Month: May 2020

Witness: An Ineffective Resistance Piece in Response to Totalitarianism

In the memoir, Witness, Whitaker Chambers writes about his own personal struggle with Communism, and his part in the very publicized trial of Alger Hiss. Chamber’s memoir was not the most effective resistance to totalitarianism because of the use of a more self-focused writing style and the publicity of the Alger Hiss trial. Although some critics would say a more self inspired piece would make a writing more effective when resisting totalitarianism, Chambers did not resist the Communist Party as a whole, but only the figurehead Alger Hiss. Throughout the novel, Chamber’s focuses specifically on his personal relationship with Hiss, and his own personal conversion to Quakerism, taking away from the story in a more broadened sense.  

Chamber’s Close Relationship with the Hiss Family

Throughout pages 297-301 of Witness, Wittaker Chambers describes in detail the close relationship he and his wife had with Alger and Priscilla Hiss. This section perfectly exemplifies how Chambers focused too much on the friendship the two men shared instead of the resisting of totalitarianism. Section nine gives very shallow descriptions of each character, and how they would interact with one another. Chambers describes he and Hiss’s friendship as “unlike my relationship with any others in the underground.” Obviously, Hiss and Chambers were close friends, but this additional background on dinners they would have together and different topics of interest they would talk about, take away from the story’s main purpose: resisting Communism. This Hiss case would have been a huge case with or without Chambers being a close friend of his, so if Chambers had focused less on his own personal friendship with Hiss, and more on the case itself, the novel would have delivered a stronger standpoint against Communism. John Haynes’ novel Venona, takes an in-depth look at the Venona Project, which was a secret American intelligence project that uncovered thousands of cases involving American spies working for the Communist party during World War II. This novel works in a much more broadened sense against totalitarianism, because it delves deep into the wrongdoings of the secret spies during the time of the Hiss case. Chambers was just a small figure in this huge conspiracy, and therefore focusing on one case takes away from the large scope of misdoings by the Communist party. 

Not only did focusing on his personal friendship take away from Chambers’ novel, but it almost forced readers to feel sympathetic for Hiss and his family. On page 306, Chambers describes Hiss’ love of birds, and bird watching. This attribute humanizes Hiss, making his personal character seem more appealing to readers. By mentioning small details about Hiss, before even discussing the case with readers, undermines Chambers’ main argument against the horribleness of the Communist party. This also gives room for some to doubt whether Hiss was a Communist at all. By giving Hiss a true character identity, many only want to see the loving, father figure that Hiss is made out to be. In the biography on Whittaker Chambers, Whittaker Chambers: A Biography, Sam Tanenhaus describes Chambers as a very controversial figure, loved by many, but also hated by others. This potentially could be because Chambers gave room for the audience to sympathize with Hiss and his family. Sometimes it is difficult to believe a man of such great standing could be capable of being a Communist, so Chambers may have made it easier to rationalize his innocence when using specific diction when describing Hiss. For example, when asked what the two talked about, Chambers explained, “People are truly friends when they love each one another’s foibles as a necessary part of the pattern of character. We knew one another’s weaknesses and could laugh freely at them as something amusing because endearing.” (Chambers 304). This style of writing portrays Hiss as a loving and kind friend, and knowing the fact that Chambers testified against him almost makes Chambers the enemy in the story. It is much easier to believe someone is testifying against another in order to gain fame, but more difficult to believe a loving father and caring friend would be a Communist. Therefore, the choice to give a detailed description of he and Hiss’ friendship did not benefit the overall argument of revealing Communism for the evil it is, and did not effectively resist totalitarianism.

Also, when Chambers focused too much on his and Hiss’ friendship in his memoir, it draws the reader’s attention away from the case of Alger Hiss and his role in the Communist Party, and focuses it on the personal relationship the two shared. For example, Chambers mentions how in chapter seven, section nine, someone asked him what he and Hiss would talk about when they were together. This perfectly exemplifies how the entire trial ended up focusing on the fact that the two men were close comrades, and not just coworkers. This derails the case itself because it strays away from the main purpose of convicting Alger Hiss for being an associate of the Communist Party, and centers around the question of whether or not Chambers’ relationship with Hiss and his family has anything to do with why he’s testifying against him. The case closely resembles the case of People vs. Duvander “Chevy” Hurst, where Hurst was wrongly convicted of second-degree murder of 19-year-old Allen Delatte’s, by a neighbor. The Neighbor then stepped forth almost 18 years later and admitted to committing perjury. The reason was that the police forced a confession out of him because he faced many drug charges that he wanted to get out of. Although this does not exactly match the trial of Alger Hiss, many people could believe there is a different motive behind Chamber’s testimony. This doubt leads to a suspicion of whether or not Alger Hiss is guilty, therefore leading the reader’s attention to focus on the personal relationship between the two rather than the case itself. This draws away from the purpose of the novel and ultimately creates a weak stand against totalitarianism.

Chambers Use of a Memoir as a Writing Style

In order to deliver his emotional and intense experience with the Communist Party, Whittaker Chambers uses a memoir as a writing style. Although this choice allowed readers to more thoroughly understand the trauma Chambers had to go through, and allowed them to connect with him on a deeper level, the choice of this writing style forced the reader to focus too much on Chambers, rather than Communism as a whole. For example, from pages 615-618, Chambers describes his conversion to Quakerism, and the impact this change had on his life.  Chambers states, “It was a struggle between the force of two irreconcilable faiths-Communism and Christianity-embodied in two men, who by a common experience in the past, knew as few others could know what the struggle was about, and who shared a common force of character, the force which had made them a Communist in the first place, and which I had not changed when I changed my faith.” This conversion helped Chambers explain how he came to the decision to become a full “witness,” but it also enabled the reader to focus on the good of Catholicism rather than the evil of Totalitarianism. When the reader’s attention deviated from the focus of Communism to the appraisal of Catholicism, Chambers ultimately lost the strength of his argument against Communism. Instead, Chambers should have talked about how his conversion allowed him to see the terrible effects of Communism, rather than how Quakerism changed him as an individual. This, in turn, would have taken the focus off of his conversion, and helped Chambers shine a light on the wrongdoings of the Communist party. Unfortunately, the focus on his conversion led readers’ attention astray from the main focus of the novel, and ultimately led to a less effective means of resisting Totalitarianism.

Also, choosing to write his story as a memoir made Chambers final product more of a pretty and elegant style of writing, making his piece sound more like a fictional story.This, instead of leading towards a resistance type stance, creates more of a story, almost taking away from the realness of the danger Chambers was in. The flowy words, eloquent dialect, and smooth language created a more easily readable story, but in the long run made the actual events that occured in the novel seem more like a movie, and not a real life experience. For example, on page 616, Chambers states, “For I cannot hate even an enemy, as I said in a broadcast immediately after Hiss’s second trial, who shares in me the conviction that that life is not worth living for which a man is not prepared to die at any moment.” This leads readers to become more involved in the outcome of the character’s life, and not the resistance to the Communist Party. For example, in George Orwell’s 1984, throughout the entire novel, the audience was rooting for the main protagonists to beat the party and go free. However, what made Orwell’s piece so popular and attractive was the bizarre ending of the protagonist giving into the Party. Chambers takes a similar stance where everyone is rooting for him to leave the Communist Party, take on Alger Hiss, and beat him in court. And that is exactly what happens. Throughout the story, readers are engaged, but Chambers could not add in an exciting feature to his novel that would leave readers talking about the wrongdoings of the Communist Party. If he had discussed what the Communist Party had done to endless innocent people, and tied in his own personal experience, the novel would have had a more lasting effect and left readers with a feeling of being disturbed. However, the memoir type writing style gave Chambers the opportunity to wrap the novel up with a bow and end it easily, without leaving a lasting impact, making his piece a less effective stance against Communism. 

Also, on top of his focus on his conversion, Chambers deals with the struggle of becoming a true “witness.” This focus on an internal struggle takes away the sense of external danger Chambers was in, and makes his experience less authentic, and more of just a story. In years after Witness was published, Peter Baehr wrote about Hannah Arendt’s denouncement of the necessity of an “Ex-Communist” to expose the unlawful practices of the Communist Party. In, The Informers: Hannah Arendt’s Appraisal of Whittaker Chambers and The Ex-Communists, Baehr describes Arendt’s scepticism of whether or not it is constitutional to inform a fellow citizen. This brings up the elephant in the room: Why should Whittaker Chambers go free, if he, too, was a Communist? This question led many followers of the case to become sceptical of Chambers’ true intentions. The readers only see a sense of moral struggle within Chambers, rather than an external breaking point, where Chambers felt no choice but to become an informant. Becoming a witness meant putting Chambers life, and his family members lives, in danger. However, Chambers describes the internal struggle rather than the immediate threat on his life the Communist Party instilled. Chambers should have mainly focused on the evils that were inflicted onto him and his family, which in turn would have led to less people questioning his motives, more sympathetic readers, and a lot more belief in the dangers of the Communist Party. Therefore, the detailed description of the internal struggle of deciding whether or not Chambers should become an informant took away from the sense of fear of the Party and led to the story becoming a less compelling argument against totalitarianism.  

Another reason why using a memoir as a writing style did not allow Whittaker Chambers to effectively resist totalitarianism is because it leads the reader’s attention away from the evils of Communism and focuses the audience’s attention on pitying Chambers as an individual. Although it was the Communist Party that made Chambers life so difficult, mentioning specific details about him and his families struggles makes his story more unique to himself rather than all survivors of the Communist Party. For example, on page 617, Chambers describes his transformation into a witness by stating, “Toward the end of August 1948, I finally found the strength to cross the bridge and enter that region of grief, fear, and death beyond. There followed about one hundred days in which it was largely determined the form that the Hiss case would take, and even whether there would be a Hiss case, as we know it, at all.” The mention of specific dates and details about the Hiss case personalized the story in a way where nobody could see the expanding effects of the Communist Party. No other survivor of Communism has had the same experience as Chambers. Few became actual witnesses, most lived in fear in hiding, and many were killed once they attempted to escape. However, Chambers fails to reinforce this in his memoir, because it is a personal story of his own struggle with the Party. Even though Chambers wins the sympathy of the audience, he fails to deliver the main argument of his memoir: the fact that the Communist party is an undeniable evil that must be addressed, not feared and overlooked. If Chambers had included a more broad spectrum of wrongdoings brought upon him by the Communist Party, and related it back to a wider spanning group of individuals who also chose to break from the Party, Chambers would have been able to resist the Party on a larger scale. However, a memoir type writing style limited his abilities to discuss the facts about the Party and include all the terrors brought upon other Ex-Communists like him. Therefore, Chambers memoir was not the most effective writing style to resist Totalitarianism. 

Focus on Specific Case Study

Throughout the memoir Witness, Whittaker Chambers also only talks about the trial of Alger Hiss. The strict focus on this singular case does not effectively resist totalitarianism because it allows the readers to become overly involved in the outcome in the trial rather than what the trial represents. For example, on pages 570-584, Chambers quotes the long and intricate questioning of Hiss by Mr. Nixon and Mr. Stripling. By the end of the section, the audience is on the edge of their seat waiting to hear why Hiss’ old car was so important to the prosecutors. Finally, when they reveal that Chambers testified that the old car was sold to the Communist party, everyone following the case is now deciding that Hiss is guilty and they root for Hiss to be prosecuted. However, while many people are focused on the case, everyone is overlooking the facts as to why the case has come about. Most of the audience has forgotten about the reason why Communism is a terrible evil, and are more focused on Chambers winning the trial. This deviated attention results in a less effective resistance stance against the Communist Party and totalitarianism as a whole because it leaves people still unaware of how manipulative and overpowering the party truly is. Therefore, Hiss’ focus on the specific case study of Alger Hiss was not a persuasive resistance piece. 

Also, the focus on a specific case study forced the audience to see Hiss as the evil that needs to be taken down in the novel, rather than the Communist Party. Focusing all of his attention on one main target, Chambers builds Hiss up to be the one person that, if prosecuted, would end the dangers that Chambers and his family have gone through. Although Chambers and Hiss were close friends, and Chambers admits that it brought him great sadness to testify against his friend, he acknowledges that it was a necessary evil that needed to be done. He describes it as being pushed to the very edge, feeling as though there was no other option other than to testify against him. Putting all of his emphasis on the difficulties of testifying against Hiss, and all the vast wrongdoings that were brought upon him and his family, Chambers leads the readers into believing that Hiss is the reason behind everything bad that has happened to him. So, in order to put an end to his sufferings, Chambers had to ensure that Hiss would be prosecuted and sent to jail for being a Communist. Also, by concluding the book with his family all together and describing his life as finally going back to a more normal routine, Chambers does make it seem as though Hiss was the main reason for his sufferings. Although Chambers paints Hiss as a family man and an outstanding father and husband, it is difficult to deny that once the case was over, Chambers’ life got a lot easier. He was less worried about the Communist Party trying to hurt him, and he was thrown into fame because of the popularity of the case. It was as if getting Hiss behind bars ended everything cruel that had been happening to the Chambers family. Therefore, by focusing on Hiss as an individual, Chambers leads the reader’s attention astray from the real enemy in his life: Communism. Because Chambers did not emphasize the true nature of the Communist party well enough, his memoir was not an effective resistance piece to totalitarianism.

To conclude, Whittaker Chambers made several mistakes when writing pieces as a stance against the Communist Party. First off, by writing his piece as a memoir, Chambers made it more a story and was unable to explain the true nature of Communism, because he was focused too much on writing a great memoir, with flow and intellectual insights, rather than exposing the Communist Party. This style of writing limited his abilities to discuss other cases and other Ex-Communist’s survival stories, because it was too self interested and focused mainly on himself and his relationship with Hiss. Also, the emphasis of Hiss and Chambers friendship made Hiss look too kind of a figure to oppose because of his kind demeanor and relationship with his wife and daughter. It also took the reader’s attention away from Communism and focused more on Hiss and Chambers’ relationship. And finally, by only discussing the Hiss trials in depth, Chambers leads the audience to focus more on Hiss as an evil rather than the Communist Party itself. Therefore, Chambers memoir on the Alger Hiss case was not an effective means to resist totalitarianism.

Works Cited

Baehr, Peter. “The Informers: Hannah Arendt’s Appraisal of Whittaker Chambers and the 

Ex-Communists.” European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, vol. 1, no. 1, 

Feb. 2014, pp. 35–66., doi:10.1080/23254823.2014.909734.

Haynes, John Earl, and Harvey Klehr. Venona : Decoding Soviet Espionage in America. Yale 

University Press, 2000, Libraries Worldwide.

Ji, Xianlin. The Cowshed : Memories of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Translated by Chenxin 

Jiang, New York Review Books, 2016.

Nolan, Heather. “Man who recanted testimony in 1999 murder case pleads guilty to 

Perjury.” NOLA.com, 17 Apr. 2018, 

www.nola.com/news/crime_police/article_6dd5dd29-da51-52ad-b290-87fa3ad6457d.htm

Orwell, George, and Herman Finkelstein Collection (Library of Congress). Nineteen Eighty-Four 

: A Novel. [1st American ed.] ed., Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1949.

Tanenhaus, Sam. Whittaker Chambers : A Biography. First ed., Random House, 1997.

In the film A Hidden Life, Franz Jägerstätter is portrayed as a very humble farmer living in Austria, who is very devoted to his wife and three daughters. However, when World War II breaks out, he is drafted to the army. He felt that he could not serve because his religion would not support the war that Hitler was fighting, but he would surely be killed if he did not serve. During his time of indecision, Father Fürthauer asks him, when discussing dying for his beliefs or staying with his family while accepting a non-moral life, “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. Jägerstätter’s sacrifice is still as impactful today as it was during WWII because he represents liberty and freedom of speech, intrinsic rights of a country that are vital now more than ever.

Non-Impactful During His Lifetime 

During the bishop’s mass, the bishop explains the story of a blacksmith’s anvil and hammer. Although the hammer is always beating down on the anvil, with a constant and unstopping force, the anvil can never strike back, and silently takes the beating. However, in the end, the bishop asserts that the anvil will always outlive the hammer (00:32). 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.” (01:19). 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.

Not only was Jägerstätter’s stance against the Nazi party was so impactful because of his non-assuming character, but 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.” (02:25). 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.

Although Jägerstätter believed that his sacrifice would go unknown for years, obviously his story was later told around the world, and made into a major motion picture. However, his story was forgotten for years before he was given any recognition. During that time, his decision of not swearing allegiance to Hitler was absurd and unseen. Many people turned against him when he started to back away from the Nazi regime. Therefore, when he was put to death, many people did not truly care about his sacrifice, and many saw it as a good riddance. In Introduction to Franz Jägerstätter: Letters and Writings from Prison, Edited by Erna Putz, Jim Forest explains how after Jägerstätter’s death, he would soon be forgotten. He died in 1943, and was only rediscovered in 1964, 21 years later. Although he was overlooked for a long time, his story was too inspiring to be forgotten. Jägerstätter spent five months in prison, being brutally beaten and tormented before being beheaded on August 9th. He is the epitome of passificism, and although he did die for his beliefs, his legacy lives on, proving that the anvil does, in fact, outlive the hammer.

He Had No Support From Anyone Around Him

When discussing his inability to serve in the army with Father Fürthaur, the priest asks him, “Have you spoken with anyone else? Your wife? Your family? (Franz shakes his head). Don’t you think you ought to consider the consequences of your actions — for them?” (00:26). For almost the entire film, Franz Jägerstätter seems to be alone in his belief that he will not swear allegiance to Hitler. Not only was he abandoned by his closest friends, and even family, but by his own religion he was making his sacrifice for. After talking with Father Fürthaur, he goes to meet with the bishop to see if he would have any insights for his dilemma. However, after explaining his entire situation and how he didn’t think he could serve in the war, the bishop simply replies, “You must serve the Motherland. Your religion says you must.” (00:33). Although Jägerstätter believes the bishop only says that because he believes Jägerstätter is a spy, that seemed to be the last religious figure that would have supported Franz’s decision to not fight in the war. Also, even if the bishop thought Jägerstätter was a spy, he still fell cowardly to the possible thought of being executed for his faith and morals. Not even one of the most influenctial religious leaders felt they could stand up to the Nazi regime, let alone provide comfort to a believer who was in a time of need. Abandoned by his own religion, Jägerstätter had no need to continue to go against the standard beliefs of the time, and resist the forces of Hitler’s regime, but he did. He had an internal drive, without support from the own people he was dying for, which makes his stance against totalitarianism so much more impactful.

Not only could Franz Jägerstätter not find support from his own religion, but was also almost persuaded by his own family not too as well. Although his wife, Fani, is always by his side, she received a lot of pressure from her sister and mother-in-law to “talk sense” into him. Her sister at one point asked, “His mother looks at me coldly. Like I was to blame. I want what you want. I can’t bear that he makes you suffer. He makes a choice for you, too. Does he know what he’s doing to you? Tell him! Pride! That’s what it is.” (00:46). One of the closest characters to Franz, besides his own wife, still believed that he was doing this because of pride, rather than because of his faith. Not only his family, but his friends started to turn on him as well. The people in the village took their anger mostly out on Fani and his children while he was in jail. One woman scolded Fani, telling her how her husband had gone off to war, but questioned why he should fight for someone like her and her husband. (00:42). As the months went on, the town began to despise Jäggerstätter and his wife more and more. There came a point where the audience started to question whether it was fair that Jäggerstätter was putting himself in a position where he would never have to endure the harsh response of the town, but left his wife and children there to take the brunt of it. Although his wife said she would always be with him, she never directly said that she supported his decision, showing how although she loved him, she did not understand his choices, which is understandable. However, the fact that he knew his family would suffer from his actions, but still went through with his decision shows how much of a true believer he was in his cause. He would never want to intentionally force his family to bear his own hardships unless it was for a greater cause. His resilience to the undeniable downsides to his faith show why his resistance to totalitarianism was so impactful and incredible. Although his family may not have supported his decision, he knew in his heart that reisting the Nazi regime was the only right thing to do, making his resistance a powerful stance against Hitler.

The audience was not only shown the reactions of priests and Jäggerstätter’s family and friends, but how his decision impacted the those apart of the Nazi regime. During his trial, Jäggerstätter met with the judge who wanted him to explain his decision as to why he was refusing to serve the Nazi regime. In a very intense scene, the judge tells Jäggerstätter, “You’ll change nobody’s mind. Your actions may even have the opposite effect of what you intend. Someone else will take your place. We want to save you. You have nothing more to say?… You know what it means.” Jäggerstätter simply replies to this, “A man may do wrong, and not be able to get out of it — get his life clear. Maybe he would like to go back, and can’t. That must be a bitter thing. But I have that feeling inside me, that I can’t do what I believe is wrong. That’s all.” (02:12). After this, the judge is shown alone in his chambers, slowly walking towards the chair Jäggerstätter was sitting in, and he begins to sit down. He is shown immersed in his thoughts, which shows the audience that Jäggerstätter’s unmoving stance deeply impacted the judge, who did not feel he deserved death. Many scholars have compared Jäggerstätter’s stance to Augustine’s teachings. In his journal article, The Significance of Franz Jäggerstätter, Brian Wicker compares Augustine and Jäggerstätter because both embodied Augustine’s teaching, which entailed, “love of enemies, expressed in non-violence, is the only true gospel teaching, so that martyrdom is preferable to killing the person who is attacking you.” (Wicker 386). This comparison is very apt because Jäggerstätter did give up his life like a saint would. Although the judge condemned Jäggerstätter to death, the audience was able to infer that it was only because he had to, not because he believed it was the right thing to do. The fact that Franz Jäggerstätter was able to have such a lasting impact on someone with such a high status in the Nazi regime shows just how powerful his stance was against totalitarianism.

Family Obligations

Not only was Franz Jäggerstätter going to leave his family in a bad position socially, but also work wise, they were going to struggle immensely. The audience is shown throughout the film when Jäggerstätter is away in prison, Fani is left to do all the farm work with just her sister. They are shown doing hard labor, and taking care of the three children. It was not an easy life with Franz, but after he left the work got even more difficult. Not only did his wife and sister-in-law have to deal with the extra workload, but they also had to deal with the ostracization from the other farmers in their town. In one of her letters to Jäggerstätter, Fani mentions how someone from their town has been stealing beats from their farm (00:48). Although someone had stolen from them, no one in the town would ever care because of what Franz had decided to do. Jäggerstätter had left his family with a heavy burden, and they would have to carry the burden for the rest of their lives. Not only was it just two women doing the workload, but he only had daughters, and he had no friends left from the village who could help his wife and sister-in-law. He left them without a man of the house and no support system, just because he truly believed that he would not be able to swear an oath to Hitler. For almost any other person, leaving all of these responsibilities behind just to stand up for a cause would have seemed like more of an unfavorable choice than just saying the oath and not meaning it. He was putting his family in a very serious situation that could have caused them to struggle even more than they already did. However, the fact that his conviction against the Nazi party was so strong and held so true to his heart is the reason why his resistence was such an impactful stance against toalitarianism. Even though he was a great family man who knew what the actions of his consequences would lead to, he still felt that he could not swear an oath to Hitler, making his resistence to the Nazi party so much more impactful.

Not only did he leave a great burden on his wife and sister-in-law, but also on his own children. They would be forced to live without a father, and grow up without any guidance from a male figure. He never even gave his children a chance to know him because he died while they were still young. This not only is a burden for his children, but for himself as well. He accepted his death knowing that he would never be able to watch his children grow up. This was a very surprising decision by Jäggerstätter because he, too, lost his father at a very young age. His mother was unwed when she gave birth to Jäggerstätter in 1907. Although his parents were unmarried, they were very much in love. However, they were too poor to get married, so Jäggerstätter had to grow up in the care of his grandmother. While he was still a young child, his biological father died in World War I. Although years later, his mother remarried and her new husband adopted him, Jäggerstätter grew up during most of his childhood without a father.  Living alone with his poor mother proved very difficult for Jäggerstätter growing up, especially in school because he could not bring butter or meat to his teacher (Putz 56). Although his fortune later turned around when his mother met her new husband, he struggled for a very long time. Now that the roles are reversed and he could actually do something to give his children a better childhood than he had, he still chose martyrdom. Instead of staying with young daughters, the oldest only being five years old when he died, he gave them the life he wished he never had to live through. No father would force his own children to live in a single parent household unless he felt it was absolutely necessary. Franz Jäggerstätter’s conviction was so strong that he felt he could never swear allegiance to Hitler, not even for his own children. Choosing to give up his life over staying with his daughters is an incredible decision, making his stance against totalitarianism so much more impactful.

Along with burdening his wife with more farm work, he was forcing her to raise all three of their daughters alone. Not only did they have three children, but three very young girls. Kids that age need a lot of attention and most of the time it’s very difficult for one parent to take care of the children on their own. So, not only would Fani be forced to complete difficult, time consuming labor, she would have to tend to the everyday need of her young girls. In one of her letters to Jäggerstätter, Fani mentions how “They say to tell you only the good things they are doing, but I wouldn’t surprise by telling you about their disobedience. I have to scold the girls, they are always demanding my attention.” (01:04). Although this type of behavior is expected from three young girls, it is a lot to handle on top of losing your husband. Even with her sister, Fani can not keep up with the demanding workload and her responsibilities as a mother. However, her devotion to her husband is remarkable, standing by him through every decision he makes, even though his choices affect not only him, but her too. The fact that she is truly able to understand his inability to swear allegiance to Hitler is a very selfless act. She, too, puts God before herself and her family, alongside Jäggerstätter. His choice to rather face the death penalty for refusing to serve in the military rather than stay with his devoted wife and children is what makes his life as a whole a great resistence to totalitarianism.

Conclusion

After all the struggles and hardships Franz Jäggerstätter had to overcome in his lifetime, he had finally found a loving wife and beautiful daughters. He and his family lived on a serene farm in Austria, and had a great community surrounding and supporting them. When Hitler came to power, Jäggerstätter knew that supporting his reign would be against his religion. When he was called to serve, he gave up everything that meant the most to him, which at the time seemed useless. His own sacrifice went unknown for years, and he found no support from the closet people to him. Not even the own religion he was willing to die for would support his decision. He caused his family great turbulence and died a horrible death. At the time, his death seemed to be worthless. However, after over twenty years, his story was told. Present day, he now has a movie made about his life and has been canonized as a saint. He did not die in vain, his life is living proof that conformity is not always the correct decision. He saw what was true evil, and although it cost him his family and his life, he was willing to go against the norm. That is why Franz Jäggerstätter’s life is overall a powerful resistance to totalitarianism.

Works Cited

Dosenrode-Lynge, Sören Zibrandt von., and Erna Putz. Christianity and Resistance in the 20th 

Century: from Kaj Munk and Dietrich Bonhoeffer to Desmond Tutu. Brill, 2009.

Jägerstätter, Franz, et al. Letters and Writings from Prison. Orbis Books, 2009.

Wicker, Brian. “The Significance of Franz Jägerstätter.” New Blackfriars, vol. 89, no. 1022, 

2008, pp. 385–388., doi:10.1111/j.1741-2005.2008.00250.x.