Seite 90 [90]
88
Alexander Kozintsev
It might be argued that such an interpretation is upheld by the face¬
tious treatment of Germanys spring offensive, which in reality was suc¬
cessful (Fig. 35)," but is challenged by the humorous approach to the total
mobilisation, which was not (Fig. 36). However, given that the primary goal
of humour is to amuse and relax, not to inform and mobilise, occasional
quasi-realism does not disprove the general rule.
(2) The second option for humourists during war is to make the enemy look
canny rather than insidious, thereby turning him into a folkloric trickster.
As a result, the cartoon becomes ambiguous: it seems to attack the target,
whereas in reality it plays with a stereotype, being in essence a caricature of
a caricature. The only conceivable stereotypical object of such a meta-carica¬
ture in the context of WWII was the Jew, and the only spreaders of this type
of backhanded propaganda could be the Nazis. Indeed, certain anti-Semitic
jokes do not differ from those that Jews tell about themselves (Davies 1990:
121; Gruner 1997: 93). Cartoons such as that by Hanns E. Kohler (“Erik”)
hardly evoked hate rather than laughter (Fig. 37).
Even certain ‘anti-Semitic’ cartoons in Stiirmer were apparently meant
to amuse the readers, not to incite them. Such was the case, for instance,
with a series of anonymous pictures titled Jn the Jewish Army.’ One shows
a scene at a hospital. “If you don’t take the medicine”, the doctor says,
“you'll remain ill and will stay here for a long time.” —“If I collect the pills”,
the patient replies, “I'll set up a pharmacy after the war.” Another cartoon
is about a business proposal one Jewish soldier makes to another: “Isidore,
would you buy my rifle?”— “What for? I have one already.”— “You could
resell it with 20% profit” (Der Stürmer, no. 22, May 29, 1941, p. 5). Of
course, such jokes were unthinkable in the USSR or in Britain during the
war," but today they sound almost PC, demonstrating that “the same joke
can be used for all manner of conflicting purposes, or none at all” (Davies
1990: 130). This dependence of meaning on context, in fact, lack of mean¬
ing outside context, sharply opposes humour to invective, which always
means the same thing (cf. Figs 30-33).
(3) The third option making humour possible during war is to address the
theme of two competing enemies. This theme was topical in Britain in the
interval between Hitler’s invasion of Poland, triggered by the Molotov-Rib¬
bentrop Pact, and his assault on the USSR, automatically turning the latter
° "The offensive of the Wehrmacht in southern Russia and Ukraine in spring and summer 1942 resulted in
severe defeats for the Red Army, culminating in the Kharkov disaster and the German dash across the Don
River. Only in late autumn did the Soviet high command manage to turn the tide of the war, at Stalingrad.
7 Their author was definitely someone other than Fips, and they were probably reprinted from some old
periodical.
5 In Soviet Russia, everything implying even the slightest hint of anti-Semitism was taboo from 1917 to
the late 1940s.