| Zusammenfassung: | Die Beziehungen zwischen dem Nationalsozialismus und der arabischen Welt werden in den letzten Jahren häufig und vielfach kontrovers diskutiert. Wie kompatibel oder gar verwandt waren die Weltanschauungen des NS-Regimes und der arabisch- nationalistischen und islamistischen Strömungen im Nahen Osten? Inwieweit zogen diese Kräfte an einem Strang? Hans Goldenbaum kommt bei seiner Analyse der arabischsprachigen NS-Rundfunkpropaganda und ihrer Rezeption zu einer differenzierten Sicht. Gestützt auf die umfassende Erschließung neuer Quellen kann er indes klar zeigen, dass es den Berliner Stellen ausschließlich um die Instrumentalisierung arabischer Befindlichkeiten für eigene Interessen ging. Contrary to what one would expect after recent debates, we still know very little about National Socialist impact and propaganda in the Near East. Based on hitherto unconsidered German and Israeli archival records, the article will attempt to give, for the first time, an overview of the origin, institutional background, structure and, particularly, content of Arabic propaganda broadcasts from Nazi Germany. News programs focused on the strength of the Reich and the weakness of its adversaries in the political, economic and military arena. At the same time, the broadcasts linked National Socialist policies with the situation in the Near and Middle East: The “long-suffering” and “oppressed” German nation, now embroiled in a struggle for sovereignty against the colonialist Western powers, addressed the colonized. On the whole, the propaganda discourse can be conceptualized as a specifically National Socialist “anti-colonialism” or “anti-imperialism” founded in antisemitism. Furthermore, the article expounds how the transmissions were received. The German broadcasts undoubtedly had a certain influence, but the information and explanations they offered had to compete with those issued by other international and regional broadcasts and print media. The reception process can be characterized as committed and active; diverse actors received, interpreted and appropriated the content within their own “horizon of expectations”, relating it to their issues. The key question remains how far the propaganda offered explanations for conflicts and experiences of crisis and promoted a semantic shift which contributed to antisemitic ideologisation and practice.
|
|---|