A number of commentators, and not only those on the extreme right with first-hand experience of Nazi literary life, have observed that the relation-ship between representatives of völkisch-nationalism and the Nazi Party was
219 Ibid.
220 Sontheimer, Anti-demokratisches Denken, p. 115.
more complex than those seeking in völkisch activity the roots of National Socialism may have suggested.221 Once established as the Nazi Gauleiter in Berlin from 1926, Joseph Goebbels in particular went to considerable lengths to court prominent writers whose political position appeared to be in line with the Nazis’ own. This was partly due to the lack of first-class literary representatives in the NSDAP’s own ranks. It probably also reflects Goebbels’ self-image as an intellectual, based on his academic background and attempts to write fiction.222
Goebbels was already in regular contact with Hans Grimm before 1933,223 although Grimm’s consistent refusal to join the NSDAP, central to the defence of his position after 1945, was already evident in their early correspondence. It was clearly important to Goebbels to win the support of the author of Volk ohne Raum, one of the most successful ‘serious’ works to emerge from nationalist circles in the 1920s. Goebbels began to cultivate Grimm shortly after the publication of Volk ohne Raum and Goebbels’ own arrival in Berlin. He arranged for Grimm to meet Hitler in 1928 and, in 1931, for him to participate in a meeting of the Harzburg Front.224 On 15th February of the same year, he described Grimm in his diary:
Midday at table with Hans Grimm. A reticent, gentle Lower Saxon, tall, somewhat lumbering, but thereby of a calming goodness and an assured cleverness. He views politics very clearly. For him we are the best chance for Germany and therefore he sup-ports us. But wholly without pathos or ranting. Full of contempt for the Literatentum, strongly against Jünger, very good and loyal towards Hitler. I immediately conquer
221 Uwe Puschner, Walter Schmitz, Justus H. Ulbricht, ‘Introduction’ to Handbuch zur‘völkischen Bewegung’, pp. IX–X. Puschner et al., note in particular comments by the conservative scholar Armin Mohler, who worked as Ernst Jünger’s private secretary after 1945. Mohler asserted that the völkisch movement should be viewed as a component of the ‘conservative revolution’ rather than related to National Socialism.
222 See, for example, Jan Andres, ‘Die Konservative Revolution in der Weimarer Republik und Joseph Goebbels’ Michael-Roman (1929)’, Jahrbuch zur Kultur und Literatur der Weimarer Republik 11 (2007), pp. 141–165.
223 Fröhlich (ed.), Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels, part I, volume 2 (Munich: Saur, 1987) 15.2.1931, p. 21; 31.3.1932, p. 149.
224 Barbian, Literaturpolitik, p. 403.
his heart. He is moved when I speak of the duties that the German-conscious minds have towards us. That definitely touches his conscience. He then gives himself over completely to us. Civil courage! Bravo! We need lots like him. We part as friends, with the wish to meet again often. That is a prize! The author of ‘Volk ohne Raum’
stands under our flag.225
In his autobiographical work of 1954, Warum – Woher – Aber Wohin?
Grimm’s accounts of his meetings with Goebbels and his experiences at the Harzburg Front also point to a positive, almost friendly relationship between the two men in these years. Grimm regularly met Goebbels socially between 1930 and 1932, a period in which he spent several winter months each year in Berlin, in order, as he later explained, to follow the political situation at first hand.226
Grimm’s post-1945 accounts were written as part of his effort to rein-terpret the history of the Nazi phenomenon after the War. In particular, he took pains to demonstrate that National Socialism had started out idealis-tically.227 This interpretation reflected his experience of Nazism in its early years. He suggested that during their first conversation, Goebbels had not appeared completely secure in his opinion of Hitler. Grimm implied that he gained the confidence of the future Propaganda Minister, who appeared to welcome an opportunity to discuss his private doubts. He also sug-gested that at this stage, in private, Goebbels was far from narrow-minded, contrasting with Grimm’s later experience of the Propaganda Minister in 1938, when Goebbels reprimanded him for the annual literary meetings he held at his home in Lippoldsberg.228
Grimm’s descriptions of his contacts with Hitler were more mixed.
After 1945, he distanced himself from personal sympathy for Hitler, but emphasised that there were no other options for Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Grimm described his first meeting with the Nazi leader,
225 Fröhlich (ed.), Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels, part I, volume 2, 15th February, 1931, p. 21.
226 Hans Grimm, Warum – Woher – Aber Wohin?, p. 115.
227 This is also clear in Grimm’s correspondence with Agnes Miegel after 1945. See Chapter 5.
228 Hans Grimm, Warum – Woher – Aber Wohin?, p. 115.
which occurred some time between 1928 and 1933 (the exact date is not clear in Grimm’s text), in Warum – Woher – Aber Wohin? 229 The encounter took place in Munich, where Grimm had been invited to meet the editorial staff of the Völkischer Beobachter. Grimm’s description suggests that it was only a partial success. He argued that the Nazi leader had represented the European vanguard with his war against Bolshevism and for the future of the ‘white race’. But Grimm’s account of this first meeting also asserted the independent position Grimm maintained in relation to the NSDAP and emphasised the divergence of his political priorities, which were focused on Africa, from those of Hitler. Grimm made little impact when he embarked on a discussion of his main concern, the German residents of the former German South-West Africa, since 1919 governed by South Africa under a League of Nations mandate. Hitler was adamant that Germany must avoid confrontation with the English, as well as the Boers, Dutch and other
‘Germanic’ peoples. The Nazi leader quickly let the subject of Africa fall, turning instead to the problem of Versailles and the ‘Social Democratic’
world created since the First World War.230
Grimm recalled his irritation at the way Hitler had brushed aside the African question. He also noted that Hitler became increasingly excited as he spoke, moving uncomfortably close to Grimm, whose chair ended up against the wall. On the other hand, Grimm declared himself impressed by Hitler’s assertion that he was not the leader Germany was waiting for.
This was typical of Grimm’s post-1945 strategy of adopting a critical stand towards Hitler’s person, whilst emphasising that he acted from motives for which Grimm had sympathy. His post-war reinterpretation of Hitler’s politics was designed to serve Grimm’s own political position in the post-war world, and will be discussed further in Chapter 5.
Grimm’s description of his second encounter with Hitler during the meeting of the Harzburg Front in October 1931 provides broader obser-vations of the politics of the extreme right-wing groups seeking to form a national front. Again, writing after 1945, he sought to distance himself
229 Ibid., pp. 112–114 230 Ibid., pp. 113–114.
from the Nazis and at the same time apologise for them by presenting them as Germany’s only realistic option in the early 1930s:
I saw Hitler for the second time at the Harzburg Conference on 11th October 1931.
An attempt was to be made to create a National Front out of the German-Nationals and National-Socialists and the Stahlhelm. I listened to the excessive speeches as an independent German. Those men present with whom I felt a bond all belonged to the German-Nationals and the Stahlhelm; nonetheless I understood Hitler’s bad temper. It was all too clear that this ‘front’ would not be able to solve any of the burning questions. The majority of those present looked back with reverence to the past, the upstart Hitler was of the opinion solutions would only be found by looking forward.231
This explains Grimm’s support for National Socialism in the early 1930s;
he felt that the NSDAP would take action. An emphasis on deeds over words was well established on the völkisch right. Now, finally, they were embodied in the National Socialist movement, as Grimm demonstrated in a public appeal to the NSDAP published in the Berliner Börsenzeitung on 22nd September 1932. The text was co-signed by August Winnig, who had been the Social Democrat Oberpräsident of East Prussia between 1918 and 1920 before gaining a reputation as a publicist and moving increas-ingly towards the political right. It was published with the title Bitte an den Nationalsozialismus; in 1954, Grimm included it in Warum – Woher – Aber Wohin? along with an open letter from Goebbels published in response in the Nazi organ Der Angriff on 24th September 1932.232 Grimm emphasised in his post-war account that the appeal was, with the exception of one short extract by Winnig, written by him; Goebbels’ response was also directed principally at Grimm.
In spite of his sympathy for the NSDAP’s ‘German’ cause and his close acquaintance with Goebbels, Grimm strongly asserted his independence from party politics. His actions in the last years of the Weimar Republic were responses to the political culture of the republican system he rejected, not
231 Ibid., p. 121.
232 Ibid., pp. 123–128. See also DLA, A: Grimm – Joseph Goebbels to Hans Grimm, 24.9.1932.
least the role of the German press. The Bitte an den Nationalsozialismus placed the NSDAP in the context of the German right-wing as a whole.
It began with an endorsement of the Hitlerbewegung. By referring to the NSDAP as a ‘movement’, Grimm deliberately emphasised its significance beyond narrow party politics. In line with völkisch thinking, Grimm rejected the party structures of Weimar republicanism, promoting instead the central importance of the völkisch-nationalist cause. At the same time, Grimm’s discomfort with certain characteristics of the NSDAP, which Grimm viewed as a workers’ party, are evident in this text. Appealing to the Nazis to transcend the workers’ politics of Marxist socialism, he recognised and applauded the mass nature of the NSDAP as the most successful non-Marxist alternative for Germany’s workers, harnessing them to German nationalism. As a result, for Grimm the NSDAP had proved itself to be the most effective available bulwark against Bolshevism. Nonetheless, while Grimm recognised the pragmatic benefits of Nazi mass politics, he remained elitist and an undertone of discomfort with the nature of the NSDAP is evident both in this text and in his general attitude to the Nazis at this time.233 The appeal went on to assert the necessary völkisch basis for workers’ politics; the workers’ movement needed to be harnessed to the German project as a whole. This aimed at reconnecting the German Volk with its Reich, as opposed to the kleindeutsch state established by Bismarck. The integration of Volk and Reich was the real prize; a resort to class struggle represented a dangerous distraction from resistance to the statist framework that Grimm identified with the Weimar Republic. For Grimm and Winnig, therefore, the NSDAP was the strongest and most authentic movement serving the German cause.234
Goebbels responded in an open letter addressed to Grimm in the Nazi organ Der Angriff. He publicly validated Grimm’s understanding of his place as an independent, constructively critical commentator on National Socialism and presented the NSDAP in a light designed to appeal to those involved in the intellectual life of the nation. At the same time, Goebbels
233 Hans Grimm, Warum – Woher – Aber Wohin?, p. 124.
234 Ibid., p. 124.
attacked the status quo in Germany in 1932, the political system and the lib-eral press, suggesting that the Nazis were victims of a campaign to discredit them.235 He expressed appreciation that Grimm recognised the NSDAP as having rescued Germany ‘from Communist dissolution and thereby from the complete extinction of the particular German intellectual and spiritual strengths, without which any form of resurrection was impossi-ble’ – Goebbels quoted directly from the text of Grimm and Winnig.236 The special role Goebbels claimed for the NSDAP in German politics had been earned through its actions over the previous twelve years. Thus, rather than appealing to the Nazis, he challenged Grimm and Winnig to direct their complaint at those who refused to clear the field in order to allow the Nazis to complete their historic task. Goebbels emphasised the NSDAP’s character as a Volkspartei, which he understood in racial terms.237 Picking up on the comments by Grimm and Winnig on the subject of the German Reich, moreover, Goebbels moved the NSDAP away from older forms of nationalism and presented its credentials as a völkisch organisation: ‘For us the Reich is not an empty phantom. We see in it not only a national instance, but also, and even more so today, a social instance. The one is unthinkable without the other, and only when we succeed in making the two into one will the miracle happen, that Volk and Reich will be conjoined.’238
In spite of Goebbels’ response, in Warum – Woher – Aber Wohin?
Grimm noted that it did little to allay the unexpected outcry the Bitte an den Nationalsozialismus raised in some quarters, including some Nazi offices. In particular, Grimm was criticised by the Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg and his allies. Attacks on Grimm were published in the press, linked to his alleged attendance at a dinner in the Gardekavallerie-Kasino in Berlin, at which 300 wealthy, prominent men had apparently been present. They
235 Open letter from Goebbels in response to ‘Bitte an den Nationalsozialismus’ by Hans Grimm and August Winnig, published in Der Angriff, 24.09.1932; see also DLA, A:
Grimm – Joseph Goebbels an Hans Grimm, 24.9.1932; Grimm, Warum – Woher – Aber Wohin?, pp. 125–126.
236 Grimm, Warum – Woher – Aber Wohin? p. 126.
237 Ibid., pp. 126–127.
238 Ibid., pp. 127–128.
criticised Grimm for having challenged the NSDAP in its representation of the struggling working classes whilst at the same time dining lavishly with industrialists, politicians and other members of the establishment.239 In a letter to Goebbels, Grimm denied having attended the dinner, and warned of potential damage to the ‘movement’ presented by such publicity on the part of the NSDAP. He argued that this sort of reporting was little more than a continuation of the lies and inventions of ‘Marxist’ journalists deplored by Goebbels himself: ‘The Jewish-Marxist journalists of my youth behaved in this way, as does the Jewish press against National Socialism, as did the enemy press against us during the World War: Lies and pious commentaries on their own lies.’240
Rudolf Hess took pains to repair any damage done between the Party and Grimm. At the same time, his short letter in November 1932 also appears to be an attempt to paper over any differences within the Party, particularly between Rosenberg and other leaders. These were already evident and would come to the fore more clearly in the course of the dec-ade.241 Hess also sent Grimm a pamphlet he had written in which he too had addressed the accusation that the NSDAP was developing too far into a movement engaged in class struggle. In Warum – Woher – Aber Wohin?
Grimm wrote that he had been surprised to receive this letter; he did not know Hess personally at this stage.242 According to Hess himself, he had been present at Grimm’s first meeting with Hitler. In his response to Heß in 1932 Grimm claimed that he was personally indifferent to the attacks, and maintained that he had been concerned that the campaign against him (but notably, not the appeal itself ) had increased confusion in a time of hopeful transition. His letter to Heß on 15th November 1932 thanked Heß for writing and stated:
239 Grimm to Goebbels, 23.10.1932, DLA – A: Grimm, Hans Grimm to Joseph Goebbels, 23.10.1932; 21.3.1934.
240 Ibid.
241 Rudolf Hess to Hans Grimm, 3.11.1932, DLA, A: Grimm – Rudolf Hess to Grimm, 3.11.32 .
242 Grimm, Warum – Woher – Aber Wohin? p. 128.
I am naturally aware that the Party and movement have different requirements. I am convinced that the success of Germany depends on the success of the ‘National-Socialist movement’ and I act accordingly. I fear that the greatest enemies of the movement are currently to be found among the self-important, doctrinaire and lifelong insolvents in the Party. The Party should come as a welcome counterforce for those of us outside, who seek nothing for ourselves. But welcome or unwelcome, we are bound by our consciences to serve the German cause, and are pleased by every upstanding German we meet.243
With this Grimm outlined his own understanding of his position vis à vis the NSDAP and set the agenda for his actions in the Third Reich.244 The fact that his position outside but in support of the Party, retaining a right to deliver constructive criticism, was more or less accepted by the Nazis at this early stage allowed Grimm to assume that it would continue to be acceptable when they were in government. Certainly, reflecting on his later dealings with a far less friendly Goebbels, he referred back to these years to support his position throughout the 1930s.245 The various responses Grimm received to the ‘Bitte an den Nationalsozialismus’ also indicate that the NSDAP cultural leadership was already divided before the Party came to power. These divisions became more evident as internal rivalries, in particular between Rosenberg and Goebbels, became more intense in the years that followed.
The differences between Grimm and the Nazis in the late 1920s rested more on a question of style than ideology. Grimm was not alone among völkisch-nationalists with his initial view of the NSDAP as a rabble-rousing mass movement that was incompatible with their elitist vision. In the Reichstag elections in 1930, for example, Grimm voted for the DNVP, whose ‘manly uprightness and great political ability and internal party
243 Hans Grimm to Rudolf Hess, 15.11.1932, DLA, A: Grimm – Grimm to Rudolf Hess, 1931–1939.
244 From Grimm’s correspondence with Goebbels in the years that followed, it would seem, however, that the matter was not laid to rest in 1932: See Grimm to Goebbels, 21.03.1934, DLA, A: Grimm – Grimm to Joseph Goebbels, 21.03.1934.
245 See discussion of Grimm’s confrontation with Goebbels on pp. 261–262.
freedom’ he admired.246 In the presidential election in the spring of 1932, however, he reserved his vote for Hitler.247 For Grimm, the NSDAP at this time represented freedom from party politics. In line with the emphasis of older völkisch thought, and with Hitler’s own rhetoric, he emphasised its character as a movement rather than a party and saw in it Germany’s only hope for deliverance from the degradation of the Weimar years. While Grimm was never a Party member, Goebbels was pleased to note once again in his diary: ‘The writer Hans Grimm openly endorses the Führer.’248 In 1932, Grimm himself characterised his political activities as follows:
I have tried to provide the new national movement with quiet assistance from the day of its inception, unasked and unregistered. I did so seriously after the 9th November 1923. I, the partyless, voted for the National Socialist Party, in spite of much that disturbed me, for the sake of the movement, which emerged around the Party and was supported by the Party as the bones support the body.249
I have tried to provide the new national movement with quiet assistance from the day of its inception, unasked and unregistered. I did so seriously after the 9th November 1923. I, the partyless, voted for the National Socialist Party, in spite of much that disturbed me, for the sake of the movement, which emerged around the Party and was supported by the Party as the bones support the body.249