My Battle Against Hitler

by Dietrich von Hildebrand,John Henry Crosby

  And so, despite their past warnings, and against all misgivings, the bishops released a joint pastoral on March 28 and then another on June 3. Both letters noted their past condemnations of Nazism, but also contained the affirmations and equivocations von Hildebrand found so deplorable.

  In Florence, which would serve as his base for seven and a half months, von Hildebrand began to take note of the leadership of the Austrian chancellor, Engelbert Dollfuss (1892–1934), a conservative politician and devout Catholic who opposed Nazism and resisted the notion of Anschluss, the fusion of Austria into the Third Reich. He has come down in history as a highly controversial figure, for reasons that form part of von Hildebrand’s story.

  Dollfuss became Austrian chancellor in 1932. He was a member of the conservative Christian Social Party, faced on the left by revolutionary agitation from the Austrian Social Democratic Party, and on the right by terrorist activity from the small but vocal Austrian Nazi Party. In March 1933, Dollfuss suspended the Austrian parliament, while curtailing civil liberties and free speech. He banned the Nazi and Communist Parties, which went underground, as well as the Republican Protection League, the paramilitary of the Social Democrats. Two months later, he founded the Patriotic Front to gather together those who supported his policies.

  The primary goal of the Patriotic Front was the independence of Austria and the battle against National Socialism. The Patriotic Front, however, was at odds with the Social Democrats who were then very radical and who did not at all understand that the urgent task now lay in saving Austria from Gleichschaltung, from Nazification, which in turn would automatically have led to the Anschluss of Austria to the Third Reich. At this moment, Austria could only be saved by an authoritarian government, which at the same time would be able to call forth a new Austrian patriotism. The Social Democrats, whose party platform had always endorsed the Anschluss, had completely suppressed the sense for the entirely distinctive national character of Austria. The Social Democrats, therefore, could not form a stronghold against the Anschluss which the Nazi regime in Germany was promoting in all variety of ways, and which was being demanded by those in favor of the “Greater Germany” and by the Nazis within Austria.

  Only a government that would unreservedly stand for the autonomy of Austria could stem the tide of the German Nazi wave that threatened to inundate all of Austria. Indeed, only a man, like Dollfuss, who opposed the Antichrist with the spirit of Christ and who rejected National Socialism on the basis of his Catholic conviction, could take up the nearly hopeless battle against National Socialism.

  I was jubilant when I read what had happened to Nazi Justice Minister Frank*43 who had come to Austria to spread Nazi propaganda. Frank was met by an Austrian official who courteously conveyed the undesirability of his visit; he had even been escorted back to the border. Finally someone was willing to confront the Nazis without compromise; indeed, here was a Catholic government with the courage to take up the battle against Nazi Germany. Like David against Goliath, entrusting itself fully to God, Austria took up arms against the Third Reich. As I thought of the embarrassing and yielding stance which the great political powers and the League of Nations took toward Nazi Germany, the courage of Austria was all the more admirable. That it was my beloved Austria which had found the courage for resistance gave me special joy.

  During this time, I followed the events in Austria with greatest interest and full of hope. Nazi Germany immediately responded to the “expulsion” of Minister Frank with a penalty of 1,000 marks for all Germans who wished to travel to Austria, i.e., only those who paid the State 1,000 marks were allowed to visit Austria. This was a significant economic blow to Austria. Tyrol, Salzburg, Vorarlberg, and also to a large extent Carinthia and Styria all drew German tourists in the summer, while in the winter they were major areas for skiing. Of the tourists who came to Austria, at least 60% had been German. The loss of this tourism created great economic distress, which in turn is particularly effective for awakening ill-feeling toward the government. With this measure, Nazi Germany hoped not only to strike at Austria economically but above all to engender propaganda against the government, indeed, even indirectly to awaken sympathies for Nazi Germany.

  Discontent of any kind makes for fertile ground for infection by powerful historic currents, not to mention that it causes people to adopt an attitude of blame. They say, “The stupid government brought about our economic woes by treating Minister Frank the way it did. Was it really necessary? As a result, those of us who rely on German tourists are being sacrificed recklessly.” Thank God Dollfuss did not allow himself to be swayed from continuing in his struggle against Hitler.

  One very welcome development around this time was that Mussolini had made a toast to an independent and sovereign Austria on a visit by Dollfuss to Rome. Dollfuss was on very good terms with Mussolini, who in turn took a clear stance in favor of Dollfuss and his policy of resistance against Germany.

  Toward the end of June, Otto Klemperer*44 called me by telephone—or perhaps he visited me. At that time, I only knew him by reputation. Münch had often spoken about him and his conversion. Scheler*45 had also known him well, for Klemperer had been conducting in Cologne in the years 1920–21, prior to being appointed in Berlin. He called to tell me that he had lost his post in Berlin for being Jewish and that he had left Germany. He said he would like to meet me and invited us to Fiesole, where he was then living. I was very interested to get to know him. I had heard much about his great talent as a conductor. Soon thereafter we went to Fiesole to have tea with him. He was a handsome man, very tall, a sort of Maccabean Jewish type, with a large, chiseled, and well-defined face. He made the impression of being a strong personality.

  Regrettably, I had the feeling that he primarily hated the Nazis because they had dismissed him; a further reason was perhaps their anti-Semitism. It was not primarily their terrible doctrine, their glorification of violence, or their idolatrous nationalism which upset him. I rather doubt he would ever have left Germany had he not been sent away. Nevertheless, we found common ground in the radical rejection of National Socialism which, however motivated, now predominated in him. He lived in a magnificent house with a wonderful view. The widow of Busoni*46 was also present. We had a very interesting and stimulating conversation. He struck me as tempestuous, incredibly passionate, and ambitious, yet he was, quite aside from his great quality as a conductor, a cultivated human being and an interesting personality. Sadly I soon discovered that he lacked any understanding for Wagner, and we had a fierce dispute about Tristan*47 (not at this first encounter but later, when he was invited for supper at San Francesco by my sister).

  This visit with Klemperer in Fiesole is a very beautiful memory. The entire experience made a very strong impression on me. I will still tell of various other occasions on which Klemperer and I were together. The summer of 1933 was colored by his presence.

  During this time, [Theodor] Cramer-Klett passed through Florence on the journey to Rome (or perhaps from Rome) and paid me a visit. It was very gracious of him, but I feared that we might have unpleasant conversations about Nazism. We went together into the Campo and thankfully Cramer-Klett said nothing positive about the Nazis. He was considerate of the fact that I had left Germany, which he realized was tied to many great sacrifices for me. This is surely why he tactfully avoided saying anything friendly about the Nazis. In any case, I was glad we were able to avoid an uncomfortable discussion. He also made an observation about Austria which, though a bit ambiguous, did express the hope that Austria would not be Nazified. Our time together was relaxed, human, and warmhearted.

  It was the last time that I saw Cramer-Klett. Having been bound in real friendship since 1921, I am happy that our last encounter was harmonious. In later years, I am sure he will often have thought of how right I was in my rejection of National Socialism. He would have realized this in 1936, when the persecution of the Church was in full swing, and also later when his house in the Otto-Strasse was set on fire, when his
passport was stolen, and when he was intermittently imprisoned.

  One day I ran into Hopfen on the street, a German who had lived in Florence for many years. Being a member of the German National People’s Party,*48 I was all the more delighted by his complete rejection of Hitler. He told me about the suicide of a leader in the party (I think by the name of Oberfohren) whose conscience tormented him over the fact that his party had participated in Hitler’s first cabinet as Chancellor. As he realized what criminal hands Germany had fallen into, and seeing that there was no longer anything that could be done to free Germany of Hitler, he was seized by such despair that he took his own life.

  This made a great impression on me and filled me with deep sympathy for this poor man whose grasp of the situation was far more honest and morally clear-sighted than that of most people. Hopfen told me about someone who had said that Germany seemed like a ship whose captain had gone mad and who in a blind rapture was now running the ship at full steam toward the rocks on which it would be shipwrecked. I thought it a very good comparison, though the only thing missing was that the captain was not just a madman but a criminal as well.

  I received a letter from Fedja Georgii [his brother-in-law] urgently seeking my consent for the sale of the house on the Maria-Theresia Strasse. This filled me with great sorrow. I was still hoping that the Nazi regime would not last for too much longer in Germany and that we could perhaps still move back into the beloved house after three or four years. All this was still quite vague, but the sale of the house, for whose maintenance I had sacrificed so much—everything valuable I possessed—was nevertheless a final break with the past. I felt in a very poignant way the loss even of any future existence in Munich. But I could not refuse Fedja’s wish. He said that he could not keep the house by himself and feared that under the circumstances my share of the house would be confiscated by the state, making the house unsalable. What he was urging made sense, yet this did not make it any less painful for me. After some hesitation I sent him the statement he was requesting.

  In July, I received a visit from Klaus.*49 We were both total opponents of Nazism, and the seriousness of our common fate, to which both of us had been brought by Nazism, set our relationship on a fundamentally new basis. We had an important discussion about politics on the rooftop terrace of San Francesco. We spoke about the wonderful resistance by the Dollfuss government, about the awakening of Austria, and the possibility of doing intellectual battle from there against National Socialism. We discussed the necessity of providing philosophical support for the resistance of Dollfuss, which we so welcomed, and of the possibility of offering our services to Dollfuss as intellectual officers in this battle. We had the idea of establishing a Catholic, antiracist, and anti-totalitarian journal, and we made a plan to travel to Vienna in June to try to found such a publication. Before going, I was supposed to write for the Reichspost, the leading publication of the Christian Social Party, an article about Austria’s great mission at this moment.

  Upon Klaus’ return to Rome, I soon began the composition of the article. It flowed from my pen, or rather, from my heart and soul, since I was compelled to write both by my enmity toward Nazism as well as my great and lifelong love for Austria. I welcomed the chance to speak openly, indeed to present publicly in writing, everything that had become clear to me about the dreadful ideology of Nazism and its betrayal of the whole great culture of Germany.

  At the same time, I wanted to express my admiration and enthusiasm for the stance taken by Austria, for Dollfuss’ resistance to Nazism, and for the great mission which had been entrusted to Austria at this moment, a mission surpassing any that Austria had ever had, a mission to be the protector of all the great cultural values of Germany in the hour of its deepest degradation, when Nazism was trampling all that was great and noble in its tradition. I still remember how this betrayal of Germany’s spirit and culture once struck me when Gretchen in Florence played on the piano the magnificent cantata of Bach, Vergnügte Ruh, beliebte Seelenlust. In light of this noble music I realized in particularly stark terms the egregious betrayal of the spirit of Germany by Nazism.

  I think it was around the beginning of August that I sent my article to the Reichspost with the title “Austria’s Great German Hour.”4 Meanwhile, I received a letter from Balduin Schwarz in which he told me of his intention to leave Germany. He underscored the impossibility of remaining in this atmosphere, though he expressed this very obliquely in light of the censors. He also told me that he was coming to Florence to visit me in September. That Balduin felt the moral impossibility of remaining in Nazi Germany with such clarity made me immensely happy.

  Von Hildebrand left Florence for Vienna around August 10. Passing through Salzburg, he wanted to keep his presence there quiet because he feared being forcibly taken across the border into nearby Germany, having heard about priests and other opponents of the Nazis to whom this had happened. “Because of my radical anti-Nazi stance, my article for the Reichspost, and my many statements in Florence, I mistakenly thought that I was much better known to the Nazis than I actually was at this moment.” In Hallein, very near Salzburg, he saw his friend and confessor, Fr. Alois Mager, OSB. He then went to the train station in Salzburg for a meeting with Wilhelm Wolf (1897–1939), an official in the Austrian Ministry of Education in Vienna.

  Wolf had a great interest in my books and was always hoping that I would get a professorship in Vienna. For this reason I assumed he could give me valuable suggestions for my plans in Vienna; after all, he held an important position in the Ministry of Education. I thought I could trust him completely, which later turned out to be a great mistake.

  The reunion with Fr. Alois was very happy and beautiful. He was an ardent opponent of Nazism and we were completely of one mind. He thought my plans for Vienna were very good and he listened to everything I had to say with the greatest interest. He completely shared my enthusiasm for the government of Dollfuss and spoke encouragingly of my plans.

  It was a joyful reunion with Gretchen who came over from Berchtesgaden. She took part fully in all my plans, and it was admirable how little she worried about our future and how little she complained about leaving Munich, which was a terrible blow for her. But it was more than just that: the parting from the house, which she loved dearly, and from home, which Munich had become for her in the fullest sense of the word. Once again she revealed her greatness and her capacity for heroism. In ultimate matters of conscience and first principles, no sacrifice was too great for her. We agreed that she would return to Munich and the house on the Maria-Theresia Strasse until I had reached Vienna and begun realizing my plans.

  I met Wilhelm Wolf for an hour in the restaurant of the Salzburg train station until my train departed. Wolf was in Salzburg for the Hochschulwochen.*50 He was very kind and listened closely, yet he neither gave me any valuable advice, nor did he fill me with much courage. He was rather passive and empathized primarily with my difficult situation, my dismissal from the University of Munich, etc. I told him I also intended to pay a visit to Kurt von Schuschnigg,*51 who was then Minister of Culture. At this Wolf asked me to put in a good word for him with Schuschnigg, saying that Fr. Alois, on the basis of some misunderstanding, had presented him (Wolf) in a false light to Schuschnigg as being politically unreliable, etc. I promised I would try to clear this up if at all possible. Having said our farewell, I rode to Vienna where I went to the Hotel Kummer. Later I picked up Klaus Dohrn at the train station, who arrived that evening from Rome. I was very happy to see him again and we spent the next few days discussing our battle plan.

  Unfortunately, I no longer recall the exact sequence of events during these days in Vienna. I will simply recount everything without worrying about the order. Klaus introduced me to an acquaintance of his from Hellerau now living in Vienna with whom he had already corresponded about our plans. The acquaintance was a Jewish man by the name of Brüll, who was interested in the creation of a journal such as ours and who was also ready to contribute
some money.

  He was very nice, but he did not inspire great confidence. I was not particularly happy about the thought of collaborating with him and even being somewhat financially dependent on him. It was for me of paramount importance that the journal should be deeply Catholic, and in this respect I had some doubt whether Brüll was really a suitable donor. On the other hand, I was of course very grateful for any source of money that facilitated our plans. A friend of Brüll, a lawyer named Marcuse, also wanted to provide 10,000 schillings. This was a much larger contribution than that offered by Brüll.

  Both of them naturally wanted the journal to be Catholic, since they were intelligent enough to realize that only a Catholic journal stood any chance of being supported and promoted by the government of Dollfuss, and also that such a journal was a much more effective means for doing battle with National Socialism. But the Catholic aspect was for them of course only a means.

  The audience with Schuschnigg took place first. He received me in one of the beautiful buildings at the magnificent square of the Minorite Church, where the Ministry of Education was then located. He was very friendly in receiving me. I told him that I wanted to become a lecturer at the University of Vienna, to which he answered that regrettably there was no vacancy at the time. I described my plan of establishing a journal, that is, I told him very generally about my hope of working as an intellectual officer against Nazism. He was interested, but of course what I was proposing was not within his jurisdiction to decide. He thought I should become a visiting professor within the humanities and theology division in Salzburg so that my academic activity would not come to a halt. On the whole, our discussion had been friendly and hopeful, and I went away satisfied.