Ludwig Erhard, the Perpetual Pioneer: An Economic Loner

The economic thoughts which eventually made Ludwig Erhard famous, and which eventually gave birth to Germany’s meteoric rebirth as a free nation after World War II, were shaped in the stressful and dangerous days of the late 1930s and early 1940s.

After the Nazis perpetrated the pogrom of November 1938, it became clear that an organized resistance was necessary. Individuals associated, directly or indirectly, with the University of Freiburg in southwest Germany organized themselves into two groups: the Freiburger Kreis and the Freiburger Schule. The Freiburger Schule was primarily an economic group. Its members advocated a view called Ordoliberalismus. The economist Walter Eucken was a leading theorist in the group. Opposing the Nazi government’s direct intervention into the economy, the Freiburger Schule saw the government’s proper role as ensuring an unbiased neutrality in the marketplace.

Mindful of the fact that ‘Nazi’ means ‘National Socialist,’ Eucken and the others rejected Hitler’s economic practices: the Nazis had raised taxes, rigidly controlled wages and retail prices, and instituted government ownership of businesses.

An enthusiastic proponent of anti-Nazi economic theories, Ludwig Erhard knew and associated with many members of the Freiburger Schule. Yet he declined to become an active member of the group. Alfred Mierzejewski analyzes this somewhat paradoxical aspect of Erhard’s character:

Erhard viewed himself as an independent advocate of a set of ideas, an ideal, that he thought was best both for his homeland and the world. Although he did not develop the major components of these ideas himself, he was not beholden to those who had. One of the key features of his personality was his independence. This shaped his relationship with other economists.

The Freiburger Kreis had several members in common with the Freiburger Schule, Walter Eucken among them. The Freiburger Kreis had a more explicitly spiritual emphasis: it saw opposition to the National Socialists as a Christian duty.

Loosely networked with other anti-Nazi groups like the Bekennende Kirche, the Freiburger Kreis deliberately rejected the inhumanity, pride, hubris, racism, power claims, misuse of power, and leader worship of the National Socialists. It most adamantly rejected the Nazi’s attempts to disguise themselves as Christians.

Such opposition to the National Socialists was dangerous, and members of the group were arrested; some were murdered. Ludwig Erhard placed himself into danger by associating with members of the group and by espousing their views.

Yet Erhard again did not clearly join the group, despite his passionate advocacy of its views. He embraced the group’s ecumenical model, in which Lutherans, Catholics, and other types of Christians united and worked together to oppose the murderous horror of National Socialism.

Although he faced the risks entailed by his anti-Nazi views, Ludwig Erhard did so often alone. Alfred Mierzejewski reflects on Erhard’s autonomous nature:

Erhard was not a member of any economic school, certainly not that in Freiburg which had gathered around Walter Eucken. He admired Eucken’s ideas, but was temperamentally much too individualistic to consider himself a follower of that clearheaded thinker. Erhard was not a joiner, not, in the English tradition, a “party man.” He was not a member of any professional group or of any interest representation. He advocated consumer interests out of conviction, mindful of the fact that everyone is a consumer.

The Freiburger Kreis is often cited in the plural - the Freiburger Kreise - because it had two subgroups: one group worked on a Denkschrift, a document about the organization of postwar German society, replacing the National Socialists strict control with a Gewissensfreiheit and the liberty of each individual to worship and express faith in a variety of ways.

In stirring words, the document described power as a ‘demon’ and explained that the right to oppose and resist governments was both a Christian right and a Christian duty.

The other subgroup worked on a more specifically economic plan for the postwar era. They proceeded from the assumption that Germany would lose the war. This assumption alone would be enough reason for the National Socialists to murder anyone associated with the group.

The economic subgroup wrote of the need to replace the Nazi’s planned economy with a market economy. Again, Ludwig Erhard agreed strongly with the group, yet did not officially become a part of it.

When the war ended in May 1945, the work of the Freiburger Kreis and the Freiburger Schule came into the spotlight. Over the next decade, these thoughts would decisively shape postwar Germany. The economic principles of a market economy, and the spiritual principles of defending the value of each human life by empowering personal political liberty against the government, would transform the nation from a psychologically defeated and physically destroyed country into a world leader.

Ironically, the individual who played the greatest role of transforming the Freiburg principles from thought into action was the same individual who stubbornly refused to join the groups, despite his heartfelt embrace of their principles: Ludwig Erhard.

The Nazis had attacked the Christian ideals of the groups. The Nazis were gone, but those ideals endured: dedication to equality, personal freedom, humaneness, individual political liberty, service to one’s neighbor, and an opposition to government power.

Postwar Germany epitomized both the power of the market economy to repair a devastated land and the power of a spiritual commitment to honor the dignity and value of each human life. Ludwig Erhard and the groups from Freiburg gave the postwar world a chance to regain honor.

Ludwig Erhard and Postwar Germany: Free Markets Promote Human Welfare

By mid 1945, Germany was in the condition of a third-world nation. Its infrastructure had been physically destroyed by the war, millions of young men had died in battle, civilians had died in aerial bombing attacks, and innocent people had been murdered in concentration camps. The country was decimated physically, psychologically, politically, and economically.

Millions of families were homeless. There were shortages of clothing, paper, electricity, fuel, clean water, and nearly everything else. The food supply was on the very brink of a mass famine, and in fact, some people did die from pure starvation.

What partially contributed to creating these conditions, and what was solely responsible for keeping these conditions in place, were the brutal economic policies of Hitler’s National Socialist government. Nazi economics oppressed the ordinary people and kept them in poverty.

What were the policies which the Nazis used to brutalize the population? High rates of taxation; prices for retail goods set and enforced by the government; wages set and enforced by the government; government-organized monopolistic ‘cartels’ of industrial firms; and an ever increasing number of state-owned businesses and institutions gradually replacing private-sector businesses and institutions.

These measures, taken by Hitler’s government, flowed organically from Nazi ideology: The word ‘Nazi’ means ‘National Socialist.’

When the war ended in May 1945, the National Socialists, their government, and their policies were gone, but the damage remained. How could Germany recover? How would it rise above its third-world condition?

Although there were many people involved in re-thinking the nation’s economy, and millions of people involved in re-building it, a few key individuals provided a powerful vision to lead the effort. Chief among them was Ludwig Erhard.

One aspect of Erhard’s logic was simple and obvious: undo what the Nazis had done. Where the Nazis had wage and price controls, Erhard opted for free choice by individuals to negotiate. Where the Nazis had high taxes, Erhard opted for low taxes. Where the Nazis had monopolistic cartels, Erhard freed the businesses to act independently of each other, to compete, and thereby to offer better products at lower prices. Where the Nazis favored government-owned industries, schools, and businesses, Erhard allowed for private-sector ownership of businesses and institutions.

The effects of Erhard’s policies were significant and immediate. Wages and standards of living rose quickly, and rose most for the lower- and working-class. Low taxes and unregulated free markets offered opportunities for the unemployed and for blue-collar workers. Alexander Kluy, writing in the Frankfurter Rundschau, notes:

Friedrich von Hayek, de[r] Theoretiker einer radikal freien Marktwirtschaft, soll ihn einmal nach seinem Konzept gefragt haben und berichtete, dass Erhard antwortete: “Ich hoffe, Sie missverstehen mich nicht, wenn ich von der sozialen Marktwirtschaft spreche. Ich meine, dass der Markt an sich sozial ist, nicht dass er sozial gemacht werden muss.” Erhard konkretisierte diesen Gedanken: “Je freier die Wirtschaft, umso sozialer ist sie auch.”

The creation of equal opportunity is intrinsic to a market economy. Equal opportunity inherently favors the lower classes, inasmuch as the upper classes don’t need opportunities, having already had theirs.

Erhard saw that a free market economy would create prosperity for all social classes. When buying, selling, and hiring were continuously happening in millions of individual decisions, with individually negotiated prices, wealth circulated more freely to various parts of the economy.

Oddly, the western Allies (England, France, and the United States) at first wanted to keep West Germany under a continuation of Nazi policies. Erhard had to convince not only his own fellow Germans to adopt freer policies, but he also had to convince the occupational governors.

Regulations, and government-dictated wages and prices, kept wealth from flowing through different sectors of the economy. Erhard worked with great focus to increase every aspect of economic freedom, as Alexander Kluy reports:

Nur der Markt könne den Wohlstand gerecht verteilen. Dies war der freiheitliche Grundgedanke, den er mit enormer Energie und unbändigem Optimismus zwischen 1946 und 1949 gegen Widerstände von allen Seiten durchfocht, selbst gegen die Alliierten, die sämtlich lieber eine gelenkte Volkswirtschaft gesehen hätten als eine Umsetzung von Erhards Vision, seinem Glauben an freies Unternehmertum und Deregulation und seine Ablehnung von Planung und wettbewerbsfeindlicher Kartelle.

The results of Erhard’s policies – he was appointed minister of economics by Germany’s first postwar chancellor, Konrad Adenauer – were so profound that they were called the Wirtschaftswunder - the ‘economic miracle.’

It is no exaggeration to say that, at its worst, Germany’s status was that of a third-world nation. From late 1945 until early 1948, Germany’s economy and standards of living could have quite accurately been compared to some of the most desperate regions of Africa, Asia, and South America.

Ludwig Erhard was began implementing his policies in late 1948 and early 1949. Within a decade, Germany’s economy had risen to be one of the top five in the world. It was a major exporter and importer. Its working class enjoyed a high and ascending standard of living. Ironically, Germany’s economy surpassed those of England and France.

Erhard demonstrated that a free market not only creates prosperity, but it does so with a sense of justice for the blue-collar workers of the middle and lower classes.

Morphemes in Kafka: The Guilt Particle

The standard reception of Kafka notes the theme of guilt and debt. The German noun Schuld denotes both financial debt and moral guilt. Kafka develops this theme both with Biblical allusions and with personal psychology.

While Schuld is a standalone noun, it is also a morpheme in compound words. These occurrences of Schuld are not always obvious in an English translation.

The text of Die Verwandlung is relatively short, yet it contains several instances of this morpheme. Early in the narrative, Gregor Samsa is laying in bed, thinking to himself:

Nun, die Hoffnung ist noch nicht gänzlich aufgegeben; habe ich einmal das Geld beisammen, um die Schuld der Eltern an ihn abzuzahlen – es dürfte noch fünf bis sechs Jahre dauern – , mache ich die Sache unbedingt.

In this first use of the word, Kafka shows two aspects of Schuld: It is hereditary, and it is his to pay. The connection to the Biblical concept of original sin is unmistakable.

The morpheme appears a second time, as Gregor ponders the humiliation he experiences when his employer sends someone important to inquire about his absence, instead of sending merely an errand boy:

Genügte es wirklich nicht, einen Lehrjungen nachfragen zu lassen – wenn überhaupt diese Fragerei nötig war – , mußte da der Prokurist selbst kommen, und mußte dadurch der ganzen unschuldigen Familie gezeigt werden, daß die Untersuchung dieser verdächtigen Angelegenheit nur dem Verstand des Prokuristen anvertraut werden konnte?

Here, the qualities of the guilt are reversed: the family is unschuldig, and should be protected in this state. Gregor has so internalized the inherited guilt that he sees the family, who transmitted the guilt to him, as guiltless. If the family is innocent, then perhaps Gregor has become the source of guilt.

A question presents itself about the distinction between being guilty, and being perceived as guilty.

Gregor’s father says that the man from Gregor’s employer wants to enter the room and speak with Gregor personally. To dispel any hesitance of Gregor’s part, the father indicates that the man would certainly overlook any disorder in the room:

Er wird die Unordnung im Zimmer zu entschuldigen schon die Güte haben.

To ‘overlook’ the clutter in the room is to ‘de-guilt’ it: entschuldigen.

Analyzing his family’s actions, he likewise ‘de-guilts’ their behavior, because it’s caused by ‘uncertainty.’ To ‘excuse’ is again to ‘de-guilt’:

Aber es war eben die Ungewißheit, welche die anderen bedrängte und ihr Benehmen entschuldigte.

Once again the family is the locus of guilt, and they need to be ‘de-guilted.’

Gregor’s sister harbors dreams of studying, and when Gregor mentions the topic, which his parents don’t like, he proceeds to defend himself by saying that his comment was guiltless:

Öfters während der kurzen Aufenthalte Gregors in der Stadt wurde in den Gesprächen mit der Schwester das Konservatorium erwähnt, aber immer nur als schöner Traum, an dessen Verwirklichung nicht zu denken war, und die Eltern hörten nicht einmal diese unschuldigen Erwähnungen gern; aber Gregor dachte sehr bestimmt daran und beabsichtigte, es am Weihnachtsabend feierlich zu erklären.

With the next instance of the word, Gregor’s thoughts have come full circle, and the parents are again the locus of guilt. The focus is sharper this time, and the father is the specific bearer of guilt.

This corresponds both to Kafka’s own problematic relationship with his father, and to the classic formulations of original sin, which focus on Adam rather than Eve.

Eigentlich hätte er ja mit diesen überschüssigen Geldern die Schuld des Vaters gegenüber dem Chef weiter abgetragen haben können, und jener Tag, an dem er diesen Posten hätte loswerden können, wäre weit näher gewesen, aber jetzt war es zweifellos besser so, wie es der Vater eingerichtet hatte.

Kafka’s concept of guilt is fluid and ubiquitous. Fluid, inasmuch as source or focus of the guilt seems to alternate between Gregor and his parents. Ubiquitous, inasmuch as it seems to eventually involve everyone everywhere.

When Gregor sees himself as the bearer of guilt, his neurotic imagination hypothesizes that this would perhaps kill his mother:

Gregor war nun von der Mutter abgeschlossen, die durch seine Schuld vielleicht dem Tode nahe war.

Gregor is not the only one thinking about guilt. Gregor seems to have long feared the contents of his father’s thought. The father makes his opinion about Gregor explicit: the father attributes guilt to Gregor.

Gregor war es klar, daß der Vater Gretes allzu kurze Mitteilung schlecht gedeutet hatte und annahm, daß Gregor sich irgendeine Gewalttat habe zuschulden kommen lassen.

Gregor describes the father’s attitude toward the lodgers: he owes them respect. Because ‘guilt’ and ‘debt’ are both Schuld, to ‘owe’ something is the verb schulden.

The three lodgers, with their significant full beards, may be symbols for Judaism. Kafka’s relationship to Judaism was complex. Like the lodgers, Judaism was in Kafka’s environment, in his family. Yet, like the lodgers and their aloof behavior, Judaism remained just out of Kafka’s grasp, un-internalized.

Just as Gregor’s father ‘owes’ respect to the lodgers, Kafka’s fathered owed respect to Judaism. Kafka was disappointed that his father was not pious or observant; he was disappointed that his father hadn’t done a more thorough job of passing this spiritual heritage on to his son.

Der Vater schien wieder von seinem Eigensinn derartig ergriffen, daß er jeden Respekt vergaß, den er seinen Mietern immerhin schuldete.

The final instance of the Schuld morpheme is at the end of the story. Gregor is dead, and family has decided to take a day off, and go outdoors for some recreation.

The father, mother, and sister each write a letter of excuse to their respective employers. A ‘letter of excuse’ is ‘de-guilting letter’:

Und so setzten sie sich zum Tisch und schrieben drei Entschuldigungsbriefe, Herr Samsa an seine Direktion, Frau Samsa an ihren Auftraggeber, und Grete an ihren Prinzipal.

These ten occurrences of the Schuld morpheme are located throughout the narrative, and support the standard reading of Die Verwandlung. Moral guilt, often symbolized by financial debt, remains a principal theme in the text.

Ludwig Erhard Revives German Economy: From Stunde Null to Wirtschaftswunder

When WW2 ended in 1945, Germany had been decimated in several ways: millions of innocent Germans had died in concentration camps; young German men had died fighting at the front; civilians had died in the bombing of German cities. The physical infrastructure of the nation was in shambles: roads, bridges, railroads, water pipes, sewage pipes, electrical generation, telephone service, etc., were largely destroyed.

But in one further way the nation suffered. Its economy had been ravaged by the Nazi government. Meaningful work was scarce, and the threat of starvation real.

The Nazis had devastated the nation’s economy by means of their political ideology: “Nazi” means “National Socialist.”

The brutal and inhumane practices of the Nazis included high rates of taxation, government control of wages and prices, and government ownership of various businesses and industries. According to their socialist principles, they regulated nearly every transaction. Freedom to negotiate or make deals was non-existent.

The inevitable effects of these National Socialist policies included extreme scarcity of consumer goods and a thriving black market. Although it was dangerous to participate in the black market, individuals could find the freedom to negotiate and make deals there.

Many observers thought that Germany would be locked into a “third-world” status for many decades to come. The standard of living in postwar Germany was one of the lowest in the entire world.

Economically, the nation was starting over with nearly no resources. Historians called it Stunde Null - the ‘zero hour’ at which some rebirth might begin. Without material resources, this new beginning would be fueled by the visionary ideas of Ludwig Erhard.

The beginning of Germany’s amazing recovery was a set of ideas advanced by Ludwig Erhard. Within a single decade, Germany’s economy would be one of the strongest in the world.

Ludwig Erhard’s ideas centered on the idea of liberty. The National Socialists had taken away nearly every form of personal freedom, and especially economic freedom. Erhard would reverse the damage done by the Nazis. He would do that by increasing personal liberty, and especially the freedom of the individual to make economic choices.

Erhard, simply put, saw that economic recovery would come through a respect for personal freedom and through honoring the dignity of the individual and the individual’s liberty to make choices. Charles Moritz’s Current Biography reports that

On June 20, 1948, following the collapse of the West German economy, the occupation government introduced the currency reform and issued the new German mark, which aimed at increasing the purchasing power of the German wage earner. On the following day Erhard announced the removal of price controls and rationing, a move that he felt was necessary to make the full benefits of currency reform available to the people. Erhard reportedly took this step on his own initiative despite the misgivings of the American military governor, General Lucius D. Clay, and other Allied authorities. Although at first there were food shortages, accompanied by occasional disturbances, the economy soon revived. Meanwhile, Erhard kept up public morale by applying Seelenmassagen (soul massages) in the form of optimistic radio talks and newspaper articles.

Erhard’s economic leadership brought about a Wirtschaftswunder - an ‘economic miracle’ in which Germany’s exports increased by 700 percent between 1948 and 1962. Unemployed neared zero, and the national currency, worthless in 1947, was one of the world’s most stable currencies in the late 1950s.

By the time he was elected chancellor of West Germany in October 1963, Ludwig Erhard had already done his most important work during his years as Economics Minister under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer.

Possessing academic inclinations, Erhard authored several books on economics, and viewed his work less from the perspective of partisan politics and more from the perspective of a theoretical fiscal and monetary scholar.

Trakl the Compassionate Prophet: A Kinder, Gentler Apocalypse

Like several other artists during the years immediately prior to World War One, the Austrian poet Georg Trakl was haunted by insights that his society was headed for a self-destructive event, and that in this society there was a moral emptiness and a moral superficiality.

Trakl was a prophet.

In Western Civilization, the prophetic tradition, going back 3,000 to 4,000 years, can be characterized by three concepts. The prophet is social critic, a spokesman for God, and seer who has visions of the future.

Within the literary prophetic paradigm, there are subtypes: on the one hand, the condemnatory prophet who utters wrath and judgment; on the other hand, the compassionate prophet who sees the impending doom and empathizes with the soon-to-be victims.

One locus classicus for the compassionate prophet is the event during which Jesus wept about the future of the city of Jerusalem. He expresses a deep personal sadness for the residents of the city, even while explaining the terror which the Romans will inflict on it (cf. Luke 19, Matthew 23).

According to scholar Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis, Trakl falls into the pattern of the compassionate prophet:

The relationship of prophet to decadence is less that of one who condemns than of one who transfigures. In this respect, Trakl is as different from the other Expressionists in their vitriolic anger as Dostoievski, the underground man, was from Tolstoy, the rationalist utopian. Although seeing decay and corruption everywhere, Trakl never makes himself a force for their destruction, but for their atonement. Rather than separate himself as justified saint over against the bleak reality of his era, Trakl identifies himself so fully with it, rather in the manner of Hosea, the prophet who fornicates with a prostitute, that at times he appears himself to be a demonic visionary.

To support this hypothesis, Leiva-Merikakis cites lines from Trakl’s poem das Grauen. Clearly, Trakl presents a vision of coming destruction:

Ich sah mich durch verlass’ne Zimmer gehen.

As the poem continues, Trakl’s empathy moves him from merely reporting what he observes. His compassion moves him to an identification with the future destruction:

Doch plötzlich: Stille! Dumpfe Fieberglut
Läßt giftige Blumen blühn aus meinem Munde

‘Poisonous flowers’ emerge from Trakl’s mouth, perhaps in a state of delirium. Trakl sees himself as burdened with unpleasant task of predicting a dark future. He takes no joy in his role as seer. He does not wish ill on those who will suffer in the coming disaster. Perhaps he even feels some guilt about it.

But if Trakl identifies with the destruction, he does so only in part, because he also identifies with the destroyed. He may pronounce judgment, but he includes himself among those being judged:

Aus eines Spiegels trügerischer Leere
Hebt langsam sich, und wie ins Ungefähre
Aus Graun und Finsternis ein Antlitz: Kain!

Sehr leise rauscht die samtene Portiere,
Durchs Fenster schaut der Mond gleichwie ins Leere,
Da bin mit meinem Mörder ich allein.

Comparing himself to the fratricidal Cain, Trakl sees himself to be both murderer and victim.

While Leiva-Merikakis correctly points to Das Grauen to support and explain his hypothesis about Trakl being a compassionate prophet, Trakl’s body of work abounds with other texts which also support and exemplify this view of the poet.

Trakl’s poem Abendland arrived at its final state by means of three or four early drafts. These drafts have survived. Both the future disaster, and Trakl’s compassion for its victims, are seen in the text. The suffering is clear:

Silbern weint ein Krankes
Am Abendweiher,
Auf schwarzem Kahn
Hinüberstarben Liebende.

And later:

O des Knaben Gestalt
Geformt aus kristallenen Tränen.

Toward the end of the final draft, Trakl exclaims:

Ihr sterbenden Völker!

These are representative of many other phrases which are found in all four or five drafts of the poem.

Likewise, Trakl’s compassion for those who will suffer in the coming disaster manifests itself. In one draft, he uses the first person to include himself:

Und wir haben im Schlaf geweint.

He describes the Schwermut and das dunkle Lied der Schmerzen without making them into a punishment or a condemnation. And he includes, perhaps, a hint about a coming atonement or redemption:

Auch freut die Stille der Kinder
Die Nähe der Engel
Auf kristallener Wiese.

Trakl’s poetry, famous for its dark and foreboding tone, is softened by his identification with those who suffer, and by his allusions to a future atonement. Indeed, according to Leiva-Merikakis, Trakl sees his own poetry as part of that atoning process.

The Socialist Attack on Religion: Hitler Attempts to Erase Faith

When Hitler’s National Socialist party seized power in Germany in early 1933, it began a multifaceted effort to eliminate organized religion.

One aspect of this undertaking was to promote a resurgence of ancient Norse mythologies. This ancient belief system consisted of a polytheistic myths. The harsh nature of these myths included human sacrifice, vengeance killings, and the relegation of women to an inferior status.

A second aspect of the Nazi effort - remember that ‘Nazi’ means ‘National Socialist’ - was the promotion of atheism. Most Nazi institutions were officially atheist, as were many of the Nazi leaders. (Those Nazi leaders who weren’t atheists engaged in various Wicca activities like Norse mythology and nature worship.)

The third and final aspect of the National Socialist attempt to eliminate religious faith was to infiltrate and subvert existing religious institutions. The people who been members of religious societies or churches for many years didn’t want to quit being a part of those groups.

So the Nazis worked to deceive the members: The church’s building was still open at the same time on Sunday mornings, so people thought they they were “going to church.” But the National Socialists had replaced the decorations inside the church with Nazi banners and swastikas. The person who gave the speech was no longer a Christian minister talking about Jesus, but a Nazi talking about Hitler.

When the National Socialists first seized the government in 1933, they signed a commitment called a ‘concordat’ and they promised to let religious groups have some freedom. But they quickly broke that promise. Published research from the Weiße Rose Stiftung (The White Rose Foundation) reports that

According to the concordat between the Third Reich and the Holy See in 1933, Catholic youth organizations were permitted uniforms, insignia, and banners. Despite that agreement, they were harassed, persecuted and finally outlawed in 1938.

All varieties of Christianity were targeted by the National Socialists: Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, and others. The Nazi’s own youth club swallowed up some of the other youth groups which had existed before 1933.

Young people in these groups discovered that when their local church youth group was blended into the National Socialist Hitlerjugend, the group ceased to be a safe place. These high school students then left, and resisted by forming their own groups.

On December 18, 1933, the Protestant Youth was incorporated into the Nazi State Youth organization.

Christians formed several resistance movements, and these movements worked together. One of them was the Bekennende Kirche (The Confessing Church). The word ‘confessing’ meant that they would confess what they knew to be true, and thereby oppose the National Socialists.

Yet, as soon as they realized that the cross had to be exchanged for the swastika, they founded the ‘Young Reformation Movement.’ It was part of the ‘Bekennende Kirche’ (Confessional Church). It was in this group that Christians who resisted National Socialism united.

The quotes above are taken from a 1991 publication by the Weiße Rose Stiftung, edited by Franz Josef Müller, and including work by Ulrich Chaussy, Christiane Moll, Franz Josef Müller, Britta Müller-Baltschun, and Hans Wrobel.

A Diverse and Ununified Collection of Groups: The Germans Before Germany

To think of Germany as a political unit prior to 1871, or to think of it as a consistent territory which can be outlined with geographical boundaries on a map, is a mistake which will lead to serious misperceptions of history. A diverse and divergent collection of languages, cultures, societies, and political structures filled central Europe prior to the formation of German in 1871.

Linguistically, the difference between Vienna and Kiel, or between Freiburg and Königsberg, was so great in the Middle Ages that speech was not mutually intelligible and the residents of these regions communicated with other regions by means of Latin rather than contrasting regional forms of German.

Beyond linguistic variations, there were political variations: some regions were monarchies - kingdoms, duchies, principalities, etc. - while others were self-governing free imperial cities.

Likewise, religion varied from area to area: Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Calvinist ‘Reformed,’ and Prussian ‘Union.’ In addition to those variants, many areas tolerated multiple religious viewpoints in a side-by-side peaceful coexistence, and Jewish regions and neighborhoods dotted the map as well.

It would be a grave error to view, e.g., J.S. Bach and Wolfgang Mozart as sharing some category called ‘German composers.’ Their societies and cultures were quite different. Mozart was a Roman Catholic from Austria; Bach was a Lutheran from Saxony.

Although Mozart was born six years after Bach died, time was the smallest difference between them.

Likewise, it would be a mistake to look for some unifying substance between German philosophers. They vary from Leibniz to Marx, from Kant to Heidegger, Fichte to Wittgenstein, and from Frege to Husserl.

There is also no common essence among German psychologists or politicians. The only common factor, as historian Jan von Flocken notes, is that many of them were the opposite of each other:

Wenn überhaupt etwas sich wie ein roter Faden durch die antiken Überlieferungen zum Thema Germanen zieht, dann zahlreiche Berichte von der ständigen Zwietracht zwischen den einzelnen Stämmen sowie über ihre Unfähigkeit, sich dauerhaft miteinander zu liieren. Daraus ein Leitmotiv deutscher Geschichte zu konstruieren, wäre freilich genauso verfehlt, wie die Behauptung, zwischen Martin Luther und Adolf Hitler hätte eine geistige Kontinuität bestanden. Dass Letzteres von manchen Historikern versucht wurde, sagt nichts über den Wahrheitsgehalt dieser These aus.

The student should look, then, for the contrasts among the Germans. Bach’s music is the opposite of Richard Wagner’s. Eugen Richter’s political economics are the opposite of Marx’s.

So there is no unifying theme, but much rather a conflict of opposites, between, e.g., freedom-loving thought of Ludwig Erhard and the regulating interventionism of Jürgen Habermas. The contrast could not be greater between Hitler’s destructiveness and Martin Luther’s spiritual nurturing of the human spirit.

The earliest history of the ‘Germans’ has sometimes been misunderstood in way that makes it seem like they were a unified group. But it was not the ‘Germans,’ but rather the ‘Germanic tribes’ who defeated the Roman army at the Battle of Teutoberger Forest in the year 9 A.D.

It was a temporary coalition of very diverse tribes, working together under leadership of Hermann, known as Armenius. These same tribes, before and after this landmark event, were just as likely to fight against each other as to be allies.