- Dietrich Bonhoeffer
As people here are no doubt tired of hearing, yes, I have a degree in Germanic Languages and read a good deal of German literature and screenplays to get my degree.
I don't think it is generally known the extent to which the Germans accepted the responsibility for what they did in the name of the Nazi Regime. Starting in 1950 (when the average German was done picking up rubble and ready to get on with life) at least until 1981 when I graduated from college, German culture pretty much revolved around two themes. One theme was "How could we have let this happen?" The other was one of "Lost Honor."
The first theme is fairly self-explanatory, as the Germans sought to examine how an educated, advanced and developed country with a rich tradition of cultural and artistic accomplishment could descend into barbaric depravity. They have done an excruciating amount of soul-searching in this regard. In large part, we can thank the policy of “unconditional surrender” for forcing the Germans to confront their collective crimes. Since we had to crush German resistance by invading and conquering their country, then occupying it, we were in a position to not only uncover the scope of their crimes, but to rub their noses in it. Forcing German civilians to walk through the camps and bury the dead made sure they knew exactly what they had done. Putting the political and military leadership on trial made sure the world knew what they had done, and that punishment was meted out.
And for at least a generation, the Germans sought to divine the meaning of it all. Haushofer’s poem and Bonhöffer’s works are just the beginning. Men of intellect and conscience realized what they were dealing with much earlier than the average German, in whom time needed to work before they were ready to digest it. And as a young man interested in history, I read the German literature knowing exactly what they meant. It made for some very lively discussions auf Deutsch in Herr Piedmont’s and Herr Remak’s classes. Which was also an interesting difference; Herr Piedmont would have been a young Hitler Jugend in 1945, although he never talked about whether he held a Panzerfaust. Herr Remak was Jewish, having been “rescued” from Germany in 1937 by IU Chancellor Hermann Wells to come to Bloomington, Indiana, to teach German to midwestern rubes like me.
The two works I recall from the literature are they plays “Biedermann und die Brandstifter” and “Der Besuch der Alte Dame.” Biedermann und die Brandstifter, written in 1953 by Max Frisch, roughly translates as “Joe Six Pack and the Arsonists” It has been translated and performed in the United States under the title “The Firebugs.” In the play, there are a number of mysterious fires set in town, where Biedermann lives and has an upper room for rent. Biedermann is the typical middle class type, who today we would call the “Low Information Voter.” Two thugs show up to rent his room, and very soon it is apparent they are the ones setting fires. Through intimidation and Biedermann’s own willful blindness, the arsonists proceed in preparations to blow up and burn down the entire town. They tell Biedermann what they are going to do, and he is in denial, even as he proceeds to help them by cutting fuses. At the end, they in fact blow up and burn down the town. Biedermann finally confronts them and asks why they did this. Their response is “we told you what we were going to do, why didn’t you believe us?” And of course, not only did Biedermann say nothing, he actively participated.
The other screenplay, “Der Besuch der Alte Dame” or “The Visit of the Old Woman,” written in 1956 by Friedrich Dürrenmatt, is set in an impoverished town. It is visited by an old woman who had lived there as a young girl. She had been in love with one of the town’s residents, Alfred Ill, who jilted her. She left to become a prostitute, married a billionaire, inherited his wealth, and has now returned. She promises the town one billion (marks or dollars, the currency isn’t specified). All she asks in return is one thing; kill her former lover. The townspeople all cry out that such a thing is horrible and they are revolted by the thought. The woman says: “I’ll wait.” As she stays in town, waiting, Alfred notices that the residents are wearing new shoes and getting new clothes...on credit. One by one they start treating him...differently. In the end, the desire for money overcomes their sense of the Rule of Law and value of human life, and they kill Alfred for the money.
Both of those screenplays say so much about the nature of man. They illustrate how the Germans allowed a descent into the Nazi barbarity that, as in the sense of Biedermann, they were led to destroy Germany and all of Europe. And with the promises of a better future they were bought off to murder millions. For many years both of those screenplays have been on the night stand in my bedroom.
The other theme was “Lost Honor,” and this one is a little more complex. While the theme of “How could we let this happen” was obviously prominent, the theme of “Lost Honor” was more difficult for the Germans to express publicly. I put that theme as “Was all of our suffering and sacrifice only in the service of evil? Does that make us evil, too?” Every German family had someone or knew someone who had the epitaph “Im Osten Gefallen,” or “Fell in the East.” It was the simple statement of someone who had been sent to Russia, and was never heard from again. It was also the sentiment of those surviving veterans who had endured the hardships of combat, who fought and suffered with their comrades, many of whom they saw die. It played on a particular feature of the German Army; every regiment had a “home town.” The soldiers in a particular battalion all knew each other, as they had grown up together in the same neighborhood. So they saw their childhood friends die. If they survived for any length of time, as sergeants they were responsible for the lives of their friends’ younger brothers. And for their deaths.
An eloquent expression of this theme is the “farewell” speech of the German general to his soldiers in the last episode of “Band of Brothers.” It also appeared as the overriding theme in the memoirs of the German generals such as von Manstein’s “Lost Victories,” von Mellenthin’s “Panzer Battles” and von Luck’s “Panzer Commander.” The concept of “Lost Honor” was not so much a confrontation of what had happened, as an attempt to rationalize or sugar coat it for the sake of the veterans and their families. While it first appeared in the military memoirs, it wasn’t until later in the 1970s that it began to appear in general cultural terms in books such as Heinrich Böll’s novel “Die Verlorene Ehre von Katharina Blum” or “The Lost Honor of Katharine Blum.” In that book, Katharine Blum has an experience much like Biedermann, but now she is portrayed more sympathetically as a victim.
As I have said many times, the average German of my age in 1955, the guy who wrestled with the question of “How could we have let this happen?” was the same guy who, in 1928, would have said “That can’t happen here.” And that bothers me greatly, because I know the average American, the Low Information Voter, doesn’t give a damn that Bill Clinton sold our wealth to the Chinese, or care that Hillary Clinton kept her correspondence “off the books.” Or any numbe of other things that are eating away at the fabric our country and the destruction of our rights and the Rule of Law. Our Biedermanns say the same thing. “That can’t happen here.”
It is important to note that because we didn't militarily conquer the Japanese Home Islands the way we did Germany (we "occupied" Japan instead). The average Japanese didn't have to bury the stinking bodies of Filipino or Chinese children. We didn't have a public trial of their Emperor. Because of this, they didn't have the same stark confrontation as the Germans did. Also, it's not in the nature of the Japanese to do that sort of soul-searching. Instead, they came up with the cult of Godzilla.
I know I ramble a lot on these little essays, but the lessons I learned have a lot of meaning in my life, which I do not forget, and enable to me see, with sadness, what I perceive to be a repetition. Or maybe we are condemned to repeat history because human nature never changes.
Also avoided a repeat of that whole "Stabbed In the Back" meme that Hitler and co. so brilliantly exploited on their way to power.
Thank you for that better understanding of the German mind. I think that the WW I ending also played a part and also Hitler’s huge dislike of the Bolsheviks may have been widespread.
Thank you for that better understanding of the German mind. I think that the WW I ending also played a part and also Hitler’s huge dislike of the Bolsheviks may have been widespread.
Bttt while I sort out some children issues.
what I perceive to be a repetition. Or maybe we are condemned to repeat history because human nature never changes.
We are so condemned because it never does change, short of heaven. Often here on FR I read conservatives bemoaning the hell America and the world are becoming and vowing to turn it around. They can't and won't. They'll win skirmishes and battles, but eventual defeat is, in my view, inescapable. So, if that's where they put their ultimate hope, they are foolish.
A careful reading of Revelation, with the rest of Scripture, reveals that (a) the end times are, at most, a handful of decades away, and (b) man's inhumanity to man, especially toward God's people, will accelerate during them. In that context, then, I suggest we may rightly view the atrocities of WW2 and those since as the prelude, as Act 1 if you will.
But that is not cause for gloom; rather, we may rejoice that the time for such holocausts is soon to end, finally. They must happen before the new millennium of peace nears, after which the final battles will lead directly to eternal peace for those who trust not conservatism but Redeemer.
As always, I learned something. For instance, I did not know about the two plays.
That particular poem, in its context, has great relevance here and now. All of us should be asking ourselves: “How clearly and sharply am I speaking out against the evils that have taken root in America today?”
I read your entire thoughtful post to our America’s Summit, Restore the Republic national town hall tonight.
It was in the context of what happened in Germany, and what is happening in America today.
I thought I should let you know that everyone on the call greatly appreciated your words of insight and wisdom.
Thank you.
The first theme is fairly self-explanatory, as the Germans sought to examine how an educated, advanced and developed country with a rich tradition of cultural and artistic accomplishment could descend into barbaric depravity.
They have done an excruciating amount of soul-searching in this regard..."
Thanks so much for yet another insightful essay, they always make me think I should increase my monthly contribution to Free Republic.
And, sometimes I do... ;-)
In response:
"Educated", "Advanced", etc... maybe, but fundamentally modern inheritors of European history back to Roman Empire times, as updated by recent examples from Napoleon and Bismarck.
In sum, by 1914 Germany was a great empire, after hundreds of years of steady success and territorial expansion.
In 1914 Germany's rulers intended to continue that success by conquering "lebensraum" in the East, and making Germany the dominant European power.
Germany's First World War failure led to a rethinking of just what it meant to be German, and the result was Hitler -- most importantly combining North and South Germans (Austrians), a "voice of the people", certainly of the average German soldier, who lost heart and surrendered in November 1918.
Hitler would instill powerful motivation and courage in Germany's next generation of warriors.
So, the imperial plan which resulted from Wilson's "peace without victory" (and as predicted by people like US General Pershing) was to have a "round two" in 20 years.
"Round two" began in 1939 with huge technological and conceptual advances -- no more trench warfare, now highly mobile Blitzkrieg.
So the WWII idea of European conquest did not come from Hitler, he was merely the instrument of its accomplishment.
That idea was basic to the old Keiser-Reich.
As was the idea of turning Eastern Europe into medieval principalities with lords of unlimited power over surf/slaves -- life unworthy of life.
So what was new in Germany's "round two"?
Were mass exterminations new? Not really.
What about the Holocaust?
Yes, the Holocaust was new to Germany, though certainly not to the world.
Hitler himself referenced Turkey's genocide against Christian Armenians, pointing out that today nobody remembers or cares about it.
And mass deaths through starvation and brutality were Stalin's specialty -- so it's not even known: if or when Hitler's ordered murders ever exceeded in number those of old Stalin.
So Hitler did not invent the idea that millions must die to accomplish ideological goals.
He had only to pattern on Stalin, which he did.
But Nazis had a little something that Soviets did not: 1) the remnants of conscience, meaning they didn't so much enjoy machine-gunning down civilians, women & children.
And 2) a talent for engineering "outside the box" (ahem, German engineering) far beyond Soviet & other brutal regimes' imaginations.
And so the "Jewish question" was answered by engineering -- railroad supplied camps equipped with gas chambers & crematoria for the mass production of... non-existence.
In short and in summary, the Big Lie here is not what they did in WWII, but their insistence today on how "educated" & "advanced" they previously had been.
In fact, they were ignorant fools, puffed up to think of themselves as "superior" to everyone else.
Truly educating such blithering idiots cost the lives of tens of millions (mostly non-Germans) and unimaginable suffering by those who survived.
This could & should all be expressed in biblical terms, but I must leave that to others here far better qualified.