John J. Michalczyk, ed.. Confront! Resistance in Nazi Germany. New York: Peter Lang, 2004. xiv + 251 pp. $39.95, paper, ISBN 978-0-8204-6317-9.

Reviewed by Doris L. Bergen

Published on H-German (August, 2006)

These three books approach the topic of resis‐ before and during World War II. Informed by tance in National Socialist Germany in diferent decades of research and personal connections ways, but all raise questions familiar to historians with Staufenberg's family and friends, this book of modern Germany and relevant to anyone con‐ is the product of a mature scholar at the peak of cerned with why and how individuals oppose his powers. It is at the same time a moving tribute state-sponsored violence. What enabled some to an extraordinary man whose intelligence, no‐ people not only to develop a critical stance to‐ bility of spirit and ability to withstand pain set ward the Nazi regime but to risk their lives to him apart from his peers long before his most fa‐ fght against it? How should such heroes be re‐ mous act of defance against Nazi evil. membered and commemorated? What particular Tatjana Blaha's exploration of Willi Graf and challenges face scholars who try to write the his‐ his involvement with the "White Rose" in Munich tory of resistance? marks the beginning, rather than the culmination Peter Hofmann's "family history" of Claus, of its author's career. A revised Ph.D. dissertation, Count Staufenberg, is the second edition of his Blaha's study seeks to correct the widespread no‐ book Staufenberg (1995), originally published in tion that the White Rose was essentially the work German in 1992 under the title Claus Schenk Graf of Hans and Sophie Scholl. Graf, too, was an im‐ von Staufenberg und seine Brüder. Hofmann, the portant fgure in the group, Blaha argues, and in‐ dean of studies of the German resistance, uses a vestigation of his involvement draws attention to traditional biographical approach that locates the motivations for resistance that have often been roots of Staufenberg's opposition to National So‐ overlooked. In particular, Graf's formation in the cialism and his attempt to kill Hitler on July 20, Catholic youth movement, his independent nature 1944, in his unusual family background, his devo‐ and his longstanding opposition to National So‐ tion to the poet Stefan George and the George cir‐ cialism prepared him to join the Scholls, Alexan‐ cle and his experiences in the German military der Schmorell, Christoph Probst and Professor H-Net Reviews

Kurt Huber in their resistance activities. Like and sometimes conficting contributions that fol‐ Hofmann, Blaha left no stone unturned in her low. quest for sources, and Graf's diaries, letters and All three of these books are valuable and in‐ the recollections of his sister add a personal di‐ spiring additions to the literature on resistance to mension to the scholarship. In contrast to Hof‐ the Third Reich, and each of them merits a place mann, whose study ends with July 1944, leaving on the reading lists of scholars and students en‐ only a seven-page epilogue to address Staufen‐ gaged in the study of Nazism and its opponents. berg's legacy, Blaha devotes half her book to the But even in combination they leave many ques‐ postwar reception of Graf and the White Rose. She tions open and puzzles unresolved. The authors' examines treatments of the White Rose in selected admiration for their remarkable and heroic sub‐ scholarly and popular works, including press cov‐ jects is appropriate and well substantiated by erage, and looks at public acts of commemoration, careful research, but what does the life and death for example at the Ludwig-Maximilians Univer‐ of an extraordinary person like Claus, Count sität in Munich and in Graf's hometown of Saar‐ Staufenberg really tell us about the possibilities brücken. Graf, Blaha concludes, has not received for resistance that were available to less gifted in‐ the credit he deserves. dividuals in Nazi Germany? Even within his own The volume edited by John Michalczyk comes family, Claus Staufenberg was atypical. Hof‐ out of a conference on "Resistance in Nazi Ger‐ mann provides an intriguing look at the child‐ many" held at Boston College in 2002. Its fourteen hood of the three Staufenberg brothers, but nev‐ chapters cover a wide range of topics. There are er accounts for the fact that two of them--Claus personal accounts of resistance (by the Jehovah's and Berthold--numbered among those who lost Witness Rudolf Graichen; Freya von Moltke in their lives in the efort to destroy Hitler's regime, conversation with Rachel Freudenburg and oth‐ whereas the third, Berthold's twin Alexander, an ers; and George Wittenstein, who was connected early and outspoken critic of the Nazi system with the White Rose); essays by prominent schol‐ whose wife was the granddaughter of a Jewish ars in the feld (among them Peter Hofmann, convert to Christianity, does not seem to have Nathan Stoltzfus and Dennis Showalter); surveys been directly involved in the conspiracy. of German resistance (Paul Bookbinder's over‐ Blaha gets us closer to the situation of "ordi‐ view); and portraits of individual resistors (Ina R. nary Germans" with her focus on Willi Graf, in Friedman on Cato Bontjes Van Beek and the Red many ways an unremarkable young man who Orchestra). Like most conference volumes, the nevertheless became a determined and active op‐ book provides a tantalizing sample of issues with‐ ponent of the Third Reich. But she is more inter‐ out developing any themes in depth. The title of ested in elevating Graf to a hero's status equiva‐ the collection and the fnal chapter, Anna Ros‐ lent to that of the Scholl siblings than she is in mus's discussion of "Hate Crimes in Germany To‐ identifying the factors that led him to move be‐ day," call on readers to continue the legacy of yond the passive criticism that characterized Nazism's opponents and "confront!" prejudice and many of his counterparts in the Catholic youth xenophobia in our own world. Unfortunately, the movement, even its underground association, the volume's editor did not take the opportunity to Graue Orden. Blaha succeeds in drawing attention write an introductory essay that would have tied to Graf, but ends up giving short shrift to others the contributions together to support this chal‐ involved in the White Rose, most notably the stu‐ lenge. Instead, Michalczyk ofers only a brief fore‐ dent Hans Leipelt, who was denounced for col‐ word (one-and-a-half pages) that leaves readers to lecting funds to aid Professor Huber's widow and fnd their own connections among the diverse

2 H-Net Reviews executed in January 1945. Leipelt is relegated to a Hofmann makes an efort to link Staufen‐ footnote in Blaha's work (p. 90), only to appear on berg's resistance to the Holocaust, but his claim the fnal page as "Konrad Leipelt" (p. 194). Nathan that outrage at the murder of the Jews was a cen‐ Stolzfus's chapter in Michalczyk, on the women tral--even the central--motivation for both Claus involved in the Rosenstraße protest of 1943, is one and Berthold remains open to debate. To support of the few examinations of resistance that consid‐ his point, Hofmann observes that when Claus ers defance and accommodation together, as they Staufenberg tried to recruit certain people for the must have functioned for most Germans under conspiracy, he pointed to the slaughter of Jews in Nazi rule. Stoltzfus's category of "civil courage" Eastern Europe as indicative of the evil of Nazism. provides a useful way around the tired debates In other cases, however, Staufenberg used difer‐ about defning "resistance" that continue to domi‐ ent arguments, presumably in line with what he nate many discussions of the subject. deemed most likely to convince reluctant candi‐ Oddly, none of the three books under review dates. Hofmann's assertion is further complicat‐ has much to say about the particular targeting of ed by evidence he provides of anti-Jewish atti‐ Jews for persecution and killing, nor about the tudes on the part of both Claus and Berthold central place of antisemitism in Nazi ideology and Staufenberg: for example, their support of mea‐ practice. None of the chapters in Michalczyk's col‐ sures in the 1930s to limit the place of German lection addresses Jewish resistance, a gap all the Jews in public life, and their approval of the more unfortunate because it ends up reinforcing phrase "the thousand-year curse of their blood," the old stereotype of Jewish passivity in the Holo‐ referring to Jews, in Rudolf Fahrner's poetic trib‐ caust. With the exception of Stoltzfus's essay, none ute to Stefan George, "Der Tod des Meisters." Hof‐ of the contributions discusses resistors whose ef‐ mann concedes that the phrase was "intolerable forts focused on saving Jews. Donald Dietrich's to Jews after the mass murders of Auschwitz," yet piece on "Christianity in the Third Reich" men‐ dismisses the Staufenberg brothers' position as tions the churches' role in "spawning" anti‐ merely "lacking in tact" (p. 247). The Staufen‐ semitism, but is more concerned with what Diet‐ bergs may have been exceptional in many ways, rich calls Christianity's "death struggle with but it appears that at least some members of the Nazism." Blaha's study of Graf emphasizes his family, like many of their European Christian Christianity and points to his experiences at the peers, held Jews in vague contempt. front as a crucial turning point in his moral devel‐ Hofmann attempts to clinch his case for opment, but provides no clues as to his own atti‐ Claus and Berthold's anti-antisemitism by remind‐ tudes toward Jews or his encounters with German ing readers that Gestapo records described oppo‐ crimes against them. Blaha indicates only that sition to the persecution of the Jews as the main Graf had no family connections to Jews, unlike motive for the Staufenbergs' resistance to Nation‐ Christoph Probst, whose father's second wife was al Socialism (a case Hofmann makes for the July Jewish, and Leipelt, who was deemed a Jewish 20 resistors in general in his contribution to the "Mischling" under Nazi racial law. Like Alexander Michalczyk volume, "The German Resistance and Schmorell, whose mother was Russian, Probst and the Holocaust"). This claim, it seems to me, rests especially Leipelt must have experienced Nazi on a faulty analysis of the sources. Given the cen‐ racial hierarchies in ways that Graf and the other trality of destruction of the Jews to Nazi policy members of the White Rose could not have done, and practice, Nazi ofcials automatically accused but Blaha does not explore this contrast. anyone who opposed the regime of being some‐ how soft on Jews. Such charges in ofcial records reveal much more about the priorities of the

3 H-Net Reviews regime and its agents than they do about the actu‐ tial co-conspirator a photograph of his family and al motivations of those under interrogation. Hof‐ said, "I am doing it for them" (p. 193). mann does make a compelling case for Staufen‐ The nature of the sources may also explain berg's moral outrage at the corruption, vicious‐ why the role of religion in the resistance remains ness and destructiveness of National Socialism, rather murky, not only in these books but in the but persecution of Jews appears to have been only scholarship in general. Blaha shows Willi Graf to one part of a horrifcally wide picture. In what have been deeply committed to his Catholic faith, comes across as an efort to protect Staufenberg but many other sincere Catholics, including Graf's from any criticism and make him be all things to friends in the youth movement, did not build ac‐ all people, Hofmann may have overstated the tive resistance on that same foundation. Staufen‐ role of the Holocaust in his hero's moral calcula‐ berg, too, Hofmann reminds us, "remained a tions. faithful Catholic" (p. 285), although it is not clear The question of motivation points to the par‐ exactly how that religious identity shaped his op‐ ticular problems that face historians working on position to Nazism. His quest for allies within the resistance to National Socialism. Precisely those military establishment certainly does not appear matters of most urgent interest to researchers are to have included any Wehrmacht chaplains, al‐ not addressed directly in the available sources. It though as an ofcer and member of the General was too dangerous to leave written or even oral Staf, he must have encountered many of them, traces of one's involvement in illegal activities, Catholic and Protestant. Donald Dietrich's piece in and the kind of people most likely to act in opposi‐ the Michalczyk volume concludes that Christiani‐ tion to the regime can hardly be expected to have ty failed to spark resistance at the level of institu‐ spent hours engaged in psychological or philo‐ tions, although it sometimes succeeded in doing sophical introspection. Blaha and Hofmann try to so for individuals. That analysis seems to ft the overcome this challenge by turning to personal cases of Graf and Staufenberg. For outsider correspondence and in Graf's case, diaries, and to groups (for example, the Jehovah's Witnesses, as triangulate those private sources with ofcial described in Graichen's personal account and records, such as transcripts of interrogations and James N. Pellechia's scholarly overview in Con‐ postwar refections. Still, much remains in the front!), the situation was diferent, as religious realm of speculation, an activity from which Hof‐ structures and communities of the faithful coordi‐ mann in particular prefers to refrain. For exam‐ nated and supported resistance activities. It ple, he argues convincingly that Claus Staufen‐ would be instructive to have similar studies of the berg turned against Hitler as early as 1942--while role of Jewish religious organizations and tradi‐ the Germans still held the European continent in tions in motivating and shaping resistance. frm control. But he does not analyze the impact Incomplete and nonexistent sources may also of Staufenberg's injuries in North Africa in early explain some discrepancies that exist between 1943--the loss of one eye, his right hand and two and among the accounts of resistance these books fngers of the left hand--in the subsequent, crucial present. Readers may be especially bewildered by decisions to assume leadership of the conspiracy conficting information regarding the White Rose. and to serve as the assassin. Nor does he address Where Hofmann describes its members as hav‐ the role of Staufenberg's wife Nina and children ing "staged a public protest in Munich University" in the count's considerations, other than to note (p. 181), Blaha suggests that Hans and Sophie that in fall 1943, Staufenberg showed one poten‐ Scholl distributed the sixth White Rose fyer in‐ side the university building without consulting

4 H-Net Reviews other members of the group. It is unclear what done. Perhaps the best word of guidance for fu‐ they hoped to achieve through this action, Blaha ture research comes from Freya von Moltke's ad‐ concludes. Wittenstein's account in the Michal‐ monition not to see things "too simply" czyk volume substantiates many of Blaha's points, (Michalczyk, pp. 135). but introduces key players--among them, George (Jürgen) Wittenstein himself--who are never men‐ tioned in Blaha's study. Inge Scholl's 1983 publica‐ tion, The White Rose: Munich, 1942-1943, consti‐ tutes the main source for Michalczyk and Franz Josef Müller's chapter, entitled "The White Rose Student Movement in Germany: Its History and Relevance Today." Blaha, however, describes Inge Scholl's version of events as seriously problemat‐ ic, devoid of any scholarly apparatus and respon‐ sible for some signifcant and persistent errors of fact and interpretation about the White Rose (pp. 110-112). Readers will need to decide for them‐ selves whose lead to follow. Likewise left on their own will be readers in‐ terested in the connections between gender and resistance. Some studies of Jewish resistance have explored this topic (among them Vera Laska's standard work); Stoltzfus raises it in his analysis of the Rosenstraße protest, and Freya von Moltke touches on it with characteristic modesty and in‐ sight. Nevertheless, it is not investigated in a sys‐ tematic way in any of the three books under dis‐ cussion. Blaha, in particular, misses an opportuni‐ ty here in accounting for why Sophie Scholl has captured so much public attention and popular afection in postwar Germany. In general, Blaha's discussion of the reception of the White Rose would have benefted from consideration of the infuence of movies about the group, especially Michael Verhoeven's 1983 hit, The White Rose. No doubt Verhoeven's flm has reached a much wider audience than the literary and press accounts that Blaha analyzes. The preceding observation, like all of my re‐ sponses to the books by Blaha, Hofmann and Michalczyk, is less a criticism of these studies of German resistance than it is a reminder that even in this well-examined feld, more remains to be

5 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: Doris L. Bergen. Review of Michalczyk, John J., ed. Confront! Resistance in Nazi Germany. H- German, H-Net Reviews. August, 2006.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=12184

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

6