Rhetorical Analysis of Germany’s Neo-Nazis & The Far Right

Rhetorical Analysis of Germany’s Neo-Nazis & The Far Right

January 27, 1945, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Society troops enter the concentration camp to liberate the remaining prisoners still alive. Only a few days before the death count was racking higher and higher with the execution of “The Final Solution”: a panned mass murder of anyone deemed to be an inferior race. These ideas are starting to resurface with the rise of Neo-Nazis (New National Socialist) in online communities. In the film Germany’s Neo-Nazis & The Far Right, Evan Williams uses personal stories, professional interviews, and laying out documented information and news reports to show why the threat of harmful online communities is real, and the resurgence of far-right parties, should be taken seriously and the police should be doing something to counter it.

Germany’s Neo-Nazis & The Far Right documents the resurgence of Nazis in Germany. Rather than meeting in person, as was done in the 1930s and 40s, these individuals gather, meet, and communicate on the internet. Described in this film is not how people get radicalized in these digital spaces, but what they do afterward. From planned and executed shootings, practice military operations, and weapons and ammunition hoarding, the film shows not only what the people in these spaces have done but what can be done by them. Since these ideas can be spread at a click of a button, all the actions that these people were able to plan in a digital space show that they are not only a national terrorist threat to Germany but the new radicalized individuals could be a threat to their respective country. The film follows the Investigative Journalist and Correspondent Evan Williams. Through the length of the runtime, he interviews Germany’s state intelligence chief, an online extremism expert, a network investigator, and many more to provide scope to the situation and give details on specific events. Germans already know of the problem since the attacks happened in their country. Rather than being in German, this video is in English to reach a wider audience than German people. The documentary is meant to inform the rest of the world, more particularly America (the country with the largest amount of English speakers), about not only the current threat in Germany but the looming threats that might come about in their country because of the same or similar online communities.

By using many different expert interviews this film uses ethos to further push its message. The first expert brought in is Miro Dittrich. He first clarifies that these “lone wolf” attacks aren’t exactly carried out alone. That people work together to “crowdsource” ideas such as targets, weapons, and materials to create bombs. He says that German security forces have no real interest to look at the individuals communicating this information. By giving a chance for Miro Dittrich to speak on camera, it not only gives more trustworthiness to the film creator but also further informs the audience on the issues talked about in the rest of the film. Since he is an online extremism expert, he can more intricately describe the problem and make it more digestible for a common knowledge audience. The point is to show radicalization is a real thing and that German security forces should be taking a further look into the issue.

The second expert on the matter is Stephan Kramer, the state intelligence chief of Germany, who explains why taking the situation won’t change anything and adds to Evan Williams ethos. He side-steps the argument of not taking these online communities seriously by explaining how difficult it is to pinpoint certain groups. That the internet cannot be monitored completely. This shows Evan Williams taking both sides of the argument and giving more credibility to himself as an investigative journalist. Even if security agencies were to take the issue seriously, it would be extremely difficult to find the internet communities where these people reside.

The film also uses logos to further hit the nail on the head for its persuasion and argumentation. In the film there are countless photos, videos, chat records, group hierarchy, and diaries related to online “hate groups.” All the details given show how big of an issue these communities really are. There are dedicated persons’ not only documenting what they think but also publishing and sharing material to either take action now or plan for the future. All the data are meant to show examples of what the group is supposedly planning for. When they have the ability to stock over ten thousand units of weapons ammunition the question becomes: what could they continue to do without getting caught. The diaries in particular give a glimpse inside of the mind of someone who has been ingrained with a certain message and cannot be talked to. This goes back to the point of taking the issue seriously. Evan Williams has shown what measures the people within the group will go to for their ideology. Rather than standing by and waiting for the next attack, active measures should be taken for the protection of the community.

The way this documentary shows the current threat is by giving personal stories from attacks that were carried out which adds to the film’s pathos. The first story was of Stephan Balliet’s attack and followed Christina Feist and Max Privorozki’s recollection of the event. On that day Christina Feist recalls when the congregation started to read from the Torah they heard a loud bang at the door. Little did she know that was the gunshot of Balliet trying to breach the door. The film then cuts to the raw footage of Balliet attempting to breach the door with a handgun. With an immediate transition of news reporters commentating on the event saying that two people were shot near the synagogue in the east German city of Halle by Balliet. The combination of raw footage, their interviews, and news footage lets the watcher immerse themself into the events of that day. It is meant to show that the people who decided to commence with these events were real and the only reason that the attack targets were alive on that day was because the chairman had installed a locked door and security camera three years earlier. Only one busted door away from being killed should give the viewer a sense of dread and fear. That emotion amplifies the threat that exists and since the event has happened the networks that bring out these people should be heavily monitored. That this monitoring should not only identify threats but also stop them before they happen. If authorities and police knew about the attack, then the 2 bystanders that died as a result of Balliet failing to breach the synagogue, would not be dead today.

The second story follows a man named Armin Kurtovic - whose son, Hamza, was killed by Tobias Rathjen, which also adds to the film’s pathos. The father toured the film crew around the Arena Bar where his son was shot and recalls all of the events and actions that took place. Tobias Rathjen even called his son by name before shooting him. The father even describes how the attacker had a website in which he published a manifesto two weeks before the attack and a confession video one week before. Not only that but the attacker also directly sent his manifesto to the authorities on more than one occasion. The death of one’s son is meant to give the audience a feeling of empathy and the thought of “what can I do?”. Funnily enough, this story is at the end of the film so the feeling and thought of “what can I do?” turns into words and actions to counteract the current situation taking place in Germany. Since if no one is taking these events seriously and no one is doing anything about it, it is argued, by Armin Kurtovic, that it is almost certain these events will happen again especially when there is a case like this in which the attacker could have been directly taken down if the police did some investigation on what was sent to them. And just like the story before this, 9 individuals’ lives would have been saved and the families wouldn’t have to mourn every month for their relative’s death.

By using personal stories, professional interviews, and laying out documented information Even Williams gives a full description of why these online communities should be taken seriously. That not only should they be taken seriously but that something should be done to counter and monitor them. Since these groups have shown what they have done, can do, might do, and will do.