'Dead Funny: Humor in Hitler’s Germany' Is a Bleak, Disturbing and Well-Argued Book

Rudolph Herzog’s chilling assertions show that the presence of humor describing such events as the burning of the Reichstag building and the Night of the Long Knives means that these happenings were common knowledge and German citizens understood their meaning.

Dead Funny: Humor in Hitler’s Germany

Publisher: Melville House
Length: 252 pages
Price: $26.00
Author: Rudolph Herzog
Publication date: 2011-03
“The making of political jokes is a useless remnant of liberalism …”

-- Dr. Josef Goebbels, Völkischer Beobachter

When is it possible to joke about one of the most appalling periods in human history? According to Rudolph Herzog’s book Dead Funny: Humor in Hitler’s Germany (now in a translation by Jefferson Chase) the answer is all the time, and via different means and mechanisms. There was the humor of subversion after the Nazis seized power: ‘ Question: What is a reactionary? Answer: Someone who occupies a well-paying job coveted by a Nazi ’. (36) The voice of the satirist was heard in song from the cabaret stage:

‘In Nazidonia, happy land

Where the original Aryans throng,

Reich of a thousand little years

And the racially pure marriage-band

Comes a leader, big and strong,

Promising butter, blood, and cream.

Yet though he like a Wotan stand

Bellowing out his glorious songs

Ruling the land at the top of his lungs,

Cooking fat’s still an impossible dream.’

-- "He’s to Blame for It All" by Walter Lesch (1938)

And the bleakest of bleak gallows humour was employed, in acts of astonishing resilience and defiance, by those rounded up in the campaigns of brutalisation, segregation, oppression and finally genocide:

"The Gestapo is about to shoot some Jews when the commanding officer walks up to one of them and growls, 'You almost look Aryan, so I’ll give you a chance. I wear a glass eye, but it’s not easy to tell. If you can guess which eye it is, I’ll let you go.' Immediately, the Jew answered, 'The left one!' 'How did you know?' asks the Gestapo commander. 'It looks so human.'"

-- from a compilation by Salcia Landmann, quoted in Herzog, 208)

Herzog’s book demonstrates the slow unfolding of events from the street-fighting and beer-hall rabble-rousing of '20s Weimar to the defeat of Germany at the end of the Second World War. He shows, in unadorned language, the process of propagandising and the psychological capitulation of many Germans to the Nazis’ will. Even if individuals were not card-carrying Nazi party members, he says, there was enough to appeal to the weaknesses, greed and ambition of many to allow their rise to power.

The humor of the mid- to late '30s suggests that ordinary people knew the dictator’s agenda but decided to turn a blind eye. The tone of the comedy, the banter of people in the workplace and the street, does not display the ignorance that many, he says, claimed after the war as a means to exonerate their behaviour. Herzog’s chilling assertions show that the presence of humor describing such events as the burning down of the Reichstag building, the Night of the Long Knives, and so on, means that these happenings were common knowledge and German citizens understood their meaning. He mentions coercion and propaganda, but is also very clear on the collusion and weaknesses of his nation.

In addition, this book is a reminder that satire has no ‘bite’ within a totalitarian regime. It undoubtedly existed and had its place, but had no strength to make any changes. Satire can only work as an influence for change when there is freedom of expression and comment on any subject goes unpunished.

A school teacher was beheaded for making the following joke: ‘Hitler and Göring are standing atop the Berlin radio tower. Hitler says he wants to do something to put a smile on Berliners’ faces. So Göring says: “Why don’t you jump?”’

When such extreme measures are taken to silence even the most innocent of remarks, it takes something incredibly robust to defeat such tyranny and to help unravel the addled minds of so many people subjected to so much propaganda. What seemed to work in people’s favour – that is, what managed to keep them sane amidst the horror and enable a spark of independent thought to be maintained – was resorting to the humor of the past and bringing folk characters into the frame. Germans of every walk of life and group utilised their traditional stories and the humor of clowns and buffoonery to place their resistance into perspective. They needed to manage the situation in their heads, and this would help them survive in 1942, when it became clear to the populace that the war was lost.

Herzog shows no mercy when describing the culpability of his nation at every level for the persecution, crimes against humanity, or remaining on the sidelines when their friends and neighbours were being transported and murdered. He is aghast at the stupidity of the people and at the audacity and crassness of the propaganda that they swallowed. But he also tracks down the brave and imaginative souls, such as Werner Finck from the Cabaret of Comedians in Berlin, who defied his conservative employers and risked his life to insert as much political comment into his act as possible. There were also the son and daughter of the writer Thomas Mann, Erica and Klaus, who operated a cabaret club and wrote satirical songs before they had to flee into exile.

Dead Funny is not a beautifully written book. It's not overly descriptive and relies upon anecdotal history, but it has a strong impact. Herzog does not feel the need to go beyond direct quotation and pronouncements and basic contextualisation of events. If the reader is unaware of some of the details of the period, then Herzog is informative and clear. True to his roots in TV documentary and drama production (he is the son of filmmaker Werner Herzog), this work reads rather like a script for a doc, free from complexity and nuance. Indeed, his programme Laughing with Hitler was broadcast on the BBC in 2007.

Dead Funny is bleak, disturbing and well-argued book.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.