Gerhard Ringshausen: “The Resistant Word” – Culture

Christian authors formed the core of the so-called “inner emigration” in the Third Reich. You were clearly against Hitler, but under the Nazi censorship you could only write “between the lines”. Their message remained veiled, it had to be deciphered and interpreted. This also applies to their reception in the present. The word “inner emigration” as a designation for this literature appears as early as November 1933 – surprisingly in Thomas Mann, who felt a connection with these domestic dissidents, although he was already living abroad at the time. Numerous people and several publication organs counted themselves among this group, magazines such as “Hochland” and “Eckart”, letters critical of the regime and pamphlets – not to mention the large number of unpublished texts that could only appear after the end of the dictatorship (the most prominent example is certainly Elisabeth Langgässer’s novel “The Indelible Seal”, which was published in 1946).

Underground literature, often passed on in handwritten form, spread mainly during the war. This is shown by the approximately 30,000 soldiers’ letters in Reinhold Schneider’s estate in Karlsruhe; they are answers to the author’s writings, which were semi-legally printed in Alsace and spread to the trenches and air-raid shelters towards the end of the Nazi regime. Schneider’s “Our Father” alone had a circulation of half a million.

The literature of the inner emigration reached deep into the post-war years

But also what was publicly published and printed with Christian content during the Nazi era was widely distributed. Prose writings had large editions, often well over 100,000; Poems, especially the austere sonnet, gained an unexpected topicality; the historical novel found many readers. Criticism of the regime found expression in novels and short stories, mostly in concealed writing, in historical images and counter-images – as in the case of Werner Bergengruen, Gertrud von le Fort, Leo Weismantel, Stefan Andres, Erika Mitterer, and Ricarda Huch.

Numerous source editions, new editions and studies are now available – the literature of the inner emigration reached far into the post-war years. Important monographs are by Joël Pottier, John Klapper, Frank-Lothar Kroll, Heidrun Ehrke-Rotermund and Erwin Rotermund. But no one has dared to present a comprehensive overview. Now it’s here – in a large volume penned by an expert, the Protestant theologian and religious educator Gerhard Ringshausen, who has been dealing with internal emigration for many years. His study takes stock of the “resisting word” of Christian authors, but aims beyond the Nazi era by looking back to the beginnings of Christian literature in the modern age and the acceptance of the writings of the Inner Emigration after 1945 by readers and in research tracked.

The book is not easy to read, it wants to be studied. With 700 pages and 3781 annotations, it is one of those writings that must be read not only from front to back, but also page by page “from top to bottom” – both the main text and the often extensive references and comments listed below. But if you have the necessary patience, you will make a wealth of important discoveries. They go beyond previous research, open up new approaches and a comprehensive view of inner emigration, the literature of those who “stayed at home” during the Nazi era.

Ringshausen presents his balance sheet in two parts. The first describes the conditions of literature in the Third Reich and characterizes the self-image of the poets of the Inner Emigration. The second names the areas of conflict with the Nazi regime and asks about the guiding principles of the opponents.

Gertrud von le Fort wrote the earliest and clearest literary warning of the anti-Semitic hate campaign that began after 1933

Ringshausen’s selection focuses on 30 Catholic and Protestant authors. In addition to the famous, there are also lesser-known ones such as Gertrud Bäumer, Otto von Taube, Johannes Kirschweng, Rüdiger Syberberg and Veronika Erdmann. Their texts prove to be documents of a far-reaching, but usually carefully camouflaged criticism of the regime. It is often only a few lines that played a role in the confrontation with the Nazi state. Ringshausen performs them, describes them, knows how to decode them.

The diverse relationships between the resistance groups and the literary dissidents become clear. Sample pictures show Hans Scholl in Carl Muth’s Munich library; or Jochen Klepper reading Reinhold Schneider and Gertrud von le Forts. The diverse cultural and religious connections become visible, even if the insight often remains fragmentary. One experiences the effect of the networks, the exchange in letters, telephone calls, reviews, what Jochen Klepper called the “iron ring” of “those who belong together in faith”.

The fight of the Nazi party against the Jews is of course at the center of the arguments. It is therefore not by chance that Ringshausen puts Gertrud von le Fort at the top in the second part of his account. Because this poet’s anti-racism and anti-Semitism demonstrably goes back to the Weimar period. Shocked by an anti-Semitic poster by the Munich NSDAP from 1929 that read “Juda verrecke!” ended, she wrote her novel “The Pope from the Ghetto”. It is the earliest and clearest literary warning of the baiting of Jews that began after 1933, the prelude to the Shoah.

Thomas Mann discovered a “smell of blood and shame” in her writings

If one follows Ringshausen, then the turn against anti-Semitism, hate speech, persecution of the Jews and the defense of the Jews in the Christian name also clearly emerges as a continuum in the writings of Ricarda Huch, Reinhold Schneider and Werner Bergengruen. Almost all authors of Inner Emigration asked themselves after the war whether they had done enough for the Jews with their historically disguised pleadings. But how had other writers behaved, and what had the majority of Germans done to avert the disaster?

There is no doubt that the literature on inner emigration found an echo in the Nazi era. This is shown above all by the millions of copies of the books. One reason was that writers had learned to write in veiled form under the Nazi regime. But in the opposite sense, the readers had also learned decoding reading – and so a new form of literary-political communication quickly developed.

But after 1945, the literature of those who stayed at home came under pressure to justify itself. Thomas Mann, now fully on the side of the “outer emigration”, discovered a “smell of blood and shame” in their writings. Bertolt Brecht missed the manageability as a “weapon” in the literature of Christian authors. Literary critics blamed the Christian-conservative world view, the retreat into allegories and historical images, the “escape inwards”. For those who stayed at home, it was the “permanent” that mattered: conscience, justice, the preservation of human dignity, European unity, the Christian tradition.

In fact, one can ask whether an openly expressed contradiction from many respected authors would not have had the power to affect the Nazi regime – a regime that had neither consistent ideas nor important authors at its disposal. But a look at the few cases of public criticism of the regime is sobering: Ernst Wiechert was imprisoned after courageous statements and was threatened with “physical annihilation” after Goebbels was released. Reinhold Schneider, accused of high treason, could only be saved from a trial with certain death consequences through the intervention of his doctors.

Today one is willing to concede a higher intrinsic value to indirect critical speech in totalitarian regimes

At least the view of inner emigration has changed in the present. Today one is willing to concede a higher intrinsic value to indirect critical speech in totalitarian regimes. The number of dictators has not decreased, and criticism of the regime leads to persecution, imprisonment and death in many countries of today’s world. In addition, today’s literary critics and literary historians appreciate the art of poetic camouflage under totalitarian conditions better than they used to. Many no longer see veiled spellings simply as a political ducking away. Rather, writing “between the lines” is considered a literary form of expression – unavoidable under certain circumstances.

Undoubtedly, this change benefits Gerhard Ringshausen in his book. He can take a new look at old writings, now all but forgotten, that enjoyed high esteem and circulation for almost two decades after 1945; he can clarify assignments (especially in cases of doubt like Ina Seidel and Gertrud Fussenegger) and he can revise hasty judgments. Above all, he succeeds in directing his gaze back to the aesthetics by asking about the literary and artistic weight of the writings of the Inner Emigration.

In other words, it is the rank of these authors that not a few of their writings achieved classical rank under the adverse circumstances of the time. It remains their tragedy that their resistance inevitably had to remain “literature”. The authors of the Inner Emigration warned their fellow citizens, they conjured up the mischief of the Nazi regime early on, knowledgeably and with commitment. They could not prevent the disaster.