LITMIR.BIZ

       3

       The Nazis’ Theory of Volkish Literature

      Like all aspects of German culture during the Nazi period, literature was transformed into an instrument of Volkish propaganda. Goebbels called it an expression of the “cultural will of the people,”¹ and the critic Heinz Kindermann, who originally introduced the concept of volkhafte Dichtung (Volkish literature) defined it in terms of its relationship to the mythos of the German blood, race, spirit, ancestors, landscape, and destiny.² Norbert Langer, whose definition of the concept was equally vague and ambiguous, referred to its special mission of preserving the German tradition at home and abroad, “wherever there are Germans.”³ In his view, Volkish literature was shared by all who were of German blood and who spoke the German language. Such definitions characterized the political and ideological role of literature in the Third Reich that had little to do with the self expression of individual authors.

      The Nazi slogan: “Das Buch—Unsere Waffe” (The Book—Our Weapon) further indicated that literature played a vital role in the fight for German national unity under the rulership of the Nazi Regime. Books were to be written and to be used to “guide” all generations of readers in the ideology of National Socialism. Books were not only the most significant media of instruction but also of indoctrination. By means of the “right” type of literature the Nazis hoped to promote especially in young people the “right” attitude toward Party and State. During a meeting of the Reich Culture Chamber in November, 1934, State Secretary Funk defined art and literature as indispensable tools within the politics of the State, expressing his hope that they would serve to influence the German people by filling them with the spirit of the National Socialist idea.⁴

      The Nazis saw children’s literature as an integral part of Volkish literature, because they believed that it had to live up to the same “task” as all literature. Through it they hoped to achieve a control over their children’s attitude toward the German folk community and the goals of National Socialism. Basically, they distinguished between three different categories of Volkish literature. The first one was folklore proper, from which they singled out all those German and Nordic Germanic traditions that appeared to be well suited for the purpose of folk education, such as German folktales, Norse mythology, and the Nordic sagas, as well as German and Danish ballads and legends. The second category consisted of older German literature, including short stories, regional novels, historical novels, and certain excerpts from books that lent themselves well to a “Volkish” interpretation in the National Socialist sense. The third category was the new literature that was relatively slow in coming and that corresponded to the Nazis’ requirements of “Volkish literature” without being dependent on the “right” interpretation. To be sure that the first two categories, which made up the bulk of children’s literature during the first half of the Nazi Regime, would be interpreted in the proper manner, the Party and State censorship authorities would issue detailed “guidelines” for teachers, librarians and youth leaders. In addition, all editors of folklore journals and literature journals were placed under pressure to follow the National Socialist ideology in the interpretation and criticism of every article or book review published. Those who did not follow this demand were denied paper for printing or were ordered to cease publishing altogether.⁵

      What we today plainly call “censorship,” the Nazis expressed as “cultural guidance.” In this activity they distinguished between two directions, one of which would move toward destroying all those elements in literature that did not fit their ideology, and the other one which would help them in their efforts to build the folk state of the future. The first one may be associated with the book purges, but it should be associated also with the willful distortion of folklore and portions of the older literature that were re-interpreted in a “National Socialist” manner. The Nazis never admitted that they were in any way doing something to art and literature that overstepped their boundaries. Hans Friedrich Blunck, President of the Reich Literature Chamber, used the gentle simile of a gardener’s job to explain the task that Goebbels had assigned to him. He said that the State authorities would have to “pull out all of the weeds” from the “healthy bed of flowers,” very much like a gardener who truly cared about his plants. If left untended, the weeds would choke the young plants and stifle their growth and development. “Thus,” he concluded, “the State has the right to choose and select from among the literary creations and the authors according to its own will and desire. It has the right to do so—and it has always made use of this right—in order to counteract those movements that have a tendency to lead to the disintegration of German culture.”⁶

      As the removal of “un-Volkish” literature was an on-going process during the Nazi period and not confined to its early stages, the criteria used in this process are just as important as those connected with the promotion of “desirable” Volkish literature. At first, teachers and librarians followed in their selection procedures the general guidelines of the Nazi ideology and some more specific principles set forth in Goebbels’ “black lists”—a periodic index of “un-Volkish” works that also included children’s books. Later, Reich Education Minister Rust urged all teachers and librarians again to screen the contents of their library holdings in view of the National Socialist “Volkish” requirements and to remove all of the remaining items that unnecessarily “cluttered” the bookshelves.⁷ During the national conference in 1937, the National Socialist Teachers Association finally agreed to set up definite guidelines for the removal of “un-Volkish” literature and to implement these without delay. The ten points listed covered most aspects of the Nazis’ censorship theory.⁸ Significantly, the first one referred to the need of removing books that supposedly contradicted the “Nordic Germanic attitude.” According to the attached explanation, this applied to works portraying unheroic characters, pacifistic themes, or certain “weaknesses” in German history. Implied in this statement was a simultaneous promotion of books dwelling on heroic themes and a “positive” world view. The second point concerned unwanted literature as far as the “wrong attitude toward Jews” and the racial question were concerned. It referred quite explicitly to books which portrayed Jews as “noble protagonists” but Germans as “treacherous villains.” Such themes were not to be tolerated, it said, nor others that presented a cooperation among different races or interracial marriages in a favorable light. The next following point, too, spoke against books depicting ideals of the brotherhood of man across racial lines. Specifically, it addressed the need of abolishing books that accepted the “imperialism of the Pope” while placing the value of the individual “monastic” life over the value of a life dedicated to the service of the German folk community.

      The most drastic National Socialist censorship principles were those which were directed against works written by Jews or by persons who, for one reason or another, had expressed a dissenting view in regard to the Nazi Regime. Among the seventy Jewish writers whose works were to be withheld from children and youth were the names of Heinrich Heine, Else Ury, Jakob Wassermann, Franz Werfel, Ludwig Fulda, Alfred Döblin, Emil Ludwig, Arthur Schnitzler, Georg Simmel, and Stefan Zweig. Among the forty “dissidents” were those of Erich Kästner, Jack London, and Lisa Tetzner. In both cases, the Association’s judgment was unrelated to literary criteria altogether, as it focused primarily on biological-racial

Скачать книгу