The Question of German Guilt

The German Questions

The guilt question received its universal impact from the charges brought against us Germans by the victors and the world. In the summer of 1945, when in all towns and villages the posters hung with the pictures and stories from Belsen and the crucial statement, “You are the guilty!” consciences grew uneasy, horror gripped many who had indeed not known this, and something rebelled: who indicts me there? No signature, no authority—the poster came as though from empty space. It is only human that the accused, whether justly or unjustly charged, tries to defend himself.

The guilt question in political conflicts is very old. It played a great part, for instance, in the arguments between Napoleon and England, between Prussia and Austria. The Romans may have been the first to introduce into politics the claim to their own moral right, and the moral condemnation of their opponents. Against this stands on the one hand the naïveté of the objective Greeks, and on the other the ancient Jewish self-indictment before God.

That condemnation by the victorious powers became a means of politics and impure in its motives—this fact itself is a guilt pervading history.

After World War I, the Treaty of Versailles decided the war-guilt question, against Germany. Historians of all countries have since discarded the theory that only one side was guilty. At that time, as Lloyd George put it, all sides had “skidded” into the war.

Today things are altogether different. The question of guilt has acquired a more comprehensive meaning. It sounds quite unliké before.

This time the war-guilt question, in the foreground after 1918, is very clear. The war was unleashed by Hitler Germany. Germany is guilty of the war through its régime, which started the war at its own chosen moment, while none of the rest wanted it.

Today, however, “You are the guilty” means much more than war guilt.

That poster has by now been almost forgotten. But what we learned from it has remained: first, the reality of a world opinion which condemns us as a nation—and second, our own concern.

World opinion matters to us. It is mankind which so considers us—a fact to which we cannot be indifferent. Besides, guilt is coming to be a political weapon. Being held guilty, we have in this view deserved whatever grief we have come to, and are yet to come to. Herein lies the justification of the politicians who partition Germany, who restrict its reconstruction possibilities, who would leave it peaceless, suspended between life and death. The political question—which we do not have to decide and whose decision we can scarcely influence even by our most blameless conduct—is whether it is politically sensible, purposeful, safe and just to turn a whole nation into a pariah nation, to degrade it beneath all others, to dishonor it further, once it had dishonored itself. Here we are not discussing this question, nor the political question whether, and in what sense, it is necessary and useful to make admissions of guilt. It may be that the condemnation of the German people will stand. It would have tremendous consequences for us. We still hope that some day the statesmen will revise their decision, and the nations their opinion. Yet ours is not to accuse but to accept. The utter impotence to which National-Socialism brought us, and from which there is no escape in the present, technologically conditioned world situation, leaves us no alternative.

But even more important to us is how we analyze, judge and cleanse ourselves. Those charges from without no longer are our concern. On the other hand, there are the charges from within which have been voiced in German souls for twelve years, for moments at least, more or less clearly but impossible to overhear. They, by the changes they effect in ourselves, old or young, are the source of whatever self-respect is still possible for us. We must clarify the question of German guilt. This is our own business. It is independent of outside charges, however much we may hear and use them as questions and mirrors.

That statement, “You are the guilty,” can have several meanings. It can mean:

“You must answer for the acts of the régime you tolerated”—this involves our political guilt.

Or: “You are guilty, moreover, of giving your support and cooperation to this régime”—therein lies our moral guilt.

Or: “You are guilty of standing by inactively when the crimes were committed”—there, a metaphysical guilt suggests itself.

I hold these three statements to be true—although only the first, concerning political liability, is quite correct and to be made without reservations, while the second and third, on moral and metaphysical guilt, become untrue in legal form, as uncharitable testimony.

A further meaning of “You are the guilty” could be:

“You took part in these crimes, and are therefore criminals yourselves.” This statement, applied to the overwhelming majority of Germans, is patently false.

Lastly, the phrase may mean: “You are inferior as a nation, ignoble, criminal, the scum of the earth, different from all other nations.” This is the collectivist type of thought and appraisal, classifying every individual under these generalizations. It is radically false and itself inhuman, whether done for good or evil ends.

After these brief anticipatory remarks we shall now take up the question at close range.