Bonn Resignation Spotlights German Sensitivity Over Nazi Past

The forced resignation of West German parliamentary Speaker Philipp Jenninger shows that the 1933-45 Nazi era in German history still smolders and can erupt in national guilt and anger, analysts agreed Saturday.

“It indicates that Germans are still extremely sensitive about what you can say or not say about the Nazi period,” commented one Western diplomat with long experience here. “That history is still deeply etched in the German psyche.”

Jenninger resigned Friday after a firestorm of criticism following his speech to the Bundestag (Parliament) commemorating the 50th anniversary of Kristallnacht , the vicious 1938 Nazi rampage against German Jews, their homes, businesses and synagogues that heralded the Holocaust. The term Kristallnacht , or “crystal night,” came from the shards of glass littering the streets.

Stunned by Reaction

After the speech, Jenninger was stunned by the adverse reaction, declaring he believed he had given a proper historical account of the mood of the Germans during the rule of Adolf Hitler.

But he said Saturday he discovered that “one must learn that not everything can be called by its real name in Germany.”

On Thursday, Jenninger described Hitler’s early years in power as “fascinating,” saying that they “created an atmosphere of optimism and self-confidence” for the German people.

The main accusation against Jenninger was that he did not make sufficiently clear his own perspective in describing why Germans enthusiastically backed Hitler in the 1930s.

Jenninger’s speech and the subsequent furor that prompted his resignation raised again the perplexing question among Germans as to how they should personally react to Hitler and his policies that led to World War II and the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were systematically exterminated in death camps.

And the controversy reflected a running argument in German intellectual circles about whether the Holocaust was a unique crime or just another form of genocide and mass murder.

The dispute involves supporters of Prof. Ernst Nolte, an eminent historian, who in widely read books and articles argued that the world should stop judging Hitler’s Third Reich and its atrocities in isolation from the rest of history’s grimmer pages.

Nolte, a professor at the Free University of Berlin, reasoned that Hitler’s decision to make Europe’s Jews his scapegoat was determined by his view that Soviet communism was the major menace and that the Jews had helped create it.

“From this,” Nolte wrote recently, “I developed my thesis that in the gulag archipelago (Soviet labor camps) lay the origins of Auschwitz, and that anti-Bolshevism was a far more compelling motive for Hitler than anti-Semitism.

“He tried to explain Bolshevism in terms of its having been created by the Jews in their quest for international capitalism. This connection made the uniqueness of Auschwitz comprehensible.”

Thesis Disputed

Nolte’s thesis has been disputed by other historians, including Wolfgang Mommsen, a professor at Duesseldorf University and president of the West German Historical Assn.

“The historical roots of Hitler’s anti-Semitism are much older than Bolshevism itself,” he replied.

Further, Mommsen says that Nolte’s listing of other mass murders in history--the European religious wars, Josef Stalin’s massive purges, Turkey’s campaign against the Armenians and Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot’s killing of Cambodians--was “almost cynical.”

“These cases are enumerated in order to balance the atrocities of the National Socialist regime against similar atrocities committed by other nations, to present them in a milder light,” he wrote.

“Such comparisons are manifestly misleading because the Holocaust amounted to deliberate mass murder on an unprecedented scale.”

The sum total of Nolte’s “half-truths,” charged Mommsen, is to justify the view that “National Socialism was not so bad after all.”

Recently, Nolte was “disinvited” to lecture at Oxford University’s Wolfson College once the full faculty learned of the invitation and his controversial views of modern history--an action which was criticized by other scholars as stifling free discussion.

Even Federal President Richard von Weizsaecker stepped into the debate in an address to an assembly of German historians last month, insisting that the Germans bore full responsibility for the Nazi era and warning against attempts to play down its horrors.

“Nothing that historical science brings to light today can diminish the crimes of the Nazi era,” said Von Weizsaecker. “Auschwitz is still singular. This is incontrovertible. And it won’t be forgotten.”

Some observers suggested Saturday that Jenninger might have been influenced by the historical debate and tried to reflect the feelings of Germans during the 1930s toward Hitler and toward the Jews--rather than giving a speech that simply emphasized remembrance and contrition.

For instance, Chrisoph Bertram, foreign editor of the weekly Die Zeit, said that the speech was timely and not the “usual mea culpa ,” but tried to explain why Germans supported Hitler.

“Right speech, wrong occasion,” commented one diplomatic official.

Often commentators, including a group of visiting Jews from Los Angeles, complain that Germans aren’t “facing up to the past.” The question is a troubling one, particularly among those too young to have participated in or experienced the Nazi period.

“Everyone wrestles with it in his or her own way,” said one analyst. “Sometimes it’s not so much the generation involved as one’s place in the political spectrum.”

In this view, many conservatives such as Chancellor Helmut Kohl tend to take the view that since they were just youngsters when the war ended, they bear no responsibility for the Nazi period. But this attitude led Kohl to misjudgments--for example, inducing President Reagan in a 1985 visit to accompany him to a military cemetery that included the graves of Hitler’s elite SS combat troops. Other SS units ran Auschwitz and other Nazi death camps.

Those on the political left, in contrast, tend to insist that the Nazi period be a constant reminder to Germans so that another dictatorship can never to come to power.

“Nothing can ever wash away the blood,” said an emotional Otto Schily, a leader of the environmentalist Greens party.

Similar differences concerning the past occur among the young, who are now grandsons and granddaughters of those who lived during the Nazi years. Some of the young generation insist on learning about the times in school and from their elders. They try to grapple with how much--or little--sense of guilt they should assume.

But other young people take the view that the war was all a long time ago, that the past is behind them and that they should look toward the future. And opinion polls of young and old show that two out of three Germans favor drawing a Schlussstrich , or final line, through the Nazi period and the Holocaust, at least in terms of discussion and media stories--a view that deeply pains members of West Germany’s Jewish community of 30,000.