UBC: Women of the Third Reich

[truepenny]

Sigmund, Anna Maria. Women of the Third Reich. [Die Frauen der Nazis]. 1998. Richmond Hill, Ontario: NDE Publishing, 2000.

---

I don't know whether this book was poorly written or poorly translated or both (my money's on both). The language is clumsy; the scholarship is mediocre to poor (I grant that Leni Riefenstahl's post-WWII, self-exculpating memoir is not a trustworthy source, but when you're countering with Goebbels . . . um, maybe this needs a little more unpacking?); and as a historiographical endeavor, this is a set of eight biographical sketches, to varying degrees of sketchy, devoid of an argument even in those cases when an argument is absolutely crying out to be made. As for example, Geli Raubal. Or the fantastically hypocritical Gertrud Scholtz-Klink, who made a public career out of telling women to stay out of the public sector:

She wanted to communicate to other women her fervent conviction that fulfilling one's duty--quietly in the background and without demanding recognition--was an essential part of the female psyche.

"For mothers it is true that they come to a very quiet and understated power through service, whose sole purpose for ever and ever remains service."

Scholtz-Klink, of course, never served quietly, but traveled constantly from one congress to the next, giving speeches and putting her simple ideas down on paper. In 1938, when her husband started complaining about her numerous party duties, she divorced him.
(117)

And overarchingly, demandingly, the central question about Carin Goering, Magda Goebbels, Leni Riefenstahl, Gertrud Schotz-Klink, Henriette von Schirach, and even Eva Braun: what was it that made intelligent, ambitious women devote themselves to Nazism and to Hitler, who made no secret at all of the fact that he had no use, either personally or politically, for women who were intelligent and/or ambitious? Some of it is attributable to Hitler's legendary magnetism, but not all of it. Some of it is attributable to the Nazi habit of making exceptions: Leni Riefenstahl, for instance, was able to achieve extraordinary things with Nazi support, and Hanna Reitsch, who isn't covered in this book, is another example. But right at the center of the whole thing is this question that Sigmund doesn't even formulate, much less try to answer: why did these women devote their entire lives--and in the case of Magda Goebbels, her death--to an ideological cause that, from the beginning, utterly and unhesitatingly rejected them?

Comments

[marycatelli]

Ever read Leila Rupp's Mobilizing Women For War?

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

I don't know if this is a fair comparison, but there are a lot of women who are devoted to Catholicism.

Tentative suggestion: There are a lot of people (men as well as women) who are very vulnerable to being told what the right thing to do is.

[auriaephiala.livejournal.com]

Thanks for doing these book reviews -- I always find them fascinating. And, in this case, you have told me what I likely would want to know about this book without my having to read it!

Another two data points: Unity and Diana Mitford. (I suspect their usefulness to the Nazis was primarily political.)

[azdak.livejournal.com]

why did these women devote their entire lives--and in the case of Magda Goebbels, her death--to an ideological cause that, from the beginning, utterly and unhesitatingly rejected them?

Do you think there is one single answer, though? I suspect there's a whole cluster of motives in there. Riefenstahl and Scholtz-Klink were in a quite different position from Magda Goebbels, and she in turn was different from the millions of women who were ardent/keen/lukewarm Nazi supporters without being married to one of the top brass.

I think the point about Catholicism in the thread above is well made. There are plenty of historical precedents when it comes to women being complicit in social systems that oppress them as a group. In that sense, it isn't really a question about Nazism but about general female connivance in our own oppression. But it's also the case that the whole Kinder, Kirche, Kueche schtick didn't necessarily strike most women as "rejection". Quite the opposite. At that stage in European history, being a good housewife and mother had a social status that it's mostly lost (one of my cousins married a Polish woman, not all that long after the wall came down - she was the first woman I'd ever met who was intelligent, self-confident, quite extraordinarily competent and ASPIRED to be a good housewife and mother. She didn't see it as remotely humiliating or a sign of inferiority, but as something that gave her status and would make her happy). So being honoured for working in the kitchen and having lots of children and being the Mother of the Nation was actually a step up in recognition for a lot of women (it's kind of sad that it's only really oppressive totalitarian regimes that give women medals for doing the difficult, horrible things that only women do).

And if you look at the women invoved in resistance activities, their motives are never "Nazism limits my options for personal fulfilment", they're because they're socialists, or Christians, or pacifists, or just appalled by the brutality and corruption. In other words, the specific discriminations that women suffered aren't the burning issue.

For women like Magda Goebbels, though, I'd hazard a guess that access to power played a huge role, Brigitta Frank, for instance, the wife of the Governor-General and self-styled Queen of Poland absolutely refused to divorce her husband, even though they hated each other, because she wasn't prepared to give up the status that came with his rank (This is covered by game theory, I think - an individual who personally benefits from a system that discriminates against all other members of their group will support the system, because overall they, personally, are better off under it). And it's the traditional role of ambitious women in an oppressive patriarchy - attempt to be the power behind the throne, and if you can't use your husband as a figurehead, try to use your son.

Sorry - this went on for rather longer than I intended. Short version: It's a very interesting question, but I think it's framed in a way that makes it impossible to answer.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

That sounds very frustrating (and rather as if she's trying to fit the women into some pre-existing theoretical model). A shame, because as an area of study, it could be very fruitful.
Do you know Christabel von Bielenburg, The Past is Myself? She was a British woman who had married a German officer and lived with him in Berlin during the rise of Nazism. Her husband was involved with the plot to assassinate Hitler: the book is her memoir of her experiences in those circles. I found it very interesting. It's out of print, I think (it is here, anyway) but seems to turn up 2nd hand on things like ABEbooks quite readily.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

The introduction to Home Comforts (http://www.amazon.com/Home-Comforts-Science-Keeping-House/dp/0743272862/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1293465761&sr=1-1) is a fascinating description of what it's like to see home-making as a vocation but live in a culture where taking it that seriously isn't respected.

The author is a lawyer who ended up needing to come out of the closet about how much she was willing to put into creating an excellent home.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

No need to apologize!

I think you're right--I didn't formulate the question very well, partly, I think, because the Sigmund book didn't make it easy to articulate the thing bothering me.

Well, okay, that's not quite true, since I can articulate lots of things that bother me, but most of them are about Nazism in general and not the particular aspect of these women's relationship to Nazism that crowns the others in baffling me.

I also want to clarify that I have no intention of denigrating parenting and housekeeping as things a person can aspire to do brilliantly well--and should, if that's where his/her talents and interests lead. But I don't think that's what the Nazis had in mind.

[azdak.livejournal.com]

I also want to clarify that I have no intention of denigrating parenting and housekeeping as things a person can aspire to do brilliantly well--and should, if that's where his/her talents and interests lead

I should probably clarify that I do find the choice to adopt the parent-and-housekeeper role very problematic in modern Western society. I don't think I could ever say neutrally to my daughters, "If that's what you want do, then that's great." It's a decision that comes with far too much baggage, and far too much risk - as I see it - to them personally of finding themselves being undervalued by the rest of society.

But I do think that this is one of those issues that looks very different at different times and in different places, and that while clearly Nazism was in one sense very much about excluding women from political power, in another sense it gave them recognition for jobs they took genuine pride in. Women have had to cope psychologically with being told they're inferior to men for most of history. Being praised for anything can seem like a big step forwards under those circumstances, even if you're simultaneously being told that of course you can't do what the men do.