Jefrey K. Olick. In the House of the Hangman: The Agonies of German Defeat, 1943-1949. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. 380 S. $29.00, cloth, ISBN 978-0-226-62638-3.

Reviewed by Michaela Hoenicke-Moore

Published on H-German (May, 2006)

Jefrey Olick's impressive synthesis brings to‐ ple--in the background, strangely imitates the Ger‐ gether an in-depth discussion of Anglo-American man practice that Olick so vigorously exposes in political and intellectual approaches to Nazi Ger‐ his book. many (part 1: "The Victors") with an equally thor‐ The author explores the origins of a West Ger‐ ough (indeed much longer) study of German elite man "politics of memory." For that purpose he responses to Allied policies and charges of guilt casts his net wide and pursues the topic of Ger‐ (part 2: "The Vanquished"). His title indicates his man memory-formation by reading "across insti‐ main focus on the German side of things. What it tutional felds and discursive contexts" (p. 327). was like to live in the house of the hangman: of This achievement is impressive in itself. Putting what was it possible to speak, of what not? (p. the American wartime deliberations and German 326). The image draws on a remark made by postwar refections on the meaning of National Theodor Adorno expressing his frustration with Socialism in one context and thus in dialogue with Germans who insisted on seeing themselves as each other is probably the most signifcant contri‐ victims after the end of the war and indignantly bution of Olick's study. What emerges most clear‐ rejected discussions of guilt and responsibility: ly from this dual perspective is the extent to "But in the house of the hangman one should not which, in this foundational phase, German intel‐ mention the noose, one might be suspected of har‐ lectuals and politicians responded less to the real‐ boring resentment" (p. 325). Yet Olick's subtitle is ity of the Third Reich and instead more energeti‐ misleading, especially in view of the recent schol‐ cally to what they perceived as Allied (especially arly and popular attention to "German sufering." American) indictments. Indeed, the author shows The sociologist uses "agony" in the original Greek throughout his book that "collective guilt was re‐ sense to mean "struggle" (p. 21). But putting the jected by Germans much more vigorously than it word "agonies" in the context of "German defeat" was ever posited by their occupiers" (p. 13). A di‐ and keeping genocide--in other words the agony rect confrontation with the legacy of German poli‐ of Germany's victims, primarily the Jewish peo‐ H-Net Reviews cies and actions--called for by some Germans--was tribution to the ongoing efort to set the record thus eclipsed by defensive responses to Allied straight on Henry Morgenthau's plans to deal with policies and émigré queries and judgments. defeated Nazi Germany (pp. 75-94).[1] The sociolo‐ The early period Olick investigates is indeed a gist clarifes that the Treasury "proposals were foundational one for Germans struggling less to not nearly as extreme and outside of the dis‐ master their past than to deal with the charges course as [Secretary of War Henry] Stimson and arising out of this past (pp. 7-10). Subsequently, others painted them" (p. 33) and that they did not the meaning of war and genocide was contested express sentiments of revenge or hatred, but in a series of scholarly and public conficts in the rather a widely shared, urgently felt need to fun‐ 1950s. Debates over German rearmament and the damentally reorient German society. In general, reinstatement of Nazis were followed by the Olick explicates well the underlying motivation Auschwitz trials and the "Fischer controversy" in for specifc policies (unconditional surrender, for the 1960s. The controversy deepened with the example) and shows how even "'hard peace' advo‐ Sonderweg debate in the 1970s, the Historiker‐ cates were usually motivated by a constructive streit in the 1980s and the "Goldhagen éclat" or urge" (p. 58). the confict over the Wehrmacht exhibition of the Especially during the war, Americans agreed 1990s. All of these and several other important de‐ on the need for re-education, yet also recognized bates have been thoroughly examined individual‐ the inherent dilemma and challenges of such an ly and diachronically in order to better under‐ enterprise. Olick illustrates repeatedly the clash stand German "mastering" of the Nazi past and between American and German objectives and the evolution of West German political culture. sensitivities--for example, in his discussion of the Olick refers to studies by Norbert Frei, Jan Werner "psycho-cultural" approach exemplifed in the Mueller, Jefrey Herf, Edgar Wolfrum and Robert 1944 conference sponsored by the State Depart‐ Moeller among many others, but (perhaps due to ment on postwar Germany. The plan to transform his diferent disciplinary orientation) there is lit‐ an entire society by applying social scientifc in‐ tle contextualization of his interpretations with sights was precisely what "so many Germans the important work that historians have done in found ofensive insofar as they found this opti‐ this feld. mistic interventionism comprehensible at all" (p. Olick begins his study with an analysis of the 63). Olick's review of the American debate also motives and intentions underlying the wartime serves as a reminder of how often experts on the planning for Allied occupation policy. Here, as in German collective psyche correctly predicted Ger‐ the case of the German discourse--which is limit‐ man post-defeat responses of "shirking responsi‐ ed to representative intellectuals and politicians-- bility" and "blaming others for their own sufer‐ the scope is actually more focused on American ing" (p. 64), later confrmed in Hannah Arendt's and to a lesser extent British plans and discus‐ "Report from Germany" (p. 101). But it is Eugen sions. For the evolution of these policies, Olick re‐ Kogon's analysis that reminds us that victorious views the demand for unconditional surrender, occupation powers cannot force the responses the wartime debates on German national charac‐ they deem most adequate and useful: "The policy ter (including Lord Vansittart's remarks) and the of 'shock' awakened not the powers of the Ger‐ controversy over the so-called Morgenthau Plan. man conscience, but the powers of resistance For the postwar period, Olick continues his dis‐ against the accusations of complete co-responsi‐ cussion with the Nuremberg trials and the denazi‐ bility for the shameful misdeeds of the National fcation program. Olick makes an important con‐ Socialists" (p. 102). To insist on confronting the German population with evidence of mass mur‐

2 H-Net Reviews der and other crimes made political and moral er parallels between German self-perceptions and sense, but was not always efective. American views of Nazi Germany not further pur‐ Olick's exploration of German "struggles" sued in this study. These points of comparison in‐ over the legacy and memory of the Third Reich is clude the German idea "that National Socialism at frst organized around the topics of exiles and was something that happened to the German peo‐ emigrants versus those who stayed; the proper ple, who were its frst victims" (p. 163). Wartime place of Nazism in German, and indeed, Western public opinion polls--to FDR's chagrin--show that a history; and the controversy of individual versus majority of Americans shared this interpretation. collective guilt, particularly German attitudes to‐ As an alternative defense strategy arguing against wards denazifcation. The author deepens his Anglo-American conceptualizations of Nazism analysis of these themes by reviewing the posi‐ that centered on German history and culture, tions of the Protestant (Martin Niemöller, Karl "many German intellectuals and politicians locat‐ Barth, Stuttgarter Declaration) and Catholic ed the causes of National Socialism in generalized church as well as prominent political leaders forces of Western history at large--including ni‐ (Kurt Schumacher, Konrad Adenauer, Theodor hilism, secularization, and 'massifcation'" (p. 96). Heuss). He concludes the second part of his book This position was possibly the strongest argument by re-visiting Karl Jaspers's famous contribution against the Sonderweg thesis: not only were Nazi to the "guilt question," reading it against fervent crimes deeply embedded in Western civilization, repudiations of the "guilt discourse" which, even they were not even genuinely German crimes be‐ though emanating from the sidelines, articulated cause the Third Reich really had been, as in by such fgures as Martin Heidegger and Carl Friedrich Meinecke's words, for example, "'a peri‐ Schmitt, were central to the indigenous German od of inner foreign rule' that preceded 'the post‐ postwar identity. war period of external foreign rule'" (p. 162). As Olick notes, "German public identity in this Throughout the second part of his book, Olick period was in many ways profoundly up for follows a theme of great and disturbing signif‐ grabs" (p. 140). The author shows how German cance, that of equating Germans with Jews in the postwar national discourse "remained committed immediate aftermath of the Holocaust. This "re‐ to a sense of Germany's special path" as a cultural markable efort to understand Germans as the nation (p. 165). On the one hand, this conceptual‐ new Jews, a pariah people serving as the scape‐ ization allowed for a "proud rather than a repen‐ goats for the sins of civilization" culminates in tant German identity" (p. 19). On the other hand, Jaspers's lectures on the "guilt question" but is not because even in those versions where the special limited to him (pp. 175). While Olick is indebted path had led directly to the Third Reich, some Ger‐ for the point about Jaspers's text to Anson Rabin‐ man intellectuals (including Jaspers) argued that bach's In the Shadow of Catastrophe, he fnds evi‐ "as a result of its unique experiences, Germany dence in many other contexts of this striking anal‐ might eventually once again even assume a posi‐ ogy. And he ofers several compelling and mutual‐ tion of moral leadership" (p. 172). A closer analy‐ ly supportive explanations. The equation is possi‐ sis of the relationship between the "proud" ver‐ ble only in a context in which the origin, nature sion of a special path and the inverted Anglo- and scope of the murder of the Jews is either not American argument of a century-old particularly understood, or ignored or denied. The "Germans- German deviation culminating in Hitler would are-like-Jews" analogy was occasionally supported have been interesting, but is not of great impor‐ by another widespread comparison, namely that tance to Olick's argument. Similarly, there are oth‐ of equating Allied crimes with Nazi crimes (p. 178). This trend becomes most disturbing in Carl

3 H-Net Reviews

Schmitt's formulations, whereby the roles of Jews ly, Olick draws on Dirk van Laak's argument that and Germans are reversed (p. 309). What under‐ Carl Schmitt's fundamental critique of important lay such rhetorical strategies was the impulse to tenets in West Germany's new political culture unburden, exculpate and "normalize" the German took place "in der Sicherheit des Schweigens" (pp. nation. The unexpected linkage between Jews and 306). One would have to add that this evasion was Germans preceded the German postwar discourse true not only or Schmitt, but for several of the Olick considers and can be found in the Anglo- post-45 "intellectual resisters"--Heidegger, Jünger American wartime debate, where it carried a dif‐ and Margret Boveri, among others--who had hap‐ ferent meaning. Both Stimson in his ofensive and pily cooperated with the Nazi regime, but found unjustifed charges against Morgenthau's motives collaboration with the new American and then as well as English and American critics of the West German authorities too distasteful. Their "Vansittartist" position compared any alleged, self-styled heroism and martyrdom took place in wholesale indictment of the German people to the "safety of non-persecution," which the previ‐ murderous Nazi antisemitism. ous regime had not aforded to any of its critics. In his last two chapters, Olick ofers a pene‐ My only critical comments arise from a view trating analysis of the opposing positions on Ger‐ across disciplines. Olick makes some claims that a man guilt by Jaspers, on the one hand, and Hei‐ historian would have to demonstrate with sup‐ degger, Schmitt and Ernst Jünger, on the other. He porting evidence: for example, that Heidegger's frames his interpretation through Ruth Benedict's response is representative of a more widespread distinction between "shame" and "guilt"-cultures, rejection of the "guilt" discourse (p. 295, 301). originally developed for the context of postwar Olick's focus on "intellectuals, politicians and oth‐ Japan. After reviewing later critiques of Benedict's er leaders" (p. 16f)--all of them representatives of argument, Olick reviews the range of German the West German debate--leaves the study in the postwar narratives in a manner that confrms somewhat rarifed realm of elite members ad‐ Benedict's "implication that guilt is more ad‐ dressing each other. There is little contextualiza‐ vanced--and morally superior to--shame" (p. 319). tion with actual political or cultural developments Guilt requires admission, recognition of a reality of the time or with other sources (such as Saul K. and then change. Some Germans experienced Padover's interviews) that would have yielded in‐ such transformation as destructive of personal as sights into the attitudes of broader segments of well as national identity. There is much evidence German society. A reference to the 1950 study by in the postwar formulations of the generation the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research show‐ born before 1900 for the prevalence of a "shame ing a signifcant degree of "nazifcation" of Ger‐ culture" that "interprets all acknowledgment and man society (confrmed by recent historical schol‐ confession as a betrayal of self" (p. 299) and, con‐ arship) is not sufcient to demonstrate the "rela‐ versely, systematically rejects the validity of any tion between elite and popular culture" as "an em‐ "outside" judgment, be it that of a German emi‐ pirical rather than presuppositional issue" (p. grant, Jewish refugee or Allied victor. In Olick's in‐ 323). terpretation, even Jaspers does not escape some The language of the introduction laying out criticism for an un-political national self-absorp‐ the methodological assumptions (p. 19f) proved a tion. Heinrich Blücher wrote about his wife's for‐ bit of a challenge for me. Once focused on the ac‐ mer professor and friend: "Jaspers' whole ethical tual subject matter, Olick's prose is engaging and purifcation babble" in the end served "for the highly readable. His critique of the "sterile opposi‐ vanquished as a way to continue occupying them‐ tion between episodic and emergentist accounts" selves exclusively with themselves" (p. 319). Final‐

4 H-Net Reviews

(p. 9) of German public memory formation has cial and cultural reorientations and reafrma‐ been surpassed by current scholarship. This is tions of Western, liberal and free market ideas noteworthy because of Olick's achievement in and practices. overcoming another "sterile dichotomy" prevalent Olick shows how Allied (US) policies provided in his own discipline, the "traditionalist/essential‐ an important framework for German responses. ist" versus "presentist approach" to memory and More importantly, he demonstrates that the au‐ its impact on national identity and politics in fa‐ thors of these early German positions on the vor of a more dynamic or "dialogical" perspective meaning of Nazism sought on the one hand to has also been paralleled by a younger generation stave of the victors' accusations, but also on the of historians (p. 333). There are, fnally, some mi‐ other to forge new narratives that would allow nor historical inaccuracies such "Joseph Mc‐ for a continued and meaningful national exis‐ Carthy's House Un-American Activities Commit‐ tence. Early formulations of West German ofcial tee" (p. 30); the "junior senator from Wisconsin" memory thus were dialogical in the sense that would not have headed a House committee. they responded to Allied policies, to each other As is often the case with insightful studies, and to older German traditions of nationhood (pp. Olick's book gives rise to further questions. An in‐ 18, 21, 322). This three-dimensional "dialogical" teresting topic that he raises in the beginning enterprise, which Olick superbly analyzes, reveals turns out not to be his central concern: the signif‐ at the same time the missing fourth dimension: cance of dealing with the legacies of Nazism for the reality of the Third Reich--which is so notice‐ Germany's transition to democracy (p. xii). Among ably absent from German refections and hence a host of studies that tackle this question more di‐ from the author's study. The sociologist is mainly rectly, two should be mentioned for their diferent concerned with "the memory of memory"--a for‐ approaches and signifcant insights. The political mulation meant to "capture the on-going and re‐ scientist Gesine Schwan, whom Olick briefy cites fexive qualities of the discourse" (p. 322). He only (Politik und Schuld: Die zerstörerische Macht des ventures as far as fnding it "conceivable that Schweigens ) ofered a normative argument in fa‐ many merely used the problems of Allied policy vor of confronting difcult, even destructive pasts as an opportunity for avoiding such self-inquiry" as a prerequisite for establishing a democratic po‐ (p. 335). That is undoubtedly true. litical culture. The historian Konrad Jarausch (Die But this judgment leaves two important as‐ Umkehr: Deutsche Wandlungen, 1945-95 ) recent‐ pects of German postwar reality underexposed. ly described and evaluated the multifaceted trans‐ Given Olick's detailed study of German discursive formation of a society implicated in "a break with strategies aimed at avoiding and falsifying reality civilization" to a successful and stable Western- and redirecting the gaze from the actual Third Re‐ style democracy. Jarausch paints a picture of a ich to some other object (Allied war crimes, an complex process that indeed required outside in‐ honorable German past) one would have hoped tervention and impositions, but which was for a more succinct conclusion as to why this ob‐ grounded more importantly in individual and col‐ fuscation happened. Olick fnds that a consistent lective "learning processes" taking place through‐ "goal ... was to contain the toxic portion of Ger‐ out German society and across several genera‐ man history so that it could be more easily dis‐ tions, in the context of the Cold War and a divided posed or handled without contaminating the country. In Jarausch's account this transformation healthy main body of German identity" (p. 328). involved (in addition to the diferent conceptual‐ We should probe further here. Why did some Ger‐ izations and rejections of Nazi legacies that lie at mans not only fnd it possible, but insisted on it the heart of Olick's interpretation) economic, so‐

5 H-Net Reviews being necessary to keep the gaze focused on the lied-supported democracy raises the question of inequities of Allied policies rather than looking at authenticity. But as Norbert Frei formulated in re‐ the devastation and crimes that their own nation sponse to Kogon's complaint about the West Ger‐ had wrought? Why was the immediate reality so man functionaries of the 1950s (that they were ra‐ eclipsed? Such questions involve a foray into the tionally conforming, but emotionally still Nazis), feld of psychology, which historians, too (stu‐ perhaps a conforming brain would over time be‐ diously and for good reasons) avoid. But the ques‐ gin to conquer the old, defant feelings. Perhaps tion is too important to remain unexplored, espe‐ there is in these specifc circumstances a truly cially since there were important exceptions to positive efect in "opportunism"--an act of exter‐ this rule of evasion and substitution. As Olick's nal adaptation that might lead to internal refor‐ book suggests, we can hardly study this transition mation.[2] from dictatorship, war and mass murder to the It is a tribute to the important accomplish‐ habit of peaceful democracy without applying--at ments of this fne study that it raises questions least at some critical junctures--a normative per‐ that lead beyond its boundaries. spective. From a moral point of view, the German Notes discourse in the frst postwar years is often mud‐ dled, repressive, defensive and occasionally dis‐ [1]. Michaela Hönicke, "'Prevent World War honest. Yet it is at the same time highly instruc‐ III': An Historiographical Appraisal of Morgen‐ tive. thau's Programme for Germany," in The Roosevelt Years. New Perspectives on American History, The second undeveloped line of inquiry per‐ 1933-1945, ed. Robert A. Garson and Stuart S. Kidd tains to the exact relationship between the exter‐ (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999), nal (foreign) framework of Allied policy and na‐ pp. 155-172. tional German responses and initiatives. Further investigation into this topic should pay close at‐ [2]. Norbert Frei, Vergangenheitspolitik. Die tention to diferences along generational lines Anfänge der Bundesrepublik und die NS-Vergan‐ which play no role in this sociological study. In ad‐ genheit (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1996), p. 99. dition to the strategies of those German intellectu‐ als who rejected, resisted and defed American/Al‐ lied policies, we can discern at least two further types of German reactions. Among those who not only recognized, but insisted on the need for criti‐ cal self-inquiry and purifcation, some joined the patriotic front of denying any meaningful "for‐ eign" role in this enterprise (Eugen Kogon, accord‐ ing to Olick). Others, however, accepted that "lib‐ eration" would take the form of national defeat; they welcomed it and were ready to make use of Allied guidelines and support in order to imple‐ ment a homegrown, genuinely German program of fundamental societal transformation (for ex‐ ample, Dolf Sternberger, earlier Helmuth von Moltke). A third alternative was opportunistic "conversion" and outward adaptation. This type of widespread transitioning from dictatorship to Al‐

6 H-Net Reviews

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-german

Citation: Michaela Hoenicke-Moore. Review of Olick, Jefrey K. In the House of the Hangman: The Agonies of German Defeat, 1943-1949. H-German, H-Net Reviews. May, 2006.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=11785

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

7