The elemental desire for freedom among the young also inspired other forms of cultural opposition that became politicized through Nazi repression. In some bigger cities, middle-class youths who liked to listen to jazz or dance to swing music formed a lifestyle rebellion against the clean-cut Nordic standard, turning against the Third Reich when forbidden. In Berlin, a group of young Jews and Communists, led by Herbert Baum, dared to burn down part of a Nazi exhibition on the “Soviet Paradise” in an act of protest against anti-Bolshevik propaganda. In Munich, a small group of students around Sophie Scholl similarly distributed leaflets at the university auditorium, denouncing the murderous war and violations of human rights, for which most of them were executed. Though highly admirable, these acts of exceptional courage in resisting a murderous regime remained isolated efforts and never really endangered Nazi rule. Fanatical HJ members loathed these dissidents as “criminals, notorious shirkers and moral degenerates.”66
Excluded from the national community, young Jews faced increasing displacement from public areas into segregated spaces that made their lives miserable. As a result of anti-Semitic propaganda, Gerhard Krapf “began to realize that there were ‘Jews’ as distinct from what the Nazis called Aryans,” even if he did not want to respect the difference. Similarly, Tom Angress noticed in school “that I was different from my non-Jewish classmates,” but, having been brought up in an assimilated household, “didn’t know what difference that made since no one had explained to me what it meant to be Jewish.” Increasing discrimination in daily life, ranging from being forbidden to use public transportation to being prohibited to have pets, made it clear that Jews could no longer be Germans and should emigrate. Fifteen-year-old Tom put his distress about this expulsion from Germany into poetic words: “We know no more justice, only repression. / Our homeland doesn’t love us anymore.”67
The Nazi dictatorship could afford to persecute a racial and ideological minority as long as it was sure of the support of most adults and the enthusiasm of the young. “The overwhelming majority of German citizens,” explained Karl Härtel, “had evidently the strong feeling that now in our country a government set out to end the exploitation and humiliation that had lasted far too long.” Due to the improvement of living conditions, “the brown[-shirted] comrades could count upon the unreserved approval of all those who had been forced to pay the reparation bills with a reduction of their living standard to the poverty limit.” And, if approval was not forthcoming, there was always the Gestapo. The son of Edith Schöffski’s neighbor reported “that father is being watched by the Nazis since he does not participate in political discussions and does not greet with ‘Heil Hitler!’”68 Such an intimidating rumor was enough to keep most skeptics in line.
A SENSE OF BETRAYAL
When writing about their former embrace of National Socialism, most authors, like Hans Queiser, show strong resentment against “the seduction of our generation” that deprived them of a normal youth. Angry at being figuratively blinded by the Nazis, Ruth Weigelt also complains that “we were robbed of our carefree youth.” Seeking to downplay her own responsibility, Ruth Bulwin claimed, “Often we were moved like marionettes, in part by older and accepted traditions, in part by political influences or the drive to survive.” Karl Härtel explained that “most survivors, be they perpetrators or victims, initially wanted to repress” the shocking memories of “the cruelties and crimes against humanity” that warped their lives. Seeking to make sense of her engagement in the BdM, Eva Peters mused, “When I think about it, [I am amazed by] how much idealism we had then, and for such a bad cause!”69 In retrospect, most authors saw themselves as misguided victims in order to minimize their own contribution to the Third Reich.
The collective sense of betrayal is not entirely mistaken, for many their parents and adult role models had also failed to resist the siren call of the Führer. Gerhard Krapf argued that “the Nazis succeeded in stimulating the very best of the Germans, making them truly believe in the high ethical mission of contributing to that new stature of becoming again a Volk, strong, honest, loyal, industrious and proud.” This Volksgemeinschaft rhetoric promised to create an egalitarian community, while the economic recovery seemed to prove Hitler right. Endless parades and rallies demonstrated unity and strength, since “the Nazis were masters” in “applied mass psychology.” But it was even “more humiliating that people like [doctor Ferdinand] Sauerbruch, [composer] Richard Strauss, [writer] Ina Seidel, even [the Catholic] Cardinal Faulhaber … engaged in unsolicited support, thereby swaying quite a number of their respective followers.”70 How could the young resist such an atmosphere?
The recollections, however, underplay that there was also a strong tendency toward “self-Nazification” among youths, which is embarrassing for the authors. The indoctrination of the young was so effective, because it was offered not only by adults but by Hitler Youth leaders only slightly older than their charges. Many who were not even very political were impressed by the dynamism of the HJ and, like Robert Neumaier, simply wanted to belong with their peers. Convinced that they represented the future, quite a few adolescents, like Hans-Harald Schirmer, rebelled against the skepticism of their parents and became members of the Hitler Youth. For social outsiders, like the “foreign, homeless, and illegitimate” Wilhelm Kolesnyk, the appeal was even stronger: “Above all [the Nazis] offered everyone upward mobility…. That was probably the point which touched me most.” Finally, “the overwhelming victories on all fronts” suggested “that we Germans were the chosen people, the greatest in every regard, that ours was the leading role in the world and that we would win it.”71
The memoirs show that it took exceptional insight and courage to remain aloof, refuse to comply, or actively resist the twisted universe of the Third Reich, since the sanctions were lethal. Among the nationalist elite, such as the Kleins, there was much “distance” from the plebeian Nazis, but “there was also closeness,” as many political goals overlapped. In democratic families, opposition was clearer, especially if they were Jewish like the Eycks or prominent-enough liberals to fear for their lives. In homes close to the Confessing Church such as the Helmers, the father was even forced to enter a psychiatric clinic in order to escape Nazi persecution. In Communist and Social Democratic circles, the brutality of the Gestapo was so malicious that resistance was the only possible recourse. But parental skepticism did not automatically inspire adolescents to oppose the regime; even critical youths like Gerhard Krapf felt “torn between sweeping enthusiasm and nagging doubt.”72
Ultimately the Nazi youths were to suffer dearly for the blindness with which they followed the Führer into a war of annihilation and racial genocide. The combination of nationalist home, Nazified school, and Hitler Youth indoctrination made the majority obedient tools of Nazi repression and aggression. Agnes Moosmann blames “the deference to authority and lack of critical thinking” for the disaster. There were all too few democrats, Social Democrats, and Communists to stem the brown tide. Some opponents withdrew into inner emigration, others fled abroad, and still others were incarcerated, often in the KZ. Approximately half of the graduating classes of young men were killed in the fighting. The young women had to endure bombing raids, flight and expulsion, or mass rapes by the Red Army. It took these horrifying experiences of their own suffering to show the majority that they had worshiped a false idol. Only a minority of authors, such as Horst Grothus and Eva Peters, have been willing to confront their personal responsibility and commit themselves to doing active penance.73
PART II
WARTIME YOUTH
4
MALE VIOLENCE
Early in the morning on September 1, 1939, Gerhard Baucke’s father stormed into his bakery to report, “It is war; we have marched into Poland!” Even if this depressing news was not wholly unexpected, “the brutal truth hit us like a crushing blow.” All illusions about Hitler’s protestations of peace disappeared with one stroke. The foreman of the baking crew could only si
gh, “If that ain’t a black Friday?!” Soon it became clear that this was an ominous day, indeed. “On Sunday England and France entered the struggle on the side of the Poles. That was the dreaded two-front war.” In contrast to the patriotic elation of the August days in 1914, “no flags were flying, there was no approval, no enthusiasm” the second time around, even if most people accepted the renewed struggle as a “just war” for the future of “Germany, our dearly beloved home and our splendid and great fatherland.” But the prior conflict had cost too many lives to be repeated lightheartedly. Some people worried, “will the western [defensive] wall hold?”1
Actual experiences of World War II varied drastically depending on age, gender, and race. None of the Weimar youths “knew or could know what war means.” While indoctrination in school and Hitler Youth portrayed the earlier war as a heroic struggle, their parents’ stories of suffering during the interminable years from 1914 to 1918 had tempered such enthusiasm. For the young men, war signified military service, interruptions to their careers and romantic relationships, a trial by fire given patriotic meaning by skillful Nazi propaganda. For the young women, “all of our lives were to change drastically,” with blackouts, air-raid exercises, ration cards, and labor in fields or munition factories to make up for the missing men. For political and racial victims of the Third Reich, the restraints of international opinion dropped away, allowing the Nazis to reveal their full brutality. These interwoven but distinctive recollections require a separate analysis.2
Many young men experienced the war as a paroxysm of gendered violence against enemies, foreign women, and racial inferiors. A mixture of militaristic propaganda and ruthless basic training stripped them of humanistic scruples and transformed them into efficient cogs in a military machine that executed orders without questioning them. Hans Queiser recalled, “In order to be a useful soldier, a man must overcome his natural aversion against the killing of a member of his own species.” The Wehrmacht achieved this aim by dehumanizing antagonists in order to eliminate compassion and create an “us versus them” mentality. “Secondly [the soldier] must suppress his equally inborn drive for security … which pushes him to flee from danger in a hopeless situation.” The military accomplished this task by systematically breaking a recruit’s will and instilling “iron discipline.” Both attitudes combined in a murderous concept of “martial masculinity” that displaced civilian versions of manhood and unleashed an unprecedented degree of violence.3
By loosening moral restraints, the ensuing ideological war of annihilation drew the Wehrmacht into participation in war crimes and crimes against humanity. After the postwar trials of high officers, the Western Allies abandoned the punishment of military complicity in the early 1950s due to the need for German rearmament during the Cold War. Only half a century later did the left-leaning Institute for Social Research in Hamburg once again indict the German Army through an exhibition of incriminating private photographs that evoked protests from veteran officers such as ex-chancellor Helmut Schmidt.4 Critical researchers were discovering an appalling record of military involvement in the Holocaust through aid to the notorious SS and police killer squads of the Einsatzgruppen. But some moderate historians pointed out that most army units were busy fighting and it was more the security forces in the rear who were generally responsible for antipartisan measures.5 On balance, the autobiographical accounts tend to support the version of considerable military participation in atrocities and mass murder.
Written half a century or more after the dramatic events, these narratives present a mixture of exciting reportage and grudging reflection. Having witnessed many dramatic situations, the authors feel a need to share their often-improbable experiences. But the ultimate loss of the war and the rise of Holocaust sensibility forced them to question their prior actions. Hence, heroic narrations are rare, reduced to celebrating minor victories within an overriding framework of defeat. Similarly, adventure tales of military tourism to Paris or fighting against overwhelming odds in the East have lost their luster, since the entire purpose of the war seems rather pointless in retrospect. Due to their “aversion to the ‘derring-do’ of braggarts,” most authors instead recount survival stories in which protagonists managed to stay alive due to superior ingenuity or sheer luck. Their accounts, therefore, present the experiences of young soldiers, tempered by subsequent rumination about the consequences of their actions.6
PREPARATION FOR WAR
From the first days of his rule, Adolf Hitler prepared Germany systematically for war. In a dinner with army leaders in early February 1933, the new chancellor promised rearmament for the overthrow of the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles and “the conquest of new living space in the east and its ruthless Germanization.” Publicly, the Nazi government promised peace as long as Germany was treated as an equal partner. But clandestinely, Hitler poured enormous resources into developing new weapons systems such as dive bombers, stockpiling the necessary ammunition, and building border defenses. In 1935, Berlin also announced the return of conscription to train additional manpower. A year later it sent troops into the demilitarized zone in the Rhineland after the departure of the French occupiers. While the credulous still believed that “Germany had to be armed for all contingencies,” regime opponents concluded that these steps meant another war.7
As the actual fighters in the next conflict, young men were subjected to a ceaseless glorification of war so as to militarize their mentality. Heinz Schultheis recalled several themes that dominated Nazi propaganda for male adolescents. First, there were the World War I accounts by former soldiers, which celebrated the bravery of German heroes such as “red baron” Manfred von Richthofen, who had shot down eighty Entente planes, or submarine captain Otto von Weddingen, who had sunk three British cruisers. Second, gripping tales of adventure by explorers such as Swedish geographer Sven Hedin and Norwegian discoverer Roald Amundsen, who won the race to the South Pole, fired the imagination of boys. Third, exhibitions of technological wonders such as the Messerschmitt or Heinkel fighter planes fascinated youths interested in new machines. And finally, overt propaganda films such as Hitler Youth Quex celebrated the martyrdom of young fighters for the Nazi cause.8
11. Reich Labor Service. Source: Ruth Bulwin, Spätes Echo.
The harmless-sounding activities of the Hitler Youth were also a form of paramilitary training to accustom boys to their future role as warriors. In his autobiographical novella I Was There, Hans Peter Richter describes an HJ meeting where a new group leader admits, “I regard it as the mission of the HJ to prepare you for your forthcoming military service.” In contrast to the free association in the Youth Movement, the HJ insisted on wearing uniforms, marching in step, saluting the swastika flag, and swearing undying allegiance to the Führer. Foreshadowing military discipline, Richter’s fictional functionary commanded, “I demand obedience, obedience, unconditional obedience.” Hikes in the countryside trained boys in orienteering, camping toughened them up, and popular Geländespiele were, in effect, simulated war games of one band against another. No wonder that one skeptical boy in the novel blurts out, “You only seek power! You are driving us into war!”9
A wave of air-raid exercises in the spring of 1939 made it clear that “there would soon be war unless a miracle happened.” Hans Queiser mused, “One unmistakable sign was the display of mock-up airplane bombs in all big cities as propaganda for the protective measures that had been ordered.” The schools and Hitler Youth groups started to sponsor “countless information sessions” about types of airplanes and bombs in order to make it possible to identify the dangers from the sky. Heinz Schultheis remembered that as members “of various HJ Youth organizations we were used to transport away the flammable junk from the attic of apartment buildings that had been deposited at curbside.” Designed to signal to the population that the government was solicitous of its safety, these preparations made war seem more likely. But most people reassured themselves by reasoning, “Even if the Führer is runni
ng considerable risks in order to increase Germany’s greatness, it has always worked out without war.”10
Obligatory service in the Reich Labor Service (RAD) was another step in the militarization of youths. Originally, doing physical labor for minimal pay on community improvement projects was an international idea that was supposed to get unemployed young men off the streets. But from 1935 on, the Nazi labor leader Konstantin Hierl made this voluntary commitment mandatory for men in order to circumvent the disarmament restrictions on preparatory “paramilitary training.” Mostly led by retired sergeants, the RAD draftees wore uniforms, exercised in formation, lived in barracks, and were subject to tight discipline, anticipating their induction into the army. This service requirement was extended to women in 1939. These young people’s backbreaking work consisted of felling trees, building roads, and constructing defense positions, a mixture of useful and superfluous projects designed to toughen their bodies and militarize their spirits. Although they exercised with spades instead of rifles, photos such as the one of Rolf Bulwin (image 11) document that the RAD “more and more turned into a pre-military training for the subsequent military service.”11
For the “perverted Nazi leaders” in charge, the Labor Service provided a golden opportunity to haze soft adolescents from bourgeois families. When especially dirty jobs had to be done, sergeants would bellow: “Students, graduates, and criminals step forward!” As the son of a pastor, Gerhard Krapf was always “automatically ‘first choice’” for such tasks as cleaning the latrines. Subject to a stream of criticism for not making his bed correctly, “Sunday after Sunday [he was assigned] kitchen duty,” denying him the privilege of a free pass around town. In pointless “‘service’ consisting of stupid formal drilling,” Hans Tausch recalled that “our idealism received a strong damper.” Ignoring the “unique charm of the [Alpine] landscape,” the bookish Joachim Fest also “soon hated everything to do with the labor service.” For one sensitive boy named Helmut, the chicanery became so intolerable that he deserted, was caught, and tried to commit suicide, but finally escaped and made it to safety with his uncle in Switzerland.12
Broken Lives Page 12
