Translated from Rolf Gutte/Freerk Huisken, Alles bewältigt, nichts begriffen! Nationalsozialismus im Unterricht. Eine Kritik der antifaschistischen Erziehung, VSA-Verlag, Hamburg, 2007, p. 144-174.
The resistance –
dying for German democracyDemocratic hero worship...
No state tolerates resistance to its monopoly on violence. No state takes it lightly when it comes to securing its monopoly on violence. On this issue, it is unyielding and ultimately takes tough action against those in whom it has identified a will to resist according to its definition. Fully trained citizens know this, and budding citizens are informed of it via the regularly updated list of enemies of the state presented to them by schools and the media.
How can this be reconciled with the fact that the resistance against the German Nazi state has been given a place of honor in the public consciousness of the Federal Republic? No textbook omits a comparatively detailed tribute to the resistance against Hitler. Every year on July 20 wreaths are laid in Berlin by state dignitaries with public participation. Cities name streets, squares, and schools after resistance fighters.
In view of possible misunderstandings about the demonstrative honoring of a resistance that was, after all, directed against a German head of state, the question arises as to the political purpose of the annual commemoration. The question of what there is to celebrate about the resistance against Hitler is also justified: it was limited to small groups, it began late, and ultimately remained completely unsuccessful. As is well known, Hitler was not defeated by the resistance, but by the Allies. The opposite is true: the fascist state was able to round up and liquidate most of the resistance groups before the end of the war. None of this is much of a reason to celebrate. But the regular observance of the anniversary of July 20, 1944 takes no account of this. The speakers know exactly what they have to celebrate.
They pay tribute to heroes and martyrs who failed as a resistance and who, unlike the actual liberators, have the great advantage of coming from the German people. They thus stand for proof that the Germans were by no means all seduced by Hitler or forced to participate, but were willing and able to resist Hitler of their own accord. Invoking the German resistance is therefore a way of restoring a bit of national dignity and delivering the inevitable confessions of guilt and shame in the knowledge that another Germany also existed. The political and ideological leaders of the Federal Republic of Germany see the resistance against the “National Socialist tyranny” as the realization of a positive tradition and a continuity of German values which they can refer to and invoke when otherwise only an admission of national disgrace is called for. There were men – and some women – who had the courage and the audacity to fight against Hitler. This proves that there is, after all, a good core within the Germans, which even Hitler could not overwhelm with all his terror, propaganda, and false promises.
The resistance therefore does not celebrate the end of the “fascist reign of terror,” but rather a German legacy from the time of National Socialism, which post-war democracy draws on in a positive way: the resistance against Hitler legitimizes the continued existence of an honorable German state idea and its national realization, which had been discredited in the interim by the usurper Hitler.
... and its problem
However, there are problems in this appropriation of the resistance against Hitler for the historical-teleological legitimization of the Federal Republic of Germany that need to be overcome. The first problem that politics and the media, science and education have brought upon themselves by celebrating the resistance is of a theoretical nature. They have gone to a lot of ideological effort to prove that the Germans were unwilling participants, that once they were caught up in Hitler’s terror and propaganda machine they had little choice but to obediently or schemingly fit into the fascist system, and now the Germans are to be celebrated for not allowing their willingness and readiness to resist to be completely bought off. Since the resistance fighters are just as exemplarily celebrated as the collaborators are exemplarily excused, and at the same time they are always viewed and categorized as specimens of the “German” species, the attentive student may well ask himself how resistance was even possible when Hitler – as he has learned – had the masses under control through oppression and psychological terror. Or, conversely, he may ask himself why the resistance did not spread and expand into a mass uprising when, firstly, it was now possible and, secondly, propaganda was even made for it in deed.
The fact that the discovery of a political will capable of resistance contradicts the other finding, that the Germans were unable to assert their essentially anti-fascist attitude, does not bother textbook authors and historians. Both findings are important to them. For the one, which is intended to justify the Germans’ innocence in the fascist atrocities, the Germans are presented as a manipulable mass; for the other, which is intended to prove the political maturity, anti-fascist steadfastness, and thus the suitability of these same Germans for democracy, the Germans must, conversely, be equipped with a self-confident and steadfast political will.
Another problem does not concern the content of the ideologies of German resistance, but rather their possible effect on the next generation. Could it not be the case, speculate political education didacticians, that the nation’s youth, who are explicitly encouraged by the state education system to celebrate acts of resistance against the German predecessor state as models of political action, are drawing completely wrong conclusions and seeing resistance against the authorities as an honorable cause? It can, they believe, and they formulate the following learning objective: “The aim is to prevent the danger of expanding the concept of resistance in an impermissible way with regard to an antagonism or opposition to a democracy that offers legitimate options for action against abuse of power, social injustice and the like in its legal system.”[106]
The message is that resistance is not always the same. Resistance, students learn, is a state crime, unless the state itself is made up of criminals. That is why the resistance against the Hitler regime was quite heroic. In a democracy, on the other hand, resistance is not allowed because it is not a fascist regime of injustice. Moreover, resistance to state power is completely superfluous in a democracy anyway because there are no reasons for it.[107] At the same time, students learn that democratically “legitimized possibilities for action against an abuse of power and social injustice” have nothing to do with resistance, but are there to draw the state’s attention in a friendly manner to deviations from its own concerns and ideals: everything else is then the state’s business, because in a democracy the solidarity of all democrats is in force. There can be no “right to resistance” in a democracy.[108]
The clarification that only resistance against totalitarian regimes may be celebrated does not, however, eliminate the “danger of extending the concept of resistance in an impermissible way.” Even resistance in fascism has its pitfalls for the democratic educator. Not all opponents of Hitler did the post-war democrats the favor of only adopting motives that are still generally accepted today. And not all resistance fighters organized their struggle in such a way that the Federal Republic of Germany was prepared to celebrate it. The fact that they were against Hitler does not automatically ennoble the actions of resistance fighters. They must have had the right motives for their resistance, i.e. motives that are recognized today.
Sorting the resistance
An objective analysis of the resistance, one not distorted by nationalist prejudices, would have to come to the conclusion that the anti-fascist struggle of the communists and radical socialists was the most politically significant opposition to Hitler in terms of its quality and quantity. That is one thing. But it is quite another to ask whether this “first hour of resistance,” which was organized and presented a decided criticism of fascism, which had already appeared in theory and practice before 1933 and had a mass base, whether this anti-fascist resistance is suitable for serving as an obligatory role model for the West German people. The answer from the political education of the Federal Republic of Germany is clear: this type of resistance does not fit into the celebrations of a democratic state because of its communist goals.
Although school textbooks cannot avoid mentioning the resistance of the communists, this was done in a few lines compared to other resistance groups until the 1970s. They refer to the large number of persecuted people and victims among them. They serve as evidence of the brutality of the new rulers and thus at the same time as an all too understandable reason for the people to duck away in the face of a wave of violence against opponents of the regime. As if the people had intended to join the communists – of all people – but were deterred when they saw the force with which the fascist state power struck. However, this type of anti-fascism has always been excluded from state commemorations of the resistance.[109] This is especially true of the resistance operating outside Germany, the National Committee for a Free Germany (NKFD) and the League of German Officers (BDO), who fought against Hitler’s Germany in the service of the Soviet Army and are therefore not only considered traitors and scoundrels in traditional military associations, but also come off badly in school textbooks.[110]
These are not lamentable “omissions,” as some would have it,[111] nor even just the consequences of a past that has not yet been adequately researched. Rather, they reflect a consistent political stance: a Federal Republic that, just like its predecessor state, has been committed to anti-communism since its founding, which therefore joined an anti-Soviet military alliance, immobilized the Communist Party at home and persecuted its supporters, would have violated its own raison d'état by publicly honoring the communist and socialist resistance! This left-wing section of the resistance against fascism was in fact a criticism of bourgeois class society and its property system with its unpleasant consequences for “dependent employees.” It still had an inkling that the most successful way to fight fascism was to declare class war on capitalism and its state. That is why it could not be given a public chance under democratic conditions,[112] and certainly not a pedagogical-political one in the education of the next generation.[113]
The image that German youth should and shall form of the resistance against Hitler[114] looks different and was summed up once again by the Federal Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK) in December 1980: “The aim of dealing with the resistance against the National Socialist tyranny in schools and political education is to keep memories alive, impart basic historical knowledge, and sharpen political judgment. In this way, it should reinforce democratic values in young people and develop appropriate behavior.”[115]
With this “recommendation,” the highest political body in the Federal Republic’s education and training system provides schools, teacher training, and textbook producers with guidelines for dealing with the resistance with the declared intention of “thereby … instilling democratic values in young people.” This confirms that the non-democratic, because communist or socialist, resistance to Hitler is not useful for this educational goal. If one follows the textbooks, then the July 20 plot, the church resistance, and the White Rose are particularly representative of this educational mission.
It is no coincidence that these resistance fighters, who are the preferred subjects of the lessons, are figures and groups from the German elite. The men of the “political-military complex,” responsible for the conduct of state affairs, the men of the church, responsible for the binding morality that justifies state authority and the submissive subservience of the people, and finally the German youth, primarily the academics, responsible for preserving the good German heritage, are exemplary of the pillars of bourgeois society. They are people from the departments of the ruling class who fulfill political, military, ideological and “reproductive” functions. Only capital is missing. But somehow, despite all their efforts to distort the facts, historians have not managed to lie about IG Farben & Co. being in the resistance.[116]
The message of this sorted resistance is clear: even if the German people as a whole cannot be relied upon, especially not the lower classes and strata, the German elite can always be relied upon. They know where Germany’s future is best off. The generosity with which the few men and women are declared to be representatives of their status and function is methodical. The fact that after each act of resistance Hitler received a large number of theoretical and practical expressions of loyalty from the relevant circles, and that these only discovered their sympathy with the resistance after the war was lost, cannot relativize the message of the resistance of the German elite. Because it is not what the sections of the functional elite achieved in and for fascism at the time that provides the measure for assessing its true nature, but only the resistance of those handful of men and women who in a democracy are suitable for the nationalistic interest in an appeal.
Conscience in revolt
The German resistance is said to have been characterized by the fact that it was a “conscience is revolt.” This should speak in its favor, because conscience is known to be where morality has its natural place, where it can conflict with the wishes that a person has. So anyone who follows their conscience, or even finds themselves in a conflict of conscience, claims to be committed to higher values and to put these above their own interests when making decisions. This happens when private desires and morally obligated oughts, and sometimes also state oughts and morally obligated desires, diverge. Where the pangs of conscience are praised, it is positively appreciated that people did not make it easy for themselves with their decision to resist: they obviously found in fascism both reasons for resistance and against it. But it is precisely for this reason that cultivating this nationalistically questionable conscience is acceptable for education on the subject of resistance. All those anti-fascists for whom “eating was more important than morality” are thus excluded from the circle of resistance that is to be honored. This praise of the German nationalist conscience also excludes any planned strategy for the abolition of fascism. What is disturbing about it is that the organized political will that opposes fascism does not care about morality. It knows why it wants to eliminate fascism and does not see in it any reason for a difficult decision. On the contrary: it has taken from it the reasons for its rejection.
It can hardly be denied that deserters also followed their conscience. Nevertheless, they are generally not given a sympathetic treatment in the textbook chapter on the resistance. There are reasons for this too: the deserter appeals to his conscience because he cannot understand the reasons given for why he should kill or be killed. Of course, this is not what is meant by the “rebellion of conscience.” Deserters are not counted as part of the resistance because they are not free from the suspicion of having merely shirked their duties – a highly understandable but nationalistically unacceptable reason – because they defected to the enemy, i.e. committed “desertion,” and because they are therefore completely unsuitable as role models for today’s youth, who will also have to defend German interests in the world in German intervention forces in the future.[117]
The “revolt of conscience” that emerged in the German resistance is by no means open to different interpretations. The morality that ultimately comes into play is fixed. The basic structure of the Germany that was established after 1945, with all its state moral and state materialistic departments, must be found in the conscience as a moral standard. The rejection of fascism must be clear, but it must not go hand in hand with a rejection of the German nation state. Rather, the rejection of the fascist state must include a commitment to the “other Germany”: “Despite all differences, people (of the resistance) of different origins and convictions agreed on their goals: In order to restore basic ethical norms such as human dignity, human rights, human solidarity and love of neighbor, Hitler had to be ‘eliminated’. All groups were concerned with the restoration of law, but also with paving the way to a peaceful and democratic post-war order and thus bearing witness to the existence of a ‘different Germany’.”[118]
This is how the resistance fits in. This is how it is useful for the need to demonstrate the existence of a good and pure Germany, represented by decent Germans, in the time of fascism, and not just to the Germans themselves, but to the whole world: “These men wanted to overthrow Hitler’s dictatorship, end the war and create a democratic state again. The men in the resistance movement wanted to prove to the outside world that law and conscience had not been completely killed off in Germany.”[119] The “revolt of conscience” is thus both a legacy and a mandate for the younger generation to feel responsible for preserving democracy and to work to spread it. This is also the opinion of former Chancellor Kohl: “Those who consistently defend our free democracy today will not find themselves in a position to have to offer resistance tomorrow.”[120]
The most important lesson from the resistance is that resistance has no place in a democracy. At best, it is now directed at those forces that do not want to recognize this. What the German elite really wanted with their resistance only finds its way into textbooks in accordance with these learning objectives. Some things are concealed, some are covered in the small print, but a great deal is now being presented openly because, for the textbook authors, it does not speak against, but for these “upright German men and women.” The particularly valued resistance of the “men of July 20” cannot be discredited by any “revelation.”
The men of July 20
They are considered the most respectable German resistance against Hitler. And this respect is not just meant in a moralizing way. It stems from a standpoint that considers the organization and instruments of the bourgeois state to be the only humane way of organizing social life. Whoever controls the state’s leadership positions and means of violence controls the state is the simple message not only of the officers who staged the coup on July 20, but also of their eulogists who came later. The idea of even contemplating a strike, a general strike, or even a revolution to remove a fascist dictatorship was completely out of the question for these men of the political and military elite. The plan that was discussed, finally decided upon, and put into action to eliminate the Führer of the German Reich and to occupy the decisive positions of power in the state itself did not aim at the overthrow of state relations, but rather a change of government and the continuation of the same system – however modified – under a new, more moderate leadership.
Accordingly, the draft version of the putschists’ government declaration reads: “But there is still war. In it, all of our work, sacrifice and love is due to the men who defend the fatherland. We must give them everything we can in terms of spiritual and material values. We stand with them in file, but now we all know that only the sacrifices necessary for the defense of the fatherland and for the good of the people are required, not those that serve the addiction to conquest and the need for prestige of a madman, and that we will continue to wage this war with clean hands, with decency, with the honor that characterizes every brave soldier... Let us take the path of law, decency and mutual respect! In this spirit we all want to fulfill our duty...”[121]
This is published in official school material without any critical commentary; certainly not with the intention of alerting students to a nationalist or even National Socialist tenor. Rather, these samples of political thought are intended to help them recognize Hitler’s opponents – even if they have just presented themselves as determined competitors for the leadership of the state. Because it is clear that the new government presenting itself here wants the same from the people as Hitler demanded of them:
Sacrifices are called for, not only from the “good soldier,” but from the entire people who must stand in file with “the men who defend the fatherland” (so that will continue!). No different than before, even if now “only the sacrifices necessary for the defense of the fatherland and for the good of the people are required.” A nice consolation for the good servants who of course had previously only put their heads on the line for necessary sacrifices. For what else? In return, the new leadership promises them nothing except that they are only now allowed to “fulfill their duty” and die for Germany. Their reward is that their sacrifices are no longer required “for the need for prestige of a madman.”
The new state leadership also viewed its people merely as material for the national aims it was pursuing and otherwise promised them only the continuation of the war “with clean hands,” “with decency,” and with “honor.” Not even criticism of the war prepared and carried out by the fascists for their own ends can be found in the call of the putschist national elite. In their eyes, it is also seen as a “defense” of the fatherland and must therefore be freed from the “addiction to conquest,” i.e. only directed against dangerous Bolshevism. This is not surprising, however, as these resistance fighters had a key role in the planning and execution of this imperialist war. These men had nothing against war nor any objections to Hitler’s great power plans. In principle, they shared them; even if one or the other criticized Hitler's foreign policy “gambles.”[122] As ardent nationalists, their thoughts and actions were directed toward the goal of making Germany strong again against external enemies and, for this purpose, eliminating all internal enemies. In their eyes, this included above all the “internationalists,” Marxists, Jews, and Bolsheviks.[123]
None of this detracts from the democratic celebration of the resistance of the men of July 20. What counts is the fact that July 20 wanted to save the state power of the German nation, that an alternative leadership team and a concept for the preservation of German state power were available for this purpose, and that precautions were also taken to ensure that the German people would keep at it even after a change of leadership. Such “resistance” recommends itself as a guardian of the interests of the German nation and its continued sovereign existence.
It can hardly be denied that it was not lovers of democracy who planned this coup. No one wants to claim this after the fact, especially since it is now known that the men of July 20 considered almost all of National Socialism to be a necessary political consequence of the national impotence and discord of the Weimar democracy; which is why the euphemistic term “national conservative” resistance has become commonplace for them. This political label doesn’t get anything wrong, but it doesn’t get anything right either. One should imagine them as somehow backward-looking. One can also think that they were not yet up to date with today’s understanding of how to shape democracy. But who would immediately think of a fascist when they hear “conservative”!?
Textbook authors have not failed to notice these flaws in the celebration of resistance. This also includes the fact that the men of July 20 joined the resistance so late. In fact, it casts a strange light on this odd opposition, which only decided to oppose Hitler when his madness “went too far” and doomed Germany to destruction. The textbooks grapple with this a bit and maintain that there was already an “early resistance to Hitler” among the men around Beck and Goerdeler. The proof: The Chief of the General Staff, Colonel General Ludwig Beck, had already spoken out against his Führer’s planned war against Czechoslovakia in 1938 and even resigned from his post when his objections went unheeded.
That’s true. However, it is wrong to conclude that he raised his objections out of a sense of resistance. Rather, the truth is that Beck, as a military expert, warned against going to war at that time due to the army’s inadequate preparation and the incalculable international consequences. Of course, the Chief of the General Staff was not a war opponent. Wouldn’t that take the cake?! He raised his militarily justified concerns to his supreme commander not because he did not want war, but because he wanted to give him a certainty of victory, as befits a supreme war planner. And because there were a few officers who shared Beck’s concerns, a legend was woven about the early military resistance of an “anti-war party” that haunts school books.[124]
On the other hand, there is no hiding the fact that this “early resistance” was probably not a real one, as it immediately faltered in the face of the victorious advance of German armies during the first years of the war, because “what had been achieved for the Reich was also a valuable asset to many members of the opposition. Many traditional ideas of a hegemonic great power now seemed to have been realized or made realizable by Hitler’s victories – which undoubtedly weakened the opposition’s resolve...”[125]
What kind of opposition is it that considers the death of millions of “sons of the German people” and the slaughter of the enemy to be acceptable as long as it serves the advance of the Greater German power, but calls for “resistance” against Hitler’s war of attrition after the tide of battle has turned? This opposition evidently has no objections to “traditional ideas of a hegemonic great power.” It therefore sees nothing wrong with claiming Hitler’s victories as its own. Did Hitler’s defeats put something specifically fascist on the agenda for these men that was no longer compatible with a “traditional” great power claim?
Of course, such distinctions are only made by later-born whitewashers when they are at a loss for an explanation as to why the so-called “anti-war party” of 1938 around Ludwig Beck did not allow its “resistance” to take effect until 1944. And even then, such a thing only makes sense if one condemns Hitler’s great power aspirations as detrimental to Germany’s national destiny after their failure. If the German Reich had triumphed over its enemies, who were also the enemies of the “anti-war party,” no one would care about these men today. Success always proves the national leadership right and proves the one who was warning in the wrong. Only failure raises the question of who is to blame for the catastrophe.
Only those who had as little solid criticism of fascism and its political state program as the men of July 20 would have had to struggle with the question of whether resistance to the German Nazi state is permissible and justifiable at all. As a result, generations of schoolchildren deal at length with the “loyalty conflicts,” i.e. the specifics of the conscience of soldiers loyal to the state who were plagued by breaking their oath of loyalty to the Führer: “Many opponents of National Socialism, especially civil servants and soldiers, had to overcome severe inner inhibitions before they joined the resistance. They had sworn an oath of loyalty to the Führer and commander-in-chief of the Wehrmacht.”[126]
Using the example of the men of July 20 in particular, students learn to understand that the decision to resist their own state and its national leadership had to “overcome severe inner inhibitions” even under the conditions of Nazi rule. Students are asked to imagine a contradiction between two supreme values: the soldier’s duty of loyalty to the German Reich and the duty to obey its highest political representative. Of course, they should not doubt the core of this “conflict”: the necessary and unquestionable commitment to an oath that obliges the soldier to stand up for his nation with life and limb. Breaking the oath of allegiance to one’s own nation, as students should learn, is only justified in the face of a state that has been declared illegitimate by its more successful successor. Quite difficult to put into practice!
In truth, the so-called conflict of loyalties, which the men of July 20 are said to have been historically notoriously caught up in, is not resolved in moral terms. Rather, the men of July 20 were faced with the political problem of whether, in view of the “good sides” of fascism, an uprising against its leadership was justifiable because of its “bad sides,” which had become apparent to them above all during the course of the war, and if so, how its success could be ensured. Their distress boils down to political calculations of the following kind: If one is mistaken in one’s assessment of the impending defeat, then the coup will deprive Germany of a victory in a “historic defensive battle against Bolshevism.” If one is not mistaken, then one may be saving Germany from destruction. Will the internal and external effects of a coup remain under control, or will it spread out of control? Will it perhaps even be abused by communists? How sure can one be of the military? Although all these highly state-materialistic calculations are mentioned, they are presented as moral conflicts: “Is it permissible – in the middle of a war – to dare to overthrow a government, thus committing ‘high treason’ and raising the danger of civil war in Germany? Is it permissible – in view of the demand for unconditional surrender – to make contact with the enemy country, thus committing ‘treason’? Should one turn to the Western powers or even to the Soviet Union?”[127]
Anyone who can be said to have acted so responsibly, who, like the men of July 20, has also proven himself as a German politician or officer since 1933, who has contributed to the resurgence of Germany in decisive positions, who has served the people and the state, is most likely to believe that his concern for Germany was deeply felt and genuine if he ultimately resisted with violence for Germany’s honor and reputation against a leader who had mutated into an unpredictable tyrant.
On the other hand, by referring to the nationalist dilemma in which the men of July 20 found themselves with their “revolt of conscience,” the German people as a whole can be defended from the criticism that they had failed to resist. Although they wanted nothing to do with resistance, did they not perhaps share the concerns about Germany’s future when they decided to uphold their duties to the German nation in a difficult situation and in the face of a national emergency?
“For many Germans, the combination of the Nazi dictatorship and the war ultimately resulted in a conflict that they could not escape even after the collapse of Nazi rule. They were caught in the dilemma of criticizing National Socialism and rejecting the regime and its methods on the one hand, but on the other hand they were filled with a sense of duty and the feeling that they had to stand up to external enemies and dangers first and foremost. At the end of the ‘Third Reich’, soldiers and civil servants and most other citizens were well aware that they were serving an unjust state. Many knew that Hitler had started the Second World War and that horrific crimes had been committed, but they still saw it as their duty to defend the fatherland against the enemy armies. They believed that they had to defend themselves externally first before they could bring about change within.”[128]
Viewed through the eyes of today’s writers, the unconditional fulfillment of duty by German citizens makes sense precisely when the war instigated by the nation’s fascist leaders turns against their own nation. Such Germans, imbued with “the feeling of having to withstand external enemies and dangers,” are then almost a kind of resistance in their own right, precisely in their “sense of duty”! The message is: completely apart from the current ruler, the nation is a supreme good that stands above everybody’s political interests! At the end of the war, the duty of the citizens was to preserve it, even if this unfortunately only meant taking sides with Nazi Germany.
No matter how the problem of legitimate or illegitimate resistance is discussed, the nationalist perspective that students are made familiar with when weighing up national concerns always comes into play. The message that a good German citizen is faced with a national conflict of conscience when he has to decide whether he is against Hitler for Germany, whether he is for Hitler because he is for Germany, or whether he will put up with Hitler because he does not want to renounce his loyalty to Germany, comes across in any case: resistance to the violence of one’s own state must plunge a good German into a deep dilemma. It can only be justified if it really serves to save the reputation of the German nation. Unfortunately, this only becomes clear in retrospect.
The resistance of the Church
School textbooks count the “church resistance” or “resistance of the churches” as part of the relevant resistance against Hitler and honor it accordingly. As far as the facts are concerned, this is a false statement. There was no resistance from the churches at all, just as the resistance was not in the military or in politics. The message of the resistant German elite finds no material in the churches. They have to invent it.
But they also must. After all, the dogma of the incompatibility of the Christian faith with the un-Christian “world view” of the Nazis is part of the curriculum in German schools. Who else, if not the churches, the students should think, were called upon and obliged to resist the Nazi crimes and their immorality because of their authority in matters of morality and higher values? If the official churches nevertheless failed to offer decisive resistance to National Socialism, then this should not speak against the churches and their doctrine of faith, but at most be seen as proof that they, as institutions, had to fight primarily to preserve their existential prerequisites for the proclamation of their faith, or perhaps also that they, for whatever reason, “failed.”[129] At least the alleged “failure” still critically maintains the fundamental incompatibility of the Christian faith with the immorality of Nazism.
This makes the acts of resistance out of Christian conviction practiced by individual clergymen and functionaries, which are presented as representative of the Christian churches’ mission of “ecclesiastical resistance,” all the more impressive. The fact that even the majority of these Christian-motivated individuals and groups could hardly speak on behalf of the official churches is deliberately ignored. These “upright Christians” simply stood for “resolute Christian resistance” against Hitler and his paganism, no matter how much they were at odds with the official church or the Reich Church.
The submission of the churches to the fascist raison d'état was anything but a failure. In their “two-regiment doctrine” (Romans 13), Christians have a theological instrument that establishes a fundamental loyalty to the state – regardless of any particular state system. Of course, this only applies as long as the churches can carry out their role in the practice of their Christian mission, unchallenged and recognized by the state. They come into conflict with the secular regime if it rejects, hinders, or even prohibits the practice of the Christian faith. Then the question of resistance is opened up to religious idealism in the first place. It was always forced upon the religious cause, a “resistance movement against its will”,[130] because it was not the result of a criticism of political conditions, but solely wanted to preserve the right to practice the Christian faith.[131]
Hitler did not fundamentally clash with the Church, at least not during the twelve years of his reign. Incidentally, he neither dispensed with Wehrmacht priests nor forbade the clergy from praying on Sundays for the fallen and their bereaved. It is also a fact that in 1933 Hitler offered the two churches a pact to respect their field of activity.[132] This was not only gratefully accepted. Because of the “strong affinity between the national-conservative and obedience-fixated Protestantism and National Socialism”[133], the new government was welcomed by the Church, as it was quite accommodating to the Church’s ideas regarding the status of the family, the role of women, public morality, anti-rationalism, and anti-Bolshevism:
“Despite a very different historical tradition, Catholic social teaching rooted in natural law and a political Catholicism organized in the Center Party, this statement also applies to the Catholic Church. Apart from numerous cases of individual protests and warnings by individual clergymen, both churches as institutions emphatically welcomed the ‘national uprising’ whose anti-liberal and anti-Marxist character, from the church’s point of view, offered a barrier against the dangers of advancing secularization.”[133]
All of this is undisputed.[134] Even the textbooks occasionally report on the churches’ initial approval of the “national uprising” and their defense against the “Marxist-Bolshevik threat.” They emphasize that this approval, which resulted from German-nationalist but not fascist sentiments, soon changed and report on the beginnings of the “church struggle” and the resistance of the “women and men of the churches.”
Textbook authors know what schools owe to the Christian perspective because of its importance for educating the people in the virtues of renunciation and modesty, as well as loyalty to those who “bear responsibility.” So in order to save the good Christian reputation of the two denominations and in the absence of any notable resistance from the churches, excerpts from sermons by the Catholic Bishop of Münster, Count von Galen, advocate of the anti-Bolshevik crusade, are regularly quoted: “None of us is safe, even if we are aware of our complete guiltlessness, from being taken from our homes one day, deprived of our freedom, and locked up in the cellars and concentration camps of the Gestapo... That could happen to me one day, too. Because I will then no longer be able to speak publicly, I want to warn publicly today against a path which, in my opinion, will bring God’s judgment down on people and will lead to misfortune and ruin for our people and our fatherland... Justice is the only solid foundation of all states. The right to life, to inviolability, to freedom is an indispensable part of every moral community order... How many German people languish in police custody, in concentration camps, have been expelled from their homeland, who have never been convicted by a regular court?... The duty of my episcopal office... compels me, in view of the actions of the Secret State Police, to publicly warn of this fact.”[135]
The accompanying textbook notes: “In the Protestant and Catholic churches, there were courageous Christians who defended themselves against National Socialism.” That is the whole message that matters: courage in the face of dictatorship.
It is true that the Nazis did not like hearing this type of sermon. However, this sermon does not “take a stand against National Socialism.” Instead, it contains a public appeal to the Nazi state leadership to ensure that no one is convicted without “due process of law” in the interests of a “moral community order” and legal certainty, because – according to the formulation glorifying state power – “justice is the only solid foundation of all states.” Justice should be administered according to the law and not arbitrarily. It is not innocent people who should be imprisoned, but those found guilty! The Bishop has objections to the terror of the Gestapo because he is convinced it will cause “misfortune and ruin for our people and fatherland.” This is also a state approving message, for which “God's judgment” is also invoked. It is not at all surprising that the same bishop wholeheartedly welcomed Franco’s victory in Spain and Hitler’s invasion of Poland and later the Soviet Union, compared the German soldiers who died on the Eastern Front to “holy martyrs” as late as 1943,[136] and in 1941 was made to feel guilty about the fact that his criticism of certain measures taken by the Nazi leadership could be misunderstood as weakening “the inner front of the German people,” especially during the war.[137]
For purposes of equal justice, the textbooks also cite Protestant protests, especially those against the euthanasia program. These were, first of all, characterized by the fact that they followed official channels: “The Protestant Bishop of Württemberg, D. Theophil Wurm, wrote a letter to the Reich Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick, on July 19, 1940: ‘For several months, by order of the Reich Defense Council, mentally ill, feeble-minded and epileptic inmates ... were transferred to another institution... All denominations agree that man or the people must bear the burden imposed on them by the existence of people in need of care as imposed by God and must not remove it by killing these people. I can only think with horror that it will continue as it has begun... When young people see that life is no longer sacred to the state, what conclusions will they draw for their private lives? Can’t every brutal crime be justified by the fact that the offense benefited the person concerned? There is no stopping on this slippery slope.”[138]
Bishop Wurm, who had publicly proclaimed in 1937 that his Protestant church was “purer from Jews than any other organization,”[139] was complying with a church duty to assist victims when he opposed the killing of people in need of care. In this respect, his protest against euthanasia resulted from the Christian self-understanding of assisting people who are suffering and cultivating Christian charity regardless of the person. There wasn’t any criticism of the Nazis’ political euthanasia program based on racial hygiene, which saw the creation of a “healthy national body” as a condition for the German race to assert its leading role, nor even a criticism of the state’s claim to decide on the “right to life” of its citizens according to its own standards. This remained unchallenged, as did all the causes for which lives were to be “sacrificed” under fascism, especially the fatherland. When the regional Bishop justified his finding “that life is no longer sacred to the state” in terms of public policy and warned that the state’s bad example could encourage all kinds of “brutal crimes,” especially among young people, he even appealed to standards shared by the Nazi state. After all, it was also in favor of good, state loyal behavior on the part of young people, of the fact that “brutal crimes” can only be committed on behalf of the state, and of young people being compelled to prepare for them under state supervision.
Otherwise, there are references in the textbooks to the Confessing Church’s courage of conviction against the seizure of power by the “German Christians” and their “falsification of the Gospel,” but not to the fact that in 1939 it explicitly called on its followers to participate in the “just war.”[140] There are references to Martin Niemöller’s imprisonment in a concentration camp, but not to his anti-Semitic statements.[141] In any case, the anti-Semitism that permeated the churches is covered by a cloak of silence in the textbooks. Yet the Christians’ tacit approval of fascist racism is no mystery at all. Incidentally, it had little to do with the fact that the Jews are said to have been the “murderers of Jesus Christ.” In the church, too, tolerance is known to end where it faces competition in its claim to sole representation. People of different faiths quickly become unbelievers or even dangerous sects that the state then has to deal with. How could it bother the official churches if a state came up with the idea of eliminating this religious competition for its own reasons? It goes without saying that the pious people neither caused nor wanted the Holocaust to happen. They would not have gone that far.[142]
If the self-assertion of the churches – “Church must remain church” – is nevertheless counted as resistance in the textbooks, quite independently of any verifiable political criticism of fascism, then this still fits into the picture that the students are supposed to form of the resistance: “A common will to moral self-assertion”[143] also existed in the churches. This unites the spiritual elite with the resisters from the other leading elites, the military-political and the intellectual-cultural. And that should always speak in their favor. Their “resistance” should therefore not only be appreciated, but also praised as exemplary, because “even in a hopeless political situation” it set an example for the continued existence of Christian responsibility, represented by church people who stood their ground against evil with their Confessio. This shows them to be an important pillar of a democratically founded system of state values.
The White Rose
In school textbooks, the resistance of the White Rose is an integral part of the “German resistance” against National Socialism, alongside the “clerical struggle” and the men of July 20. Why is that? Certainly not just as proof that the younger generation was also involved in the uprising against Hitler. After all, there were also other youth resistance groups, particularly among the communist and working class youth.[144] The textbooks usually say the following: “The actions of the Scholl siblings and their Munich circle caused a sensation. The young students knew how powerless the individual was in the face of organized tyranny; nevertheless, in 1942 and – under the impression of the defeat at Stalingrad – in the following winter, they designed, reproduced, and distributed leaflets. With them they tried to rouse the German people; they showed them the crimes of the dictatorship and refuted the victory slogans of official propaganda: ‘The German name will remain forever disgraced if the German youth do not finally rise up, take revenge and atone ... and build a new spiritual Europe.’ When they were arrested and sentenced to death by the ‘People’s Court’, they faced their execution with trust in God and in the confidence that their deed had not been in vain despite everything.”[145]
The admirable courage of the young academics who raised their voices against the “crimes of the dictatorship” despite the powerlessness of the individual in the face of “organized tyranny” and the real dangers of distributing leaflets is highlighted. The emphatic, selfless “nonetheless” against the dictatorship, the moral rebellion of educated young Germans against tyranny, as attributed to the members of the White Rose, is celebrated. For this reason, there is no analysis of their criticism of the fascist state program in the textbooks. Instead, leaflets are printed without comment, stating: “The German name will remain forever disgraced if the German youth do not finally rise up, take revenge and atones ... and build a new spiritual Europe.”
No wonder. Because these words from the last leaflet of the White Rose, quoted again and again, are words entirely to the taste of an idealistic youth education. The moral outrage against the “most despicable tyranny our people have ever endured” is seen as proof of the sincerity of young intellectuals who wanted nothing for themselves – but everything for Germany. It is of no interest why the representatives of the academic elite only became really active “under the impression of the defeat at Stalingrad” and which crimes they blamed on the Führer and for what reasons. Students are supposed to see a higher meaning even in the deaths of the students because they “faced execution with trust in God and in the confidence that their deed had not been in vain despite everything.” Dying for a great idea, and doing so as a young person who still has his life ahead of him, is supposed to make sense. This is called “not dying in vain” if it is passed on to future generations as a spiritual legacy, as a national obligation to protect Germany from any tyranny in the future. We know what that means: democracy is the victory over tyranny. And again, the textbooks are not at all interested in whether the members of the White Rose were actually supporters of democracy or whether they primarily wanted to see the “unspiritual” German state leadership of “dilettantes” and “party bigwigs” under Hitler deposed and replaced by a government that would not “senselessly” waste “our armies,” but use them sensibly. With so much emphasis, historical truth is if anything an obstacle for school textbooks.[146]
In most teaching materials, excerpts from the last leaflet are immediately followed by a reference to the arrest, conviction, and execution of the members of the White Rose. Apparently, that is all a German student needs to know about the resistance of young students against Hitler. What sticks in the minds of schoolchildren is thus reduced to the meaningless idea that opposing Hitler and risking life and limb for it simply deserves admiration and includes a legacy: “With their actions, they set an example that the preservation of human dignity is possible in the midst of a sea of inhumanity. This is both a hope and an obligatory demand. The legacy of the German resistance against Hitler ... remains a challenge to our present.”[147]
“Popular resistance”
The fact that there were only a few who resisted Hitler is, on the one hand, a reason to pay special tribute to them, but, on the other hand, it has always given rise to the question of why there were not more. This was usually answered with all kinds of explanations that begged for understanding. In principle, this assessment has persisted for decades, even if the voices of those who attempt to define the term “resistance” in such a way that even jokes about leaders, mumbling dissatisfaction, “inner emigration,” and war weariness can be subsumed under it have not been silent. This also includes the insinuation that the people had oppositional attitudes which were not acted on because of the Nazi terror. The quantity of the “other Germany” has always preoccupied the national debate, which is about exonerating the German people from the accusation of collective guilt. It is only for this purpose that the communists are being re-appropriated; which poses no problems if one separates the content of their political concerns from the courage to resist tyranny and glorifies the latter as a characteristic of resistance in general.[148]
It is almost surprising that a “theoretical reorientation” that discovered “everyday resistance” in the 1970s and 80s did not take place earlier,[149] especially since the highest representatives of the German education system were very keen on this reorientation: “It is apparent today that there was not only systematic and programmatic resistance by political groups..., but also widespread resistance among the people which expressed itself in forms of non-conformity, refusal in individual cases, and often passive resistance... All manifestations of resistance have the same starting point: rebellion against the total control of Nazi politics over everyday life; moral outrage against violations of the law; taking sides with the persecuted; the attempt to maintain a minimum of moral responsibility in a totally controlled state, even if only in the closest circles of family, community, and church; as the war continued, the awareness of the senselessness and murderous nature of this war also increased... In addition to opposition in principle, situation-related partial opposition [!] must also be taken into account. In addition to the portrayal of leading figures of the resistance, there must be a portrayal of everyday life in the Third Reich... It must be shown that capitulation to the dictatorship often did not begin with spectacular attacks, but with small acts of cowardice in everyday life, but that silent resistance can also be found in everyday life.”[150]
Very revealing! Where the state has total control, not only the clenched fist in the trouser pocket, but every form of grumbling submission is twisted into resistance, into “silent resistance,” into “situation-dependent partial opposition.” If these small acts were to take themselves seriously in their own way, they would have to be shocked by the state of democracy today: “silent” but also “noisy resistance” everywhere; everyday life – from anger at wage cuts, reduced unemployment benefits and Hartz IV to price increases and parking tickets on the windshield – is permeated with “situation-dependent partial opposition.”
For this subsequent praise of a “widespread everyday resistance among the people,” even a piece of truth about fascism is secretly useful, even if it means involuntarily revoking all previous explanations of unwilling participation: “From the sources on the functioning of the National Socialist system in everyday life in peace and war, it emerged that the ‘totality’ of registration, coordination and obedience to orders was far less [!] than the perfectly planned and partly already established system would have led one to expect and, above all, than the rulers of the time wanted.”[151]
Resistance was possible is now the new message. What does it matter to political education that this is precisely how it withdraws the basis for the claim of “everyday resistance”: First, in view of the complete terror, even the whispered Führer joke is considered to be an act of resistance; then, as proof that resistance was possible, the judgment of total terror is relativized.
Students should note the following: For those Germans who offered “everyday resistance,” resistance was possible because the totalitarian dictatorship was only an ideal, even for fascists, and the reality of the total enforcement of this ideal fell short of that; whereas for those Germans who – unwillingly – submitted, resistance was impossible because Hitler was serious about total dictatorship. Precisely how he wanted it.[152]
The students should take note of both versions: The second verdict serves to conclude that the people simply could not do what they wanted under fascism. On the other hand, the verdict on the “widespread resistance among the people” should show that the German people obviously have a “shared will to moral self-assertion even in a hopeless situation”[153], which justifies some hopes and national deeds.
The unwanted lesson:
Democratically committed interests make resistance unnecessaryThis is what students should learn:
The resistance fighters of July 20, 1944, the White Rose and the Church, students learn, were not able to defeat Hitler, but saved the honor of the German nation. For this they must be honored as heroes; in contrast to the communist resistance, which did not want to depose Hitler, but rather to attack the state and its economic foundation, and thus consisted of traitors to the fatherland. Students should learn from the resistance against Hitler, the dictator, that today any resistance against the democratic authorities tarnishes the memory of the Stauffenbergs, Scholls, and Bonhoeffers. Because, as students learn, they sacrificed their lives for our democracy. They also learn that resistance is completely unnecessary in this country. Because, on the one hand, with democracy, fascism has finally been overcome. And secondly, in a democracy everyone is free to express their opinion without being imprisoned or killed.
On the other hand, the following insights are undesirable:
1. If resistance to the concerns of democratic politics, which is considered superfluous in textbooks, is also forbidden, and if resistance is exposed to persecution and punishment by state agencies whenever it becomes practical, then the democratic state has reasons not to leave things with its judgment that there is no need for resistance.
It knows that it is dealing with a nation in which there are always people who see things a little differently than it does. They are often up in arms because they realize that the national good, which the state is concerned with and for which it enlists the help of its citizens, simply does not coincide with the private good. That is why no bourgeois regime relies on its fine words being believed. Far from calling into question or even relativizing the established conflict between the producers of capitalist wealth and its beneficiaries, the companies and state budgets, the democratic state does everything it can to take away the character of resistance from the citizens’ complaints.
2. This is not achieved by banning all complaints, but by setting up a state-regulated complaints system. The way politicians deal with the discontent of citizens who have suffered economic or political losses is characterized by the fact that they are given the right to complain. This includes the high values of freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of association, freedom to demonstrate, etc. If people are not happy that they have to work more and more for less and less money, that this does not even guarantee them a job but only a lot of wage deductions, then they can use democratic freedoms to vent their discontent. On top of that, they are not only allowed to express it, they should even make their discontent public. After all, politicians are interested in what bothers citizens about their beneficial work. They do not want to know this in order to be able to remedy the damage complained about, but to “reconcile” the damaged interest of the citizens with the state-protected conditions.
On the one hand, citizens are allowed to appeal to the law and have it certify which of their interests can claim validity and which cannot; which overriding state interests their private interests must bow to and where an injustice has actually been done to them. This will be confirmed to them where appropriate, but without their damage being similarly regulated.
On the other hand, in a democracy, citizens are allowed to vote regularly, i.e. to hope that one of the democratic opposition parties will perhaps do right by them.
And between the elections, the democratic state allows him to use freedom of speech to articulate his discontent. He can write letters to the editor and otherwise put his criticisms on paper. He can speak at meetings or appear on television or radio. He is even allowed to demonstrate and strike if he meets the legal requirements and adheres to the police regulations, which generally do not make it easy for him to make his concerns public.
3. Since all these variants of freedom of opinion are freedoms permitted by the state – and there are no others in a democracy – and the exercise of these is subject to control by state (security) agencies, the outcome is usually very clear for the complainant. The relevant state institutions – some of which are dedicated solely to the task of protecting the governing will to rule from opposition and unauthorized complaints – take strict care to ensure that it remains an opinion and that no protester dares to take his own criticism seriously. He is not permitted to give practical support to his concerns if he notices that the freedom to express his displeasure does not lead to the cause of his anger being eliminated. The right to express criticism does not mean that the damaged interest itself is vindicated. The opposite is the case: the granted freedom of opinion serves to relativize all those concerns whose realization is not intended in the program of democratic capitalism.
This relativization follows familiar procedures: the public takes note of the complaint and the responsible parliamentarians promise to “take care of the issue.” This signals to the complainant that he has done enough demonstrating and that he can go back to his socially useful day job. He himself has to be satisfied that his case is now being dealt with by those who know exactly whether or not his concerns can be taken into account within the framework of national policies. These political experts can quickly think of the relevant constraints that will put to shame any immodest, i.e. non-national, protest. These have to be made clear to the citizen. In the end, he has to be satisfied with the granting of democratic freedoms. In this way, with every complaint, the expression of the complaint is separated from its material content and a practical concern is reduced to a mere opinion. Everyone must then understand this as a subjective, i.e. completely non-binding, expression of his will, which cannot possibly be taken into account, because: otherwise, what if everyone did that?
Incidentally, this compulsion to be relative does not apply to concerns that those in power present to the people. On the contrary, they must be taken very seriously and followed by the governed, especially as these concerns tend to come with the full force of the law. This is because they are not backed by a disappointed interest, but by a state power that is responsible for the common good, in which, strangely enough, the particular good is never really reflected.
In this way, one thing leads to another: By taking the citizens’ unfulfilled concerns seriously only to the extent that they relativize themselves as opinions, the governing interest is granted the freedom that makes governing so much easier. The executive does not have to deal with resistance from the people, but can rely on the insight of democratically educated citizens who do not feel that their interests are being suppressed, but rather that they are being taken into account as freely expressed views.
4. The democratic state security agencies have a number of volunteers to help them in their job of keeping freedom in order:
■ These include those citizens who consider the freedoms granted to them to be such a privilege that they immediately declare using them to be an abuse. These are people who accuse demonstrators of wasting taxpayers’ money and show their democratic maturity by demanding community service for critics – who were once to be sent “back to Russia.” For them, any opposition, from complaints to organized resistance, is not only superfluous, but a sign of ingratitude or even treason.
■ They are also helped by the unions, with whom the right to strike is in good hands and safe from abuse. They consider it very reasonable that the legislature has defined the right to strike as the ultima ratio in collective bargaining and has linked it to the requirement that the interruption of work should only be seen as a means of ending wage disputes, whereby the welfare of the company, the general welfare, and good morals must not be ignored.[154]
■ Finally, the voluntary help includex such subtle methods of suppressing criticism as viewer ratings or a publishing industry that rejects unwanted criticism by referring to poor sales prospects. The opinion business relies on a people that has already been democratically brought into line by the opinion makers. This type of censorship by the market – the real type still takes place alongside it – has nothing to do with a lack of freedom. Because, as we know, this is not a book burning being staged from above, but a free referendum being held by citizens with average purchasing power in the printed opinion trade.
5. Alongside those people who independently reconcile a thwarted life perspective with the circumstances that are responsible for it, who denounce anyone who does not achieve this as a breach of duty, and who take great pride in living decently in a system that is characterized by freedom, there is of course also criticism of the freedoms that are permitted.
On the one hand, there is the complaint that there can be no talk of freedom for citizens, that “those at the top do what they want,” that politicians are only looking after their own interests anyway, and that those in charge are lacking in fairness toward honest women and good men. This criticism is clearly not the prelude to a mobilization of resistance against the dismantling of the welfare state, against wage cuts, or against the armed forces. Specific points of criticism are not important to this whining. It does not express the insight that the permitted freedom is precisely the means of distancing oneself from the content of limited interests, but rather expresses a completely abstract dissatisfaction with the state. This is the whole point of this kind of criticism of freedom: here the self-confident servant is acting out and demonstrating that he puts a lot of value on his self-confidence in his role as a servant. He knows that the existing regime is not there for him, and after his second beer he shows the world that, despite all the damage, he has not lost sight of the bigger picture and that “those up there can't fool him.” It is not uncommon for this show-off to switch to another criticism of freedom very easily: in the same breath, he manages to criticize the political regime for allowing far too much freedom, which is then exploited by criminals, foreigners, and drug dealers. So he is already a supporter of freedom who knows that it is ultimately just one of the state’s means of creating order. Even his whining bears witness to this: because the boasting about his intellectual independence from “those up there,” which is separated from all his practical living conditions and thus has no consequences, lives solely from the freedom of opinion.
The other area of criticism of freedom is the domain of leftists. They continue to foster the rumor that democratic freedoms are a blessing for citizens and were only invented to enforce their interests. They persistently point out that the practice of freedom in this country tramples on the democratic goals of freedom and turns the constitutional state into a police state. West German leftists even want to derive an explicit right of resistance from Article 20(4) of the Basic Law, which allows them to legitimately oppose state measures. They declaim: “Where injustice becomes law, resistance becomes a duty.” The ruling democrats do not even dispute the validity of this maxim. Rather, the accusation against the left is that they are relying on a correct maxim in a wrong system. The clear message is that they would have been right with this maxim in fascism or in the GDR.
In fact, criticism such as that voiced by e.g. the peace movement, which accuses the ruling government of attacking the democratic order and undermining the constitution with a missile resolution, is comparatively silly. Anyone who wants to reinforce their pacifism by referring to their own personal interpretation of the constitution still falls for the rumor that democracy is a service provider committed to morality. In this country, the legitimacy of a political measure is decided by its legality. Where democratically elected majorities have decided, appeals to a “higher law” are of no use. The only valid law is that spoken by the democratic state agencies.[155] In a democracy, the “higher law” coincides by definition with what is spoken. Therefore, from a democratic point of view, the restriction or suspension of democracy is ultimately not only legal but legitimate, since it is known to only serve to save democracy from its enemies.[156]
On the one hand, the left-wing saviors of democracy are knocking on open doors with the ruling democrats. Of course, Adenauer and Schmidt, Brandt, Kohl and Schröder also wanted to save democracy from enemies. And that is why it seems so absurd to them that democracy is to be saved from them. On the other hand, leftists make themselves suspect of being enemies of democracy with a criticism that always sees fascism at work when democracy does not correspond to its beautiful image.[157] Because anyone who discovers fascism in the “bulwark against fascism” wants to destroy democracy, is the verdict of ruling democrats.
6. The fact that these civil liberties are generally regarded as proof of the goodness of democracy and that even the “poor sod” is not afraid to defend the system of freedom against the system of unfreedom, even when the former has clearly treated him badly, is not due to its irresistible power of persuasion. The whole “stable of freedom” works because the state has placed it on a solid foundation:
■ On the one hand, as a constitutional state, it enacts a strict code that prohibits, under penalty of law, any opposition to state authority in word, image, or deed, or any competition with it. High treason, sedition, resistance to state power, disturbing the peace, and offenses against public order are crimes from which citizens can learn that when pursuing their interests theoretically and practically, they must always ask themselves whether they have shown their state the respect it deserves. That the state is rather petty in this regard can be seen from offenses such as “denigration of the Federal President, state symbols and constitutional agencies.”[158] Even a disrespectful attitude toward its flag is considered treason or practical resistance to state authority.
■ Secondly, it identifies enemies of the state, which in this country primarily include anarchists, communists, and autonomists. It eradicated the Red Army Faction across the board through dragnet searches with orders to shoot or life imprisonment. It declares communists enemies of the constitution and thus an object of state surveillance, bans their parties, locks them up, drives them into illegality, imposes professional bans on them or, if their failure is certain, declares them to be a cult not worth dealing with. Autonomists are registered, prohibited from demonstrating, and occasionally temporarily immobilized as a preventive measure.[159]
■ Thirdly, all of this presupposes the establishment of a functioning monopoly of violence in the hands of the state. This does not settle every dispute between social groups and classes, but rather decides them in its favor in principle by “disarming” them. A situation in which “the state no longer has any combatants who, like itself, have the right to legitimately use violence”[160] is called “internal peace.” Its primary task is to maintain it by enforcing “the duty to obey the law, if necessary by force,” say not opponents of democracy, but constitutional lawyers.[161]
7. We now know everything we need to know about internal peace, and it should come as no surprise that democratic states are constantly redefining civil liberties according to the economic situation, expanding or narrowing their limits, excluding some people from them or even suspending them altogether.
When ruling democrats discover a state emergency or a threat to “internal peace,” demonstrators quickly find themselves within a police cordon (the “Hamburg kettle”), for example, or are taken into police custody. Occasionally opinions are banned and subject to censorship, etc. Ruling democrats, who have no reason to see their monopoly on violence called into question, then deal with the remnants of public protest – always protected by the rule of law, of course – purely in a police state manner and see the division of power as an obstacle to rapid enforcement. This is because they adapt their standards of internal order, social peace, and a national consensus on values to the tasks they have set for the nation. If these become more demanding and their implementation promises “tougher times,” then civil liberties are redefined. After all, the ruling democrats are never quite sure of the theoretical and practical approval of their people for their policies. This points to a contradiction inherent in civil liberties: if many reasons are created for complaints and demonstrations, for strikes and counter-agitation, and if permission is granted to make justified complaints in public, then even democrats – despite all their efforts to ensure the integrative function of free speech – cannot prevent people from being convinced and associating themselves with the critics. They dislike the effects of this contradiction.[162]
That is why, when they have to make life difficult for their people for honorable national reasons, they also think of popular morality as a separate object of their care. They call for more “intellectual leadership” (Kohl), tighten the conditions for expressing criticism, and redefine the criteria for hostility to the state. In doing so, they set the standards for all of the citizens’ complaints: people will not suffer from a lack of money when they lose their jobs, but the nation will suffer from a lack of growth and tax revenue. Of course, foreign countries and foreigners are primarily to blame. Then come those – “greedy,” i.e. quite un-German – Germans who commit capital or tax evasion, i.e. do not make their money available to the nation as a resource, but just want to squander it for themselves. In their concern for correct intellectual leadership, politicians even resort to insulting the people. At a time when the nation is struggling to be successful in the competition between locations, people who point out that they can no longer live on the money that has been cut – whether it is wages, pensions, or unemployment benefits – not only have to listen to accusations of immodesty and ingratitude. They are now being told that they are ruining the state with their “comprehensive coverage mentality,” in other words: they are committing a kind of treason.
If similarities to the fascist safeguarding of internal peace are discovered in this state behavior, then this is not to be contradicted. But it does not follow that democracy should be criticized because it has similarities to fascism – after all, it has its own reasons for adopting these relevant ways of dealing with unwanted criticism.
[106] Teacher’s guide to “Questions about German History”, Vol. 4, Frankfurt 1984, p. 78.
[107] “Anyone who today, under the guarantee of freedom in Article 5 of the Basic Law, expresses his displeasure with the government, individual ministers, or prominent politicians without hesitation, whoever gives the sharpest public expression to this criticism in pamphlets or at demonstrations... should actually be aware that all of this was considered, persecuted and punished as ‘resistance’ under the rule of National Socialism – and not according to the laws of a constitutional state, but according to the draconian standards of a dictatorship in which even a political joke could lead to a concentration camp...” (Inf. z. polit. Bildg. No. 160, 1974, p. 2).
[108] This is what some of the academic youth imagined after 1968. But it did not fit with a state morality that very deliberately made resistance to Hitler the topic and not, for example, resistance to nuclear power plants, NATO’s double-track decision or Castor transports. That is why the 68ers, who demanded education for resistance, were stopped by a state ban on their profession, and those who practiced “civil disobedience” and shouted “Resist!” to prospective soldiers during their swearing-in ceremony were practically shown by police violence that they had fallen for a misunderstanding. The democratic state did not even enter into an argument about whether there might have been an “abuse of power” here or there, in the rearmament, the construction of nuclear power plants, or the arming of missiles. For it, the use of power was the order of the day because national interests spoke for it. Anyone who demonstratively asserted a different opinion was in turn abusing the “legitimate options for action” that in a democracy are only granted to an opposition loyal to the state. See also the Unwanted Lesson at the end of this chapter.
[109] To this day, their survivors consider this to be an injustice that must be corrected! Instead of being overjoyed that they are not being included in the ancestral gallery of good German nationalists, they urgently demand admission.
[110] “The conspirators of the ‘Red Orchestra’ were celebrated as heroes of the resistance in the Russian-occupied zone of Germany after 1945 – with good reason. But this group had nothing to do with ‘German resistance’... It was clearly in the service of the enemy foreign country” (G. Ritter: Carl Goerdeler und die dt. Widerstandsbewegung, Munich 1964, p. 108f). Most school books see it similarly and note the conspiratorial purpose of the transmission of messages, especially to the Soviet Union.
[111] A factually based leftist criticism of this omission or references by correct researchers to false representations miss the pedagogical purpose of the matter. This is not about historical truth, but about educating young people in values.
[112] See the dispute over the Berlin memorial, taz, July 8 1994.
[113] This is why hardly any student knows, for example, the political testament of Anton Saefkow, German Communist Party, member of the illegal Reich leadership of the German National Committee “Free Germany” from 1944: “We communists are without any disguise, openly and honestly in the national anti-fascist united front. If we consciously put some demands aside for the sake of unity, everyone knows that we are not giving up our long-term goal! Only the rule of the working class will solve all contradictions, all social and national problems ... In the new Germany, the working class will and must fight for the united front and thus come a little closer to socialism.” (Quoted in MSZ 1/1983, p. 35).
[114] Since the end of the 1970s, some publishers have also been trying to recognize the communist resistance against the National Socialists. However, this is primarily done as an appreciation of the willingness to make sacrifices, idealism, courage, and strength of mind that are attributed to the communists – regardless of the substance of their concerns.
[115] Recommendation for dealing with resistance during the Nazi era in education – Resolution of the KMK of December 4, 1980.
[116] An attempt was made in this direction with Schindler. See the comments on “Schindler’s List.”
[117] The fact that fascists also took credit for only following their conscience when they seized power to restore German honor and abolished democracy does not make their “revolution” a “revolt of conscience.” For, as the student now knows, they had no conscience at all, but carried out their trade as unscrupulous murderers.
[118] Grundriß der Geschichte, Bd. 2, Stuttgart 1984, p. 309.
[119] Unser Weg in die Geschichte, p. 71.
[120] H. Kohl in 1994 on “July 20, 1944”, in: taz July 21, 1994.
[121] From the “Draft of a government declaration Beck/Goerdeler 1944,” quoted from Inf. zur polit. Bildg. No. 243, 1994, p. 29.
[122] “For all four representatives (of the military resistance – ed.), the central element of their foreign policy objectives was the idea of a German great power position in Central and Central Eastern Europe. For them, it was an unquestionable, self-evident factor... The aim was a fundamental transformation of the Central European scene in the sense of German hegemony.” (DIFF 6, p. 43).
[123] It has been no secret for some time how closely the putschists were connected to the nationalism and anti-Semitic racism of National Socialism: “For example, Berthold Graf Stauffenberg (brother of the assassin, ed.): ‘In the area of domestic politics, we had largely approved of the basic ideas of National Socialism: the idea of leadership,... combined with that of a healthy hierarchy and that of the national community,... the idea of race and the will for a new, German-determined legal order seemed healthy and promising to us... The basic ideas of National Socialism, however, were almost all turned into their opposite in the implementation by the regime”... “Popitz (former Prussian Finance Minister, ed.) said something similar in his testimony: “I approve of the National Socialist state in every way and see it as a historical necessity in the face of internationalism and the Judaization of the system and in the face of the unbearable crises of the parliamentary parties...” “Beck was of the opinion that the vitality of the National Socialist state drove him to tackle questions prematurely and hastily. All internal political measures, especially in the Jewish and church questions, were carried out too abruptly and hastily...” “... The memorandum ‘The Goal’ (author Goerdeler, ed.) does indeed adopt the view that ‘the Jewish people belong to a different race’ and that therefore peace in the world will not come until a reorganization of the position of the Jews throughout the world has been carried out...(Goerdeler) suggested that the Jews should be settled in Canada or South America...” (from: Opposition gegen Hitler und der Staatsstreich vom 20. Juli 1944. Geheime Dokumente aus dem ehemaligen Reichssicherheitshauptamt, ed. H.A. Jacobsen, vol. 1, Stuttgart 1989, p. 447ff.).
[124] “The Chief of the General Staff, Colonel General Ludwig Beck, warned Hitler in several statements against war. Since Hitler, however, did not allow the preparations to be stopped, Beck submitted the following to the Army Commander-in-Chief, Colonel-General von Brauchitsch, on July 16, 1938: ‘There is no prospect of crushing Czechoslovakia in the foreseeable future by military action without immediately calling France and England into action... I consider myself obliged today – in the awareness of the significance of such a step, but in reference to the responsibility that has accrued to me under my service instructions for the preparation and execution of a war – to make an urgent request to instruct the Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht to stop the war preparations he has ordered... until the military conditions have fundamentally changed... All upright and serious German men in positions of state responsibility must feel called upon and obliged to... wage a war against Czechoslovakia, which in its consequences must lead to a world war, which would mean the end of Germaniae... The final decisions about the existence of the nation are at stake here... then one can only come to the conclusion that we are not prepared for war at the moment in terms of defense policy, economic policy and public opinion.” (History Book 4, p. 151/52).
[125] DIFF 6, p. 67.
[126] Erinnern und Urteilen, Stuttgart 1985, p. 105.
[127] Volksstaat und Völkergemeinschaft, Bd. 4, Klett Verlag, Stuttgart 1960, p. 109.
[128] Inf. z. polit. Bildg. Nr. 243, p. 48.
[129] “There is no doubt... that the two major churches had the potential to resist the theory and practice of National Socialist rule. But this potential for resistance was never activated to any great extent by the church leadership of the two churches (this also applies in principle to the fraternal church leadership of the Confessing Church). This reticence had various reasons, theological, national, personal, and in the Protestant Church also confessional. A similar pattern of behavior in both churches, however, allows the conclusion that the decisive reason for the church leadership was the desire to preserve the church and its tasks even in the totalitarian state.” (“The resistance against National Socialism,” Results of an international historians’ conference in July 1984 in Berlin, edited by J. Schmädeke and Peter Steinbach, Munich/Zurich 1986, p. 232).
[130] “Resistance and Exile 1933-1945,” series of publications by the Federal Agency for Civic Education, Vol. 223, p. 21.
[131] “The church leaders followed the influence of the National Socialists in the state sphere with sympathy, they only opposed them in the church sphere. A typical example of this attitude is the pastoral letter of the Bavarian bishops on the referendum and Reichstag election on November 12, 1933. In addition to the assurances of how much the Catholics appreciated the “vigorous efforts of the Führer” to peacefully establish equality for the German people and to “spare them the horrors of Bolshevism,” the bishops mentioned the “burdens on the Catholic conscience” due to the desecration of Sunday and the measures against Catholic associations and denominational schools.” (“The Resistance against National Socialism,” op. cit., p. 262)
[132] The “Reich Concordat,” which is often portrayed as an opportunistic commitment by Hitler or, on the other hand, as a safeguard for the Church, led to the dissolution of the Center Party and the Catholic trade unions, and was thus a political declaration of bankruptcy by the Church.
[133] “Widerstand und Exil,” ibid., p. 21.
[134] This assessment is consistent with the current state of academic research on the topic of “cooperation and partial resistance of the churches”: “This assumes that at least at one end of the scale there was something like cooperation with National Socialism or the Nazi system... One can say without reservation that current Protestant church research into contemporary history supports these positions. There was not only the German Christians faith movement, but there was also the official German Evangelical Church, which cooperated with the so-called Third Reich from an allegedly non-political, neutral everyday church life to a willingness to conform. Eberhard Bethge calls this the ‘Nazification of the Church’ in his conference contribution. This applies not only to the initial phase, but also and especially to the war period.” ("The Resistance to National Socialism", op. cit., p. 227/28).
[135] “From ... to,” history book for secondary schools, 9th grade, Schroedel 1995, p. 172.
[136] See Wigbert Benz: Bishop Count von Galen – opponent of euthanasia and supporter of war. In: Praxis Geschichte, Issue 3, pp. 18-22, Verlag Westermann 1994.
[137] “The Catholic Bishop of Münster, Clemens August Count von Galen, protested against the dictatorship in clear terms since 1941...: ‘My Christians! I will perhaps be accused of weakening the internal front of the German people in the war with this open language. In contrast, I state: I am not the cause of any weakening of the internal front, but rather those who, despite the terrible week of gruesome enemy attacks, impose harsh punishments on innocent fellow citizens without a trial or the possibility of defense...’” (“Remembering and Judging,” Vol. IV, Stuttgart 1985, p. 105).
[138] “From ..., to,” ibid., p. 172.
[139] Eitner, Hans-Jürgen: Hitlers Deutsche, das Ende eines Tabus, Gernsbach 1991, p. 408; see also: D. J. Goldhagen, Hitlers willige Vollstrecker, Berlin 1996, p. 137ff.
[140] Eitner, ibid., p. 407.
[141] Goldhagen, p. 143.
[142] There were certainly enough suggestions – for example from Bishop Dibelius – to deport Jews and to close the borders to Eastern Jews. See Goldhagen, p. 139.
[143] See the KMK recommendation on resistance, ibid.
[144] See Arno Klönne: Zur Traditionspfl ege nicht geeignet, in: W. Breyvogel (ed.): Piraten, Swings und Junge Garde – Widerstand im Nationalsozialismus, Bonn 1991.
[145] Fragen an die Geschichte, Bd. 4, 1971, p. 181.
[146] “On the morning of February 18, 1943, something happened that will probably remain a mystery forever. Without taking any precautions, the siblings Sophie and Hans Scholl went to the University of Munich with a suitcase full of leaflets and distributed them there. They threw the rest from the gallery into the wide atrium. Without making any attempt to escape, they allowed themselves to be held by the caretaker until the Gestapo arrived.” (From ... to, History book for secondary schools, Schroedel Bielefeld 1995, p. 174. This is a pedagogically intentional way of giving voice to a legend. The actual course of events can be read in M. Verhoeven/M. Krebs: Die Weiße Rose, Frankfurt a.M. 1985, p. 168) But this legend fits so well into the picture of the young students who risked their lives for national ideals.
[147] DIFF 6, p. 17.
[148] “People from all walks of life were involved, from the middle of our people: bourgeois and noble, trade unionists and officers, workers and diplomats, scholars and clergy.” (from H. Kohl's speech on the 50th anniversary of July 20, 1944, quoted in: taz of July 21, 1994, p. 4). To show that resistance was indeed very widespread, even the communists who were initially excluded are again counted as part of the resistance. See note 114.
[149] “... It is no longer just the ‘White Rose’ or the assassinations, conspiracies and plans for overthrow, but the variety of manifestations of ‘resistance’ and behavior in the Nazi state that are now the subject of extensive historical research” (DIFF 6 Preliminary remarks).
[150] Resolution of the KMK of December 4, 1980.
[151] Der Nationalsozialismus, p. 76.
[152] There is not only a political background to this “rediscovery,” but also an educational interest. Anti-fascist education emphasizes a “didactic reorientation”: “Didactically, it was a matter of moving away from the oath and conscience problems of those influential men around July 20 to a more youth-appropriate level of everyday life and civil courage. The young people should realize that responsible political action, the courage to do so, and the risks involved were not problems for the elite, but everyday challenges for every citizen, from which lessons can also be learned for democratic behavior.” (“The War Years in Germany” for the Körber Foundation, edited by D. Galinski and W. Schmidt, 1984, p. 135) So, in addition to the tribute to the men of July 20, the White Rose and the sacrifice of Protestant and Catholic clergy in the resistance against Hitler, there is now also the “more youth-appropriate level of everyday life.” More on this can be found under “Everyday life – making the incomprehensible comprehensible.”
[153] KMK-Empfehlung zur Behandlung des Widerstandes, ibid..
[154] Cf. W. Däubler, Das Arbeitsrecht, Bd.1, Reinbek 1976, p. 126ff.
[155] In his interpretations of the right of resistance, R. Dolzer leaves no doubt that it is not intended to “protect individual interests” (p. 463), but only “serves to maintain the existing order” (p. 474). The right of resistance, the classic commentary states approvingly, “does not strengthen the revolution, but rather – in political jargon – the counter-revolution” (p. 474). And citizens who are dissatisfied must “assume, in case of doubt, that the state organs are carrying out their duties properly” (p. 473). (R. Dolzer, Der Widerstandsfall, in: J. Isensee, P. Kirchhof (ed.), Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Vol. l, Heidelberg 1987.
[156] See: U. K. Preuß, Politische Verantwortung und Bürgerloyalität, Frankfurt 1984, p. 256.
[157] This indicates that they know nothing about democracy or fascism. Just as democracy does not consist of opening the door to a paradise of grassroots interest representation for citizens by granting them freedom, fascism is not a system that is only concerned with suppressing such freedoms. The dispute between the two ruling systems on this issue is solely about how the people can best be obliged to obey the state’s reason.
[158] See StGB §§ 80-145.
[159] As a rule, neo-fascists come into conflict with the democratic state authority less over political differences than over violations of the law – use of prohibited symbols, violence against people...
[160] J. Isensee, P. Kirchhof (eds.), Handbuch des Staatsrechts, Heidelberg 1987, p. 618.
[161] Ibid., p. 619.
[162] They thereby discredit those friends of freedom of expression who believe that democracy should be praised for making this possible! Democracy itself credits itself for this and takes its own precautions.