amazing national figure who should be idolized, when in reality, he was far from that. The shots she decided to take were all taken purposefully, in order to get people to have feelings towards the Nazi Party, positive feelings at that, such as pride. She should absolutely be held accountable for what the film contains and the powerful effect that it has on the audience. She knew what she was doing by putting certain camera shots within the film. She knew that this film would be used to spread propaganda within Germany. She didn’t have to make this film so phenomenally.

Riefenstahl definitely served as an enabler for the Nazi regime. She should be remembered as someone who helped to propel the Nazi regime and not as some sort of victim as she tried to claim to be. I do not believe she was apolitical. I believe that she supported the Nazi party and more specifically supported Hitler. She seemed to heavily idolize and admire him and it was shown in her work as well. Her artwork should be tied to Hitler and the Nazi’s now since she seems to be so proud of this film anyways knowing the effects that it had on society. I believe there are times when the art can be separated from the artist, but when the art is showcasing who the artist is as a person, such as a woman who supported the Nazi regime, it wouldn’t matter anyways due to how bad the impact of the art itself was/is.

Triumph of the Will is a powerful propaganda tool because of how it showcased Germany’s united front. Before Hitler came into power, German society was in disarray with a fractured government and mistrust between the people. Showcasing the grand gesture of the German power with millions of Youth soldiers on a solid, uniform and united front (12:23 through 17:57) served to increase German nationalism and their pride with their country that they felt had been lost. For Germans who were not considered Aryan or were different from mainstream German culture, it would have made them feel uncomfortable. It would have made them feel like they didn’t belong because when you watched the film, you wouldn’t see anybody that looked like you and just a bunch of stereotypical blond haired, blue eyed Germans. It was an indirect form of discrimination. Leni Riefenstahl should hold some responsibility for what happened during the Nazi era and the Holocaust. Just from watching the film and her attitude towards the interviewer's questions, it was clear to me that she had some part to play in the way these meetings were set up. Being a filmmaker, she had some artistic sense on where things should be pu tna how things should be viewed to impact her audience and I’m sure Hitler made use of that as she literally was his favourite filmmaker. Leni Riefenstahl should be remembered as someone who made a contribution to the Nazi era and the Holocaust. There’s simply no way she didn’t play a part. The way she talked about Hitler and her work with a smile on her face and talked about Hitler with such adoration sent chills down my spine. She is not an innocent party. I cannot believe that she was “apolitical” and didn’t believe in the Nazi ideology when she didn’t show an ounce of disgust or feel like she should’ve given an apology. She thought that what she did was right and stuck with that belief. The line from The Mass Psychology of Fascism Cinema by Tomasulo in 1998 in the section Wilhelm Reich: The Mass Psychology of Fascism that states: “Fascism is not a political party but a specific concept of life and attitude toward humankind, love, and work”, really interested me because I was reminded of when someone in class stated that there was no way this could’ve been a “one time occurrence” for her. There was no way that this was the first and last film that she made for Hitler. It must’ve become her way of life and shaped her attitude whether she liked it or not. There was no way that she would have remained unimpacted.

Triumph of the Will is a powerful propaganda tool because all throughout the film we see advanced camera work for that time and a clear message from the film. Hitler is held up like a deity all throughout the film, the film established the influence and authority that he had over German society and how it was justified by the rest German citizens. The filming of the large crowds and marches that showed the support of Hitler made him look like a great person, if everyone that you knew came together to celebrate one person how could you be convinced that he was evil. That’s why this film is so great, it shows Hitler as a unifier of Germany and that he is everyone’s savior. Triumph of the Will impacted Germans by bringing back their national pride and hope. After the lost in WWI Germany had only been descending into political chaos and dividing amongst themselves. This was a sign of a new time in Germany, back to the old prosperous days where they seen themselves at the top of the world and as are unified as one country. The impact that these scenes had on people who were not considered to be Aryan would be a sign of impending doom. The Nazi’s regime racial ideology was very evident all throughout the film and it was made clear that if you were not German that you were going to be labeled as the enemy. As the enemy were you guaranteed to be demonized and blamed for the negatives that occur in Germany and be excluded in Germany’s future. Germany wanted to urge itself, but getting rid of all of the people who political oppose the Nazi Party and these types of people were often the main targets.

I’m not going to say that Leni Riefnstahl had a large contribution to the Nazi era and the Holocaust because there was clearly already a large amount of support for the Nazi regime, but she most definitely did contribute to the cause even though she claims that she didn’t. She clearly took the time to and effort to make sure that this was the best quality film at the time and that it showed Hitler in a specific light. This wasn’t a documentary, this was clearly a Nazi promotion film. Even the way that she talks about the film in the interview, she is cleary mesmerized by Hitler and was a devoted member of the Nazi Regime. She is proud of her work and doesn’t regret doing it and doesn’t regret the actions that took place afterwards. She should be held responsible for what the film contains and the very powerful effect that it had on audiences because all of it was intentional, it was meant to show how powerful and charismatic Hitler was. She was an enabler for the Nazi regime.