A hero of the 2nd world war whose story was told in comics form

YnetNews has some history of a Jewish-American WW2 hero, Theodore Bachenheimer, whose biography was told in a Golden Age title, Real Life Comics #25, a series that ran during 1941-52:

In the first battle in which Theodor Bachenheimer took part in Sicily, he was captured by German soldiers. Rather than surrender and confirm his identity as an American soldier, Bachenheimer used his native command of German and his appearance as tools for survival. His story was later commemorated in a comic book, now on display at the Museum of the Jewish Soldier in World War II.

Bachenheimer was born in 1923 in Germany to Jewish parents. He spoke German with a local accent, was raised in German culture and appeared to be a native. After the Nazis rose to power, his family fled to the United States. A few years later, he returned to Europe, this time in a U.S. Army uniform. He volunteered for the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division, an elite unit deployed to some of the toughest fronts in Europe.

Bachenheimer repeatedly infiltrated enemy territory, volunteered for guard duty alongside German soldiers, captured enemy troops for intelligence and interrogation, slipped into bases and gathered critical intelligence. His exploits spread among Allied troops, turning him into an almost mythic figure.

During Operation Market Garden, the largest airborne operation in the Netherlands, Bachenheimer and his unit encountered a German ambush and suffered heavy losses. He managed to escape the chaos on a bicycle, broke through German lines and was the first to reach the city of Nijmegen. There, in an unprecedented role for a 22-year-old private, he rallied hundreds of resistance fighters, coordinated intelligence activity and effectively became the field commander. Even after emerging as a key figure, he continued to carry out daring missions in enemy territory, repeatedly outwitting German forces.

In October 1944, he was captured by German soldiers and killed. A year after his death, by then already a legend, Bachenheimer was commemorated in an unusual way: the American comic book series Real Life Comics, which focused on war heroes, dedicated a special issue to him titled “The Soldier Who Became a General.” It was a rare cultural tribute to a young fighter who repeatedly defeated the enemy through ingenuity and daring.

Marking Holocaust Remembrance Day, the Museum of the Jewish Soldier in World War II named for President Chaim Herzog is presenting Bachenheimer’s extraordinary story. The American comic book featuring his story is also on display.

Asaf Efrati, deputy director of information and education at the museum, said: “Holocaust Remembrance Day is an opportunity to highlight, alongside the story of the victims, the story of the Jewish fighters. Bachenheimer’s story, marked by daring and ingenuity, shows how he turned his command of the language and his German identity into an operational tool that allowed him to penetrate enemy territory, outwit the Germans and save lives. His character illustrates the contribution of Jewish soldiers to the defeat of Nazi Germany.”

Here's one important story whose original back issue is preserved in the correct place - a museum, though of course, this is something involving a serious subject matter. But it's also another topic that brings to mind the speculator market - if there's any collectors who own back issues of this, and they're keeping it stored out of the public's sight, and not even reading its history themselves, seriously, that's wrong. I'm glad the Museum of the Jewish Soldier in WW2 is letting visitors know about this specific comic's existence by putting a copy of it on public display. It's important history everybody should know about, and shouldn't be concealed in some cynical speculator's vault.

The history of black masculinities in comicdom

Union News Daily covered a recent conference that was held at Vauxhall Library about black masculinity in comics history. And along the way, perhaps unsurprisingly, some problematic parts come up:

Black superheroes began showing up in comic strips and comic books as early as the mid-1930s. However, in mainstream comic publishing the depictions of Black people were inaccurate.

Recently, at Vauxhall Library, the community gathered to watch the film “White Scripts and Black Supermen: Black Masculinities in American Comic Books” (2012), directed by Jonathan Gayles. The 54-minute documentary examined 40 years of changing representations of Black masculinity in American comic books, focusing on characters from the late 1960s to the late 1970s. The movie featured scholars, artists and cultural critics analyzing how Black superheroes have been burdened by stereotypes and how these images shifted to reflect changing times. [...]

Black Panther made his Marvel debut in 1966 and Gayles said he saw himself reflected as a hero. “Everyone in the comic book was Black,” he said in the film.

John Stewart was DC’s first Black superhero, introduced in the 1970s.

Dr. William H. Foster III is a renowned comic book historian, scholar and collector. He’s recognized as a leading authority on the portrayal of African Americans and minorities in American comic books and comic strips. In the film he said, “John Stewart came in with heavy attitude. He caused the death of a planet. He dated aliens. He was the first Black superhero who stepped out of a small town and into the universe.”

Stop right there for a moment. Unmentioned is that the Cosmic Odyssey miniseries is where John led to the slaughter of a planet, and they don't find that the least bit repellent he'd have such a setup forced upon him? The omission of any critical or objective view of that monstrosity of a tale is head-shaking. As for aliens, yes, he certainly dated one such lady, Katma Tui, but I don't think it can be said he dated busloads, and as mentioned before, Katma was executed in the repulsive Green Lantern entries in Action Comics Weekly.

Oh, and if they're talking about BP's debut in Fantastic Four 52, not everyone in the issue was black. There was also the FF team themselves, who were white, unless you count the Thing being orange per Ben Grimm's transformation from the cosmic radiation that was part of the premise for the team coming to be in 1961. And what about Ulysses Klaw, the evil scientist who changed himself into a living sound creature, though that was left for a later issue? This is a very awkward article, proving again why many mainstream newspapers are unreliable on history.

Luke Cage, Hero for Hire, was a Marvel superhero in 1972. He wore a yellow disco shirt, a metal headband and a chain around his waist. He goes to jail for crimes he didn’t commit and a racist guard tries to kill him. Luke was supposed to be urban, but came across as corny. His sayings didn’t reflect real Black language.

Tyroc was a minor DC Comics character in 1976 and showed how diversity was handled badly. He was a character 1,000 years in the future, where Black people were escaped slaves living on an island.

Regarding Luke, it could be argued his dialogue, including exclamations like "sweet Christmas", was meant to be surreal, and in a sci-fi setting, that's par for the course. Regarding Tyroc's residence, I think the premise in the mid-1970s was that the black inhabitants of the island of Marzal were descendants of 18th century slaves who'd revolted upon a ship and then reached the island, where they lived as isolationists. So it's not accurate to say the inhabitants of Marzal several centuries later were slaves, though there's a valid arguemnt to make that Tyroc's introduction was sadly very questionable, yet that was no excuse for artist Mike Grell insulting the character by drawing him a costume that looked almost like a bustier.

A key takeaway from the film is that white heroes such as Spider-Man were portrayed as normal and relatable. Black heroes were hyper-masculine and spectacularly different, therefore hindering identification for Black readers.

Depending how you see this, if the masculinity of black men was respected at the time, wasn't that a good thing? But, if what they're concerned about is whether the black protagonists have flaws, moral or otherwise, applied to their character, then what about Cyborg from New Teen Titans, in example? Why doesn't he come up? Even the Falcon could serve as a good example.

And if masculinity's important, then were black women ever portrayed as hyper-feminine? I've looked over various comics from the Golden Age till the turn of the century, and I noticed that in the Golden Age, there were at least a few examples where black women were depicted as short-haired tomboys, and as a result, made to look far less hot than the white women were, if at all. By the late 1960s early 1970s, this was beginning to change, although some portrayals of black women at the time only gave them round Afro-hairstyles that were anything but long, and Misty Knight and 2nd Captain Marvel Monica Rambeau were at least 2 examples during the Bronze Age. Storm in X-Men was one black woman who did have a longer mane of hair, even if it was colored white by contrast. To be sure, since then there have been some black women whose hairstyles were longer, illustrated as both curly and straight. But a real absurdity would have to be Brian Bendis' creation of Riri Williams, who was portrayed with the round Afro-hairstyle long past the time it was common, though much worse is that she was not created as her own agency; she was created as part of the social justice pandering of the past decade, and almost put to use for replacing Tony Stark as Iron Man, as if it weren't bad enough Kieron Gillen forcibly retconned Tony's background. Some of the SJW-pandering creations of the past 2 decades have been forgotten at this point, although the Muslim Ms. Marvel, perhaps unshockingly, is still being foisted on the MCU, no matter how awful the political structure of her creation makes it, but some sadly still remains, and DC/Marvel have been climbing some high trees while keeping them around.

The articles does say there are indie creators who've come up with their own creations, and that's good, but the point that really needs to be made is that, based on the collapse of coherency and morality in Marvel/DC, that's why we all have to stop relying almost entirely upon them to deliver entertainment value, and the time's come to focus on creator-owned stories instead. But till this day, nobody in the press seems to want to write an op-ed making such a point, nor why, if Marvel/DC are to be considered worth reading again someday, they can't continue under a conglomerate ownership.

Disney's theme parks restore a welcome greeting

Breitbart reports Disney's theme parks are quietly and thankfully restoring a greeting that shouldn't be even the least bit controversial:

Disney Parks has reportedly brought back “ladies and gentlemen” to its park greeting — in a major cultural reversal after years of censoring any mention of sex in an attempt to appease the woke gender-inclusive mob.

The theme park appears to have begun quietly restoring its previous language to announcements, making for one of the most symbolically significant reversals Disney has made in years, according to a report by the entertainment and Disney-focused news site That Park Place.

“It was very nice to hear that ‘Ladies and Gentlemen’ has returned to the Magic Kingdom Express Monorail recently!” one Disney fan exclaimed in a Tuesday X post, sharing video footage of the new language.

Very fortunate, and hopefully indicates more businesses will return to making use of a classic and entirely polite introduction/greeting that shouldn't be even the least bit controversial. If the employees wearing cartoon costumes like Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck actually spoke, rather than stick more with the pantomime act they've used for many years, maybe they too could add some smiles to the patrons' faces by using the greeting themselves as well. Let's also hope they restore Minnie Mouse's more feminine-style outfits after the unappealing pantsuit design they concocted a few years ago.

What would be the reason manga might be losing younger readers in Japan?

According to Automaton, a researcher in Japan suggests manga is losing younger audiences because they prefer digital but allegedly can't afford it:

The Japanese manga and comic book market size reached a record high of about 700 billion yen (roughly $4.4 billion USD) in the 2020s. But while this may give the impression that manga are being read more than ever in the past couple of years, Japanese author, print journalist and publishing industry researcher Ichishi Iida suggests otherwise. In a column for President Online, Iida compiled numerous recent research reports supporting his theory that the manga industry is seeing a big decline in readership, specifically children and teens.

Traditionally, serialized manga in Japan was largely popularized through magazines and anthologies, such as The Weekly Shonen Jump. Up until 2004, the manga market was significantly larger for manga magazines than for standalone books, Iida suggests. According to data by the Japan School Library Association, at the peak of magazines’ popularity during the 80s, middle and junior high schoolers would read about 10 magazines per month. Fast forward to 2025, that number dropped to just 1. Additionally, the proportion of those who don’t read magazines at all has reached 77.7%.

Iida cautions that, with there being few long-term surveys that provide insight into manga readership over the years, it might be difficult to determine how these trends apply to the readership of standalone manga publications. However, when it comes to manga magazines, school surveys over the years confirm the trend that readership is decreasing among children. Iida points out that, for example, while Corocoro Comics still had a strong following among elementary school boys in both 1996 and 2019, the same couldn’t be said for Shonen Jump among middle and high schoolers, with readership plummeting to roughly one tenth of what it used to be (research data provided by an undisclosed school).

Using data from multiple different surveys, including the 1985 and 1995 data by Japan School Library Association and 2023 data by Benesse Educational Research & Development Institute and Tokyo University, Iida concludes that manga readership among children and teenagers is declining both with physical publications and in digital form. Note that due to the difference in survey methods and sample populations, these results are only for reference, as the author explains.

Something not clear in the article is the following query - what if the plummeting birthrate in Japan plays a part in the decline of readership among any age group? Doesn't that concern anyone? If there's not enough new births, there won't be enough of an audience for manga, on or offline. So why don't they worry about how to produce new organic readerships?

Interestingly, the article does say physical manga's still more popular among children than digital, so until the birthrate problem can hopefully be solved, maybe that's a good sign, since it's better for people not to spend too much time on the phone and tablet. Sometimes, reading a printed book and comic can be the best option available.

What Tom Brevoort says about the JLA/Avengers crossover

Popverse relays what the galling Marvel editor told a podcast interview about the making of the JLA/Avengers crossover, and how fans reacted to Superman besting Thor:

Marvel's longest-serving editor, Tom Brevoort, has a pretty thick skin when it comes to fan outrage. Having overseen decades of big narrative swings come out of the House of Ideas, he'd have to. And yet, there's still one moment of reader blowback that stands out to him, even decades after the choice in question went down. The reason?

Fans asked for it before it happened.

Brevoort was talking about his witness to unpopular decisions at Marvel (which comes with, we should note, absolute libraries worth of popular ones) on the Word Balloon Comics Podcast with host John Siuntres.

"I still hear from people that are angry about Superman [vs.] Thor," Brevoort told him.

Specifically, Brevoort is referring to the confrontation between the Man of Steel and God of Thunder that happened in 2003's JLA/Avengers #3. Krypton's favorite son ended up soundly defeating Asgard's, much to the dismay of Thor fans everywhere, but while people were grumpy about it after it happened, they were foaming at the mouth for it beforehand.

"The funny part for me," the current X-Men editor explained, "Is when we announced the project, Kurt [Busiek, writer] set up a dedicated email address that was like, 'If people have suggestions for what they want to see, email them there. We'll read through stuff and we'll look and see if there's anything.' One of the things that came in by the pound was fans on both sides of the equation saying, 'We want real fights with a real winner and a real loser. No mealy-mouthing about it.'"

I think a better complaint the audience could've raised is whether this represented one of the biggest problems with Brevoort's resume since the early 2000s - heroes clashing with each other instead of uniting against villains. Well okay, I realize that some of the leading villains in the story were Giganto, Fin Fang Foom and Krona, who IIRC, originally appeared in the Silver Age in Green Lantern. Of course, there's other problems with the story too, like retaining the mandate that put Kyle Rayner in the GL role, and Hal Jordan in the Spectre role?!? Based on that, this is why the tale doesn't age well.

That said, if we look at this story as a legitimate match between superheroes and their powers, skills and strategies, why does it matter so much whether Thor or Superman wins a duel against either? That's not what should count as a triumph. What matters far more if if there's a story where two or more superheroes from different universes and publishers can win a battle against formidable villains from either/both universes. But most importantly of all, what matters is the story merit. I think it's been unhealthy for mainstream comicdom in the long run to concoct these crossovers for the sake of pitting heroes vs each other. Why, this kind of event may have been what later led to 2007's Civil War, where fans reportedly told the MSM they were rooting for say, either Captain America or Iron Man, but no word was ever given as to the entertainment value of the overall story (and there wasn't). What's the use of these events if they're built on turning fandom against itself? That's what these crossovers feel like now, and it probably never occurred to anyone before.

All that told, something that needs to be made clear about Brevoort is that he's shameless, considering he's been party to many of the most unpopular decisions at Marvel, including erasure of the Spider-marriage, not to mention "narrative swings". And they have the gall to sugarcoat even that. If all a crossover tale like JLA vs. Avengers can do is present a divisive premise that has the effect of encouraging fans to choose a side as though one hero's less valuable than the other, that's what makes these kind of crossovers tasteless. Which was the case when it came to Avengers vs X-Men. In a time where there was more quality, it would've been far better if there'd been a team-up rather than a versus match, even if it was the villains who were pulling the strings. Now, both publishers have collapsed.

The MSM continues to make a fuss over "crime noir" comics

Here's two examples in the news of how darkness continues to remain a sad staple of what the mainstream press considers newsworthy. For example, from last February on Broken Frontier, there's IDW's new special imprint called IDW Crime, and look who's editing it:

Following the success of the horror imprint IDW Dark, IDW Publishing is proud to announce IDW CRIME, a line of gripping crime comic books that explore what it takes to turn a saint into a sinner and revels in the twisted, everyday acts of humans that we just can’t look away from.

“Crime has a deep, often under-celebrated history in comics, from hard-boiled noir to social thrillers that pushed the medium to be bolder, sharper, and more adult,” commented Senior Group Editor Heather Antos. “With the IDW Crime imprint, we’re honoring that legacy while giving it a modern spotlight — elevating creator-driven stories that feel urgent, character-forward, and unapologetically human. These are stories about obsession, consequence, and the ability to hold a mirror up to society, and we couldn’t be more excited to help bring them back to the forefront of mainstream comics.

The same Antos who played a part in ruining Marvel artistically and neo-Valiant in the past decade (and even once acted oblivious to the disgraced Scott Allie's offenses) actually considers crime noir by far the greatest genre ever produced, quite possibly in contrast to romance and sex? What a sad farce. Now, she's one of at least a few people who formerly worked in mainstream whom IDW is actually giving a chance to continue working in comicdom no matter how washed up they are elsewhere. And what's this about "reveling"? Does that mean taking pleasure/delight? The use of that word only makes clear what's wrong with the promotion and marketing. And then we wonder what's going wrong with society. That's why we don't need this in mainstream.

Now, more recently, Art Threat reported actor Nathan Fillion's publishing more crime noir comics in his writing premiere to the medium proper:

Nathan Fillion just revealed his stunning debut as a comic book writer, and fans of The Rookie and Firefly are buzzing. He’s co-writing Witness Point, a dark noir thriller hitting shelves on July 8, 2026. The 4-issue series promises murder, secrets, and a small Wisconsin town that’s harboring something sinister.

From Castle to Comics: Fillion’s Next Creative Move

Nathan Fillion has always been a storyteller at heart. After years playing Detective Richard Castle and leading The Rookie as tough cop John Nolan, he’s now stepping fully into the writer’s chair. This project marks his official entry into the comic book world, published by the legendary Dark Horse Comics. Fillion collaborated with Heath Corson, a veteran screenwriter whose credits include DC animated projects and the critically acclaimed drama Animal Kingdom.

According to Fillion, the idea came directly from Corson’s brilliant premise. “Heath pulled me into his world with Witness Point, and I immediately knew this was a story that would lend itself to a comic series,” Fillion stated. The collaboration bridges television and comics, bringing cinematic storytelling to the graphic novel format.

A Small Town, A Big Secret, A Brutal Murder

The story takes place in Baraboo, Wisconsin, a seemingly peaceful Midwestern town famous for its circus history. But beneath the surface lies a 40-year-old federal conspiracy. The entire town serves as a hidden hub for the Witness Protection Program, relocated there without most residents’ knowledge. Criminals, informants, and dangerous felons have quietly integrated into this unsuspecting community.

Everything changes when the naked, dismembered body of a U.S. Marshal is discovered in the town square. Now, skeptical sheriff Carter “Kite” Calhoon and contentious deputy marshal Priya Khabrani have only days to solve the murder before Baraboo’s beloved Harvest Festival kicks off. As paranoia spreads and tempers flare, every resident becomes a suspect.

More repellent disgust. Do we need this kind of emphasis? No. Also note how the writers and publishers are doing exactly what historian Sean Howe once argued was a bad idea. When you make comics look like movies and television, it's hardly making comics convincingly.

Above all, it's tiresome how dark themes - including, but not limited to - the crime noir genre, keep getting sugary headlines at the expense of brighter fantasy adventure. That's reason enough to boycott crime thriller stories like what's being gushed over in these press articles, because it's long become way too much.

How Frank Miller failed Will Eisner's most notable comic strip

ComicBook wrote about a movie on which Samuel Jackson and Scarlett Johansson worked prior to the Avengers movies, that being Frank Miller's adaptation of the late Will Eisner's 1940-52 Spirit comic strip (which was revived in some form or other in later years):

What many casual viewers have forgotten, however, is that Jackson and Johansson shared a screen in a superhero film before either of them ever set foot in the MCU. In December 2008, the same month The Dark Knight was cementing a new benchmark for the genre, the two actors appeared together in The Spirit, a neo-noir adaptation of Will Eisner’s iconic newspaper comic strip. The film holds the distinction of being the only feature directed solely by Frank Miller, the writer and artist whose previous credits as a co-director on Sin City had led to enormous commercial and critical goodwill. That goodwill, combined with the star power of his assembled cast, gave The Spirit every possible advantage heading into release. Unfortunately, the film used it poorly.

Why No One Talks About The Spirit Nowadays

The Spirit arrived on Christmas Day 2008, a release date that placed it in direct competition with high-profile awards contenders and family films. Unsurprisingly, it opened to $6.4 million over its first four days, landing ninth at the box office. Plus, without a great word-of-mouth to reverse the catastrophic opening, the film’s final domestic gross reached only $19.8 million, with a worldwide cumulative of $38.4 million against a reported production budget of $60 million. Add market costs to that calculation, and The Spirit remains one of the biggest superhero flops ever. The critical consensus was equally severe. The Spirit holds a 14% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 114 reviews, with an average score of 3.6 out of 10, and a Metacritic score of 30 out of 100. Finally, audiences gave it a CinemaScore of C-, one of the more toxic grades a wide release can receive.

The creative failure at the center of The Spirit traces directly to Miller’s decision to apply the visual grammar he developed for Sin City to a property that was never designed to support it. Eisner’s original comic strip thrived on a fundamentally humanist tone, as its protagonist was a street-level everyman whose power derived from his vulnerability and moral clarity. Miller’s version replaced that framework with the stylized nihilism and noir excess of his own comic work, producing a film that felt like a lesser imitation of Sin City rather than an adaptation of a distinct property.

Well, it certainly proved, if nothing else, that Miller was no better a director than he was a screenwriter, recalling he was credited to the Robocop sequel in 1990. And he didn't just fail Eisner with the movie adaptation, he also failed him with his betraying remarks in the recent American Genius documentary. I just don't see what Miller's apologists see in him. If he's got any "style" in his work, the problem is that, in the end, there's no substance.

Incidentally, Miller's Spirit movie wasn't even the first time Eisner's strip was adapted to live action. In 1987, there was a failed TV movie intended as a pilot for a possible series, so Miller was doing little more than attempting it all again theatrically. But if Dennis Colt was now being depicted as a near immortal, courtesy of a chemical injection, all that did was push the creation into too much sci-fi territory. Creative liberties are okay, but when somebody as over-the-top as Miller can be applies it with such heavy-handedness, it's no surprise it fails in the end.

And while the first Sin City movie may have been a success, the sequel several years later tanked. So again, what's all the fuss about regarding Miller anyway? Eisner's family should never have approved of what Miller was doing, and certainly not if Miller was later going to put him down in the aforementioned documentary. As I've said before, there's little from Miller's resume I care about, with Daredevil and some of his work on the flagship Batman books being the few I ever found worthwhile. And if the Spirit movie says something, he's made an otherwise dreadful filmmaker.