In the 1930s, Leni Riefenstahl (1902–2003) became the foremost director of propaganda films for the Third Reich, best known for her Triumph of the Will. Her work won her the admiration of Hitler and Goebbels, but also of numerous other filmmakers and critics who admired her cinematographic skill. After the war, she insisted that she was an apolitical artist and that she was shocked to find out about the depths of Nazi barbarism. A new documentary by Andres Veiel, based on extensive research into her personal papers, gives the lie to these unconvincing, but widely believed, claims. Kate Connolly writes:

Veiel’s film recounts how she was heaped with praise from the public, in particular after appearing on a late-night chat show in 1976, alongside a former member of the workers’ anti-Nazi resistance movement, Elfriede Kretschmer. Riefenstahl was applauded after talking of the shock she felt on becoming aware, only after the war, of the atrocities committed by the Nazis, and how her “wounds have still not healed,” as Kretschmer looked on in disbelief.

Riefenstahl followed Adolf Hitler to Poland at the start of the Second World War in September 1939, and saw the [massacre of Jews] take place in Końskie, a town in south-central Poland.

The documentary draws on about 30 hours of cassette recordings of postwar telephone conversations with members of the public, including former Nazis, who had called to offer Riefenstahl their moral support in response to what they regarded as attempts to sully her for her close association with the Nazis. One unidentified caller said the “morality, decency, and virtue” of the Nazi era would return, with Riefenstahl responding: “Yes, the German people are predestined for that.”

One letter written by Riefenstahl to a longtime companion openly expresses her unmitigated regret about the end of the Nazi era. In it she talks of her “murdered ideals.”

Below, today’s newsletter will return to some other reflections on the one-year anniversary of the outbreak of the current war, but first something must be said of its recent progress. Israel has kept up its aerial and ground assault on Hizballah, and may have already killed the successor to Hassan Nasrallah, the longtime leader it eliminated less than two weeks ago. Matthew Levitt assesses the current state of the Lebanon-based terrorist group, which, in his view, is now “a shadow of its former self.” Indeed, he adds,

it is no exaggeration to say that the Hizballah of two weeks ago no longer exists. And since Hizballah was the backbone of Iran’s network of militant proxies, its so-called axis of resistance, Iran’s strategy of arming and deploying proxy groups throughout the region is suddenly at risk as well.

Hizballah’s attacks put increasing pressure on Israel, as intended, only that pressure did not lead Israelis to stop targeting Hamas so much as it chipped away at Israel’s fears about the cost of military action to address the military threats posed by Hizballah.

At the same time, Levitt explains, Hizballah still poses a serious threat, as it demonstrated last night when its missiles struck Haifa and Tiberias, injuring at least two people:

Hizballah still maintains an arsenal of rockets and a cadre of several thousand fighters. It will continue to pose potent military threats for Israel, Lebanon, and the wider region.

How will the group seek to avenge Nasrallah’s death amid these military setbacks? Hizballah is likely to resort to acts of international terrorism, which are overseen by one of the few elements of the group that has not yet lost key leaders.

But the true measure of whether the group will be able to reconstitute itself, even over many years, is whether Iran can restock Hizballah’s sophisticated arsenal. Tehran’s network of proxy groups—from Hizballah to Hamas to the Houthis—is only as dangerous as it is today because of Iran’s provision of weapons and money. Whatever Hizballah does next, Western governments must prioritize cutting off Tehran’s ability to arm and fund its proxies.