De vrijzinnigheid in Vlaanderen (6)

Voor dit Postscriptum bij de vrijzinnigheid in Vlaanderen beginnen we bij het 'leuke kaartje' waarmee  bijdrage 4 eindigde:

 

De linkse foto is voor het eerst verschenen in het Maandblad van de NVSH, maart 1971:

De linkerbladzijde is een betaalde advertentie voor de PSP (Pacifistisch Socialistische Partij) in de aanloop naar de verkiezingen; de foto zou nadien ook in het straatbeeld verschijnen. Ondanks de ikonische inbreng van Saskia Holleman (links op de voorgrond) zou de partij twee zetels verliezen. We bekijken met enig genoegen het betrokken Maandblad van dichterbij. 

Verstandig Ouderschap in Nederland
1946-1967

De Nederlandse Vereniging voor Sexuele Hervorming (NVSH) werd in 1946 opgericht. De stichters lieten in haar Statuten opnemen: 

Art. 3. De Vereniging stelt zich ten doel juiste en heldere, wetenschappelijk getoetste inzichten en opvattingen op het gebied van het geslachtsleven en het maatschappelijk en cultureel leven, voor zover dit met het geslachtsleven organisch verband houdt, te grondvesten en te verbreiden, zomede de praktische toepassing dezer inzichten en opvattingen te bevorderen.

Art.4. De Vereniging gaat daarbij uit van de volgende beginselen:

a. Zij acht een gezond geslachtsleven noodzakelijk voor een harmonische ontplooiing, lichamelijk zowel als geestelijk, van de persoonlijkheid, het gezin en de gemeenschap en beschouwt daarom het recht op een dusdanig geslachtsleven als een mensenrecht, dat ook door de staat niet mag worden aangetast. Bewuste beheersing der conceptie acht zij daarbij onmisbaar en beschouwt zij als een belangrijk wapen in haar strijd tegen de onwettige verstoring van zwangerschap. (enz.) [Hier, p.337-338.]

Voorlichting en hulp waren in de eerste plaats gericht op het verstrekken van voorbehoedmiddelen, en het feit dat de diensten van de NVSH voorbehouden waren aan leden verklaart de massale groei van de vereniging. Illegale abortus ('onwettige verstoring van zwangerschap') wordt als een te bestrijden vijand voorgesteld. Maar abortus ‘als laatste redmiddel’ (zoals founding father Jan Rutgers het zag) zal wel aan bod gekomen zijn bij de hulpverlening in de 12 consultatiebureaux. In 1953 werd de voorzitter van de NVSH, de huisarts Wim Storm, tot zes maand gevangenis veroordeeld wegens het uitvoeren van abortus. Met Justitie bestond een stilzwijgende afspraak dat een arts niet vervolgd werd als hij gedekt werd door twee collega's, maar Storm had alléén gehandeld. [De hele affaire hier.]

De oubollige naam van het ledenblad, Verstandig Ouderschap, was een erfenis van vóór de oorlog.

Verstandig Ouderschap in de Nederlandse huiskamer, 1955

Verstandig Ouderschap in België
1955-1967

Onder de NVSH'ers van het eerste uur was ook de anarchist Gé Nabrink. In 1949 ging hij spreken voor de Antwerpse vrijdenkersvereniging Francisco Ferrer en dit leidde ertoe dat de NVSH in 1950 ook een afdeling in Antwerpen had. [Het hele verhaal hier, p.558.] Op deze lijst uit 1955 is de afdeling Antwerpen te vinden naast 71 Nederlandse afdelingen. Dankzij het speurwerk van de nijvere jezuïet Alphons van Kol (hier gepubliceerd) weten we dat die afdeling eind van dat jaar 155 leden telde, en dat die afdeling opgeheven werd toen alle Belgische leden van de NVSH opgenomen werden in de Belgische Vereniging voor Sexuele Voorlichting (BVSV), opgericht op 11 augustus 1955. De stichters van de BVSV waren: Jacques Clément, Willy Van Houdenrogge, Pierre Plompen, Theresia De Bruyn en Arthur Peeters. Zij woonden allen in Antwerpen en vestigden daar ook de zetel van hun vzw. Onder die stichters herkennen we met zekerheid Clément en Peeters als vrijdenkers uit Francisco Ferrer. [Hier, p.9.]

In het Belgisch Staatsblad van 3 september 1955 (hier) stipuleerden zij:  

Art. 3. De BVSV stelt zich ten doel juiste en heldere, wetenschappelijk getoetste inzichten en opvattingen op het gebied van het geslachtsleven en op maatschappelijk en cultureel leven, voor zover dit met het geslachtsleven verband houdt, te grondvesten en te verspreiden, dit alles mede ter bestrijding van abortus provocatus.

De tekst is een doorslagje van het NVSH-statuut (met de strijd tegen abortus letterlijk naar voren geschoven), en bij het lidmaatschap van de nieuwe Belgische vereniging hoorde het Nederlandse ledenblad. Daarnaast gaf de BVSV vanaf 1958 ook een eigen ledenblad uit, Metterdaad. Daarin wordt abortus een 'onvolmaakte, maar soms onvermijdelijke oplossing achteraf' genoemd, waarover nog gezegd wordt: 

Er blijven ons twee dingen te doen. Allereerst zullen we zoveel mogelijk het preventieve optreden, via de verspreiding van de anti-conceptiva, dienen te bevorderen. Waar dit geen maximumresultaat oplevert moeten we ijveren voor een sterke (en kosteloze) kontrole en behandeling van de abortus door geneesheren en andere medisch bevoegden. [mei 1961]

Naast seksuele voorlichting had de BVSV dus ook wel seksuele hervorming op het oog, hoewel die doelstelling in de naam niet vernoemd wordt. De vereniging veranderde een aantal keer van structuur en van naam. Bekend is gebleven de naam Centra voor Gezinsplanning (later: Geboortebeperking) en Sexuele Opvoeding (CGSO). Nog later werd het CGSO-VVSH, waarbij het laatste letterwoord stond voor Vlaamse Vereniging voor Sexuele Hervorming.

Vijf jaar lang bestond de BVSV uitsluitend uit de afdeling Antwerpen, maar op 8 maart 1960 kwam er ook een afdeling in Gent:

Metterdaad, April-Mei 1960

Het is die afdeling die eindelijk, op 9 oktober 1960, 'metterdaad' het eerste consultatiebureau in Vlaanderen opende: Zwarte Zustersstraat 1, Gent. (Hier het verslag van de opening.) De werking rustte volledig op de gynaecologe Erna Klein-Vercautere, die sedert 7 juni 1959 voorzitster was van de Medische Raad van de BVSV. Zij verrichtte in de Zwarte Zustersstraat baanbrekend werk, o.m. door de pil te verstrekken zodra die op de markt kwam.

Metterdaad, juni/juli 1959, p.2

Metterdaad, mei 1961

Het Antwerps consultatiebureau ging een jaar later, in 1961, van start.

1967 in Nederland 

In 1967 hield de NVSH een studiecongres, Sextant'67, dat richtinggevend zou worden voor de verdere oriëntatie. De slottoespraak van de voorzitster, voluit afgedrukt in Verstandig Ouderschap van december 1967 (hier), diende min of meer als programma voor de toekomst. Aan bod kwamen (in die volgorde) homoseksualiteit, voorechtelijk geslachtsverkeer, geboorteregeling, abortus provocatus, buitenechtelijk geslachtsverkeer, echtscheiding, prostitutie en pornografie. Op elk van deze terreinen zou de vereniging gaan ijveren om de opvattingen en de wetgeving te veranderen.

Het nummer met de toespraak was ook het laatste onder de naam Verstandig Ouderschap. Omdat men niet langer een 'dwingend verband' tussen seksualiteit en voortplanting wou laten zien kreeg het tijdschrift vanaf 1 januari 1968 een andere naam: Sextant (later: Sekstant). Het progressief hervormingsprogramma van de NVSH werd in Sextant duidelijk, soms zeer expliciet, aan de orde gesteld. Na enkele wilde beginjaren bevatte het tijdschrift weinig of geen visuele provocaties meer, en de uiterlijke vormgeving is eigenlijk aan de saaie kant, met veel voer voor intellectuelen. Het nummer uit 1971 met de verkiezingsreclame voor de PSP was overigens een van de weinige met een provocerende kaft (zie hieronder).

 1967 in België

In België moest Sextant, evengoed als de BVSV zelf met haar voorlichting en voorbehoedmiddelen, opboksen tegen een repressief apparaat. Het tijdschrift werd herhaaldelijk in beslag genomen of geblokkeerd, de invoerders en verspreiders vervolgd en effectief veroordeeld. [Hier, pp.89-93.] De grootste inquisiteur in die tijd was de socialist Alfons Vranckx, minister van Justititie 1968-1973.

In het jaar waarin de NVSH Sextant'67 hield werden de afdelingen van haar Belgische dochtervereniging (hoe zij op dat moment ook heette) zelfstandige vzw's. In het Belgisch Staatsblad van 24 augustus 1967 (hier) lieten Willem Deconinck, Nestor Colpaert, Jan Buelens en Bob Carlier de formele oprichting registreren van de v.z.w. Centrum voor Sexuele Voorlichting, onveranderd in Gent gevestigd op het oude adres van het consultatiebureau. De algemene vergadering van 5 augustus 1967 had o.m. vastgelegd

Art.3. De vereniging stelt zich ten doel de mensen te helpen bij hun seksuele moeilijkheden, en alle wettelijk toegelaten middelen en akties daartoe aan te wenden, en de taboes te doorbreken die er de oorzaak van zijn.

Over CSV-medestichter Bob Carlier (1931-1990) lezen we op UGentMemorie (hier) o.m.

De filoloog en pedagoog Bob Carlier was Vlaanderens bekendste seksuoloog. Hij werkte als assistent en werkleider aan het Seminarie voor Moraalfilosofie en Metafysica bij Jaap Kruithof. Hij hield er zich vooral bezig met onderzoek naar seksualiteit, relaties en ethiek, waarover hij talloze artikels schreef en voordrachten gaf. Carlier ontpopte zich als voorman van de Vlaamse homobeweging.

Hierbij is de rol die Carlier in de jaren ’70 en ’80 speelt in het debat rond pedoseksualiteit merkwaardig te noemen vanuit een hedendaags perspectief. Carlier wijst seks tussen een volwassene en een kind niet bij voorbaat af. Hij beroept zich hiervoor op het idee dat het normatieve kader van de maatschappij verkeerdelijk geen ruimte laat voor positieve seksuele interacties tussen volwassenen en kinderen. Op dat moment circuleert binnen progressieve kringen het ‘emancipatorische’ idee dat ook een kind recht heeft op seks. In die logica moet pedoseksualiteit aanvaardbaar zijn wanneer bepaalde voorwaarden zijn vervuld. Carlier neemt zo in 1977 de leiding over een werkgroep pedofilie aan de RUG om het thema te bestuderen en het publiek te sensibiliseren, naar het voorbeeld van een gelijkaardig initiatief van zijn hand in Antwerpen. In de jaren ’90 zullen dergelijke ideeën helemaal van het publieke toneel verdwijnen, in diskrediet gebracht en grotendeels gefnuikt door de zaak Dutroux.

Pedofilie was niet genoemd onder de strijdpunten van Sextant'67, maar er was niettemin veel aandacht voor in Sextant en bij emancipatorische acties uit die tijd. De NVSH had er een landelijke werkgroep voor, die in 1979 de naam 'pedofilie' inruilde voor het positievere 'jeugdemancipatie'. (Hier in het NVSH-archief.) Die Landelijke Werkgroep Jeugdemancipatie gaf een tijdlang ook een eigen blad uit: NIKS, wat staat voor Naar Integratie KinderSeksualiteit. Men werd toen als progressieveling geacht het onderwerp op zijn minst 'bespreekbaar' te vinden.

1981: info-avond CSV m.m.v. Bob Carlier

Niet iedereen vond dat even vanzelfsprekend. In 1979 verbood de Gentse schepen Piet Van Eeckhaut (socialist en zelf een anti-censuurmilitant) de opvoering van een musical die als promotie van pedofilie kon gezien worden. Zijn argument was dat pedofilie een misdrijf was, en moest blijven. Dit werd hem toen in progressieve kringen niet in dank afgenomen, maar weinigen zullen hem vandaag ongelijk geven. (Lees het verhaal hier na.)

Een jaar later kende de seksuele emancipatie in Vlaanderen gelukkig een echte doorbraak toen de eerste abortuskliniek in Vlaanderen begon te werken: het Collectief Anticonceptie in Gent. Dit initiatief, in de marge van de wettelijkheid, moest op de tolerantie van het gerechtelijk apparaat rekenen. Dat bleef zo tot in 1990, toen België een koning moest gaan tolereren die absoluut zijn baan wou behouden hoewel hij zijn werk niet wilde doen.

Om terug te keren naar het 'leuke kaartje' waarmee we begonnen zijn: Dr. Erna Klein-Vercautere was niet alleen een prominent lid van de BVSV maar ook van de SVV, de Socialistische Vooruitziende Vrouwen. (Dat wordt hier, p.33, toch beweerd; de SVV heeft niet gereageerd toen ik daarnaar vroeg.) Met die extra informatie kunnen we mooi stapsgewijze van 'links' naar 'rechts' in het leuke kaartje overgaan:

naakt 

> PSP > Sextant > NVSH > BVSV > Erna Klein-Vercautere > SVV >

hoofddoek

De overgang 'SVV>hoofddoek' berust hierop, dat VIVA-SVV (zoals die reactionaire vrouwenbond tegenwoordig heet) belet heeft dat de vrijzinnige koepel een eenduidig standpunt kon innemen tegen de hoofddoek in overheidsdiensten. Met dit doordrukken van het obscurantisme in de openbare ruimte plaatsen de socialistische destijds vooruitstrevende vrouwen zich kategoriek buiten de vrijzinnigheid. Lees hier in dat droevige verband ook nog

Persoonlijke noot

In 1965-1966 liep ik school in Gent, in de Oude Houtlei. Tijdens de middagpauze passeerde ik vaak het huis in de vlakbij gelegen Zwarte Zustersstraat waarop duidelijk de intrigerende aanduiding Belgische Vereniging voor Sexuele Voorlichting — Konsultatiebureau aangebracht was.

In 1969 werd ik daar, student zijnde, lid van het CSV samen met mijn latere echtgenote. (Dat stadhuiswoord past hier beter dan 'vrouw'.) In die tijd kon men immers van de geboden diensten geen gebruik maken zonder lid te zijn. Daar en toen maakten wij kennis met Dr. Henri Van Kets, gynaecoloog van het Academisch Ziekenhuis. Samen met zijn diensthoofd professor Michel Thierry heeft Van Kets veel bijgedragen aan het inburgeren van contraceptie in het duistere Vlaanderen van toen, en in latere jaren zijn onze kinderen door hem op de wereld gezet. Als leden van de BVSV-CGSO-VVSH-CSV hadden wij het tijdschrift Sextant in huis, en het 'historische' nummer uit 1971 met de koe-in-wei verkiezingsreclame voor de PSP was daar ook bij. (Hier het hele nummer voor u gescand.)

O ja, nog postuum t.a.v. zijne aflijvige majesteit B1: wij (m/v) hebben in 1980 een financieel steentje bijgedragen aan het Gentse abortusinitiatief.

*

 

Henriette von Schirach clashes with Hitler (4)

In this post we will consider two written accounts with second-hand information on the incident which involved Baldur von Schirach and his wife. The accounts are very complementary, because each mentions only one of the protagonists and only one cause of dispute.

Version F. Traudl Junge, 1947 (third-hand)

Gertraud (Traudl) Humps was one of Hitler's secretaries. Professionally they had very little to do, and to Hitler they were female social company as much as they were personnel.

Traudl Humps at the Berghof (not on this occasion)

Her memoirs, which she wrote and typed in 1947, were published in 2002: 

Traudl Junge, Bis zur letzten Stunde. Hitlers Sekretärin erzählt ihr Leben, unter Mitarbeit von Melissa Müller, Claassen Verlag München 2002. The relevant part is pp. 35-215:  Meine Zeit bei Adolf Hitler — aufgezeichnet 1947.

Below is our translation of the Schirach incident. The original German text of our quotations is to be found here.

Once also Hoffmann’s daughter, the wife of Baldur von Schirach, was present. She was a nice natural Viennese, who could talk charmingly. But she had to break off her visit very quickly because during the tea talk she had provoked a very unpleasant situation. I have not myself witnessed the scene, but Hans Junge told me. While Hitler and his guests were sitting by the fireplace she suddenly said: “Mein Führer, the other day I saw in Amsterdam a column of deported Jews. These poor people look terrible, I’m sure they are treated very badly. Do you know this, do you approve it?” A painful silence fell. Shortly afterwards Hitler rose, took leave and withdrew. Next day Schirach's wife drove back to Vienna, and the incident was not mentioned with a single syllable. Apparently she had transgressed her rights as a guest, and had not fulfilled her duty to entertain Hitler. (Bis zur letzten Stunde, 2002, p. 100-101)

This testimony is a little obscure. We know there were three successive clashes, ending in the early hours of 25 June 1943. Traudl describes a 'soft' ending (not unlike the real 'Amsterdam protest' as told by Schirach) and says she heard it from Hans Junge, one of Hitler's orderlies. She also informs us that she had married Junge on 19 June 1943:

  (5th of the photos in the book) and

Fortunately, I was spared the paperwork war and before I knew it, I was 'Frau Junge'. My married happiness lasted exactly four weeks, while we had a holiday by the Boden Lake. After that, my husband went into military service and I returned to Headquarters. (Bis zur letzten Stunde, 2002, p. 116)

It is very unlikely that for Hans and Traudl it was "business as usual" five days after their wedding; almost surely, their four weeks of leave were their honeymoon. The conclusion is, that Hans Junge was nowhere near Hitler on 24-25 June 1943, that he left Hitler's entourage for good (he was killed in 1944) while Traudl Junge did not return before a month had passed. The proper source of Traudl's account of the event remains unknown. (For instance, it may have been the orderly—not Hans—who was on duty.) Anyhow, one thing is beyond doubt: Traudl was not there when it happened, she writes so herself ("I have not myself witnessed the scene"). Nevertheless, in the documentary film Hitler's Henchmen — episode: Baldur von Schirach you can see and hear (some 36' into the movie) Traudl Junge telling the story as if she had been present. 

Version G. Nicolaus von Below, 1980 (second-hand)

Nicolaus von Below was Hitler's Lufwaffe adjutant. The photo below was taken on 20 April 1943, in front of the fireplace were the incident was to take place two months later. The two officers most right in the picture are the adjutants: left von Below (Lufwaffe), right Engel (Army).

Von Below's diaries were destroyed at the end of the war, but he started reconstructing them early on. In the seventies he composed them into a book, that appeared in 1980:

Nicolaus von Below, Als Hitlers adjutant 1937-45, v. Hase & Koehler Verlag Mainz 1980.

The relevant pages are here. We included some text that clarifies how the book came to be and how, before the quarrel, Hitler liked to stay with the Schirachs in Vienna. The incident, which we translate below, is on p.340.

Quarrel Hitler-Schirach

On 24 June [1943], Fronleichnam (Corpus Christi), Baldur von Schirach and his wife came to the Berghof. He had a long and extensive talk with Hitler, the contents of which Hitler told me on one of the following evenings. Schirach had told Hitler unambiguously his conviction that the war needed to be ended one way or another. To this Hitler added: “How does he imagine this. He knows as well as I do that there is no more way out, apart for me putting a bullet in my head.” Hitler was very excited about his talk with Schirach and made it clear that he would have nothing more to do with him. And it was their last meeting indeed.  

Von Below is inaccurate in his date; had he written

On 24 June, Baldur von Schirach and his wife were at the Berghof

he would have been right (if incomplete). Nevertheless, his account is more interesting than the previous one, because his source is Hitler himself. No mention is made of Henriette, and the index of the book, entry v. Schirach, Henriette geb. Hoffmann, does not refer to this page. 

*

Henriette von Schirach clashes with Hitler (3)

Henriette Hoffmann published her 'memoirs' in 1956:

[H1]
Henriette von Schirach, Der Preis der Herrlichkeit, Limes Verlag Wiesbaden 1956.

 and a second edition appeared in 1975:

[H2]
Henriette von Schirach, Der Preis der Herrlichkeit. Erfahrene Zeitgeschichte, Herbig München-Berlin 1975.

In [H1] the 'Amsterdam protest' is buried in Chapter XI, namely on pp. 218-222. In [H2], the incident is included twice: once in the (slightly edited) Chapter XI and a second time, somewhat expanded, in the Preface. Apparently, its importance had grown in the two decades separating the two editions, and a photo taken on the day of the event is now on the cover. Here you can read the original chapter IX from [H1]. The differences with the second edition have been highlighted: blue means the text has been changed (e.g. the chapter's title), yellow that it has been cut. The Preface of [H2], including the second version of the incident, is here. The translations below are ours; for future reference, we underlined Henriette's description of the event.   

*

Version D. Henriette Hoffmann, 1956

 Supper on the Berghof was always served rather late, often not before midnight. (...) After the meal (...) the procession moved to the big room, where ten to twenty guests sat down around the fireplace. Blondie, the shepherd dog, was called, Hitler scratched her head, and the endless talks, which Hitler regarded as a remedy for his sleeplessness, started. Bormann brought up his favourite theme, the ceremonial of National Socialism that had to be created. (...) His fantasy sent shivers down my spine. This conversation was not a good introduction for the things I wanted to discuss with Hitler today.

During the war it was forbidden to perform works by Ravel, Debussy, Gounod, Tchaikovsky—to mention just a few. A despaired Furtwängler had asked me to do my best with Hitler in order to get them released. I agreed. (...) I told Hitler that in Vienna one could not understand a ban related to music. Willingly he agreed to my proposal to try and listen to the records. (...) When the Italian Capriccio sounded into the big space, jubilant and enchanting, he cut it short. (...) With a devilish pleasure Bormann closed the gramophone player. He smiled, but viciously. I had lost the first round. But I had something much heavier on my chest, that I wanted to tell Hitler at all price.   

The day before, I had hurried back from Amsterdam. Friends had invited me to Holland. First I stayed at the Amstel Hotel by the river. (…)

The Amstel hotel by the river

One night, I woke up by shouting, weeping and crying. I went to the window and tried to understand what was happening there in the dark. Slowly I could recognize what went on. Women were standing there with hastily grasped bundles, several hundreds of them hastily driven together. Their weeping got interrupted by a loud voice, a commanding voice. It shouted “Aryans to stay behind!” Only hesitatingly the column of women went over the bridge, and with a pitiful complaint it disappeared in the dark.

Next morning nobody wanted to explain to me, neither the porter nor the night waiter. But my friends knew. “Deportation of Jewesses,” they said. “Don’t you know that?”

The next day I was invited by Seyss-Inquart, then Reichskommissar for the occupied Netherlands. (…) But the man with his coolish-polite attorney’s face did not want to tell me either at my asking about the deportations. I was happy when the tea visit was over and I was back with my friends in the water castle. (...)

Miedl's water castle Nijenhuis.

It was a meeting place for all those who had to watch Hitler’s interventions, bitterly and without any power. Directors of the plane plant and officers who were convinced of the senselessness of their task. (…) “We make one error after the other,” an officer of the occupation force said, “ we have turned the friendly Dutchmen into bitter enemies.”

(…) “If you want to see more, come with me, I’ll fetch you tomorrow.” The SS-officer said this. Next morning, he drove me to a school. We came into a room, on the yellow desks little heaps of worn wedding rings and all kinds of precious stones were lying, sorted out in deerskin pouches after their colours. “You can buy diamonds at ridiculous prices. Do you want? Flawless stones, carefully removed from their casings by professional people. I don’t have to tell you to whom they belonged.” No, he didn’t have to tell me any more, and I was not in the least interested in stolen jewelry. (…) But on whose orders did they act? “You have to tell Hitler yourself,” M. decided, “I cannot imagine he knows this. It may be forbidden by circular to talk to him on such matters, but try it, you are a woman, and he has known you long enough.” “I pledge it to you,” I said, “I’ll tell him, the day after tomorrow even, because I leave today.” (…)

Then they accompanied me to the train. M gave me two packages—don’t open before you have left! (…) When we were underway, I opened the packages. The first contained (…) an early unsigned Italian painting that had pleased me when I had entered the house and had seen it above a table. The second package contained tissue for a suit, the light blue Luftwaffe tissue out of which Göring’s pilot’s uniforms were made, and which he obtained from Holland.  

(…) Back to the Berghof. It’s the evening of Good Friday 1943, and I have to live up to my oath. I must say that the friendly servant Wünsche [sic, for Günsche] had brought me a double brandy—which explained the overconfidence with which I faced Hitler. But he started himself. “You have arrived from Holland?” “Yes, and that’s why I’m here,” and then I told him, as I have described it, what I had experienced and seen with my own eyes, what his own officers had asked me to tell him. At first he was staggered and didn’t say a word. These seventeen men (I counted them all) didn’t speak either, and none looked at me. Then he turned his face towards me. Only now did it strike me how ravaged it was. (…) Slowly he rose. I also rose. He had grasped himself and shouted at me: ”You’re sentimental! In what way do the Jewesses in Holland concern you!” (…) “This is nothing but sentimentality! Humanitarian nonsense!” I turned away, let him shout and ran down the staircase (…) separating the big room from the hall. I didn’t look back, and I knew I would never see him again. (…)

One of the adjutants ran after me. “Why did you do such a thing,” he said, “you made him so angry. Please leave immediately, right now.” Baldur was sitting with the drivers in the canteen, where he could smoke his pipe. I told him about my disaster. We fetched the small sports car from the garage and drove off. It was five o’clock in the morning, and we drove into the valley, passing the many guards that were standing there even at this hour of the day, and who saluted us.

(…) We were serving a bad cause, yet could not pull out without dragging all our friends with us into the abyss. During the drive we didn’t speak a single word, but I felt Baldur thought like me.

Version E. Henriette Hoffmann, 1975

Good Friday 1943. Early morning. Baldur and I had just sneaked out of the Berghof and were driving down the twisting road into Berchtesgaden. In the oppressing silence about us the scene of the previous evening was pursuing me. I saw before my eyes the friend of my youth, Hitler, as I believed I had to leave him: shouting, ranting, madly angry about what I had dared to tell him. (…)

I had all started when, in April 1943, I visited friends in occupied Holland. As I was by myself and at first did not believe in air-raid alerts night after night, I had checked in at the Amstel Hotel by the river. (…)

At night I woke up by loud shouting and yelling. I rushed to the window and tried to find out in the dark what was happening. Below me, in the street, a few hundred women with bundles were standing, apparently hastily driven together, guarded by uniformed men. One heard weeping and then a loud commanding voice: “Aryans to stay behind!” After that the column slowly started moving, and disappeared over the bridge into the dark.

Next morning, nobody was willing to inform me about the secretive march, neither the porter nor the night waiter. But my friend Miedl, who came to fetch me, knew: “That’s a transport of Jewesses. The women go into a women’s camp, the men into a men’s camp.” “And the children?” He shrugged his shoulders. “The Germans are doing this?” “Who else?” “Does Hitler know?” “If he doesn’t, you can tell him!” When I informed Miedl of my unsuccessful shopping, he said laughingly: “One should know the right sources. Come on!” We drove to a school. The gym was packed to the ceiling with the most rare objects, paintings, antique furniture, oriental carpets, tapestry, richly bound bibles, old coins, jewelry. All had price tags, all for peanuts. “This is the property of… it belonged to the people that were driven away last night?” I asked Miedl upset. “Certainly…”

That same night I followed Miedl’s advice and moved to his water castle. In that house I met everything that had to fear difficulties in Germany. Engineers of the Messerschmidt factory that were moved here by Göring because of their Jewish wives, actors that had abandoned a Wehrmacht tour in Holland, journalists, crooks, men and women with false papers and false names. In our honour Miedl had a rice table in the great hall. I felt like displaced into an exotic world. (…) This was a luxury that we had long forgotten. But Will Dohm [a famous German actor—C.I.] was not satisfied at that. He insisted that the cabinets be opened for us and that the noble blue goblets that were kept there be advanced. “Perhaps we’ll be dead by morning. That’s why we want to drink today in the most beautiful glasses in the world!” By now we were talking freely about our situation, and I told him about the decision I had taken that morning after Miedl’s revelation: I would go to Hitler and talk to him, I would describe to him what I had seen. “He cannot possibly want this!”

Right after my return to Vienna I phoned to the Berghof. Baldur and I could always ask if Hitler would be happy with our visit. Either one talked with one of his adjutants or he came personally to the phone, and he said invariably “Of course, whenever you want.” Thus also this time. I had told Baldur what I had in mind, but I had no clear idea. My thoughts were all confused. I had knowledge about a crime but I was a woman without any office and my friendship with Hitler was my only legitimization. (…)

Everything that concerned the Jews was a forbidden subject with Hitler. But how could I respect this? My decision was taken, and so Baldur and I drove to Berchtesgaden.

When we got to the Berghof, we happened to find ourselves amidst a walking party, consisting of Hitler and his entourage. It was a mild spring evening with a föhn blowing. Later on, a picture was taken on the terrace, after which Hitler withdrew with his officers to have a discussion of the military situation. [Probably the head of the general staff, mentioned by Goebbels—C.I.]

The photo mentioned by Henriette, put on the cover of [H2]. Left to right: Baldur von Schirach, Henriette Hoffmann, adjutant Nicolaus von Below (hidden), Heinrich Hoffmann, Hitler, adjutant Gerhard Engel.

Towards midnight he had, as usual, supper served. On this occasion Hitler barely ate anything, just some raw vegetables with oat flakes. After the meal we all changed from the narrow wooden table in the dining room to the great hall, where we threw great logs and root stocks into the fire. (…)

Orderlies brought a long sheet from the teleprinter. (...) From the way he pressed his handkerchief repeatedly against his eyes we knew that the messages were particularly terrible. (...) [Probably the massive air raid on Krefeld, mentioned by Goebbels—C.I.]

Hitler was sitting between Eva and me. As long as she was present I could not speak. After some time she rose, nodded to everybody, had Hitler kiss her hand and left the room. Blondie, Hitler’s shepherd dog, came to us. Hitler scratched her head and turned friendly towards me: “You have arrived from Holland?” “Yes, and that’s why I’m here, I wanted to talk to you. I’ve seen terrible things, I cannot believe that you want this…!” He looked at me, amazed, and said “There’s a war on.” “But they were women, I saw, like a group of women, I saw, how poor helpless women were being led away, on transport to a camp. I don’t believe they will come back, their belongings have been taken away, they have no more family…” “You are sentimental, Frau von Schirach!” Hitler rose and stood by my side. “In what way do the Jewesses in Holland concern you!” As I had jumped to my feet, he took my wrists and grasped them with both hands, as he used to do when he wanted me to concentrate on him. Then he let go and formed with his hands two scales, which he moved up and down like in a balance, while he was talking loudly and insistently to me. “You see, day after day tens of thousands of my most precious men die, men like they will never return, the very best. The balance is now no longer correct, the equilibrium in Europe has gone. Because the others do not die. Those in the camps, those inferior beings, they do live, and how will Europe look in a hundred years? And in a thousand years? I have obligations towards my people and towards no one else. They can make a bloodhound out of me once Bolshevism has won. What do I care, I don’t care for posthumous glory. You must learn to hate. I had to learn it too…”

Hitler had told me before that I had to learn to hate, and I had replied that hatred was so tiring—and unproductive. But now things were serious. I suddenly thought of Iphigenia’s words and said “I was born to share love, not hate!” Saying this I was looking him straight in the eyes; he once said to me that, to master someone, you must look into his pupils.

There were seventeen men sitting around the fire place and those had, like me, known nothing of the outrages done in Hitler’s name? (…) But they were staring stubbornly into the fire or at the floor.

Under Hitler’s piercing gaze I took hold of my tortoise-shell case. (…) “I don’t belong at your table any longer!” I said softly, he was the only one who could hear me. Then I turned around and went to the exit towards the hall. As soon as I had reached the three steps to the parlour, I started to run. One of Hitler’s men had run after me. “Why did you do that? The Führer is angry. Please leave immediately, today, right now, he doesn’t want to see you ever again!”

I asked him to fetch Baldur out of the canteen where he was sitting with the drivers. We packed our things in a hurry, fetched the car from the garage and drove off as softly as we could.

*

We know from Goebbels' diary that Hitler's breach with the Schirach couple occurred in the early hours of Friday 25 June 1943. This means that Henriette is mistaken as to the date. It was neither the evening nor the morning of Good Friday [=23 April] 1943, but a Friday morning some two months later.

The presence of Bormann and Eva Braun, the military conference, and the explosive character of the final incident at the fireplace are all confirmed by Goebbels. Most other elements in Henriette's account are at variance with her husband and/or Goebbels. We know she had not invited herself, that she had not arrived the day before from Holland, and that her 'Amsterdam protest' had occurred some previous night and had not triggered anything. According to Henriette however it was her story that made Hitler explode, while her husband had left for a smoke.

The events in Amsterdam may very well have occurred in April 1943, when Henriette claims she was in Holland. In her expanded account she mentions that it was a time of "air-raid alerts night after night" in Amsterdam, and April 1943 was such a month. (Read about it here, in Dutch. Among the "frequent air-raid alerts in Amsterdam" the nights of 3, 5, 8 and 9 April 1943 are described with some detail. Amsterdam was not a target at the time, but suffered from collateral damage in the air war.)

As for the event proper, there are two aspects to it:

(a) what Henriette had witnessed

(b) what made her decide to talk to Hitler about it.

What she witnessed

According to Schirach, his wife had witnessed "the deportation of Jewish women by the Gestapo". For comparison, here is how Ella Lingens-Reiner, in February 1943, was set on transport from the Gestapo prison in Vienna to Auschwitz. 

At last we were about to start. We all had some food with us; only the Jewish women had nothing whatsoever. One of the wardresses — her name was Frau Hahn — bought, with her own money, unrationed snacks and gave them to these women so that they should have some food during their journey. (…)

At three o’clock in the morning we were lined up in the prison yard. (…) Then we were driven to the station through the dark streets of Vienna : nobody was to see how many people were being dragged away. (Prisoners of Fear, p.16)

Ella's transport consisted of both Jewish and Aryan women, and they were driven ("fuhren wir", which means in a car) to the railway station in full darkness. In Henriette's case, the women go on foot. The shouted order about the "Aryans", in the middle of the night, is difficult to explain. If Henriette correctly understood the German or Dutch command, it implies that the Aryan women were somehow separated from he Jewesses, but nevertheless the whole party seems to be marched off. No details are given concerning the treatment of the women. Henriette's accounts of what she witnessed are by necessity short and superficial; after all, it was dark and she just woke up with a start. There was no artificial light whatsoever in blacked out Amsterdam. In winter times it was so dark that people had difficulties finding their own house, and, wandering about, some fell in the canals. In April Henriette must have had some twilight aiding her in observing things.

What made her decide

In Henriette's two accounts, the deportation as such is merged with her visit of the school building with the cheaply offered goods. From her words it is not clear who took her there and who (if anybody) suggested that she tell Hitler, and about what. Concentration camps were an official part of the Nazi system, and anything but secretive. In Amsterdam, Jews were supposed to give themselves up for deportation and several large-scale round-ups had already been used to enforce this. (On those occasions though, the surviving photos show that whole families were deported, not women separated from the others.) Long before 1943, everybody, in Amsterdam as elsewhere, was fully aware of this, victims and non-victims, from the hotel porter up to the highest personalities. In Vienna, where Henriette was the 'first lady' since mid 1940, it was no different, and her own husband was of course fully aware of it. (Read it here under 'Deportationen im Frühjahr 1941 aus Wien'.)

As for the stored valuables offered for sale, Henriette's friend and host Alois Miedl knew everything about it, as he was in Holland the main trader in 'inexpensively' obtained Jewish goods. He dealt intensely with Göring during the whole war, and could easily afford to give Henriette a precious painting (which—so she writes— she only discovered after she had left Holland). Miedl cannot possibly have been involved in “telling Hitler” about the Jewish bargains.

If Henriette had witnessed brutal treatment of the women, this could have been a cause for complaint, but she mentions none. The only thing left that makes some sense is to assume that an officer of the occupation force insisted on telling Hitler that deportations (perhaps daylight round-ups more than nightly deportations) were counterproductive and turned friendly people into enemies. But this she could long have learnt at home, in Vienna, from her own husband.

*

  continued here

Henriette von Schirach clashes with Hitler (2)

Chronologically, Baldur von Schirach is the first one after Goebbels to speak about the clash with Hitler. He did so on the 138th day of the Nuremberg trial, on 24 May 1946, some tree years after the event. (Here the official English transcription of his testimony; for the time being I have no access to the German text or recording.) We know from Goebbels' diary that Schirach was at the Berghof on Monday 21 June 1943, and that he left in the early hours of Friday 25 June. Schirach's account covers his whole stay, and starts with a first clash 'a few weeks' earlier, also at the Berghof. Hitler was very displeased with the soft 'Austrian' way in which Schirach handled the halfhearted town of Vienna. (If the exhibition 'Junge Kunst im Deutschen Reich' in Vienna was closed as a result, this visit to the Berghof must have been before 7 March.)

February 1943: 

Schirach invites his Viennese to an exhibition 

of Gustav Klimt (N.B. not one of the 'degenerate' artists)

Version B. Baldur von Schirach, 24 May 1946 (under oath)

(...) The breach between Hitler and myself in 1943 was in the beginning the result of differences of opinion over the cultural policy. In 1943 I was ordered to the Berghof where Hitler, in the presence of Bormann, criticized me violently on account of my cultural work and literally said that I was leading the cultural opposition against him in Germany.(...) He offered me the alternative, either to end this kind of oppositional work immediately (...) or he would stop all Government subsidies for Vienna. (...)

A few weeks after I had received this order, if I may call it so, I received a strange invitation for myself and my wife to spend some time on the Berghof. At that time I innocently believed that Hitler wished to bridge the gap between us and to let me know, in one way or another, that he had gone too far. In any case, at the end of a 3 days' visit—I cut my stay short—I discovered that this was a fundamental error on my part. Here I will limit myself to a few points only. I had intended—and I also carried out my intention—to mention at least three points during my visit. One was the policy toward Russia, the second was the Jewish question, and the third was Hitler's attitude toward Vienna.

(...) Bormann had issued a decree addressed to me, and probably to all the other Gauleiter, prohibiting any intervention on our part in the Jewish question. That is to say, we could not intervene with Hitler in favor of any Jew or half-Jew. (...)

On the first evening of my stay at the Berghof, on what appeared to me a propitious occasion, I told Hitler that I was of the opinion that a free and autonomous Ukraine would serve the Reich better than a Ukraine ruled by the violence of Herr Koch. That was all I said, nothing more, nothing less. Knowing Hitler as I did, it was extremely difficult even to hazard such a remark. Hitler answered comparatively quietly but with pronounced sharpness.

On the same evening, or possibly the next one, the Jewish question was broached according to a plan I made with my wife. Since I was forbidden to mention these things even in conversation, my wife gave the Führer a description of an experience she had had in Holland. She had witnessed one night, from the bedroom of her hotel, the deportation of Jewish women by the Gestapo. We were both of the opinion that this experience during her journey and the description of it might possibly result in a change of Hitler's attitude toward the entire Jewish question and in the treatment of the Jews. My wife gave a very drastic description, a description such as we can now read in the papers. Hitler was silent. All the other witnesses to this conversation, including my own father-in-law, Professor Hoffmann, were also silent. The silence was icy, and after a short time Hitler merely said, "This is pure sentimentality." That was all. No further conversation took place that evening. Hitler retired earlier than usual. (...)

I endeavored to get away from the Berghof as quickly as possible without letting matters come to an open break, but I did not succeed.

Then Goebbels arrived on the next evening and there, in my presence and without my starting it, the subject of Vienna was broached. I was naturally compelled to protest against the statements which Goebbels at first made about the Viennese. Then the Fuehrer began with I might say, incredible and unlimited hatred, to speak against the people of Vienna. (...) During that discussion, I, in accordance with my duty and my feelings, spoke in favor of the people under my authority in Vienna. (...)

So total a break resulted from that discussion—or, rather explosion—of Hitler's that on that very night at about 04:30 I took my leave and left the Berghof a few hours later. Since then I had no further conversations with Hitler. (...)

I believe that the conversation on the Berghof was in the spring, and that the letter [a letter mentioned by Goering—C.I.], though I cannot tell you precisely when, was written in the summer. (...) Yes, 1943; but I could not say precisely when the letter was written.

*

According to this testimony by Schirach, he and his wife were invited to the Berghof, at a time of Hitler's choosing and as a sequel to a previous political quarrel about Vienna. (Henriette claims otherwise.) Their stay included four nights (21 to 24 June) and was cut short, so it may have been intended for a whole week. Schirach went there with a program of three subjects in mind, which were indeed discussed: Russia, more particularly Ukraine, on "the first evening"; the Jewish question, including Henriette's intervention, "on the same evening, or possibly the next one"; Vienna, in the presence of Goebbels, "the next evening" (which we know was the evening of 24 June). Hitler's reaction the first two times was very restrained, but "explosive" the third time, as confirmed by Goebbels. Then and only then did the Schirachs leave the Berghof, not after Henriette's intervention, which had displeased Hitler but hadn't triggered anything beyond a few cool words.

Note that Bormann's circular to the Gauleiter prohibited "to intervene with Hitler in favour of any Jew or half-Jew". Possibly not the Jewish question as such was taboo (Hitler himself talked freely about it with guests at his headquarters table) but rather the interventions in favour of people affected.

Schirach claims to have had "no further conversations" with Hitler after leaving the Berghof. This is not true. He was present at the very last meeting of the Gauleiter with Hitler in Berlin, on 24 February 1945. Hitler asked him "Will the Viennese see it through, Schirach?" and he replied "They have done their duty so far, and will continue to do so." [Baldur von Schirach, Ich glaubte an Hitler, p.305 and p.308.] In a way, this was even a continuation of the discussion at the Berghof, which was about Vienna and the Viennese not engaging as they should.

*

Version C. Baldur von Schirach, 1967

From

Baldur von Schirach, Ich glaubte an Hitler, Mosaik Verlag Hamburg 1967. 

(Relevant pages here.) The translation is ours.

 

p.284

In April 1943 the phone rang in our house in the Hohe Warte in Vienna. My wife answered. It was Eva Braun on the phone. She said Hitler would be pleased if we came to the Berghof to spend the Easter days. To me this invitation was not very convenient. Knut Hamsun and his wife had been announced. Since my first youth I was fond of Hamsun’s books and I was fully focused on meeting him. But Hitler’s invitation took priority, all the more since the chances to meet him had become scarce. Nonetheless, there was every reason to look forward to this meeting with mixed feelings. (...)



p.288

In January 1943 we had openend in the Art House in Vienna the exhibition ‘Young Art in the Third Reich’. A week after its openening this exhibition was closed by Hitler. He had called me to the Berghof. It was to receive an order. Hitler did not offer me a chair and sat not down either. Bormann posted himself a pace behind him. Soft and icy, as I had never seen him in the eighteen years that I had known him, Hitler said: ‘Mister von Schirach, I don’t want such exhibitions. This is sabotage.’
Bormann gave him an open issue of our Hitler Youth journal ‘Wille und Macht’. Hitler pointed to a picture out of the Viennese Art exhibition. ‘Look at this picture—a green dog! And such a thing you have printed in a quarter of a million copies. Doing so you mobilize all culture Bolsheviks and reactionaries against me. This is not educating youth, but learning them opposition!’ 

He did not let me speak.

‘Once and for all, this is to stop immediately! If not I’ll cut off all financial aid for Vienna.’ Upon that he had left me standing there.

What was he meaning of this new invitation to the Berghof? Was it an offer for reconciliation? Would everything become as it had been before? (…)

p.289
The reception at the Berghof was cool. (…) Hitler was nowhere to be seen. That didn’t look like reconciliation. Henriette was to him not just the wife of one of his people. He had led her by the hand as a child, he was a friend of her father. Henriette could afford things with him that no one else easily could.

When we drove to Berchtesgaden she had told me that she wanted to tell Hitler what she had experienced in Amsterdam. Out of her window in the ‘Amstel’ hotel she had seen how Jewish women were driven together and deported. And an SS-Führer she knew had even offered her to cheaply buy gold and jewels out of the depot where jewish valuables were stored. Her voice trembled with dismay when she talked about it.

‘Control yourself,’ I said, ‘you know how unpredictable he is, and you can’t change anything no matter how.’ (…)

The company at the Berghof was numerous as always: Hitler’s shadow, Martin Bormann, and his wife, Eva Braun’s sister and her best friend, Hertha Schneider, Hitler’s military adjutants and their wives, the doctors Brandt and Morell. Albert Speer, minister of Armament, was also there. (…)

When at last Hitler appeared, he was all kindness. At supper, he conducted my wife to the table. My table neighbour was Eva Braun. After the meal we all sat around the fireplace in the huge hall. (…) I said: ‘Don’t you believe, mein Führer, that a free Ukraine under a Ukrainian Governor would be more useful to us than a subjected Reichskommissariat?’ Immediately the expression of Hitler’s face changed. ‘Don’t talk about things that don’t concern you, Schirach. These Slavs are definitely not capable of ruling themselves.’ The tone of his voice made clear that the subject was closed for him. The talks by the fireplace died out.

Next day, the company moved to the tea house after dinner. (…)

p.292

In the evening, by the fireplace in the hall, the mood was low. My wife was sitting next to Hitler and I saw her hands moving nervously. She was working on Hitler, at first softly and with restrain. It looked as if Hitler was paying attention. But then he rose abruptly and started to walk back and forth. ‘That’s the last thing I need,’ he shouted, ‘that you come to me with that sentimental nonsense. How on earth are these Jewish women your concern.’ Apparently, against my expectation, Henriette had told him about her experience in Amsterdam. A deadly silence fell. One heard the logs crackling in the fire. All were staring aimlessly, embarrassed. 

The company did not revive before, after midnight, a new guest arrived, Dr. Joseph Goebbels. With the fine sense of smell the minister of propaganda had for Hitler’s moods he started attacking me (…) ‘In Vienna you practice an Austrian policy’. Extremely excited Hitler took up Goebbels’ reference.’It was a mistake of mine to send you to Vienna. It was a mistake that I even admitted those Viennese into the Great German Reich. I know these people. I passed my youth among them. They are Germany’s enemies.’ Hitler’s face was torn with hatred. (…) I tried to moderate things: ‘But the Viennese are devoted to you, mein Führer!’ Hitler now shouted: ‘I’m not in the least interested in what those people think. I reject them.' I rose and said: ‘In those circumstances, mein Führer, I return my assignment to you.’ Hitler stared at me icily: ‘That’s not for you to decide. You stay where you are.’

It was four o’clock in the morning. Without any goodbye we drove back to Vienna.

*

This account of Schirach's is very sloppy. The exposition in Vienna was not called 'Junge Kunst im Dritten Reich' but 'Junge Kunst im Deutschen Reich', it was not 'opened in January 1943 and closed after a week', but opened on 2 February and closed on 7 March. It had been scheduled to close on 28 March anyway, and the official reason given for the closure was the congestion of the railway system. (Here the catalog.)

Schirach said he had been looking forward to meeting Knut Hamsun, but the latter was not in Vienna in April 1943. He did come to the II. Tagung der Union nationaler Journalistenverbände, an international meeting of journalists, when it was held in Vienna from 22 to 26 June 1943. He was the most distinguished guest there, and spoke on 23 June. Ironically, if Schirach had stayed in the Berghof one day longer, he would have met Hamsun after all, when he came there on Hitler's invitation. (Unique colour photo below.)

Both Schirach and his wife are strangely but consistently mistaken in their dating of the events. Hamsun's schedule confirms Goebbels's diaries: it was June, not April.

In this second version, Henriette's talk with Hitler is more of a private whispering, and nobody appears to hear what is being said. Hitler's reaction is much more violent now. In the first version he's very restrained, but now he's excited, walks back and forth and shouts. (Henriette claims Schirach was not present, but had gone for a smoke.) In the first version Hitler retired early, while now he stays and joins Goebbels in his attack. Goebbels now arrives on 'Henriette's day', while this was the next day in the first account. Both versions agree though that Goebbels was not (yet) there when Henriette made Hitler angry. In the first account, Schirach had planned the 'Amsterdam protest' together with his wife; in the second version, he heard of it shortly before arriving, and tried to talk her out of it.

In his Nuremberg cell, Schirach told his story to psychiatrist Douglas Kelley, who quotes him as follows (relevant page here). Here, even the year is wrong.

Then, when all the atrocities came to light at the end of the war, my worst fears were realized. It is true that I had had some glimmering of what was going on in 1942. At that time both my wife and I had argued with Hitler himself against the deportation of the Jews. Hitler became exceedingly excited and ordered us out of his house.

We were sure we would be arrested, but nothing came of it — except that I was after that gradually dropped from Party activity.

*

continued here