|
A Conversation with Jürgen
Wittenstein:
"Someone Had to Do It"
[DEUTSCH]
Jürgen Wittenstein is one of the few survivors who belonged to the
tight-knit group of friends who later became known as the resistance
movement The White Rose. He was with them from the beginning and
participated in their activities right up to the end.
Recently, Jürgen and Christel Wittenstein came to Munich. An interview
arose from our meeting with them —
a very moving and serious conversation. Jürgen Wittenstein and his wife
Christel talked with us about the days of the White Rose, the years
after the war, and the way history is processed in Germany.
Translated by Ruth Hanna Sachs
1. The White Rose
According to Wittenstein, one could say that the White Rose had its
origins in 1938. It was not an organization that one could join. The
White Rose was "a group of very close friends who had the same interests
in literature, art, music, etc." For Jürgen Wittenstein, the White Rose
began in an army medical unit. Students who wished to study medicine
were transferred to a medical unit the last six months of their military
service; they were then trained in basic medical care.
It was here that Wittenstein shared a room with Alexander Schmorell. The
two quickly became friends and noticed that their political views were
the same. Once, Schmorell joked that perhaps one day a sign would be
posted on their door: "The revolution began here!" And it was
Wittenstein who introduced Hans Scholl to Alexander Schmorell.
Wittenstein had met Scholl through their mutual friend, Hellmut Hartert.
They all subsequently began their medical studies in Munich. Following
their military stint and compulsory labor service, the university
initially appeared to offer them tremendous freedom. Looking back, they
knew that these months at the commencement of their studies were the
only time in which they were allowed to be young.
Other students were likewise opposed to the Nazi regime. By way of
example, Wittenstein spoke of January 13, 1943. The Gauleiter (1),
area commander for the National Socialists, called the entire student
body together for a special convocation in the German Museum. During his
speech, he attacked all the female students, said they were wasting
their time by studying at the university. They should instead fulfill
their duties to the Fatherland and give the Führer a son. "…, and if
they don’t have anyone, I’ll be happy to provide them with one of my
adjutants, and I will promise you a pleasant experience," the
Gauleiter
said.
When a great number of the female students tried to leave the auditorium
in protest—to the applause of the students remaining in the hall—the
Gauleiter
ordered their arrest. Consequently, numerous male students, many of them
in uniform, stormed the podium and held the student leader hostage until
the women were released.
But why were there so few who, in the end, turned their oppositional
thoughts into deeds? "In German, there is a word for something that has
almost never existed in Germany: Zivilcourage, the courage of
one’s convictions." That is Wittenstein’s answer to the question. Too
few were willing to consistently accept responsibility for their
opinions. Wittenstein sees the reason for this as having a historical
basis: The German mentality of submissiveness, stamped into the society
by the German empire (the Kaiserreich), and continued on into the
Weimar Republic.
Wittenstein points out two factors that differentiated him and his
friends from most of their contemporaries. On the one hand, there is the
way their parents raised them to be responsible, and to think
independently. On the other hand, there were the Bündische youth
organizations that had as their stated goals, and tried to impart to
their youth, self-reliance and ethical principles, along with courage,
bravery, and honesty.
Nevertheless, we felt the question "Resistance no matter the
consequences?" was still unanswered. Why would Jürgen Wittenstein have
placed himself in such danger – or was he completely unaware of the
danger involved?
On the contrary, he was completely aware of the dangers and was even
very afraid. But the deeds that placed him in dangerous situations were
to his mind a matter of course. For example, a week after Hans and
Sophie Scholl, and Christoph Probst were executed, he visited their
grave, bearing a large wreath. To do so, he had to ride all the way
across the city on a streetcar, had to ask the cemetery administration
where their grave was located, in order to place the wreath on the grave
of three "traitors of the people." Wasn’t he afraid of being denounced,
or of the Gestapo’s following him? Naturally, "but someone had to do
it!"
Wittenstein was also the person who called the Scholl parents to let
them know about the arrest of their children. He picked them up from the
train station and took them to the Palace of Justice. Otherwise, they
would never have seen their children alive again. Again here, the same
reply: "Someone had to do it!"
The only situation in which Wittenstein would have lost his nerve would
have been the possibility of having to be present as a military doctor
at the execution of one of his friends, in order to witness their death.
He had been ordered to be present at an execution once prior. Just
visualizing that possibility visibly horrifies him to this day.
Did he ever imagine that he could be arrested and condemned? "I imagined
that very precisely," and the situation became urgent when he received
an invitation to appear before the Gestapo. To this day, Wittenstein
cannot explain why his commanding officer in their student company
protected him. He supposes that the officer was excessively annoyed that
the Gestapo was trying to usurp his authority, as the Gestapo had no
jurisdiction over military personnel. Once he even told Wittenstein that
he authorized him to use his weapon in case he should be arrested.
When even this defense appeared to be ineffective, Wittenstein
volunteered for a transfer to the front, the only place where the
Gestapo could not touch him.
And therewith ended a surveillance that had begun early. From the
beginning, Wittenstein was the person with the most incriminating
evidence against him. The Gestapo was watching him from 1938 on. To keep
from endangering his friends, he did not participate in every single one
of the White Rose discussions.
Giving a Sign
The operations of the White Rose concentrated on shaking up their fellow
citizens. Wittenstein declines to judge how successfully they achieved
that goal. Yes, the city was in an uproar after the graffiti action (the
group painted the word "Freedom" in letters three feet tall across the
façade of the University of Munich). The majority of the people in
Munich seemed to be positively affected.
In this context, he relates a story about an employee of his landlord,
who told him about Elsner’s failed assassination attempt on Hitler’s
life the morning after it happened. She added, "He shoulda been wiped
out!"
When one considers such statements, one must ask how the regime could
have lasted as long as it did. Wittenstein describes the ever-present
threat that no one living in a democracy can envisage. By 1934,
state-sponsored terrorism was so prevalent that the expression Be
quiet or you’ll land in Dachau had already become part of the
vernacular. Once in a movie theater, Jürgen Wittenstein witnessed the
Gestapo arresting an individual during the newsreel before the feature
film. That person had simply made a disparaging remark about the regime.
The system thrived on the intimidation of its citizenry. But in the case
of the White Rose, that intimidation was not effective; in spite of it,
they came together for the sake of resisting—and not only they. There
were around 350 resistance movements in Germany. To be sure, most of
them did not know much about one another, nor did they have much contact
between themselves, because of the success of Hitler’s system of
isolation, intimidation, and espionage. Most of the population
vacillated between indifference, playing the game, and enthusiasm for
the National Socialist state.
The Day of the Arrest
Wittenstein describes the day of the Scholls’ arrest, February 18, 1943.
The members of the Student Company were summoned to the barracks.
Roll-call was usually on Saturday only; therefore, rumors were rampant
that they were about to be sent back to Russia. The C.O. announced that
there was a traitor from their unit, and therefore no one was allowed to
leave the barracks.
When they noticed that Alexander Schmorell was missing, Wittenstein went
to the C.O. and maintained that Schmorell had a place in the countryside
without a telephone, and that he (Wittenstein) would notify him to
return to barracks. When he received permission to leave the barracks,
Wittenstein immediately went to the doctor’s office of Alexander’s
father.
Though the Gestapo was sitting in the waiting room, he hoped to be able
to pass a message along to Alexander through his father. Jürgen
Wittenstein’s family owned a vast country estate in Swabia, where they
had already hidden several people. Alexander and all the others in the
White Rose knew about it; in case of a trap, they were supposed to make
their way there.
To this day, Wittenstein cannot understand why this did not work. Is it
possible that Alexander had already been arrested? Or did he merely
forget the possibility in his panic?
These questions remain as unanswered as two other things Wittenstein has
never been able to comprehend. Why did the Scholls allow themselves to
be arrested? Why did they not tear themselves free from the janitor, who
was physically inferior to them? Hans was strong enough to have gotten
away from him. Both Scholls could have fled to the Wittensteins’ estate
under cover of night.
And why did Hans Scholl have Christoph Probst’s handwritten draft of a
leaflet in his pocket? Above all, on the day they were planning to risk
more than they ever had before, in that they were not only placing the
leaflets outside the university classrooms, but throwing them down into
the atrium.
Probst was identified by the handwriting on the leaflet and executed
with the Scholls. The circle of friends had increasingly tried to keep
him out of the White Rose activities, since he was married and had three
young children. If that draft had not been found on Scholl’s person,
Probst would have been interrogated, no doubt, but they would not have
been able to pin anything on him. He would have escaped certain death.
"Someone had to do it!" Could one say that this was the motto of the
White Rose? "Definitely," replied Jürgen Wittenstein. The members of the
White Rose wanted to stand up for their convictions and accept the full
consequence of so doing. While she was in custody, Sophie Scholl had the
opportunity to avoid the death penalty. The detective who interrogated
her wished to save her from execution. He gave her a long dissertation
on the "achievements" of National Socialism, and in conclusion, asked
her if she would have done the things she did had she known what he told
her in advance. And Sophie Scholl responded, "Yes. Because you are the
one who has a false Weltanschauung (2), not I."
2. After the War
After the war, Jürgen Wittenstein first went to England. He had to wait
a year for a visa to emigrate to the USA, because the American
government could not conceive of anyone in a resistance movement who was
not a Communist. And because of the hysteria of McCarthyism, Communists
did not get entrance visas to the US at that time.
We wanted to know, though we suspect we know the reason, why he
ultimately left Germany. His first answer was, because he could
further his education. Today, Wittenstein is a prominent cardiac
surgeon. But of course, that answer is only a half truth.
That a man like Jürgen Wittenstein, who spent years risking his life for
Germany and Germans, could turn his back on his country—that is the
result of unbearable events and intimate contact with the post-Hitler
past in Germany.
There is the example of the matter of Mrs. Huber, the widow of Professor
Kurt Huber, who was also executed. After her husband’s murder, she fell
onto extremely hard economic times. Since her husband had been "legally"
dismissed from his university position, she received no pension after
the war. Yet Nazis and their widows immediately collected large
pensions. Instead, it was seven years after the war before Mrs. Huber
was conceded a pension. During the war, Jürgen Wittenstein and his
friends supported her at great personal risk; after the war, the US Army
did.
It was decades before the death sentences served on the members of the
White Rose were declared unjust. After all that had happened, Jürgen
Wittenstein’s almost formidable strength was simply not enough to deal
with so much injustice and apathy.
The troublesome dealings with German history can be seen in another
experience as well. The German-Jewish writer Stefan Lackner nominated
Wittenstein for the German Medal of Honor for his participation in the
resistance and for his accomplishments in the field of cardiac surgery.
His nomination was rejected, because "in the end, it’s necessary for
someone to have done something for Germany." That was the unofficial
explanation. Several years later, the Goethe Institute of Los Angeles
nominated him for the same award, and this highest honor was bestowed on
him. At first, he did not want to accept it, but eventually decided to.
However, he did not accept it for himself, but rather in the name of
those who could no longer be honored.
"We Have a Responsibility"
Like Shoah survivors, Wittenstein did not talk about the Third Reich for
a very long time. His own children only knew minimal facts—that he had
belonged to the White Rose—but no details. Even today, it is obviously
difficult for him to recall these events and to speak about his emotions
during and after that era.
Lack of interest and irresponsible reporting of history often made
conversing on the subject additionally difficult. One of the first
interviews he and his wife granted in this context was with Steven
Spielberg’s Shoah Foundation. It was bitterly disappointing to
both of them. Christel Wittenstein summarizes it thusly: "They were
clearly and matter-of-factly following a template."
In spite of such experiences, it is important to Jürgen Wittenstein to
bear witness for those who follow. "We have a responsibility. We must do
this."
We can understand why it is difficult for them to talk about it, because
it requires exposing oneself to public view. This is certainly not an
easy matter for a modest person like Jürgen Wittenstein. His involvement
in the resistance provides evidence for a moral outlook that 50 million
Germans did not have.
Wittenstein is writing a special autobiography for his children. His
wife notes that he has been writing it for years. Because it is
especially difficult to talk about these incidents with one’s own
children. One wishes his children to see the world as a positive place,
with life worth living.
We ask him whether he was glad his children started asking him about
details, and whether he had expected they would. Yes, he said, he was
glad. And no, he had not expected it. He had rather hoped that his
written narrative would be done by now, then things would have been
simpler.
For talking about the past is still very painful for Jürgen Wittenstein.
It still hurts deeply when he thinks about things and attempts to
reconcile what went before. Christel Wittenstein said that her husband
will always allow interviews up to a certain point. He will describe the
facts of the matter, but does not like to speak about his fears and
feelings. Perhaps it is true that one can speak about the emotional side
of such events only with others who experienced something similar.
The American historian David Russell is writing his official biography.
In the course of an Oral History project at the University of
California, he interviewed Jürgen Wittenstein, "two hours every
Thursday, for three years." The long-awaited biography is to be
published next year.
3. How the White Rose is Perceived
It is surprising that in the extant scholarly literature about the White
Rose, Jürgen Wittenstein is hardly ever mentioned. One always reads that
he introduced Hans Scholl to Alexander Schmorell, and that he told the
Scholl parents that their children had been arrested. But none of these
works ever expressly states that he too was a member of the White Rose.
As a matter of fact, no German historian has ever asked Jürgen
Wittenstein about the story of the White Rose. And that is more than
simply surprising. For Wittenstein is an eyewitness, one of those who
was in the innermost circle. Jürgen Wittenstein took the majority of the
well-known White Rose photographs, including the familiar picture at the
train station in Munich, as they were leaving for Russia. It’s the photo
of Sophie and her flower. Why then has no scholar taken an interest in
this man, who unmistakably was in the thick of things?
There is no easy answer to this question. It appears to be essential
that White Rose literature is strongly impacted by that first book about
the White Rose, written by Inge Scholl. One could almost get the
impression that every work that has appeared in Germany since that time
has been a pure copy of that book. Yet Jürgen Wittenstein did in fact
take the initiative himself, pointing out errors and offering himself
for interviews. No one has taken him up on this information.
The American Ruth Sachs has been researching the White Rose for several
years. Wittenstein believes that her work will be the only authentic
telling of their story, the only one that will treat the history of the
White Rose objectively and impartially. Inge Scholl would not allow Ruth
Sachs access to her archives.
Then why are things as they are? In the meantime, research has shown
that the role of Hans and Sophie Scholl has been disproportionately
emphasized, that they did exactly the same things that others like
Christoph Probst, Alexander Schmorell, and even Jürgen Wittenstein did.
And yet, the White Rose story continues to be misrepresented. For
example, Hans Leipelt is often referred to as a member of the resistance
movement. Jürgen Wittenstein knew him well. Like other friends of
Wittenstein (including Hildegard Brücher and Bernd Witkop), Leipelt was
protected by the Nobel prize-winning professor Heinrich Wieland as a
"half-Jew" in his chemistry department. Wittenstein respected Leipelt
for his intelligence and manifest political convictions.
But Leipelt never belonged to the White Rose. Except for Wittenstein,
Leipelt did not know any members of the White Rose, and he was not aware
that Wittenstein was part of that group. Leipelt belonged to a
resistance movement in Hamburg that had radical plans, such as blowing
up a bridge. He and his girlfriend did indeed duplicate one of the White
Rose leaflets, thereby disseminating the group’s philosophy. And Leipelt
also had the courage of his convictions and was ready to act on them,
come what may. He therefore deserves to be honored for what he did.
However, it is wrong to consider him a member of the White Rose, as is
done at the memorial to that group at the University of Munich.
The sloppy, careless treatment of history pains Jürgen Wittenstein. He
cites another example: An exhibit about German resistance during the
Third Reich, produced in Germany and touring throughout the United
States. Friends in Washington told him that some of his White Rose
photographs were included in the exhibit, and that the pictures bore
partially erroneous captions. Wittenstein immediately wrote to the
exhibit management and requested a correction. It never happened.
When the exhibit finally made it to Los Angeles, the captions were still
wrong. Wittenstein quickly took the opportunity to grab a marker. He
marked through the names that were incorrect and handwrote in the right
names under his pictures. In his speech at the opening of the exhibit,
Wittenstein gave voice to his consternation and concern. He mentioned
specifically that there were several important resistance movements that
were never acknowledged, among them Freiheitsaktion Bayern, the
Bavarian Freedom Operation; Munich and other cities should be grateful
to that particular movement since it saved the city from total
destruction.
The exhibit management then proceeded to attack Wittenstein for his
statements. An American journalist commented: "Once a rebel, always a
rebel!"
Of course an incorrect picture caption does not alter the facts. But
sloppy treatment of history is painful. When someone points out the
errors and is ignored, one can only conclude that it is unimportant to
the exhibit management. There is more at stake than mere facts. It is
the idea that the very ones who were supposed to be honored by such an
exhibit were instead disregarded. Young people have almost a sixth sense
for how an exhibit is put together. The carelessness and inaccuracies
reflect in the end on the disrespect to the deeds of the resistance.
"It has become my mission in life to spend the time I have left ensuring
that my departed friends are remembered honorably," Jürgen Wittenstein
said at the end of our conversation. And that is exactly the problem
people in Germany have with him. He will not allow the slightest
inaccuracy. He uncovers mistakes and asserts himself. Jürgen Wittenstein
is therefore a troublesome person, even for contemporary Germany.
Wittenstein is especially grieved that the White Rose has become a
synonym for Hans and Sophie Scholl, while the others who were executed
are mentioned—when they are in fact mentioned—as if they were fringe
members of the group. "These four people were equal participants. They
risked their lives to the same degree the Scholls did. They paid for
their convictions and their actions with their lives. Therefore, it is
my duty, for as long as I live, to ensure that the memory of these four
is honored: Professor Huber, Willi Graf, Alexander Schmorell, and
Christoph Probst."
Interview by Andrea Übelhack, Eva Ehrlich, and David Gall,
haGalil onLine, March 25, 2000.
(1)
When Adolf Hitler took power, he dissolved
the more or less autonomous German states that had existed in the Weimar
Republic. State government was replaced by the "Gau" or region. The duly
elected president of each former state was then called "Gauleiter" and
appointed by Hitler.
(2)
Weltanschauung is one’s philosophy of life.
haGalil onLine
07-09-2001 |
