Month: April 2020

How Franz Jägerstätter Led an Exemplary Resistance to Totalitarianism

In the film “A Hidden Life,” Franz Jägerstätter is portrayed as a very humble farmer, who is very devoted to his wife and children. During his time of indecision, Father Fürthauer asks him, when discussing dying for his beliefs or staying with his family, “Which is the greater wrong?” Although he is seen as faithful to his family, he still chooses to die for what he believes is right. Franz Jägerstätter had a great impact on the resistance of Hitler’s party and totalitarianism as a whole because of his low status profile, the lack of support for his decision, and the responsibilities he held as a father and husband. His lack of reasoning behind his own decision is what left such an impact on people. It was obvious that, although he did not have a great education, he understood the principles of right from wrong, and his absolute and firm stance against Hitler’s war is how Franz Jägerstätter became such a heroic public figure.

Throughout the film, Franz Jägerstätter is told why he should not go through with denouncing the Nazi party, or more simply refusing to swear allegiance to Hitler. One of the most recurring arguments is that no one will remember him if he does this, and that he will not make any significant change if he refuses to swear his allegiance. During an interrogation scene with Captain Herder, Franz spouts, “You say, think of the times we live in. Well, those men and women in olden days, who put their lives at risk, because they wouldn’t carry out Caesar’s orders — what do you say of them? Did they live in better times?” to which the captain replies, “It’s one thing to take a stand on a big stage. But you are nowhere… You have no power.” The idea that the Nazi party was attempting to instill on Jägerstätter was that no matter what he did, he would make no lasting footprint on reality. He would just be another fatality in the war. And during that time, they were correct. For a very long time, Jägerstätter’s legacy was forgotten. Only after about a decade or so later was Jägerstätter’s file found again in the many records of executions by the Nazi party. Although Jägerstätter would never know if people would remember him, he knew he just couldn’t do that to himself as a Catholic. His ability to still give his life for a cause he believed he would get no recognition for is what makes his stance against the party so much more memorable and noble. He was doing this for his own sake, and that is what makes his resistance to totalitarianism so much more powerful.

Another reason why Jägerstätter’s stance against the Nazi party was so impactful was because he wasn’t a politcial martyr. Those who didn’t believe in what the party was doing still swore allegiance because they were afraid of persecution. Some, on the other hand, did stand up against the Nazi party and refused to back down. The only difference between them and Jägerstätter is that they made very big impressions on people at the time. One movement that exemplifies this is the White Rose Movement. A group of youths wrote widespread leaflets condeming Naziism, and confronted Nazis as well. They were arrested, charged, and killed all on the same day. Although their acts were incredibly noble, they had an exact reason for their actions. On the other hand, Jägerstätter did not have any motive against the regime. All he had was his internal beliefs. In one scene, his wife tells him, “God doesn’t care what you say. Only what’s in your heart. Say the oath, and think what you like.” However, he still could not allow himself to swear an allegiance, and was killed shortly after that conversation. Both the acts of the White Rose Movement and of Jägerstätter were honorable, but Jägerstätter’s lack of intentions is what makes his act so much more powerful. Many people know of the White Rose Movements, and can see their four leaflets at any time, but Jägerstätter was prepared to have no legacy at all, and in a sense, die in vain. His courage to accept his fate in order to stay true to his faith is what makes him an outlier, and a powerful figure of resistance to totalitarianism.

In chapter one of Ryszard Legutko’s novel The Demon in Democracy, the author draws many obvious comparisons between liberal democracy and communism. Legutko’s novel is a resistance to totalitarianism because it reprimands those who do not speak up against communism and instead accept it into their own beliefs.

In the introduction of the novel, Legutko starts off with a simple observation, that “many of my friends who consciously classify themselves as devoted supporters of liberal democracy…displayed extraordinary meekness and empathy towards communism.” (pg 1). This thought was very well explained throughout chapter one, the reason being that both ideal systems have so much in common that resisting one would be resisting both. Legutko explains how both place an emphasis on modernization, basically meaning out with the old and in with the new. The thought is that is liberal democrats speak out against communism, they would be supporting traditionalists, which would weaken their own belief system. By pointing out these connections, Legutko is able to almost satirize liberal democrat’s fear of contradicting themselves, because they would rather hold their own ideals rather than condemn an immoral party system. This in turn shows his true feelings against totalitarianism, and effectively resists it.

Also, in chapter one, Legutko mentions three different ways a regime could become totalitarian, and then explains how a liberal democracy could easily fall into the trap of converting their beliefs. Legutko states a regime could become communistic when “the historical development of humanity [reaches] full self-consciousness.” (pg 13). This ideal sounds very similar to the ideal system of liberal democracy, and almost mirrors it. Instead of glorifying this type of development, Legutko sees it as a danger to our society, because it seems like the general population has started to accept these types of beliefs instead of speaking out against them. By pointing out these careless mistakes made by the liberal democrats, Legutko is able to effective resist totalitarianism in the modern era.

In the film “A Hidden Life,” Franz Jägerstätter is portrayed as a very humble farmer, who is very devoted to his wife and children. During his time of indecision, Father Fürthauer asks him, when discussing dying for his beliefs or staying with his family, “Which is the greater wrong?” Although he is seen as faithful to his family, he still chooses to die for what he believes is right. Franz Jägerstätter had a great impact on the resisting of Hitler’s party and totalitarianism as a whole because of his low status profile, the lack of support for his decision, and the responsibilities he held as a father and husband. His lack of reasoning behind his own decision is what left such an impact on people. It was obvious that, although he did not have a great education, he understood the principles of right from wrong, and his absolute stance against Hitler’s war is how Franz Jägerstätter became such a heroic public figure.

Outline:

• Low Status
  • During his life time, he believed no one would ever hear about his sacrifice
  • He was a nobody, so he wasn’t resisting as a political martyr
  • His death went unknown for years
• No Support
  • His own religion told him not to go through with his decision
  • His family wanted him to stay with them to help with the farm (and to be with them)
  • Even the guards wanted him to just swear an oath and be a doctor because they could tell he was a good man
• Family Obligations
  • Need to help wife and sister-in-law on the farm, lots of work for just 2 women
  • Has three daughter that would grow up without a dad, integrate his own childhood in this paragraph
  • Almost betraying them by not trying to stay alive, robbing children of a great childhood, wife of a husband

Sources:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43251244?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=lang_en&id=8r9nopXGq6UC&oi=fnd&pg=PA55&dq=Franz+Jägerstätter&ots=vn6fHQix-f&sig=fTUB7-raFa7_fobWUuJFzHP9slg#v=onepage&q=Franz%20Jägerstätter&f=false

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Finn/publication/263277060_Franz_Jagerstatter_as_Social_Critic_a_Response_to_Donagan/links/00b7d53a64f2d36b5c000000/Franz-Jaegerstaetter-as-Social-Critic-a-Response-to-Donagan.pdf

In Graham Greene’s novel, The Power and the Glory, the main protagonist, the whisky priest, decides to go back and hear the Yankee’s last words before he dies, even though it is a rouse created by the half-caste to get the priest back in the state. This novel powerfully resists totalitarianism because the priest chooses to take the risk of getting captured and killed by the police in order to preserve his faith.

In this dystopian novel, the state has deemed that every person who believes in the Catholic Church must renounce their faith or go to jail, and maybe even get executed. The whisky priest knows this and escapes into the neighboring state, but chooses to go back when told about the Yankee’s near death state. Although he knows he will be captured and eventually killed, he feels as though he needs to absolve the sins of the Yankee, who has committed terrible crimes, including murder. He states, “…and I shan’t need money again, shall I?” when the half-caste asks him why he gave so much money to the school teacher. He knows he will not survive going back into the state, but feels as though he needs to. His ability to put himself in harms way for the sake of his religion is admirable, but what truly makes it a resistance to totalitarianism is that it is for a criminal. Most people would understand going back into the state to hear the dying words of a good Catholic, but what is most noteworthy is that he went back for someone who most people would deem unworthy to be absolved by a priest. This act of selflessness is a true sign of defiance to the police because he’s willing to die for his faith, which they are trying to take away from him.

What also makes this a resistance to totalitarianism is that the whisky priest is considered a “bad priest.” Before holding confession, a man offers him brandy, and he willingly takes it, knowing it is a sin, but refuses to stop. He knows in his heart that it is wrong, but can’t seem to say no. Although he has many flaws, and is not an ideal priest that the people need during this time, he still chooses to go back to help the Yankee. If the priest was always moral and just, then the audience would expect this of the priest, and it wouldn’t be such a great sacrifice. However, because the priest is portrayed as rude and a drunk, his selflessness is even more of a stance against totalitarianism, because it shows the audience how even those who are less admirable still know right from wrong, and it makes the police look even more evil. Therefore, when the whisky priest goes back into the state for the Yankee, he is effectively defying the totalitarian regime and taking a stance against the ideals of the police.