My Battle Against Hitler

by Dietrich von Hildebrand,John Henry Crosby

  Thus June 30 was not, as we initially hoped, a weakening of National Socialism, the onset of its disintegration, but only a gruesome event, a massacre which also wiped out noble and valuable men—this was the occasion of Fritz Gerlich’s murder in Dachau—and a slaughter within the party from which Hitler emerged strengthened. Naturally, we did not miss the opportunity to respond appropriately about June 30 in the Ständestaat. I wrote several articles on this subject, one of which was called, “Eritis sicut Deus,” in which I argued that National Socialism had now completely dropped its mask and that Hitler had clearly shown himself to be a mass murderer.

  Fr. Alois Mager came occasionally to Vienna and I saw him from time to time, sometimes in Salzburg, sometimes in Vienna. He told me of a conversation he had with Dollfuss about the Catholic university to be established in Salzburg, for up until that time all that existed was an extended theological faculty. He told me that the way Dollfuss had spoken about the university for half an hour made a great impression on him. Dollfuss was no specialist about universities and schools, yet Fr. Alois thought he had arrived at more important and essential conclusions in his remarks than any of the experts he had heard on the topic.

  With an amazing intuitive grasp of all the issues, Dollfuss had sketched an extraordinary vision of the university to be established, even touching on teacher-student relations, the common life of students, and so forth. All of this confirmed my impression of Dollfuss’ genius and his intuitive ability to find a clear and pertinent solution, without the benefit of preparatory study, to a problem presented to him in the moment.

  On July 25, I went to see Weber about various things I wanted to discuss with him. He received me in an especially friendly way and told me that I had been the subject of conversation between Dollfuss and Stepan, who were on a trip together and that Dollfuss had expressed great satisfaction with my activity. He had emphasized that Schuschnigg ought to take care of the professorship soon, and that he would discuss it with him.

  Then he said to Weber, “We really should give him some additional money, so that he can get some good rest in August.” I was overjoyed, above all because Dollfuss, whom I cherished, was satisfied with me. This was a great and deep source of joy. The contribution for a vacation was also a great help for me and thus very welcome, though it primarily made me happy as an expression of Dollfuss’ satisfaction and his understanding for me. The prospect of being able to resume my teaching capacity in the near future was also very satisfying for me. I left Weber in the sort of happy state one rarely experiences. My heart overflowed with love for Dollfuss, with gratitude to God for the existence of such a noble opponent of National Socialism, that it was granted me to work with him, and that he was satisfied with my work.

  Elated, I rushed home to tell Gretchen the wonderful news. The telephone rang. It was Oesterreicher, who said to me, “An announcement was just made on the radio that Dollfuss has resigned and Rintelen become the chancellor.” Did I know anything? What could this mean? I was dumbfounded and said to him, “This cannot be true. I just spoke with Weber fifteen minutes ago, and he would have been the first to know something about this.” Still, I was disturbed that it was even possible for the radio to make such an announcement. Soon after Oesterreicher called again to say that the radio station had been temporarily taken over by Nazis who had spread this news. Now it was again in the hands of the government. What we had heard about Dollfuss and Rintelen was thus a false report.

  Yet there was unrest in the city, something was not in order—though at the moment nothing was yet certain. I was seized by a terrible anxiety. Not much later we found out that the chancellery was occupied by Nazis, that Dollfuss was in their hands, and that it was impossible to break in forcibly because they threatened to kill Dollfuss otherwise.

  I knelt down at my desk and begged God to save Dollfuss. I broke out into sobs at the thought that this noble warrior against the Antichrist, this person who was so good, so deeply devout, was in the hands of criminals, that he might be forced to some compromise, if he were even allowed to live. It was terrible to be in a position where one could not free him, could not get into the chancellery to wrest him from the hands of his criminal enemies. Having our hands tied like this, the fact that we were forced to remain passive while wanting to save him, made these hours a time of unspeakable torment. I had naturally telephoned Klaus immediately and he had informed me of the awful course of events. But we were unable to get any clear reports on the exact course of events.

  After terrible hours of anxious waiting, dreading, hoping, praying, the awful news came at seven o’clock: Dollfuss was dead. The Nazis in the chancellery capitulated. They had been unable to realize their demand to have Rintelen appointed chancellor and so they surrendered. Words cannot express how deeply I was struck by the death of my beloved Dollfuss, how my hopes for Austria and the battle against National Socialism collapsed.

  As later came out, Dollfuss lay on the floor and slowly bled to death. A guard, who was permitted to remain close to him, reported this later. Dollfuss asked for a priest and a doctor, yet the Nazi thugs refused both. He was forced to endure a slow death by bleeding in the knowledge that he would be unable to receive the sacraments. Two guards among the captured were called over and they applied a bandage. He said to them, “Children, you are so kind to me. Why not the others? I never wanted anything other than peace. We were never the aggressors. We were always forced to defend ourselves. May the Lord God forgive them.” Major Fey was permitted to speak with him for a moment.

  I no longer recall whom Dollfuss entrusted with asking Mussolini to take care of his wife and children. It seems he believed it was an uprising of the army, that all was lost, that the Nazis would take over the Austrian government, and that no one in Austria would be able to care for his wife and children.

  Thank God, however, it was a putsch organized in Berlin and carried out by certain underground elements. While the putsch was successful in eliminating the soul of the new Austria as embodied by Dollfuss, it was actually unsuccessful, considering that the goal had been the chancellorship of Rintelen and thereby the transition to a National Socialist regime. President Miklas is primarily to thank for categorically rejecting Rintelen and for placing the government under the control of the ministers who had gathered at the Army Ministry, and among whom Schuschnigg was the most prominent. There was not yet an announcement of a successor—it was not yet known that Dollfuss had been murdered—but Miklas had issued this interim authorization to prevent confusion from arising.

  Funder later told me an interesting episode. During these hours of anxious waiting, he suddenly ran into Rintelen. That Rintelen should now appear in Vienna was very conspicuous and worrisome, as if he needed to be on hand in order to take over the chancellorship. Funder then did what may well be his lasting claim to fame.

  He said to Rintelen, “Oh, you are urgently being awaited by the ministers who are at the Army Ministry. Please, come with me and let us go there immediately.” Thinking Funder was referring to his appointment and that he should be present to discuss the situation, Rintelen voluntarily got into a car with Funder and rode off to meet the ministers. Arriving at the Army Ministry, Funder accompanied him all the way to the room where the ministers were meeting. There Rintelen was of course immediately arrested on suspicion of having played a role in the conspiracy, or at least of having been aware of it.

  I cannot portray in words what I felt that evening. The terrible irreplaceable loss for Austria, for the future of Austria, which alone had taken up the heroic struggle against National Socialism. I realized clearly that whoever the successor of Dollfuss might be, the struggle would no longer be carried on in the same way. But apart from the irreplaceable loss in regard to the international political situation, the death of Dollfuss—the tragic death—broke my heart. It was a pain rooted in a very personal love and veneration. Dollfuss for me was not only the David who had taken up the heroic battle against the Goliath Hitler, he was also an
embodiment of the so precious Austrian spirit—he enchanted me with his humility, his deep faith, his genius, and with the great charm of his being.

  Although I had only spoken with him at length one time, I loved him in a very personal way and his death affected me as only the death of a beloved person can do. Beyond this there were the tragic circumstances of his death, the terrible agony he endured as he slowly bled to death. The moving way he bore everything and the way he died were certainly a source of great consolation, still our hearts were seared by these events. Marguerite was so shattered that she could not stop crying for days.

  Oesterreicher came to me the day after the murder of Dollfuss, demanding that I immediately request an audience with President Miklas to implore him to appoint Schuschnigg and not Starhemberg as successor to Dollfuss. Under the circumstances I did agree with Oesterreicher that Schuschnigg, a pious and outspoken Catholic, offered the greatest guarantee for a continuation of the political course that Dollfuss had taken.

  This supposition later proved false. Yet even today I cannot say with certainty that Starhemberg would have been a better choice, despite the fact that he was probably less encumbered than Schuschnigg by “Greater German” sympathies. I do believe Starhemberg would have made a greater effort to carry on the work of Dollfuss fully in his spirit and that he would have adopted a more unbending stance toward Nazi Germany. Yet he lacked the genius of Dollfuss, was naïve in many ways, and would not have been up to the situation.

  But I was not aware of any of this at the time, nor was Oesterreicher. Our fear was simply that we would get a Heimwehr government if Starhemberg were appointed.

  I had no desire whatsoever to go to Miklas, and it seemed completely inappropriate to push myself forward at such a moment. The President would have no time, and why should my opinion matter to him? Besides, I had many inhibitions. It went against my nature. Only when I have the clear consciousness that it is God’s will that I do something do I have the strength to overcome my inhibitions. I did not have this consciousness, and so I did not want to go to Miklas.

  This occasion marked the first time I experienced in Oesterreicher, who until then had often struck me as timid, a will of steel and an ability to exert such pressure on others that it was almost impossible to resist. He kept repeating that it was my duty and dragged me to the door of the President’s office. I actually succeeded in speaking to Miklas. In greeting me, his adjutant said that he was ashamed to speak German after what had happened. The depth of his outrage over the murder of Dollfuss was a consolation for me. What he said came from his heart. I regret that I have forgotten his name.

  The President was very gracious as he received me and I could see how deeply shaken he was. He told me that nothing was yet certain regarding Dollfuss’ successor. I laid out my thoughts—that Schuschnigg was surely the right choice and that he should be chosen over Starhemberg. Miklas responded, “Yes, this by far would be my personal preference as well.” Like me Miklas had no particular fondness for the Heimwehr, while as a pious Catholic he felt a greater solidarity with Schuschnigg. The rest of our conversation focused on the tragic death of Dollfuss and on the terrible crime of the Nazis. It had unquestionably been orchestrated from Berlin. Naturally I only stayed with Miklas for a short while. As I emerged, Oesterreicher expressed great satisfaction that I had gone and also about the outcome of the conversation.

  On the same day as the occupation of the chancellery (July 25), there was also an uprising of the National Socialist underground in various parts of Austria, though everywhere it was suppressed by the army and the police with relatively little effort. In a very important development typical [of Mussolini’s policy toward Austria at the time], large numbers of Italian troops were amassed at the Brenner border with the charge of marching into Austria the moment the Germans attempted an invasion, and so to prevent this interference. From the start I was an opponent of Fascism and of Mussolini, yet at this moment I could only feel deep gratitude to Mussolini that he came to the defense of Austria’s independence and also of Dollfuss’ legacy.

  I was very upset when Funder enthusiastically told me that von Papen had been appointed the German ambassador in Vienna. Funder believed this signified a complete transformation in Austria’s relations with Germany and pointed to a hopeful future. I countered that I viewed von Papen’s appointment as very dangerous and that after the murder of Dollfuss it was less than ever possible to speak of a modus vivendi with Germany. He replied that I failed to take into account the armed conflicts with National Socialist rebels taking place throughout Austria and that the appointment of Papen was therefore really a sort of conciliatory gesture. There was no point in further discussing the matter, since he was very stubborn and considered himself much more politically astute than me. But I saw clearly that Papen was a Trojan horse and that he was being sent to throw sand into the eyes of Catholics in Vienna.

  According to Winston Churchill, Papen told the U.S. ambassador in Vienna that he planned to play on his reputation as a devout Catholic to win the confidence of Catholics like Cardinal Innitzer of Vienna.

  The solemn funeral took place on July 28. We were able to attend the ceremony, at least the first part, and to get close enough to witness much of it. It was incredibly moving to see Mrs. Dollfuss, deep in sorrow and on the arm of Starhemberg, as she approached behind the coffin in which Dollfuss lay. Of course, the entire government was present. Yet I was struck that it was Starhemberg, and not Schuschnigg, who accompanied Mrs. Dollfuss. On a purely personal level, Starhemberg was apparently closer to Dollfuss than Schuschnigg was. The military band played “I had a comrade, a better one you’ll not find.” It is difficult to describe what went on within me at the time, how my heart bled at the thought that Dollfuss was being buried and that this beloved and noble man, on whom Austria’s hope rested, this heroic and selfless opponent of the Antichrist embodied in Hitler was no longer in our midst!

  During this time, we received a visit from a French businessman from Lyon, a pacifist and a man greatly interested in politics. But we really got to know him at a party hosted by Gabriel Puaux, the French ambassador. Puaux was a very likeable and cultivated man. He was also a Protestant, which is relatively rare in France—there can hardly be more than 100,000 Protestants in all of France. The party was a luncheon and there were about twenty-five guests. The gathering took on a special note thanks to Puaux’s remarks about the terrible event of July 25. He spoke simply but with great warmth. He said he had hoped to work for a long time with Dollfuss, whom he deeply revered. Tears ran down his face as he spoke. Puaux’s heartfelt empathy and his genuine veneration for Dollfuss were very consoling for me. Naturally I also met the embassy counselor, Vicomte de Montbas, as well as various other staff members of the embassy.

  During these days of mourning, as I waited full of anxiety over my personal plans and also over the future of my work in Vienna, I met with Klemperer on various occasions. He too had been affected deeply by the death of Dollfuss. He invited us to a sort of operetta, “The Princess on the Ladder,” in which his friend Karlweis sang the principal role. It was around this time that Klemperer and Oesterreicher got to know one another. Klemperer, after all, was always seeking contact with Catholics and above all with priests. Even though he was not a very consistent Catholic, nor very fervent, still he possessed a yearning for the Church. He liked Oesterreicher a great deal. He had need of an intellectual priest—like Münch, through whom he had found his way to the Church, or like Pinsk, who had been his great friend in Berlin.

  After several days, President Miklas appointed Schuschnigg as chancellor. I was happy, since I saw this as the lesser evil for the reasons I gave above. During a visit with Weber, he told me that Schuschnigg soon intended to secure my appointment as professor at the university. This was a part of Dollfuss’ legacy which he absolutely wanted to fulfill.

  I looked toward the future with great anxiety. The task of the journal now seemed to me more important and urgent than ever
; indeed, the death of Dollfuss had made it even greater. The journal Storm Over Austria was simply not on a sufficiently high level to conduct the incredibly necessary philosophical and political battle against Nazi Germany. But on a purely personal level too, ending the journal would have been a great blow for me.

  Klaus, whose wife was soon to give birth to a child, would have had nothing to depend on, while Marguerite would also have come into great distress. At least I could hope to make ends meet through my salary as professor. But more important than any human consideration was the significance of the journal in the battle against National Socialism and for the independence of Austria, of a Catholic Austria.

  During this time, I received an invitation from Fribourg that greatly honored me. A circle of theologians was meeting there at the beginning of October to discuss various sociological questions, new problems that had arisen in the wake of the changed conditions of life since the Middle Ages: themes such as just war, the relationship between the state and the individual, and so forth. All of the participants in this discussion were French theologians. I was the only layman invited. Naturally I accepted the invitation with joy, for I was very interested in these discussions. The symposium was scheduled for late September or early October.

  Unfortunately I can no longer say with certainty whether my afternoon discussions already began in May 1934 or whether it was not until October.*47 In any case, the first of these gatherings was a grand affair. I must have invited nearly eighty people, and while I cannot exactly remember everyone by name, among them were surely Allers and his wife, Kastil, von Herrnritt, Oesterreicher, Fr. Frodl, various other priests including Dr. John.*48 Then there were Count Thun,*49 Count Kinsky,*50 Mataja, Missong, Simon, Bam, Klaus and the entire staff of the journal, Weber (who did not come), and Dr. Rudolf. The discussion went well, though only over time did the regular and truly interested attendees begin to emerge. At that first gathering, it was the social aspect that predominated. Hovorka and Karpfen also came to the afternoon discussions.