‐
By   James   A.
Elliott,   Ph.D.
and   Sam   Ginsburg
Contents
Page    1 ‐ 4.
This   introductory   text
5.
6.
Front
Inside
cover front
of   Die cover
Woche of   the
Vol.
same
17,   issue issue,
43   (23   October advertising   some
1915)
August
Scherl   Verlag   publi ‐
7.
8.
cations
Table   of   contents   page   from   the   same   issue.
Back   cover   of   Die   Woche   1914   issue   39,   listing   all   the   August   Scherl   Verlag   periodi ‐ cals   ( from   Wikicommons )
9 ‐ 10.
Additional   notes   and   comments
(The   original   copy   of   issue   43,   held   in   a   university   library,   is   quite   fragile   and   tattered,   and   the   scans   reflect   that.
While   many   digital   copies   of   Die   Woche   (“The   Week”)   can   be   found   online   at
the   Hathi   Trust   digital   archive,   www.hathitrust.org
,   the   archive   doesn’t   have   this   particular   issue.)
Dr.
H.
Roesing’s   article,   “Bilder   und   Typen   aus   Russisch=Polen”   was   published   in   Vol.
17,   issue   43
(23   October   1915)   of   Die   Woche ,   a   Berlin   weekly   news   magazine   reminiscent   of   Life   Magazine.
A   little   research   into   Die   Woche   and   its   publishers   opens   a   fascinating   window   into   German   indus ‐ try,   especially   the   publishing   and   film   empires   of   (say)   1883 ‐ 1933+,   as   well   as   the   rise   of   the   Nazi
Party   and   Hitler’s   consolidation   of   power.
(Thanks   to   Kayla   Ginsburg   for   pointing   out   the   original   article   was   part   of   something   else,   a   weekly   magazine   in   this   case.)
I.
August   Scherl   (1849   to   1921)
August   Scherl   started   his   publishing   business   in   October   1883.
Die   Woche   was   started   in   1889.
In
1900   he   changed   the   company   name   to   August   Scherl   Verlag   G.m.b.H.
(Verlag   means   publishing   company   or   publishers.)    By   the   early   1900’s   his   publishing   group   had   the   largest   circulation   of   any   publishing   group   in   Germany.
There   is   very   little   written   in   English   about   August   Scherl   or   August   Scherl   Verlag,   so   there   is   some   uncertainty   about   his   political   views.
David   Welch   is   unequivocal:    “The   Berliner   Lokalan ‐ zieger   ...”   [ sic.
]   (another   of   Scherl’s   papers)   “claimed   political   neutrality   but   was   blatantly   conser ‐
vative   in   outlook.”   (pg.
29)
Mildred   Wertheimer,   writing   in   1924   about   the   nationalist   Pan ‐ German   League   (a   discussion   of   which   is   beyond   the   scope   of   this   note),   is   less   definite.
She   divides   the   press   into   liberal   and   na ‐ tionalist,   with   Der   Tag ,   the   Scherl   Berlin   morning   daily   as   a   nationalist   paper   “with   more   or   less   of   a   Pan ‐ German   reputation.”    Der   Tag ’s   masthead   was   “serving   no   party;   a   free   organ   for   all   par ‐ ties.”   (pg.
189)    [To   be   fair,   we   must   note   that   one   could   be   very   conservative   while   being   also
being   wishy ‐ washy   about   the   Pan ‐ German   League,   one   of   many   conservative   institutions.]
Wertheimer   goes   on   to   list   some   more   strongly   nationalist   (right ‐ wing,   non ‐ Scherl)   papers:    The
Tägliche   Rundschau   (Daily   Roundtable)   was   “an   independent   newspaper   for   national   politics   ...”   whose   editor   was   on   the   executive   board   of   the   Pan ‐ German   League”,   so   he   was   a   strong   nation ‐ alist.
The   editor   of   the   Deutsche   Zeitung   was   “well ‐ known   for   his   super ‐ nationalist   ideals.”    Die
Post   had   “a   notorious   Pan ‐ German   reputation.”    She   lists   several   other   papers   which   she   consid ‐
1

ered   much   more   nationalist   than   Scherl’s   Der   Tag .
It   makes   one   speculate   that   Scherl   himself   was   less   than   a   “mover   and   shaker”   among   German   Nationalists.
But   the   situation   changed   in
1916,   as   will   be   seen   below.
II.
Alfred   Hugenberg   (1865 ‐ 1951)
Alfred   Hugenberg   was   a   giant   of   German   industry   from   1909   to   1933,   when   he   fell   out   of   grace   with   Hitler’s   regime.
While   he’s   mentioned   in   many   books,   including   Shirer's   Rise   and   Fall   of   the
Third   Reich ,   much   of   the   following   sketch   is   from   Alfred   Hugenberg:   the   radical   nationalist   cam ‐
paign   against   the   Weimar   Republic ,   by   John   A.
Leopold.
Hugenberg   was   an   early   believer   in   what’s   known   as   radical   German   nationalism,   believing   in   anti
‐ socialism,   anti ‐ democracy,   and   German   expansionism.
In   1890   he   helped   start   the   Pan ‐ German
League,   an   organization   which   included   among   its   goals   a)   advancing   the   interests   of   German   speakers   everywhere,   and   b)   eventual   unification   of   all   German   speakers   under   one   political   gov ‐ ernment,   i.e.
some   sort   of   Greater   Germany.
In   1891   he   received   a   doctorate   in   political   econ ‐ omy,   and   after   a   series   of   (mostly   quite   successful)   activities,   was   invited   in   1909   to   become   the   chair   of   the   Board   of   Directors   of   Krupp   Armaments   Company   in   Essen,   marking   the   start   of   his   tenure   as   a   “giant   of   German   Industry,”   often   holding   a   number   of   major   board   positions   at   the   same   time.
Much   of   his   power   was   based   on   forming   and   chairing   trade   groups,   especially   in
German   heavy   industry   such   as   steel ‐ making   and   coal ‐ mining.
By   the   end   of   1914,   he   was   advocating   the   need   for   a   propaganda   system   to   promote   the   views   of   German   industry.
The   natural   choice   was   to   own   a   publishing   company.
As   it   turned   out,   Au ‐ gust   Scherl   Verlag   had   gotten   into   financial   difficulties,   and   was   targeted   as   a   strategic   acquisition   for   the   right.
(Scherl   invested   in   a   variety   of   money ‐ losing   ventures   outside   the   publishing   com ‐ pany   and   those   might   have   been   the   cause   of   the   “financial   difficulties.”)    The   other   major   Berlin   publishers   were   Jewish ‐ owned,   too   democratic,   and   needed   a   conservative   counterweight.
It   took   Hugenberg   until   1916   to   put   together   the   coalition   and   money   to   buy   the   Scherl   firm.
By
July   the   new   owners   were   working   on   moving   its   publications   further   to   the   political   right.
Hugenberg   immediately   started   working   on   purchasing   other   news   and   advertising   agencies   and   publications,   as   well   as   starting   new   ones   from   scratch.
After   the   war,   he   left   Krupp   to   concen ‐ trate   on   publishing   and   politics,   which   naturally   went   together.
(He   kept   and   expanded   his   activi ‐ ties   in   other   industries,   however.)    While   some   of   his   news   acquisitions   were   kept   separate,   by
1926   the   Scherl   firm   had   greatly   expanded.
III.
Hugenberg   and   the   Nazis
Hugenberg   was   not   a   member   of   the   Nazi   party.
In   1920,   he   had   been   elected   to   the   Reichstag   as   a   delegate   of   the   German   National   People's   Party   (Deutschnationale   Volkspartei,   DNVP),   a   right ‐ wing   coalition   of   groups   which   supported   Hitler,   but   had   their   own   somewhat   different,   pro
‐ industry   agenda.
In   1928,   he   became   party   chair.
When   Hitler   rose   to   power   in   1933,   Hugen ‐ berg   became   Agricultural   Minister   and   Economy   Minister.
But   he   was   no   one’s   “yes   man”,   argu ‐ ing   against   Hitler’s   positions   on   several   occasions.
Within   a   few   months   he   deviated   from   some   official   Nazi   lines,   and   was   forced   to   resign   his   cabinet   positions   on   June   27.
About   the   same   time,   as   chairman   of   the   DNVP,   Hugenberg   had   to   sign   a   letter   of   “voluntary   dissolution”,   ending   organized   right ‐ wing   dissent   with   the   Nazis.
(All   non ‐ Nazi   political   parties   were   dissolved   be ‐ tween   mid ‐ May   and   mid ‐ July,   1933.)
Part   of   Hugenberg’s   problem   was   that   he   was   more   of   a   capitalist   and   free ‐ market   person   than   the   official   Nazi   position   and   had   spoke   out   at   the   1933   London   conference   with   comments   that
2

had   not   been   approved   in   advance.
(Shirer   has   no   respect   for   Hugenberg,   calling   him
“thickheaded”   and   “of   wooden   mind,”   as   if   Hugenberg   was   over   his   head   at   the   top   level   of   na ‐
tional   politics.)
Shortly   thereafter,   he   was   forced   to   sell   part   of   his   publishing   empire   to   Franz   Eher   Nachfolger
GmbH   ,   one   of   the   main   publishing   subsidiaries   of   the   Nazi   party.
(Most   of   the   German   inde ‐ pendent   press   was   either   shut   down   or   forced   to   sell   during   this   period.
Two ‐ thirds   of   the   daily   circulation   was   in   papers   owned   by   the   Nazi   party   or   by   individual   party   members   at   the   start   of
WWII,   according   to   Shirer.
[pg.
246]    The   radio   system   was   always   government ‐ owned,   so   the
Nazis   automatically   controlled   it.)    By   the   end   of   1935,   Hugenberg   owned   only   Scherl   and   UFA
(Universum   Film   AG),   the   major   German   film   company.
He   was   forced   to   sell   UFA   to   the   Nazis   in
March   1937;   Scherl   in   1943 ‐ 44.
It   wasn’t   a   bad   life:   Hugenberg   earned   an   estimated   500,000
Marks   annually   from   his   holdings,   and   was   allowed   to   keep   his   seat   as   one   of   the   22   non ‐ Party   members   in   the   Reichstag   which   he   was   given   in   the   fall   of   1933.
In   1944,   the   Nazis   shut   down
Die   Woche ,   ending   that   part   of   the   saga.
But   one   wonders   how   Hugenberg   came   to   own   UFA?
IV.
Hugenberg   and   the   German   Film   Industry
The   following   is   mostly   based   on   The   UFA   Story ,   by   Klaus   Kreimeier,   translated   by   Robert   and   Rita
Kimber.
In   November   1916,   under   Hugenberg’s   leadership,   the   Deutsche   Lichtbild ‐ Gesellschaft   (German
Motion   Picture   Company,   or   DLG)   was   formed,   continuing   his   push   for   a   “full ‐ service”   right ‐ wing   propaganda   machine.
(Think   of   Sergei   Eisenstein’s   Battleship   Potemkin   and   Alexander   Nevsky ,   or
Alfred   Hitchcock’s   Saboteur   and   Foreign   Correspondent ,   for   example,   and   remember   that   silent   newsreels   with   subtitles   could   be   very   effective   propaganda   tools.)
Soon   thereafter,   in   1917,   the   German   military   formed   its   own   film   company,   Bild   und   Filmamt
(The   Photography   and   Film   Bureau,   or   BUFA),   which   was   opposed   to   DLG   in   several   ways:   First,
BUFA   was   a   government   arm,   but   DLG   was   an   agent   of   heavy   industry,   loyal,   but   not   overly   sup ‐ portive   of   the   Weimar   government.
Second,   BUFA   was   backed   by   a   number   of   industries   such   as   banking   and   shipping   which   perceived   their   interests   to   conflict   with   those   backing   DLG.
Third,
the   military’s   goal   was   to   centralize   all   German   film ‐ making,   and   DLG   was   an   obstacle.
In   any   event,   General   Erich   Ludendorff,   Quartermaster   General   of   the   entire   German   military,   and   effectively   co ‐ head   with   Chief   of   Staff   Field   Marshall   Paul   von   Hindenberg,   decided   that   a   new   film   company   was   needed,   one   that   would   be   above   the   DLG ‐ BUFA   fray,   and   be   able   to   pro ‐ ject   German   propaganda   more   effectively.
He   wrote   a   memo   to   that   effect   on   July   4,   1917,   and
UFA   was   officially   formed   on   December   18,   1917.
The   initial   Board   is   noteworthy:    representa ‐ tives   from   Deutsche   Bank,   Dresden   Bank,   the   German   electrical   industry   (Robert   Bosch,   no   less),   and   representatives   of   the   Hamburg ‐ American   and   North   German   Lloyd   shipping   lines,   among   others.
UFA   immediately   started   buying   up   German   production,   distribution   and   theatre   hold ‐
ings,   including   some   owned   by   foreign   companies   such   as   the   Danish   Nordisk ‐ Films   company.
UFA   complicated   media   politics   because   it   was   nominally   under   the   control   of   BUFA,   which   was   distrusted   by   many   of   the   UFA   staff,   while   the   DLG ‐ BUFA   disputes   continued   unabated.
By   the   end   of   the   war,   DLG   was   renamed   Deulig ‐ Film,   BUFA   was   buried   in   the   film   bureau   of   the   Interior
Ministry,   and   UFA   was   the   dominant   German   film   powerhouse,   buying   up   more   and   more   other   film   operations.
3

Over   the   years,   various   government   and   private   shareholders   sought   to   sell   their   UFA   shares,   and
Deutsche   Bank   bought   many   of   the   shares,   becoming   majority   shareholder   in   1921,   just   in   time   for   the   start   of   German   hyperinflation,   which   UFA   seemed   to   weather   relatively   well.
However,   it,   along   with   much,   if   not   most,   of   the   German   film   industry   were   in   poor   straits   after   the   post ‐ inflation   restructuring.
By   1925,   UFA   was   negotiating   with   members   of   the   U.S.
film   industry   for   relief.
UFA   wanted   distribution   in   the   U.S.
along   with   infusions   of   debt   and   equity   capital,   in   ex ‐ change   for   providing   German   distribution   of   U.S.
films.
In   the   end,   these   arrangements   only   in ‐ creased   American   film   penetration   of   Europe   and   decreased   UFA’s   financial   strength.
In   March
1927,   in   a   feat   of   financial   wizardry   beyond   the   scope   of   this   note,   UFA   was   purchased   by   Hugen ‐ berg   and   his   associates,   now   including   I.G.
Farben,   the   chemical   company   which   also   produced   the   photographic   film   used   to   make   movies.
V.
Film   Trivia .
Of   interest   to   Fritz   Lang   fans,   it   turns   out   that   August   Scherl   Verlag   was   the   publisher   of   Metropo ‐ lis ,   the   1926   book   by   Thea   von   Harbou,   then   Lang’s   wife.
(It   published   her   other   books   as   well.)
In   1927   Lang   made   the   famous   movie   of   the   same   name   (at   the   UFA   studios),   which   continues   to   have   a   significant   cult   following.
UFA   had   made   or   distributed   all   (?)   of   Lang’s   films   from   the   time   its   acquisition   of   Decla/Bioscope   was   completed   in   June   1922   until   he   left   Germany   for   Paris   during   the   spring   or   summer   of   1933   after   first   divorcing   von   Harbou.
Lang   was   not   the   first   in   Paris   –   Erich   Pommer,   Billy   Wilder,   Paul
Lukas   and   Peter   Lorre   were   already   there,   to   name   a   few   of   the   better ‐ known   members   of   the
German   film   industry.
Pommer   and   Lukas   had   been   to   the   U.S.
previously.
Pommer   was   the   only
of   the   four   to   return   to   Germany   to   live   after   WWII,   but   he   didn’t   stay.
In   Paris,   Lang   directed   one   film,   Liliom ,   starring   Charles   Boyer.
He   later   said   it   was   his   favorite   of   all   the   films   he   directed.
He   sailed   for   the   U.S.
with   an   MGM   contract   on   June   6,   1934   (exactly
ten   years   before   D ‐ Day!),   along   with   David   O.
Selznick   of   MGM   and   an   entourage   including   the   director   George   Cukor.
Bibliography
Note:   where   a   book   conflicts   with   Wikipedia,   the   book   has   usually   been   given   preference.
Kreimeier,   Klaus,   trans.
by   Robert   and   Rita   Kimber,   The   Ufa   Story,   Harper   Collins,   1996
Leopold,   John   A.,   Alfred   Hugenberg:   the   radical   nationalist   campaign   against   the   Weimar   Republic   ,   Yale
University   Press,   1979
McGilligan,   Patrick,   Fritz   Lang,   the   Nature   of   the   Beast ,   St.
Martin’s   Press,   1997
Schweitzer,   Arthur,   Big   Business   in   the   Third   Reich ,   Indiana   University   Press,   1964
Shirer,   William,   L.,   The   Rise   and   Fall   of   the   Third   Reich ,   Simon   and   Schuster,   1960
Welch,   David,   Germany,   propaganda   and   total   war,   1914 ‐ 1918   :   the   sins   of   omission ,   Rutgers   University
Press,   2000
Wertheimer,   Mildred   S.,   The   Pan ‐ German   League,   1890 ‐ 1914 ,   Columbia   University   Studies   in   history,   eco ‐ nomics,   and   public   law   no.
251,   1924.
4

5

6

7

Back   cover   of   Die   Woche   1914   issue   39   listing   the   various   August   Scherl   Verlag   publications ,   from   Wikicommons .
8

Additional   Notes   and   Comments
The   following   are   notes   and   comments   that   are   less   central   to   understanding   the   German   media,
but   ones   we   find   interesting   none   the   less.
1.
In   June,   1933,   Hugenberg   was   succeeded   as   Economic   Minister   by   Kurt   Schmitt,   head   of   Al ‐ lianz,   Germany’s   largest   insurance   company,   and   an   insurance   industry   leader.
For   an   eye ‐ opening   look   at   Allianz   and   its   life   under   the   Nazis,   read   Gerald   Feldman,   Allianz   and   the   Ger ‐ man   insurance   business,   1933 ‐ 1945 ,   Cambridge   University   Press,   2001
2.
We’ve   previously   mentioned   that   the   DNVP   did   not   completely   share   the   Nazi   agenda.
Here   are   some   differences:   ¶¶
Topic   Nazis   DNVP
Anti ‐ Semitism
Capitalism   and   Free
Enterprise
Core   Value
The   Nazis   created   a   completely   state ‐ controlled   economy
(reminiscent   of   their   arch ‐ enemies,   the   Communists)
Not   a   core   value;   some   factions   were   in   favor,   others   indifferent
The   DNVP   was   pro ‐ business,   es ‐ pecially   heavy   industry,   and   more   capitalist.
3.
In   Rise   and   Fall ,   Shirer   doesn’t   mention   the   last   pre ‐ WWII   (1933 ‐ 37)   U.S.
Ambassador   to   Ger ‐ many,   William   E.
Dodd.
But   Shirer   does   mention   him   favorably   in   his   very   engaging   Berlin   Di ‐ ary :    “He   struck   me   as   a   blunt,   honest,   liberal   man   with   the   kind   of   integrity   an   American   Am ‐ bassador   needs   here.”    Later   Shirer   includes   the   Dodd   family   in   a   list   of   their   Berlin   friends.
To   find   out   more   about   Dodd,   read   Erik   Larson,   In   the   Garden   of   Beasts:   Love,   Terror,   and   an
American   Family   in   Hitler's   Berlin ,   Crown   books,   2011.
According   to   Wikipedia,   Dodd   tried    unsuccessfully   to   alert   the   U.S.
government   about   the   rising   dangers   of   Nazi   Germany.
Shirer’s   Berlin   Diary   includes   this   little   tidbit:   “Geneva,   November   6   [1938]…   I’ve   (…)   started   a   play   …   called   ‘ Foreign   Correspondent .’”    But   it   seems   likely   that   he   never   published   it   and   that
Hitchcock   didn’t   knew   about   it   before   directing   his   Oscar ‐ nominated   film   of   the   same   name   .
(The   play   is   listed   as   still   in   draft   form   in   1943,   according   to   the   index   to   the   William   L.
Shirer
Papers   at   his   alma   mater,   Coe   College,   Cedar   Rapids,   Iowa)    None   the   less,   Berlin   Diary   gives   the   impression   that   Shirer   and   especially   Edward   R.
Murrow   pioneered   the   practice   of   radio   broadcasts   to   the   U.S.
by   foreign   correspondents.
( Berlin   Diary   gives   many   examples   of   the   efforts   Shirer   and   Murrow   made   in   order   to   get   the   news   aired   on   American   radio.
Wikipedia
( 8   June   2015 )   and   the   many   books   and   films   about   Murrow   strongly   reinforce   this   story.
It   seems   likely   that   their   broadcasts   were   part   of   Hitchcock’s   inspiration   for   the   movie’s   final   scene.)
According   to   Wikipedia   ( 6/7/2015 ),   some   historians   claim   the   published   version   of   Berlin   Diary   has   some   major   embellishments   when   compared   to   Shirer’s   original   notes.
4.
All   governments   use   propaganda   during   war   time   (and   before,   if   they   have   warning.)    Some ‐ times   it’s   more   subtle   but   often   less   subtle.
For   examples   of   the   latter,   in   the   context   of
American   propaganda   at   its   entry   into   WWI,   read   some   of   the   material   published   by   the   Com ‐ mittee   on   Public   Information.
(Available   at   the   Hathi   Trust   digital   archive,   www.hathitrust.org.
)    The   “Committee”   was   headed   by   George   Creel,   whom   some   described
9

as   a   “muckraking   journalist”   who   bent   the   facts   to   suit   his   needs.
Others   considered   the
Committee’s   work   to   be   the   largest   public   relations   program   in   history,   and   the   launching   of   modern   public   relations.
There’s   a   lot   of   material   on   Creel   and   the   Committee.
We’ve   mostly   used   Alan   Axelrod’s   Selling   the   Great   War,   The   Making   of   American   Propaganda .
5.
Propaganda   vs.
Public   Relations,   an   aside .
What’s   the   difference   between   public   relations
(PR)   and   propaganda?
It   depends   on   who   you   read   or   talk   to.
One   political   scientist   said   “PR   is   positive,   propaganda   is   negative.”    PR   firms   claim   that   PR   uses   truths/facts,   while   propa ‐ ganda   uses   lies,   innuendo,   etc.
One   online   dictionary   used   “information,   especially   of   a   bi ‐ ased   or   misleading   nature,   used   to   promote   or   publicize   a   particular   political   cause   or   point   of   view”
The   original   use   (from   1622)   was   Propagating   the   Faith .
In   this   context,   propaganda   isn’t   necessarily   factual—faith   is   a   matter   of   belief,   after   all.
So   propaganda   is   about   spreading   what   you   want   someone   to   believe,   or   about   getting   more   or   more   committed   believers.
The   Public   Relations   Society   of   America   (PRSA)   has   the   following   definition   from   2012:   “Public   relations   is   a   strategic   communication   process   that   builds   mutually   beneficial   relationships   between   organizations   and   their   publics.”    Their   prior   definition,   in   use   from   1982   to   2011,   was   “Public   relations   is   a   strategic   communication   process   that   builds   mutually   beneficial   re ‐ lationships   between   organizations   and   their   publics.”
Supplemental   Bibliography
The   following   are   sources   listed   in   this   Additional   Notes   and   Comments   section   which   are   not   listed   in   the   bibliography   on   page   4.
Axelrod,   Alan,   Selling   the   Great   War,   The   Making   of   American   Propaganda ,   Palgrave   MacMillan,   2009
Feldman,   Gerald,   Allianz   and   the   German   insurance   business,   1933 ‐ 1945 ,   Cambridge   University   Press,
2001
Larson,   Erik,   In   the   Garden   of   Beasts:   Love,   Terror,   and   an   American   Family   in   Hitler's   Berlin ,   Crown   Books,
2011
Shirer,   William,   L .,   Berlin   Diary,   Alfred   Knopf,   1941
Last   modified   6   August   2015   10