It turned out that it was quite appropriate that I started reading this play when I did, especially since I had no idea what it was about beforegand. At the time I was heading out of the Netherlands and into Belgium and had just past through Rotterdam (and spent a couple of hours there) to discover that the city is nothing like many of the other European cites but rather a modern city with basically no old city like many of the others have (including the German cities). Also, having visited some of the sites in northern France (including a Nazi bunker for the V2 rockets that has been turned into a museum of science, technology, and war) it did feel appropriate that I read the one Satre play that was about Germany attempting to deal with its war guilt.

    The thing is that the Nazi's did leave quite a trail of destruction in there wake, as can be seen from the photo of Rotterdam after the blitz (basically the Dutch turned out to be a lot more resistant they originally expected so they bombed the hell out of Rotterdam and told them that if they didn't surrender then Utrecht would be next – they surrendered).

Mind you, Dunkerque wasn't spared either, but that's not surprising considering that this was where the allied forces landed up after being surrounded by the Germans. Like Rotterdam, not much was left of Dunquerke after the Nazi's had finished with it, and it pretty much shows today. Mind you, the Allies also did a pretty decent job of Frankfurt (among other German cites), as this photo shows.

Though for some reason the cathedrals always seem to survive the bombing raids, but that is beside the point because I probably should get on to taking about the play, though I do believe that what happened during the war is essential to what Satre is exploring here.

The thing is that the war did result in an identity crisis, but then again being on the losing side of a war generally has that effect upon a nation. However it actually goes much further than that, particularly since there are suggestions that the population didn't actually know what was happening to the Jews. Sure, smashing up shops and telling them to get out of the country is one thing, but wholesale genocide is almost another level of evil, though the fact that it still continues today in places such as Rwanda suggests that people, even ethnic groups, are more than capable of going to such extremes. It still makes me wonder, with all of the anti-muslim rhetoric coming from certain sectors of our community, how far they are from actually taking it one step further.

Anyway, in the Condemned of Altona we have a number of characters: the father, who happens to be a wealthy industrialist whose wealth pretty much survived the end of the war intact; the son Franz, who has locked himself in his room since the end of the war; Leni, his sister, who is the only one who is able to visit him, and in doing so has convinced him that not only has Germany been destroyed but has never recovered from the war. We also have Joanna, Franz's sister in law, who manages to get into Franz's room yet despite attempting to tell him the truth, is not believed.

This play is classic existentialism and deals with the identity crisis that faced many Germans after the war. In fact many of the younger generation had grown up not knowing any other system of government than Hitler's, and having been fed the propoganda for one and a half decades, did not know anything else. So it is not surprising that there was such a crisis after the war, particularly since many of them, after being defeated by the Allies, discovered that they were actually the bad guys. Mind you, the Allies dealt with the defeated Germany (and Japan) much better than they did after World War I, which is why both countries became industrial powerhouses. However, as a side note, it is interesting that Germany did retain conscription after the war.

However Franz is the interesting character because of this idea of right and wrong. Before the war, we discover that he hid a Jewish Rabbi in his closet to prevent him from being taken by the SS, however this was discovered. Franz's father, using his influence as an industrialist, managed to get a stay of execution as long as Franz joined the army. After the war, during the occupation, Leni is raped by an American soldier and Franz intervenes, however Leni kills the soldier but Franz takes the blame – this event is why he ended up locking himself in his room for the past ten years. Yet we see the brilliance of Satre in this particular scene because even though the Allies were 'good' and the Nazi's bad, we have this event where an allied soldier does something bad and Franz is forced to defend his sister, yet because he was a Nazi his action is immediately seen as being bad. It sort of creates a conundrum because the American is acting improperly, yet it seems as if Franz and his sister are unable to defend themselves.

Let us then consider the father because he is also an interesting character. Unlike the normal hoi poloi of the German population he was pretty much able to escape the end of the war unscathed. Mind you, quite a few of the German companies needed to be bailed out after the war (and this probably happened with Franz's father's company as well), yet due to their wealth, and the fact that they weren't the 'big bad guys' they were able to escape prosecution and continue as if nothing had happened. It is also interesting how they discuss the company because in a way the father is the company, yet Franz does not believe he can take it over because his identity does not rest with the company, but the company has taken on an identity of its own.

This is the key to the play – the question of identity. Franz's identity is a defeated soldier of a defeated power, and he simply cannot shake that identity. Leni's identity is that of Franz's brother, yet it is interesting how she plays with him in that she convinces him that there is nothing left of Germany and it only works to reinforce that identity of a defeated soldier. The fact that he hides himself in his room and refuses to speak to anybody else is an outworking of his shame at what had happened, what he had done, and what he has realised that he is.

Yet let us not forget the rape because this creates something even more problematic. Here we have the allies, who are supposed to be the good guys, doing something that good guys are not supposed to do. By intervening, and taking the blame for his sisters actions, it creates even more doubt in his mind. The allies were supposed to be good and the Nazi's were supposed to be bad, but here comes this soldier doing something that a good guy shouldn't be doing. It certainly is a question of identity but the problem here is that Franz is connecting the identity of the soldier with the identity of the country that he represents, but then again isn't that what the uniform of a soldier is supposed to mean – the actions of a man in uniform is the identity of the country that the soldier serves, therefore the actions of a man in uniform represents the actions of the country. This was the case of the school that I went to – we had a uniform – it was a private school – we were constantly told that our actions while we were in uniform represented the school. Mind you, that didn't stop us behaving like jerks, but the thing is that the uniform ties us to the identity that the uniform represents, and in turn our actions while in that uniform go on to determine the identity of the organisation we are representing.

Let us finish off with Franz's father – the wealthy industrialist. Here we have somebody that seemed to have escaped the identity of the Nazi war criminal. Sure, we don't actually know what he does (or at least I don't – I must have missed that part), but the thing is that his wealth creates an identity of his own and he is able to escape the Nazi war guilt. He managed to influence the Nazi party when Franz hid the rabbi, and he managed to influence the occupation when Franz took the blame for Leni's act of self defence. Yet this happened more often than not. This was the case with Werner Von Braum, the inventor of the V1 and V2 rockets. Despite the fact that slave labour was used to build the rockets, as well as the launch sites and the delivery systems, at the end of the war he wasn't prosecuted, he was taken by the Americans and put to use in their own rocket program (as were a lot of other scientists). In a way it seems that in the end it is not so much your guilt that counts, but how much worth you have to the current system, which is probably why those who landed up at Nuremberg were basically politicians and army officers.

I found this book on the shelf in the office of the Australian Greens when I was doing some volunteer work for them some time ago and they were nice enough to let me borrow it. At that time I was pretty much reading any book criticising the Bush administration and their adventure in Iraq. I also remember reading a really good book about the history of Zionism, and while I would love to write about it I, for the life of me, cannot remember the book's name. I think I might do a Google search to see if anything pops up.

Anyway, as is not surprising for a book on the shelf at one of the Greens' offices, it is about war profiteering, and in particular the alleged war profiteering that occurred in Iraq. War, in an of itself, is a very expensive and very risky enterprise, but success can bring huge rewards. Modern warfare can be even more lucrative, even if the country that goes to war ends up losing the war, and one of the reasons I say this is because in the end it does not matter whether the countries at war win or lose, the companies that produce the weapons always end up making their money. In fact I have read a book about how some companies (BAE) will actually arm both sides in a conflict and walk away with huge profits. There are also allegations to that extent during World War II, and one of the main reasons was because the United States, up until 1941 that is, was neutral, however when they entered the war, the Trading with the Enemy Act was invoked. However companies were still able to get around that, usually through third parties. Theoretically, a company that makes planes for the United States Airforce could not sell planes to Germany during the war, but what they could do would be to sell planes to a neutral country (such as Spain) who could then on sell these planes to Germany (though since Germany had its own weapons manufacturers, they really did not need to buy planes from America).

However, as I mentioned above, this book deals predominantly with the Iraq War. There are a few things that were of interest in this book, one of them is the idea of what they call 'the Revolving Door'. This is when members of the corporate elite, people like CEOs and other executives, go from their corporate posts into government posts, and then back into corporate posts. Theoretically there is nothing really wrong with this namely because the captains of industry tend to have the skills and the experience to be able to run a country. Namely, if one can run a multi-billion dollar enterprise (and some of the companies have bigger turn overs than a lot of countries) then one is probably in the best position to run a government department, or even a country. However, the concern is that with their corporate ties they are able to manipulate government decisions that benefit themselves and their companies.

For instance, Richard Cheney and his Wife were both shareholders and executive directors of Halliburton, an oil infrastructure company, and even while in government, they still held shares in the company and as such directed a lot of contracts towards Halliburton so as to increase the company's share price, and in turn their private wealth. This is corruption pure and simple. A similar thing occurred here in South Australia. One of our former premiers held shares in Motorola, and while premier was directing contracts towards Motorola. When this was uncovered he lost his position, and come the next election, his party went on to lose.

There have also been other allegations directed at Halliburton, such as overcharging and performing substandard work. One particular incident involved laundering the uniforms of the American Military. The company charged huge prices and the uniforms pretty much came back in the same state. Further, when soldiers decided to do their own laundry they were disciplined and told that they must send their uniforms to the proper laundries. Then there are the allegations that if the trucks that were leased to the army broke down, or even suffered a scratch or a flat tyre, then the entire truck would be scrapped. Some suggest that this is normal policy, and personally I can't say otherwise.

It seems that the US is moving more and more towards using private companies to provide services to the military such as food facilities, and once again there is nothing necessarily wrong with that. If the purpose of the army is to wage war, then to remove all aspects of the army that are not needed and can be performed better by companies that specialise in such services frees up resources. This has been the case for a while, particularly with things such as tanks, planes, and trucks. These days the military does not build its own hardware, but rather makes orders to the various companies to produce them. Granted, there was a time when the government would build all of the army's hardware, but with advances in technology this simply is no longer feasible. However, in Australia, that still does happen, with the government establishing corporations, such as the Australian Submarine Corporation, to build hardware.

The other thing that happened with the invasion is that a hostile government was removed and a friendly government established, which means that the country is now opened up to trade. Not only that but there is also the need for rebuilding, and surprise, surprise, American companies are offered the rebuilding contracts, among other things. Obviously with oil being Iraq's main export, there was a lot of work that Halliburton could perform, and guess who got the contract. However I guess that war and plunder are different these days than previously. For instance, when Iraq was invaded, the central bank wasn't plundered and the gold in its vaults wasn't taken back to the United States. However, while the army wasn't doing the plundering, the population certainly was, and while there were short term benefits, the eventual cost still hasn't been fully counted or considered.