“simplicissimus” and the rise of national socialism

22
‘SimpliciJsimzls j1 Rise of National dnd the Socialism OTTO M. NELSON* HE recurring interest in the role of intellectuals in the Weimar Republic has recently produced numerous major studies of German writers and journa1s.l The prevailing sentiment of contributors to the Summer 1972 issue of SocialResearch, which took as its topic “Germany 1919-1932: The Weimar Culture,” is that critics like Kurt Tucholsky and Carl von Ossietzky, both former editors of Die Weltbuhne, were not much listened to. Left-wing journals like Weltbiihne and Das Tagebuch had low circulation and much of it was overlapping.2 That they did little to stem the Hitlente threat is generally conceded. A more widely distributed periodical was Der Simpliczssirnus~ which appealed not only to intellectuals but also to T * The author is Associate Professor of History at Texas Tech University. He wishes to thank the university’s Institute for University Research for its financial assistance and his colleague Briggs L. Twyman for helpful suggestions regarding this paper. I Istvan Deak, Germany’s Left- Wing Intellectuals: A Political History of the Wrltbiihne and Its Cirrlr (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968): Harold L. Poor, Kurt Tucholsky and the Ordral of Germany, 1914-1935 (New York, 1968);Beth lrwin l.ewis, George Grosz: Art and Polztics zn the Weimar Republic (Madison, 1971); Raim.und Koplin, Carl lion Ossietzky aLTpolitzscherPublizist (Berlinand Frankfurt, 1964); Lewis D. Wurgaft, “The Activist Movement; Cultural Politics on the German Left, 1914-1933” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard IJniversity, 1970): Guy Stern, War, Weimar, and Literature: The Story of the Neue Merkur, 1914-1925 (University Park, Pa., and London. 1971); Volker Mauersberger, Rudolf Pechel und die “Deutsche Rundschau” 1919-1933. Eine Studie zur konseniatir,-reYolutioniiren Publizistik in der WeimarerHepublik (Bremen, 1971); and Hellmut Diwald, “Literatur und Zeitgeist in der Weimarer Republik,” in Zeigeist der Weimarer Republik, ed. Hans Joachim Schoeps (Stuttgart, 1968),203-60. More general studies are Peter Gay, Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider (New York, 1968), a different version of which appeared in Perspectives in American History, vol. 2, The Intellectual Migration: Europe and America, 1930-1960 (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 11-93; and Walter Laqueur, Weimar: A Cultural History, 1918-1933 (London, 1974). Walter Laqueur, “The Role of the Intelligentsia in the Weimar Republic,” Social Research 39 (Summer 1972): 218. Perhaps the sharpest criticism of allegedly negative thinking litterateurs comes from Gordon A. Craig, “Engagement and Neutrality in Weimar Germany,” Journal of Contemporary History 2 (April 1967): 49-63. See also Donald L. Niewyk, “The Economic and Cultural Role of the Jews in the Weimar Republic, Leo Baeck Institute Year Book 16 (London, 1971): 170-171. Harold Poor presents Tucholsky’s own reaction to charges of negativism in Kurt Tuchokky, 67-69 see also Deak, Left- Wing Intellectuals, 41-42. Laqueur says that “Weltbiihne and Figures on circulation vary widely. 44 1

Upload: otto-m-nelson

Post on 26-Sep-2016

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

‘ ‘SimpliciJsimzls j1

Rise of National dnd the Socialism

OTTO M. NELSON*

HE recurring interest in the role of intellectuals in the Weimar Republic has recently produced numerous major studies of German writers and journa1s.l The prevailing sentiment of contributors to the Summer 1972 issue of SocialResearch, which

took as its topic “Germany 1919-1932: The Weimar Culture,” is that critics like Kurt Tucholsky and Carl von Ossietzky, both former editors of Die Weltbuhne, were not much listened to. Left-wing journals like Weltbiihne and Das Tagebuch had low circulation and much of it was overlapping.2 That they did little to stem the Hitlente threat is generally conceded. A more widely distributed periodical was Der Simpliczssirnus~ which appealed not only to intellectuals but also to

T

* The author is Associate Professor of History at Texas Tech University. He wishes to thank the university’s Institute for University Research for its financial assistance and his colleague Briggs L. Twyman for helpful suggestions regarding this paper.

I Istvan Deak, Germany’s Left- Wing Intellectuals: A Political History of the Wrltbiihne and I t s Cirrlr (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968): Harold L. Poor, Kurt Tucholsky and the Ordral of Germany, 1914-1935 (New York, 1968); Beth lrwin l.ewis, George Grosz: Art and Polztics zn the Weimar Republic (Madison, 1971); Raim.und Koplin, Carl lion Ossietzky aLTpolitzscher Publizist (Berlinand Frankfurt, 1964); Lewis D. Wurgaft, “The Activist Movement; Cultural Politics on the German Left, 1914-1933” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard IJniversity, 1970): Guy Stern, War, Weimar, and Literature: The Story of the Neue Merkur, 1914-1925 (University Park, Pa., and London. 1971); Volker Mauersberger, Rudolf Pechel und die “Deutsche Rundschau” 1919-1933. Eine Studie zur konseniatir,-reYolutioniiren Publizistik in der WeimarerHepublik (Bremen, 1971); and Hellmut Diwald, “Literatur und Zeitgeist in der Weimarer Republik,” in Zeigeist der Weimarer Republik, ed. Hans Joachim Schoeps (Stuttgart, 1968), 203-60. More general studies are Peter Gay, Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider (New York, 1968), a different version of which appeared in Perspectives in American History, vol. 2, The Intellectual Migration: Europe and America, 1930-1960 (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 11-93; and Walter Laqueur, Weimar: A Cultural History, 1918-1933 (London, 1974).

Walter Laqueur, “The Role of the Intelligentsia in the Weimar Republic,” Social Research 39 (Summer 1972): 218. Perhaps the sharpest criticism of allegedly negative thinking litterateurs comes from Gordon A. Craig, “Engagement and Neutrality in Weimar Germany,” Journal of Contemporary History 2 (April 1967): 49-63. See also Donald L. Niewyk, “The Economic and Cultural Role of the Jews in the Weimar Republic, ” Leo Baeck Institute Year Book 16 (London, 1971): 170-171. Harold Poor presents Tucholsky’s own reaction to charges of negativism in Kurt Tuchokky, 67-69 see also Deak, Left- Wing Intellectuals, 41-42.

Laqueur says that “Weltbiihne and Figures on circulation vary widely.

44 1

Page 2: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

The Historian

large segments of the liberal bourgeoisie. As Germany’s most prominent satirical-political journal, Simplicissimus may be regarded as significantly reflective of the concerns, attitudes, and reactions of the German liberal middle class, Accordingly, this paper will focus on Der Sirnplicissirnus’s perception and criticism of Hitler and his National Socialist movement.

Simplicissimw, by the 1920s, was a familiar fixture on the German scene. Founded in 1896 by Albert Langen,4 son of a Rhenish industrialist, the Munich weekly gained popularity with a newspaper format, full-color cartoons, and, not least, relentless invective against the Prussian-German Establishment.5 Often compared to Punch,

Tagebuch had a combined circulation of 15,000” whereas Deak claims that Weltbiihne, by itself, eventually reached a circulation of 20,000. According to Poor, “the records of the Weltbiihne were confiscated by the Nazis and have been lost.” Correspondence in the Tucholsky Archive led Poor to estimate maximum circulation at 15,000. See Laqueur, “Role of Intelligentsia,” 218; Deak, Left- Winglnlellectuals, 59; Poor, Kurt Tucholsky, 65, 241 (quote). Simplicissimus’s circulation ran as high as 85,000 in the prewar era but in the Weimar period leveled off at about 35,000. Readership, however, can be calculated in the millions, at least if the words of Franz Schoenberner, editor of the journal during 198-33, can be credited: “Simplicissimus belonged traditionally to these Lesezirkel

secured for each copy some hundreds of readers.” Schoenberner, Confessions of a European Intellectual, Collier Books ed. (New York, 1965), 288. For circulation figures on Simplicissimus, see Richard Christ, ed., Simplicissimus 1896-1914 (East Berlin, 1972), 10; Sperlings Zeitschriften und Zeitungs Adressbuch 57 (1931): 414.

’ Following a period of financial and editorial reorganization, the Simplicissimus masthead. as of 1907. read, “Founded bv Albert Laneen and Th. Th . Heine.” Heine, whose full name was Thomas Theodor Heine, would serve, over time, as part-owner, editor, and leading caricaturist.

For a thoughtful summary of Simpl’s social criticism in the pre-World War I era, see Gerhard Benecke, “The Politics of Outrage: Social Satire in the Cartoons of ‘Simpliciss imus’ 1896-1914,” 20th Century Studies 13/14 (December 1975): 92-109. There is no general history of Simplicissimus, but see the following collections of Simplicissamus cartoons: Ausstellungsleitung Haus der Kunst Munchen, eds., Simplicissimus. Eine satirische Zeitschrift Miinchen 1896-1944 (Munich, 1977), an elegant, lavish, and monumental work issued in connection with the Simplicissimus exhibition at the Mgnich Haus der Kunst, 19 November 1977 - 15 January 1978. Also useful are Christ, ed., Simplicissimus; Stanley Appelbaum, ed., Simplicissimus: 180 Satirical Drawings from the Famous German Weekly (New York, 1975); Konrad Strauss, ed., Der gute Ton. Am dem .“Simplicissimus” 1896-1932 (Munich, 1965); Christian Schctze, ed., Simplicissimus Album: Facsimile Querschnitt durch den Simplicissimus (Bern, Stuttgart, Vienna, 1963), reprinted as Das Bestr aus dem Simplicissimus (n.p., 1976); Herbert Reinoss, ed., Simplicissirnus. Bilder aus dem “Simplicissimus” (Hanover, 1970); and Eugen Roth, ed., Simplicissimus: Ein Riickblick auf diesatirischeZeitschrift (Hanover, 1954). Of a more tendentious nature is Wilhelm Matthiessen, ed., r)unkelm&ner. Ein geschichtliches Bildrrbuch (Munich, 1941), a collection of some 150 Simplicissimus cartoons that caricature the clergy, the “men in black.” The cartoons cover a forty-six-year period with a large selection from the Nazi era. Many of the cartoons satirize clergy who criticize nationalism and racism. Purportedly more scholarly is Gustav Bald, Die politisch-satirische Lyrik. ein publizisttsches Kampfmittel (Dargrstellt an den satirischen Zritschrijten Miinchens: “Jugend; Simplicissimus” und “Brennessel.”) (Arnsberg, i. W., 1936), accepted as a dissertation at Erlangen. The Fuhrer is lauded throughout, and Brennessel, a Nazi humor magazine, is overrated.

442

Page 3: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

National Socialism

Simplicissimus (or Szmpl, as i t was commonly called) was more acerbic in tone.6 Among German journals featuring caricature, its stance on political and social issues identified it as left-liberal, somewhat more radical than Jugend, also founded in Munich in 1896.7 Always critical but neither Marxist not revolutionary, Simplicissimus provided a healthy outlet for the bourgeois who chafed under the political restrictions and social inequalities of the age.8 Although active for change in German society, Simplicissimus spoke for no political party. The journal’s political tone vacillated between detachment and resentment, especially against party-egoism and party-selfish- ness.9 Simplicissimus’s independence on political matters was confirmed in the large group of artists it employed; their individuality and versatility gave Simpl a manysidedness that prevented criticism from degenerating into surliness or dogmatism. Simpl’s panorama of targets included bellicose Prussian officers, effete aristocrats, conspicuously indulgent businessmen a n d industrialists, sanctimonious parsons and priests, pompous professors, and officious bureaucrats. Wilheminian Germany was chockfull of such people, providing Simplicissimus with a ready supply of victims at which to take aim. Nor did Sirnpl’s arrows and barbs go unnoticed by those attacked. For example, the publisher, Langen, was exiled for five years

Comparisons might also be made with Nebalspalter, the venerable Swiss review, and Le canard enchainkof Paris.

7 Munich as the center of German caricature is the subject of Ludwig Hollweck’s illustrated monograph, Karikaturen. Von den Fliegenden Bllttern zum Simplicissimus 1844 bis 1914 (Munich, 1973). The most extensive collection of German caricatures, albeit with little commentary, is Hans Dollinger, ed., Zmhen streng rwrbotm! Die Geschichte der Deutschen im Spiegel der Karikatur (Munich, 1972). See also Grorg Ramseger, ed., Ohne Putr und Tlinchr. Deutsche Karikaturistrn und die Kultur (Oldenburg and Hamburg, 1956), and George Mikes, ed.. Germany 1.augh.s at Her.se1j. German Cartoons Since 1848 (Stuttgart, 1965).

Caricature-the artistic disfigurement and ridiculing of one’s opponents and enemies-is viewed generally as a socially acceptable, nonviolent outlet for aggressive instincts, in E. H . Gombrich a n d Ernst Kris, Caricature (Harmondsworth, Middlesex. 1941); Ernst Kris, Psychoanalytic Explorations in Art (New York, 1952); E. H. Gombrich, Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation, 2nd ed. (New York, 1961); idem, Meditations on a Hobby Horse, and Other Essays on the Theory ofArt (London, 1963). The inspiration for this interpretation of caricature comes from Sigmund Freud, Jokes and Their Relation to the lfnconscious, trans. James Strarhey (London, 1960). Without citing any of the psychological studies of humor, Keith Thomas arrives at a similar conclusion: “Jokes . . . can be a revealing guide to past tensions and anxieties.” See ‘l’homas, “.I‘he Place of Laughter in Tudor and Stuart England,” Times Literary Supplement, 21 January 1977,7741 (quote, 77). I am grateful to Professor Jacquelin Collins of Texas Tech Liniversity for calling this essay to my attention.

Ruprecht Konrad, Nationale und internationale Tendenzen im “Simplicissimus” 1896-1933. Der Wandel k&wtlerisch-politischer Bewusstseinstrukturen am Spiegel von Satire und Karikatur in Bayern (Bayreuth, 1975), 73-79. Despite the dates indicated in the title of Konrad’s work, only a few pages are allocated to the post-1918 history of Simplicissimus.

443

Page 4: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

The Historian

following an October 1898 issue that ridiculed William 11’s trip to Palestine. Th. Th. Heine, who lampooned William in caricature, and Frank Wedekind, who satirized William’s pretentions in poetry, were, at the same time, sentenced to prison terms. The predictable result was the enhanced notoriety and increased circulation of a journal whose humorous jibes spared no one. To be sure, Simplicissirnus’s humor could be playful and gentle but often it descended to a grim maliciousness, reminiscent of Grimmelshausen’s picaresque novel of the Thirty Years War, for which the modern Simplicissirnus was named.

During World War I, Simp1 succumbed to the prevailing German war psychosis, engaging in “Hurra- Journalismus,” a prelude to the capitulation that was to occur in 1933. After the war and following a change of editors, Sirnplicissimus resumed its prewar p l i c y of baiting the Establishment. True, the monarchs were gone, but the German social and economic system remained essentially unchanged, producing (or reproducing) many of the targets of the pre-1914 years. With the inflation of the early 1920s, the journal found itself in serious financial difficulties and even sought aid (but apparently received none) from Hugo Stinnes, the reactionary indusuialist.10 In 1924, Hermann Sinsheimer, theater and literary critic of the Mcnchner Neuesten Nachrichten, was appointed editor-in-chief and business manager of Simpl. Sinsheimer tells us that he tried to restore both a sense of direction and financial soundness toSimpl. First, he suggested moving Sirnplicissimus to Berlin; this, he thought, would provide stimulation and encourage purposefulness. Second, he obtained loans unauthorized by Simpl’s owners, who were also its six principal cartoonists: Th. Th. Heine, Olaf Gulbransson, Wilhelm Schulz, Karl Arnold, Eduard Thony, and Erich Schilling. Because the owners neither wanted to move from Munich nor approved of his financial management, Sinsheimer was ultimately obliged to resign, in 1929.11

In these early and middle years of the Weimar Republic, Simpl viewed Hitler as quite unexceptional. He seemed merely another- and relatively minor-figure in the mele‘e of German politics. At the time of his abortive putsch in November 1923, he was depicted as a momentary phenomenon, a ridiculous adventurer who would “save Germany” in a “beer cellar.”’* Nazi brownshirts were satirized as

‘ 0 Christ, ed., Simplicissirnus, 13. ‘1 Hermann Sinsheimer, Gelebl im Paradies: Erinnrrungen und Brgrgnungcn

(Munich, 1953), 224-35. Sinsheimer went to the Berliner Tagrblaff , owned by the Mosse concern, which had aided S i r n f l l financially. That Heine, the principal owner, distrusted Sinsheimer’s business dealings is confirmed by Heine’s nephew, Erich Seemann. Seemann to author, 23 February 1977.

l2 Simplicissimus, 26 November 1923, 432.

444

Page 5: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

National Socialism

uncouth rowdies, mere riffraff who had followed a political failure.15. As an incompetent nobody, Hitler was characterized as a tool of Bavarian State Commissioner Gustav von Kahr, whose monarchist and separatist views were well known. Kahr was a made-to-order example of the type that Simplicissimus had attacked so vehemently before 1914. In full-pagecartoons, Erich Schilling portrayed von Kahr as the real force behind Hitler. One cartoon, entitled “In the Bavarian KyffhPuser,” showed a mountain girdled by swastikas, suggesting that inside was Hitler; but within there lurked only von Kahr, with a crown and a cross.I4 In another cartoon, entitled “The Hitler Trial or how Kahr has saved the Fatherland,” the state commissioner is seen holding up Hitler, who, smiling inanely, is setting a torch to a building. A policeman is told by a sinister-looking von Kahr, “Arrest that firebug up there!””

Hitler’s youth, his foreign origin and citizenship, and his desperado antics all seemed to support Simpl’s judgment of him as a bumbling mediocrity. On the other hand, von Kahr was seen as an adroit schemer, a definite menace who might well succeed in his presumed aims of restoring the Wittelsbach dynasty and according more power to the Chirch. Simplicissimtls may have indulged in some hyperbole-a common feature of satire-in characterizing Hitler asa mere tool of von Kahr, but the view is close to the findings of recent scholarship, namely that the Nazis were tolerated if not actually manipulated by conservative Bavarian politicians for the purpose of strengthening the political nationalist Right.l6

Simplicissimus, at this time, also published an unintentionally prophetic cartoon displaying Hitler, von Kahr, and Ludendorff-a sometime ally of Hitler-amidst a mass of rubble and flames (with the Munich Frauenkirche serving as backdrop), the focus of which was a large phoenix-like bird rising from the conflagration. The implication was that Munich would survive the follies of the threesome.’’ At about the same time, Joseph Goebbels was trying to peddle a dreadful novel entitled Michael, the first page of which alludes to a “phoenix arising from the ashes of war and destruction.”’* The

I s Ibid., 3 December 1925, 452. Zbid., 1 1 February 1924, 569. Zbid., 17 March 1924, 621.

l6 Harold J. Gordon, Jr., Hitler and the Beer Hall Putsch (Princeton, 1972), 609-10 and passim.

Simplicissimus, 3 December 1923, 444 (Heine). Quoted in Otto Friedrich, Before the Deluge: A Portrait of Berlin in the 1920’s

(New York, 1972), 210. Helmut Heibereva1uatesMzchaelas“inpart stickysentimental, in part kitsch patriotic-or revolutionary-stammering.” Not until 1929, by which time Goebbels had achieved notoriety, would the novel be publishedand then only by theEher (Nazi) Verlag. Heiber, Joseph Goebbels (Berlin, 1962), 35.

445

Page 6: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

The Historian

two phoenix symbols-one anticipating a rebirth of republican institutions and the other representing the revival of nationalism and authoritarianism-precisely indicated the nature of the struggle that would be waged during the remaining years of the Weimar Republic.

The strong showing made by the Nazi-led Racist Block in the Bavarian Landtag elections of April and May 1924 augured future misfortunes for Germany. Although the National Socialist Party (NSDAP) had been proscribed following the Hitler Putsch, the Nazis could and did group together with other racist-nationalist parties to win a plurality in Munich and trail only the Bavarian People’s party (BVP) in number of deputies elected to the state parliament.’$ This electoral victory indicated something more serious than a bunch of toughs converging on a beer hall. Simplicissimus responded with a cartoon showing a Nazi Pied Piper leading a flock of sheep away from a surprised figure in clerical garb who asks, “Hey, what’s going on here?”20 The same issue presented a Schilling cartoon jeering at the new Bavarian Landtag, with its three leadingparties, the BVP, NSDAP. and SPD (the Socialists), performing a comedy routine on stage. The Nazis were given equal billing with the BVP and were no longer. seen as fronting for anyone.z1 To mplain the large Racist vote, Simplicissimus intimated that the electorate was simpleminded if not irresponsible. A May 5 cartoon presented two well-dressed gentlemen, one asking the other, “Well, Herr Zulpke, for which party have you voted?” The not very conscientious reply was, “I don’t recall-but I fulfilled my duty as a citizen.”22

Much of the impact that the Hitler Putsch and the subsequent sensational trial had on Bavarians had dissipated by the fall of 1924. Hitler was in prison and the remnants of the party were in disarray. In the Reichstag elections of December the Racist Block ranked only fifth in deputies elected from Bavaria, a precipitous decline from the spring Landtag elections. Harold Gordon observes that Hitler no longer seemed a threat: “Neither the Right nor the Left, nor even the Bavarian government . . . saw him as .a really serious political factor.”23 Simplzcissimusevidently sensed the decline of Nazi strength, for a November cartoon depicted Hitler asa docileattendant of Ludendorff while, in the same issue, a poem ridiculed Hitler as an obnoxious small-time f0reigner.2~

l 9 Gordon, Beer Hall Putsch, 542-43. *O Sirnplicissirnus, 28 April 1924, 75 (Schulz). 2’ Ibid., 61. z2 Ibid., 5 May 1924,91 (Thony). 23 Gordon, Beer Hall Putsch, 553, 573 (quote). 24 Simplicissimus, 22 November 1924, 469 (Heine) The poem, on page 471, is

signed “L. S.” Numerous Simp1 poems were si-ped with initials or pseudonyms or not

446

Page 7: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

National Socialism

With Hitler’s movement discredited and apparently collapsing, Simplieissirnus directed its criticism against other symbols of authoritarianism. The April 1925 election of the aged military hero, Field Marshal von Hindenburg, as Reich President seemed cause for alarm,25 although within a few months, as Hindenburg punctiliously fulfilled the constitutional requirements of his office, Simp1 began to evince sympathy for him and depicted Ludendorff, ironically, as attempting to stab him in the back.26 By 1927 Hindenburg was perceived as having achieved a positive identification-as having built a bridge-between German traditions on the one hand and the Weimar Republic on the other.27 But if Hindenburg now escaped criticism, others did not. Mussolini was constantly reviled as was Alfred Hugenberg, who gradually gained strength within the German National People’s party (DNVP), grabbing the chairmanship in 1928. Only gentle fun was poked at Gustav Stresemann, the astute foreign minister whose “fulfillment policy” succeeded in avoiding major foreign policy quarrels. Under Hermann Sinsheimer’s editorial leadership, Simpliczssimus presented rather more social than pblitical comment. Hundreds, indeed several thousand cartoons of the 1920s, satirized the pell-mell materialism of the period. The speculator, the philanderer, the clotheshorse, and the champagne guzzler were frequent targets. Sympathy for the poor and unemployed was common. Religion and clerics were treated more with in- difference than with scorn.

In a weekly magazine headquartered in Munich, it would have been surprising had Hitler and the Nazis been totally ignored. In April 1927 Hitler was compared with a circus clown while stein-wielding Bavarians joked that the Nazi party was washed up.28 Heine, in a 1928 sequence of New Year’s predictions, showed Hitler splitting himself in two with an ax. “The National Socialists,” the caption read, “have split so often that Hitler now remains alone, and surely he will split himself.”*9 The unimpressive showing of theNSDAP in theMay 1928 Reichstag elections occasioned a Karl Arnold cartoon featuring a Nazi

signrd at all. rhc artists who drew them.

Cartoons were never anonymous or pseudonymous bui were attributrd to

p s Ibid., 4 May 1925, 65 (Heine). 26 Ibid., 21 December 1925, 552 (Heine). An early proponent, if not the initiator,

of the Dolchstosslegende, Hindenburg had, since the end of the war, experienced the distrust if not antipathy of Ludendorff, who sought to undermine the marshal’s military reputation and who had campaigned as one of his opponents in the 1925 presidential elcrtion. See Andreas Dorpalcn, Hindmburg and t h ~ Wrimnr Krpublic (Prinwron, 1964)< 48-53, 56, 59, 67.

Simplici.wzmu.~, 3 October 1927, 356 (Gulbransson). Ibid., 11 April 1927, 16 (Schilling); 9 May 1927, 73 (Srhulz).

2q Ibid., 2 January 1928, 542.

447

Page 8: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

The Historian

declaiming, “The number of votes is not decisive-the name Adolf says it a11.”~0

By mid-1928 Simplicissimus was expressing greater concern over political developments, especially the disruptive activities of the Nationalists. Although the Social Democrats had gained in therecent elections and had installed one of th,eir party functionaries, Hermann Mfiller, in the chancellor’s office, what seemed to bea stabilization of the Republic only intensified the animosity of the Nationalists. The DNVP, which had been fractious enough with the Socialists out of the government, now, under Hugenberg’s direction, increased its vilification of democratic institutions and individuals. The arrogant and blustering Hugenberg intimidated people through his wealth, political position, and propaganda outlets: he owned or controlled scores of newspapers (including the big Berlin LoRal-Anzeiger) as well as a news agency and the UFA movie studio. Because Hugenberg’s Nationalists constituted the second largest Fraktion in the Reichstag, they seemed more dangerous than the Nazis, who remained only a fringe group. Hence Hugenberg, a short owlish man with an oversized mustache, became Simpl’s main object of caricature.31

Hitler reentered the political picture by collaborating with Hugenberg in a referendum against the Young Plan. Although ostensibly the junior partner, Hitler expertly exploited this opportunity, using Hugenberg’s news media, funds, and access to important people to gain notoriety. Hitler, youthful and vigorous, campaigned with more noise and vehemence than did the elderly Hugenberg. SirnfAicissirnus captured the essence of the contrast by dressing Hitler in regal clothing, proclaiming him S. M. Adolf I, and showing him like William II-known to Germans as S. M. or Seine Majesdt-talking at full speed. Hugenberg, conversely, was sitting on a pile of his newspapers. Accompanying him was a quotation from Mezn Kampj that proclaimed great orators-not writers-as the makers and shapers of hist0ry.~2 Another cartoon showed Hugenberg fleeing with his trousers on fire, swastikas emerging within the smoke. The title was “S. 0. S. Deuts~hnational!”~~ Thus Hitler was viewed as reaping the benefitsof collaboration whereas Hugenberg and the DNVP were getting burned by the boost they were givingeto the Nazis.

Sirnplicissimus’s increased attention to politics was given additional emphasis by the appointment, late in 1929, of a new editor-

30 Ibid., 1 1 June 1928, 143. 31 Ibid.. 30 July 1928,231 (Schilling); 19 November 1928, 429 (Schilling); 15 April

1929, 26 (Arnold); 15 July 1929, 185 (Schulz); 7 October 1929,333 (Arnold); 4 November 1929, 385 (Gulbransson); 18 November 1929,420 (Gulbransson).

32 Ibnd., 25 November 1929,421 (Arnold). 33 Ibid., 30 December 1929, 488 (Arnold).

448

Page 9: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

National Socialism

in-chief, Franz Schoenberner.34 Then a thirty-seven-year-old war veteran, Schoenberner had written for Efraim Frisch’sNeueMerkurand edited Auslandspost (founded by Frisch); more recently, he had edited lugend, still a well-known Munich satirical journal. Schoenberner had also served as managing editor of Musa Press, a somewhat .ill- starred publishing venture into which he was led by a second cousin, Lou Andreas-Sal~me.~~ Schoenberner was acutely interested in politics without being an ideologue or political partisan. His commitment, rather, was to reason, common sense, and fair play. He detested uncouthness and was fervently convinced that i t could be exposed and expunged by wit, irony, and satire. Schoenberner also loathed violence and physical contact (he could barely tolerate havinga barber cut his hair).s6 The intolerant and raucous Nazis, beginning their ascent at about the same time that Schoenberner joined Simplicissirnus, now furnished ample subject matter for the young editor to assign to his cartoonists.

The predictable failure of the anti-Young Plan referendum soon dissolved the Hugenberg-Hitler coalition and left Hitler on his own. But now the Great Depression provided wide scope for the radicalism and dynamism of the NSDAP; no longer in need of H u g e n b e r g , H i t l e r became p r o m i n e n t i n ’ h i s o w n right. Simplicissimus presented him as planning a putsch, conspiring anew with Ludendorff and Hugenberg, recruiting royalty (Prince August Wilhelm) for his “socialist” party, and, most characteristically, as a mental misfit. A Heine cartoon, headlined “An uneventful police visit with Hitler,” shows two policemen opening Hitler’s brain cavity, finding there, amidst a vast emptiness, an object so tiny that it has to be handled with a tweezers.37 Other cartoons showed Nazis brandishing arms, beating up Jews, and fighting with Communists.%*

M Schoenberner, whose full name was Immanual Siegfried Franz Schoenberner, was born in Berlin in 1892 and died in Teaneck, New Jersey, in 1970. He wrote three volumes of autobiography after fleeing from Vichy France to the ZJnited States. His association with Simplicissimus is covered in the previously cited Confessions of a European Intellectual. His other volumes are The Inside Story of an Outsider (New York, 1949) and You St i l l Have Your Head: Excursions from Immobility (New York, 1957), which was dictated after a savage beating left him almost completely paralyzed from the head down. The three volumes havealso been published in Germany by Kreisselmeier Verlag, Idting and Munich (1964-66) as has a volume of essays, Der Weg der Vcrnunft und andere AufStftre (1969). The Schoenberner Papers are located at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford, California.

‘$5 On his relationship to Lou Andreas-Salome, see Rudolph Binion, Frau Lou: Nietzsche’s Wayward Disciple (Princeton, 1968), and Schoenberner, Confessions, 43-54, 127.

J6 Schoenberner, You Still Have Your Head, 18, 48. 37 Simplzcissumus, 24 March 1930, 637 (Gulbransson); 7 April 1930,23 (Heine); 28

Ibid., 7 July 1930, 172 (Arnold); 14 July 1930, 189 (Arnold); 1 1 August 1930,231 April 1930, 57 (Heine); 9 June 1930, 123 (Heine).

(Gul bransson). 449

Page 10: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

The Historian

The great divide of the Weimar era was the election of September 14, 1930; before, the Republic still seemed outwardly stable. Hitler hoped to increase the NSDAP Reichstag delegation from 12 to about 50, perhaps more, Other estimates were smaller: the Frankfurter Zeitung forecast a 36-seat limit while the Berliner Tugeblutt predicted 40 to 45.59 When the elections brought the Nazis 107 seats (trailing only the SPD), i t was evident that a powerful political force, one that portend- ed disaster for the other parties, had emerged. “No comparable breakthrough can be found in the history of German political parties,” asserts Joachim Fest.40 The Social Democrats, who had quit the government late in March 1930 and who had adamantly opposed the BrGning regime and its use of Article 48, now reversed themselves. Surveying the “heap of ruins” that appeared to con- stitute German politics, the Socialists sounded the alarm to save the Republic from the Nazis, even if this meant tolerating Briining.41 Simplicissimus’s reaction was to acknowledge the ex- istence of the Nazi success while characterizing Hitler’s followers as hypnotized or, at best, muddle-headed and the Fuhrer himself as an opportunist. Nazi voters and supporters, the magazine suggested, are poeple who like to march, sing, and fight; who like to wear uniforms and medals; who hang on to Hitler because i t is faddish to do so; or who, out of spite, want to scare the French. As one elderly woman asked another, “Why are you now for Hitler, Frau Obersteuerkontrolleur?” “Because,” came the reply, “it will please me if the French become fearful.”42 Hitler himself had become a master of fancy footwork, a juggler and manipulator of symbols. He also, it was alleged, hanker- ed after a cabinet position and prated about “legality” while simultaneously threatening that “heads will roll.” One cartoon shows Karl Marx’s ghost admonishing Hitler for copying from Das Kapital. “Adolf, Adolf,” Mam implores, “give my theories back to the Socialists! ”43

A curious aspect of Simplicissimus’s now extensive treatment accorded to the Nazis was the frequent linking of them with both Communists and Jews. That the NSDAP and the KPD (the German Communist party) both despised parliamentary democracy and wished

s9 For Hitler’s hopes, see Joachim C. Fest, Hitler, trans. Richard and Clara Winston (New York, 1974). 286. Other cstimates arts given in Modris Eksteins, Thr Limits of Krason: The German Ilcmocratic Press and the Colla$w of Weimar Democracy (Xmndon, 1975). 203-4.

40 Fest, Hitler, 287. 4 1 Vorwlirts, 15 September 1930, p.m. ed., 1. 42 Simplzczsszrnus, 29September 1930,323 (Heine);3 November 1930,373 (Schilling);

10 November 1930, 389 (Saucr), for the quote; 10 November 1930. 395 (Schilling); 22 Decernbrr 1930, 464 (Pirhcl); 22 December 1930, 465 (Hrine).

43 Ibid., 22 Septernbcr 1930, 301 (Heine); 6 Ortober 1930, 333 (Gulbransson); 20 October 1930,351 (Heine); 10 November 1930,388 (Arnold), Hitler copying from Marx.

450

Page 11: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

National Socialism

to establish totalitarian regimes is obvious enough. But cartoons that showed Jews as members or supporters of the Nazis seem incongruous. One cartoon caricatures a wealthy Jewish bafiker patronizing Goebbels. Another has the members of the Berlin Stock Exchange-all drawn as Jews-installing Hitler on a throne. Still another dresses up a Jew in a Nazi uniform. Jews are frequently identified with banking and speculating, with plutocracy and social climbing. Although other cartoons show Jews being beaten up or otherwise mistreated by Nazis, an ambivalent overall picture of Jews is presented. A panel of cartoons by Gulbransson has a Nazi pursuing a Jew, who, to save himself, promises a million marks to the party. The Nazi accepts theoffer and lets the Jew go, whereupon the Jew renegs and spends the money, gloatingly, on a synagogue. The Jew is drawn to look both cowardly and sly; the Nazi seems merely naive. Another Gulbransson cartoon presents a young Aryan girl with what is called “a difficult question.” Asked to choose, in marriage, a Nordic Nazi or a wealthy Jew, she chooses the latter. Certainly the main target of Simplicissimus’s ridicule and sarcasm was now Hitler; the Communists, usually associated with an Asiatic-appearing Stalin and a Soviet red star or hammer and sickle, ran second.44 But an undercurrent of ignorance and mistrust regarding the Jews seems evident. Some Simp1 cartoons recognized that not all Jews were rich but frequently the opposite impression was given. Why this was so is not clear. Neither the memoir literature nor the available unpublished material provides any discussion of the matter. It would be easy to conclude that Simplicissimus, while not condoning blatant racism, catered to the usual Gentile prejudice of most of its readers. Yet Simpl‘s record in promoting humane and ethical values needs little elaboration. It may be worth noting that of Simplicissimus’s six principal owners-the leading caricaturists-all were Gentiles except for Heine, who was Jewish by heritage but hadconverted to Evangelical Christianity in 1889.45 Schoenberner, the editor, was one-eighth Jewish but, as a Protestant minister’s son, was socialized completely

4 4 For cartoons portraying similarities between Nazis and Communists, see ibid., 17 November 1930, 397 (Heine); 16 February 1931, 556 (Schilling); 24 August 1931, 243 (Gulbransson). For Nazis and Jews, see 3 November 1930,373 (Schilling); 10 November 1930,395 (Schilling); 1 Decrmber 1930,429 (Heine); 12 January 1931,495 (Gulbransson); 19 January 1931, 508 (Gulbransson).

On him, see Schcenberner’s recollection in the New Yorker, 10 April 1948,ZI-22; Karl H. Salzmann, inrlufbau: Kultureolzttschr Monalsschrift mzt lzterarzschen Beitragen (Berlin), 4 (1948): 249-53; Heine’s own semiautobiographical novel, Zck warte auf Wunder (Stockholm, 1945), which he says is not a roman d clef but which does cast light on Heine’s personal development and political views; and Arrnin Trubenbach, “ThomasTheodor Heine. Leben und Werk im Hinblick auf sein karikaturistisches Schaffen and publizistisches Wollen” (Ph.D. diss., Free LJniversity Berlin, 1956).

Heine was also the major stockholder.

45 I

Page 12: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

The Historian

outside of Jewish culture.46 Moreover, in South Germany, it was easier to caricature the Jew as an alien than it would be, say, in Berlin, homeof the WeltbGhne, many of whose contributors were Jews.‘7 Actually, Simplicissimus, during the period 1896-1933, satirized Prussians and Prussianism much more than it did Jews and, at times, as in the cartoon about Jewish stock exchange jobbers in Berlin, even seemed to coqnect alleged Jewish speculation and profiteering with the Prussian capital. One should also keep in mind that all of this occurred before, rather than during or after, the Holocaust. Yet the nagging feeling remains that Gentile Germany was insensitive to the problem of anti- Semitism; that liberals who enjoyed seeing Hitler ridiculed and Stalin depicted as a tyrant also chuckled over cartoons that poked fun at Jews. As recent research has made clear, Jews were more tolerated than assimilated. That such a liberal, democratically minded journal as Simpliczssimus could sometimes appear to be anti-Semitic is indicative of the fact that Jews, in the Weimar era, had not yet found safeground or sure footing in German society.48

46 Much information on Schoenberner‘s ancestry is contained in the Schoenberner Papers, Hoover Institution, Box 2.

47 An unflattering Jewish stereotype was also presented in Tucholsky’s Weltbilhne, where a Jewish merchant is repeatedly presented as “unsympathetic, self-seeking, superficial, materialistic and sly.” See Hans-Helmuth Kniitter, Die Juden und die deutsche Linke in der Weimarer Republik 19184933 (DBsseldorf, 1971), 148-52 (quote, 148). That anti-Semitism existed within the Marxist Social Democratic party both before and after 1918 is documented in Donald L. Niewyk, Socialist, Anti-Semite, and Jew: German Social Democracy Confronts the Problem of Anti-Semitism (Baton Rouge, 1971). And Bruce B. Frye contends that even the most liberal of the bourgeois parties, the Deutsrhe Demokratische Partei (DDP), “sheltered anti-Semites as well as friends of Jews.” See Frye, “The German Democratic Party and the ‘Jewish Problem’ in the Weimar Republic,” Leo Baeckht i tu te YearBook21 (London, 1976), 143. Onemay argue that leftist anti-Semitism is essentially anti-capitalist on the assumption that most or all Jews are capitalists; to me it seems un-Marxist to designate members of a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group as uniquely or even distinctively the bearers of an economic ethos. This matter is discussed at length in the writings of Robert S. Wistrich, including the recent “German Social Democracyand the Problem of Jewish Nationalism, 1897-191 7,” ibid., 109-42.

48 A perceptive commentary on this theme is Stephen M. Poppel, “New Views on Jewish Integration in Germany,” Central European History 9 (March 1976): 86- 108. Among the many thoughtful recent works on the subject are Uriel Tal, Christians and Jews in Germany: Rrligion, Politics and Ideology in the Second Heich. 1870-1914, trans. Noah J. Jacobs (Ithaca, 1975); Reinhard Riirup, Emanzipation und Antisemitismus. Studien zur “Judenfrage” der biirgedichen Gesellschaft (Gottingen, 1975), a valuable collection of previously published essays; Sidney M. Bolkolsky, The IIistortPd Image: Gcrmnn-Jewish Perceptions of Germans and Grrmany, 1918-1935 (New York, Oxford, and Amsterdam, 1975); and George L. Mosw, Grmans& Jews: The Right, the Left, and the Search for a “Third Force” in Pre-Nazi Germany (New York, 1970), especially the last chapter on “Left-Wing Intellectuals in the Weimar Republic,” 171-225. For a rich, authoritative, and continuing discussion of this problem see the Year Book and other publications of the Leo Baeck Institute (New York, London, and Jerusalem), and also the Jahrblicher and Beihefte of the Institut fur deutsrhe Geschichte, University of Trl Aviv.

452

Page 13: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

National Socialism

As a satirical-political journal, Sirnplicissirnus had to be timely in its cartooning. The sensational Nazi electoral victory of September 1930 provided good material for a while, but the Nazi leap into prominence eventually became a rather stale theme. Accordingly, Simp1 turned to other (but not unrelated) topics, such as Chancellor Heinrich Bruning and his policy of fiscal retrenchment in the midst of a depression; the general misery and suffering of the German people themselves; an old enemy, Hugenberg; foreign leaders like Aristide Briand and Ramsay MacDonald; and the ever-conservative German professoriat. About many of the cartoons there is a desperate sadness rather than hearty humor. In one instance a barebacked “German Michel” is being offered a crown by Nazi, Communist, and Catholic female spirits. “Thanks for the offer, ladies,” Michel comments, “but at the moment I don’t have a shirt to wear.”49

By early 1932 Sirnplicissimus was suggesting that the Hitler phenomenon was fading. Bruning was shown handing Hitler a doorman’s uniform, implying that Hitler was being kept outside the government. Another cartoon, indicating that Germans were fed up with noise and disturbance, had a band of Nazis shouting outside a window from which an old man admonished, “Unnecessary clamor, you young people! I haven’t been able to sleep since 1914!” A boy and girl who discover-to their dismay-that they are not pure Aryans decide to marry anyway. The ubiquitous racism of the NSDAP is satirized by an apocryphal Nazi school lesson question: “Was Faust, who shamed Gretchen, a Jew?!” For its Goethe Year number, Simp1 presented a cover cartoon featuring a huge Goethe rising above and over Germany, up into the mists, with the hurly-burly and tumult of German politics fading into insignificance below.50

As Goethe was an historic symbol of German culture that overshadowed the Nazi nuisance, so President von Hindenburg was depicted as the symbol of German political resistance to Hitler. Sirnpliczssirnus, guarding what was left of republican institutions in Germany, supported the field marshal against Hitler in the 1932 presidential election. Hindenburg was invariably depicted as a massive and venerable protector of German civilization against a noisy

‘9 Simplicissimus, 1 June 1931, 98, anti-Briining poem by Peter Scher; 10 August 1931,22O(Arnold), the Michel cartoon;24August 1931,241 (Schilling);7September 1931, 267 (Gulbransson); 2 November 1931, 361 (Heine). A cartmn satirizing academicians was critical of their anti-Semitism. Eduard Thbny sketched a degree candidate being addressed by one of his examining professsors: “With your political views we are unanimously satisfied. Now take off your clothes, so that we can see if you are an Aryan!” Ibid. , 20 July 1931, 189.

50 Ibid., 18 January 1932, 493 (Arnold); 8 February 1932, 531 (Gulbransson); 28 February 1932, 568 (Heine); 28 February 1932,574 (Frischmann), the Faust reference; 20 March 1932, 601 (Schilling).

453

Page 14: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

The Historian

upstart. The president was also cast as a safe harbor into which the German ship of state might steer. Exactly what Hindenburg promised-other than keeping Hitler out of office-was not made clear. Nor was there any explanation as to why a comic figure like Hitler-drawn as a drummer and showman-could be a candidate for whom responsible people might want to vote. The Nazi “program” was caricatured, in ungrammatical German, as that of loudmouths and ruffians: “And when we come to power,” a Nazi orator declaims, “we will not say any longer ‘Deutschland awake’ but rather we will simply smash dead anyone who is not awake.” Another caricature displayed Hitler as an angler, catching a sackful of fish by letting down a sign (with hooks attached) that reads, “I am leading you to marvelous times.” This obvious reference to a similar pronouncement by William I1 was no doubt designed to prompt Germans to reflect on the disasters into which the ex-Kaiser had led them and with the corollary that Hitler, given the opportunity, would do the same. But Simpl, as in the “Deutschland awake” cartoon, also suggested that Hitler and the Nazis did not intend to rely merely on promises and bravado; rather, they would commit mayhem against all their opponents and enemies. For this reason, even an aged, conservative, monarchist field marshal had to be supported against Hitler.5’

Although it would be easy to criticize Simplicissimus for overlooking the social attractions of National Socialism (there is virtually nothing on the Nazis’ appeal to the petit bourgeoisie), the journal’s judgment of Hitler was in some ways quite close to the mark. Simplicissirnus satirized the nostalgic call to the good old days (the “marvelous times” of William 11) along with the revolutionary elan of the NSDAP. The Communists-the only other group with a dynamic appeal-were, as we have seen, drawn as squint-eyed Asiatic intruders, serving Russian rather than German interests. Thus Szrnplicissirnus acknowledged some of the attractions of National Socialism without, of course, countenancing them?

Hindenburg’s reelection as president in March 1932 was soon followed by his dismissal of Briining as chancellor, in late May. Although Simplicissimus had been critical of Briining, i t found him infinitely preferable to Franz von Papen, his successor, A front- cover cartoon, entitled “Briining’s departure,” had the ex-chancellor addressing Hindenburg, “Adieu, Herr Reich President, and write me, sometime, a postcard from the Third Reich.” A poem by Karl Kinndt

51 Ibid., 6 March 1932, 577 (Heine); 13 March 1932, 589 (A~mold); 3 April 1932, 1 (Arnold); 10 April 1932. 20 (Arnold); 17 April 1932, 34 (Frischmann), “Deutschland awakr”; 8 May 1932, 63 (Heine), Hitler as angler.

5 2 For a recent and detailed analysis of why so many persons, ”little Nazis,” joined the party in the pre-Machtergreifung years, see Peter H. Merkl. Political Violence LFnder Ike Suiastika, 581 Early Nazis (Princeton, 1975).

454

Page 15: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

National Socialism

expressed similar disappointment over the field marshal’s action: We elected Hindenburg to protect the Republic and now who will protect us from Hinderburg? Papen was seen as a pretentious incompe- tent rivaling only Hitler in his capacity to bring disaster and ruin to Germany. His policy of holding repeated elections, in an effort to wear down the Nazis, was viewed as unsuccessful and misleading. Firstly, Papen, it was alleged, wanted power for himself. “Two dictators are impossible,” read a caption to a Heine cartoon showing both Papen and Hitler trying on Duce masks. “We must now finally decide who alone will play Mussolini.” Secondly, i t appeared to the journal that all the election activity did nothing to alleviate the depression. In one cartoon, an impoverished mother with her child commented apropos a crowd of deputies with briefcases heading into the Reichstag building, “Always a new Reichstag-but our misexy remains the same.” Or an oldster, settling down on his couch, says to his wife, “Be sure that you don’t wake me up until the election is over.” Numerous cartoons showed political groups fighting in the streets, electoral results consisting of the count of dead bodies, and sundry political factions grabbing for power, in short, a complete breakdown of civilized political life. Uncertainty, frustration, weariness, desperation, and pathos dominated the existence of ordinary Germans and were reflected in Simplicissimus’s pages. The grim reality of German life in 1932 could not evoke many l a ~ g h s . 5 ~

The NSDAP electoral setback of November 6, 1932, provided some encouragement to anti-Nazis, but the dismissal of Papen, due to the intrigues of the war minister, General Kurt von Schleicher, seemed to confuse Sirnpli~issirnus.~~ Papen had been attacked for his dictatorial acts, specifically his use of Article 48 and his ouster of Otto Braun’s Prussian government, but the appointment of Schleicher as chancellor on December 2 disoriented Simpl. Karl Kinndt asked, who or what is he? Right or Left? And what will Hitler do? Th. Th, Heine’s Christmas cartoon showed Hindenburg offering Schleicher as a present to a youthful, girlish Germania: “And here, my child, the most beautiful of all Christmas presents: a living general! ” Poor Germania is crying, whether from sadness, joy, or relief is unclear. The cartoon,

53 Sznplzczssirnus, 19 June 1932,133 (Heine), Brllning’sdeparture; 19 Junc. 1932,134, poem by Kinndt; 10 July 1932,169(Schilling); 10 July 1932,171 (Arnold);31 July 1932,207 (Heine); 7. August 1932, 217 (Arnold); 7 August 1932, 219 (Heine), “two dictators”; 28 August 1932,253 (Schilling); 4 September 1932,268 (Schulz), “always a new Reichstag”; 6 November 1932, 384 (Schulz), “wake me up.”

54 The general confusion and uncertainty of liberal and leftist newspapers and journals in these last few months before the Hitler takeover is discussed in Hans Jodchim Schoeps, “Das letzte Vierteljahr der Weimarer Republik im Zeitschriftenecho,” Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 7 (1956): 464-72.

455

Page 16: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

The Historian

of course, pokes fun at Hindenburg’s senility but alsoasks the question, who is this S~hIe icher?~~

Solutions to the Schleicher enigma were never forthcoming, for the new chancellor, who had overreached himself with Hindenburg, was soon dropped in favor of a Hitler-Papen cabinet, installed on January 30, 1933. Simplicissimus presciently foresaw this in a January 29 cartoon featuring Papen as a tour chief or leader, welcoming Hitler with a handshake and the comment, “Papers in order, come along.” The February 5 issue-surely assembled before Hitler’s appointment as chancellor-ridiculed the Fuhrer for the recent Nazi electoral gains in tiny Lippe-Detmold, where a strenuous National Socialist campaign had attracted an extra 6,000 votes (a gain of 17 percent). “Away with Hermann,” a caption read. “Adolf belongs in the Teutoburg Forest! He has succeeded, with only 6,000 Lippe-Detmolders, in defeating a people of sixty million.”56

Hitler’s actual appointment was acknowledged in the February 12 issue with a Karl Kinndt poem that derided, in equal measure, Hitler, Papen, and Hugenberg, generally considered the three most prominent cabinet members.57 Hermann Kesten contributed a bitter lament, accusing Germany, “a great child,” of having “declared war on reason.” “Stupidity,” and even worse, he concluded, was the curse of “das Land der Dichter und nicht-Denker.”5* A cartoon captured the spirit of timidity-or at least caution-that viras already being expressed by many Germans: a professor tells his students that he cannot discuss-even outside the classroom- the contemporary political situation because the current lesson plan goes up only to Char lemagne.59

55 Simplicissimus, 13 November 1932, 386, anti-Papen poem by Kinndt; 27 November 1932,410, poem by Kinndt; 27 November 1932,418 (Frischmann); 27 November 1932, 420 (Arnold); 18 December 1932, 446, poem by Kinndt; 25 December 1932, 457 (Heine).

bh fh id . , 29 January 1933, 527 (Arnold); 5 February 1933, 529 (Arnold). 5 7 fb id . , 12 February 1933,542. Vorwarts, the leading SPD daily, headlined the new

government as the “Hitler-Papen Cabinet” and deemed it essentially the handiwork of former Chancellor von Papen and thus a “cabinet of big business.” Vorwiirts, 30 January 1933, P.M. ed., I . What had happened was therefore not a revolution in politics hut, as Kinndt wrote in Simpl, only more of the same: “Chancellors come, chanccllors go, only misery remains. . . . ”

Kesten, now a world-famous novelist living in Rome, was described by Schwnberner as “the best discovery I ever made.” Src Confessions, x, 287. The Schoenberner Papers at the Hoover Institution contain scores of lrtters from Kesten. Some of Schoenberner’s own lrttrrs (of which he preserved n o copies) are presented in Hcmmann Kesten, mi., Dmtschr I-itrratur im Exil. Brief? rurop%schrr Autorrn fY33-1949 (Munich, Vienna, Basel, 1964),alsoavailableina Fischer Taschenbuch edition (Frankfurt, 1973). Kesten penned a personal appreciation of Schoenberner in Meine Freunde die Poeten (Munich, 1959), 237-54.

‘rH Szrnplzrz.~szrnus, 12 February 1933, 546.

59 Simplicissimus, 12 February 1933, 550 (Frischmann).

456

Page 17: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

National Socialism

There now began a period of internal turmoil within the Simplicdssirnus offices, occasioned by a fundamental disagreement over how to react to Hitler’s accession to the chancellorship. Schoenberner, the editor, regarded Hitler as “an illiterate rabble rouser,” “a primi- tive demagogue,” “an insane small-town character,” and a “monomaniac.” He referred to the Nazis as “a bunch of clowns and criminal madmen.”6O Of course, “clowns” and “criminal madmen” are hardly the same; the terms seem more opposed than similar. That Hitler was perceived as a “clown” is evident in Schoenberner’s own autobiography, as well as in the pages of Sirnplicissirnus. Schoen- berner reflected, years later, on evenings spent in the Osteria Bavaria, a Munich restaurant frequented by Hitler. Sometimes the two sat a t ad jacent tables. “ H i t l e r ’ s wishy-washy p r o l e t a r i a n physiognomy . . . was only too familiar to us,”’ Schoenberner writes.6’ “The obvious mediocrity and trite comicality of Hitler’s appearance” impelled “no sensible man . . . to take such a type seriously, let alone consider Hitler actually a menace. It is a weakness of people with good common sense to underrate the formidable power of human stupidity.“62

Although Schoenberner continued to regard Hitler as a mere buffoon, others did not. Except for Heine, the cartoonist-owners began to think in terms of accommodating the Nazis. Eduard Thgny,

6O,Schoenberner, Confessions, 168-69, 319; Inside Story, 14. The latter work describes Hitler as “a mediocre maniac,” “a murderous maniac,” and an “irresponsible maniac” (35,80). While these quotations all emanate from sources written or published a decade or more after 1932-33, they nonetheless faithfully reflect Schoenbemer’s contemporary view, at least if the cartoons in Simplicissimus serve as a guide to the editor’s thinking. That Schoenberner could refer to Hitlei, as late as 1964, as “a half- illiterate flop-house figure” confirms the long-term consistency of his judgment. See his letter to the New York Times, 24 March 3964, 34.

61 Schoenberner, Confessions, 322. Friedrich Percyval Reck-Malleczewen, a Prussian aristocrat who had relocated to Munich and who was a fierce hater of Nazism, makes strikingly similar comments. Seated near Hitler in the Osteria Bavaria in September 1932 he observed, “In the almost deserted restaurant, I could easily have shot him. . . . But I took him for a character out of a comic strip, and did not shoot.” See Diary of a Man in Despair, trans. Paul Rubens, Collier Books ed. (New York, 1972), 27- 28. It may be conjectured that Simplicissimw’s editor and cartoonists saw too much, rather than too little, of Hitler. Perhaps Simpl’s location in Munich permittedHitler to be seen so often at first hand that Schoenberner and the Simpl staff members became inured to him. Moreover, the traditionally relaxed atmosphere of the Bavarian capital instilled a sense of security. Schoenberner cites “the old joke that in Munich even the end of the world would take place a week later.” That others shared the view that Munich might be safer is suggested by Leopold Schwarzschild’s moving thr Taqbuch offices from Berlin to Munich in the summer of 1932. See Hans-Albert Walter, “Leopold Schwarzschild and the Neue Tage-Buch,” Journal of Contemporary History I (1966): 103; and Laqueur, Weimar: A Cultural History, 264.

Schoenberner, “Life and Death of Simplicissimus,” unpublished MS, Schoenberner Papers, Hoover Institution, Box 2. Parts of this have been incorporated into chapters 1 and 26 of Confessions.

See Confessions, 8-9.

457

Page 18: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

The Historian

Wilhelm Schulz, and Olaf Gulbransson now refused to deal with “any more controversial topics” or “to handle the hot potato of domestic

Moreover, income fell off as various firms declined to advertise in the anti-Nazi journal. Schoenberner says that, rather than capitulate to advertisers, he cut his own salary in half and introduced other economies.64 Nonetheless, Simplicissirnus now ended its open attacks on Hitler and adopted an altogether more discrete tone. On March 5, Peter Scher warned readers not to lose their nerves: just as newspapers had been prohibited by Bismarck, Bulow, Bethmann, and Papen, only to reemerge again, so Simpl was prepared to stand fast. Yet Scher, observing the tone of discretion noted above, did not mention Hitler by name.65 Still, the March 12 issue was rather bold, especially with its front-page cartoon suggesting police and S. A. muzzling of dissident opinion.66 Already Schoenberner was receiving threatening phone calls, and, after publication of the March 12 issue, the offices of Sirnplicissimus were sacked by Nazi storm troopers. The six Simpl owners then held an emergency meeting and fired Schoenberner.67 It featured a burning Reichstag building and asked the question, “Will a phoenix arise anew from the ashes of this fire? And bring liberation from the world conflagration of Bolshevism?” Schoenberner desired a statement explicitly condemning Nazism but, as he says, he “had to compromise” and settle for an “ambiguous caption.”6*

The phoenix cartoon had been Schoenberner’s and Heine’s last fling. More telling of the mood of the moment was another March 19 cartoon featuring a father answering his young son’s question: “Tell

By this time, the March 19 issue was ready.

63 Schoenberner, Covifpsszons, 4-5. 64 Ibid., 327. 65 .Sirnpliris.szmu.\, 5 March 1933, 578. 66 Ibid. , 12 Marrh 1933, 589 (Arnold). 67 In all likelihood Heine voted “no” or at Irast abstained. Schoenberner implies

that the others were scared to death arid wanted to save thrir own skins. Theowners. he states were “panic-stricken . . . and had become nazified by cowardice.“ Schoenberner, Confessions, 3-10; Y o u Still Have Ybur Head, 12, 229. The ac- count in Hans-Albert Walter, DeutschP Exilliteralure 1933-1950, vol. 1, Bedrohung und Verfolgung bis 1933 (Darmstadt and Neuwied, 1972). 168-70, is based entirely on Confessions. Following his dismissal, Schoenberner retained a lawyer who attempted to win for the lormer editor sevrral months’ severance pay. Correspondence in Schoenberner’s Nnchlass indicates that this was denied, on the authority of Nazis in the Bavarian Ministry of Interior, but that some compensation might be paid to Schoenberner’s wife. The same correspondence alleges the determination of the other owners to remove Heine, who wasJewish as well as Schoenberner’s friend and protector, from his position. Dr. Seidenberger to Schoenberncr, 23 March 1933; C;. von Scanzoni to Seidenberger, 24 March 1933; Sanxoni to .Seidenberger, 27 March 1933, all in Schoenberner Papers, Hoover Institution, Box 4.

68 Szrnplicissirnus, 19 March 1933, 601 (Schilling); Schoenbemer, Conjcsszons, 5 .

458

Page 19: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

National Socialism

me, father,” the lad asks, “how much is 5 to the third power?” “One can’t be sure, son,” the father replies, “until the new school ordinances are completed.”69 The following issue contained only cautious or apolitical cartoons about, for example, golf, babies, and thedevaluation of the American dollar. Heine himself was soon ousted as part- owner,7o and thereafter Simpl took an increasingly nationalistic and then frankly Nazi line.

Illustrative of the new perspective were Gulbransson’s covers of April 1 and 9. The former cover depicted the downfall of alien, decadent jazz music, the theme exemplified by a “Neger” tumbling into oblivion; the latter cover celebrated the achievement of the New Order in

69 Simplzczssimus, 19 March .1933,607. The uncertainty and timidity satirized here is vividly confirmed by Bruno Walter, the famous conductor, who returned to Germany from America in 1933 shortly after Hitler’s accession to power:

The conversations at the captain’s table gave us a suffocating foretaste of the atmosphere of disaster toward which our ship was rarrying us. Hitler’s namc was not mentioned. No opinions, friendly or hostile, concerning recent events were expressed, but table companions watched one another, chose their words carefully, and turned their conversation whenever it approached politics, a topic uppermost in everybody’s mind. People would sit about with inscrutable faces, hiding behindsedulous talk their caresandanxieties, or, in individual cases, their Nazi leanings.

See Bruno Walter, Theme and Variations: A n Autobiography, trans. James A. Galston (New York, 1946), 295.

70 Both Heine and Schoenberner soon fled Germany, Heine going io Praguc and Schoenberner to southern France via Switzerland. Heine lived in Prague and Briinn until December 1938, when he relocated to Oslo from which he escaped late in 1942, fleeing this time to Stockholm, where he died in 1948. Coolheadedness and resourcefulness enabled him to foil the Gestapo on numerous occasions. The story of Heine’s often dramatic peregrinations if revealed in his 121 letters and postcards to Schoenberner, Humanities Research Center Library, University of Texas at Austin. For a description of this collection, see Otto M. Nelson, “Thomas Theodor Heine: His Expatriate Correspondence,” The Library Chronicle of the University of Trxasat Austin, n.s. 8 (Fall 1974): 41-46. Useful material on Heine’s period of exile may also be found in Max Tau, Ein Fliichtling lindet sein Land (Hamburg, 1964). As for Schoenbernrr, he lived in France until 1941, when he emigrated to America The Inside Story of an Outsider, the second or middle volumeof hisautobiography, narrates the period of his life during 1933-45.

The two PmigrCs were convinced that they had been betrayed by the other Simpl owners. Olaf Gulbransson, the talented Norwegian-born artist, was singled out for special and scornful condemnation. In letters written shortly after his ouster, Heine charges that Gulbransson was a Nazi fellow traveler, that he had written to the Nazi headquarters (the Brown House), and that, together with co-owner Eduard Thony, he was responsible for Nazi threats to arrest Heine and intern him in Dachau should he not resign from the Simpl editorial board. See Heine to Rudolf Grossmann, 26 March 1933. Leo Baeck Institute Archives, New York City; Heine to Rdgnvald Blix, 28 March 1933,25 May 1933, and2 June 1933, photocopies in possessionof Erich Seemann, Freiburgim Breisgau; Heine to Emil Ludwig, 21 April 1933, Deutsches Literaturarchiv/Schiller-

459

Page 20: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

The Historian

getting rid of the “dirty Reds.”71 The April 1 issue carried an insert promising a “loyal attitude” toward the government while the April 16 issue announced in large italic type that Simpl would no longer be “critical and negative” in national matters. “The events of the last few months” and the “basic shake-up (Umbesetzung) of the editorial staff” had brought about, so readers were informed, a recognition of “pauiotic duty.”72 Thus Simplicissimus lapsed into a dreary Nazi propaganda sheet. All subsequent issues, up to the periodical’s demise in 1944,73 echoed the party line. The cartoqns were preponderantly chauvinistic and racist, crude if not disgusting in their humor, and totally lacking in wit or insight.

The sad transformation of Simplieissirnus was hardly unique in Hitler’s Germany. Soon, even the large-circulation liberal dailies were praising Hitler.74 For a satirical-political journal there was no escape from Gleichschaltung. Even Schoenberner-so often a severe critic of his former colleagues-came to admit that their action in Hitlerizing the paper “was rationally . . . much better justified” than was his

Nationalmuseum, Marbarh am Neckar. Schoenhernri indicts Gulbrdrisson in Confrsssions, 4-5,8, and especially 14, where hequotes from another letter from Hrine (the original is in the Humanities Research Center Library). For further criticism of Gulhransson, see Hrine’s letter to Heulr: Eine neue illustrirrte Zritschrift, 1 August 1946, 16-17, and Srhornberner’s letter to Die Zeil. American ed., 6 December 1963, 17. Gulbransson has been defended by his widow, Dagny, who asserts her husband’s innocence regarding Schoenberner’s and Heiric’s loss of position. According to Frau Gulbransson, the Nazis broke into the Simpl offires not at Olaf’s instigation but only to look for “Communist” material, of which they found none. She also notes the dangerous and incriminating character of the last anti-Nazi issues of Szmplicissimus. See Dagny Bjornson Gulbransson, Olaf Gulbransson, sein Leben (Pfullingen, 1967), 187-94 (quote, 187) and, most recently, idem, Das Olaf Gulbransson Huch (Munich and Vienna, 1977), 237-47. Also relevant is the account of Gustav von Scanzoni, the attorney who defended the remaining Simplicz.rsimus owners against legal claims made by Schoenbernerand Heine. SeeScanzoni, “Olaf Gulbransson andl‘h.‘I’h. Heine,” S12deutsche Zeilung, 18/19 March 1967, 68. In an undated letter to Srhoenberner, Olaf Gulbransson seemed to express concern about Simpl’s vigorous anti- Nazi stance. He wrote, “The old Simpl always stood above the parties.” In another undated letter, quite possibly written at thr time of the March 1933 changeover. Gulbransson wrote, “I can’t romr. . . . I won’t do anything communist.” See Schoenberner Papers, Hoover 1nstitution;Box 4. Ursula Wolkers, in her Beztriige zum publzzistischen Schaffen Olaf Gulbranssons (Korbach, 1964), 65-66, contends that Gulbransson was anti-Nazi as well as anti-Communist and that he was doing anti-racist cartoons as late as 1934. For documentary evidence of Gulbransson’s views, see his cartoons in the 1941 pro-Nazi collrrtion by Matthiessen, ed., Dunkelmiinner.

Simplzcisszmus, 1 April 1933, 1 ; 9 April 1933, 13. Ibid.. 1 April 1933; 16 April 1933, 26.

73 In 1954, a decade after its last appearance in 1944, Simplwas refounded but never flourished and folded for a second time in June 1967.

74 Eksteins, Limits o/ Reason, 269-76. The Nazification of German nrwspapers is narrated in great detail in Oron James Hale, Thr Captiur Prr.7.s in the Third Rrich (Princeton, 196.1).

460

Page 21: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

National Socialism

unwavering opposition to the new National Socialist re- gime.75 Heine’s conclusions were even more baleful. “Ridicule,” he wrote years later, “led to a sort of confused acceptance.” The mock- ery and scoffing of Simplicissimus, he seemed to be saying, merely produced a kind of good-natured toleration of criminal activity.76 The fault, then, was to be found in the historical development of the German people: “Vassalage, imposed for centuries, leaves its traces in the mind of a people. . . . One may not speak of mistakes committed by the German people for they have done nothing other than what was most implicit in their basic conception of life.”’?

Heine’s interpretation suggests that Szmplicissirnus’s efforts, in- deed everyone’s efforts, were irrelevant or doomed to impotence. Schoenberner, the eternal optimist, intimates that if he, and others like him, had been more concerned and active, Hitler might have been stopped. He concedes only that he “had relied too much upon the striking power of aggressive wit and satire and of reason in generaL”78 Yet one is left to wonder what further measures might have been attempted; on this, Schoenberner is never specific. Certainly Simpl’s anti-Nazi stance under his editorship was courageous and exemplary. But just as there are “limits of reason” (Eksteins), so there are limits of caricature. Millions of desperate people, many of them already fanaticized, lacked appreciation of humor, paradox, wit. Thus all the efforts of Schoenberner, Heine, and people like them had little discernible impact in delaying, much less preventing, Hitler’s takeover. The failure of Simplicissimus was the failure of middle-class liberalism, of “reasonable” people, whether engaged in publishing, politics, or whatnot. If many, or most, German liberals failed to understand the causes and nature of the Great Depression or were themselves insufficiently rooted in democratic traditions, or if they failed to grasp the demonic energy and willfulness of National Socialism, they at least knew, or thought they knew, how to find a safe haven in a storm. In the final crisis, most of the Simp1 owners-the Gulbranssons, the Thonys, with their fine suburban homes, bank accounts, and social standing-preferred to submit. It made more sense, as Schoenberner later said. None could know, of course, the

7 5 Schoenberner, You Stzl l Have Your Head, 229. 76 Heine, letter to Hcute, 1 August 1946, 15. W. A. Coupemakes similar suggestions

regarding the inefficacy of caricature in his “Observations on a Theory of Political Caricature,” Cornparalive Studies in Society and History 1 1 (January 1969), 92. Caricature, he observes, can be counterproductive in that it may create sympathy for the person caricatured. Coupe’s examples include Konrad Adenauer and William I1 but not Hitler.

77 Heine, letter to Heutr . 1 August 1946, 15. 78 Schoenberner, Y o u St i l l Have Your Head, 12.

46 1

Page 22: “Simplicissimus” and the Rise of National Socialism

The Historian

horrible denouement that awaited Germany and Europe. The Simplicissimus people knew only that a violent end awaited the Weimar Republic. Thei r defenses were inadequate. As Schoenberner wrote during his American exile, “Wit is the weapon of weakness.”79 When wit failed, when everything had failed, some gave in, some fled. Thus, to posterity, Simplicissimus presents no triumph of good over evil; yet i t does display, for most of its history, a consciousness of the difference between the two. The ethical basis of its satire and criticism of the Nazis, from 1923 to March 1933, is manifest. That Simp1 failed, that all efforts failed, should constitute no criticism of the true republicans of Weimar but rather the lament that they were not more numerous.

79 “Haben die Dcutschcn Humor?” unpublished MS, Schoenbernrr Papers, Hoover Institution, Box 2.

462