Desinvolture by EJ the Participant

[Bertil Haggman <bertil.haggman@helsingborg.se>]

John King wrote:

> Again, we must be careful not to overestimate EJ's role in things. He was an
> infantry lieutenant and thus not in a position to exert decisive influence
> on events. Instead, he was under the orders of one of the Stülpnagels. If we
> look at the text more closely we will see that EJ is highly sarcastic about
> the entire thing - all he had to do was to allow "Sonntagsspaziergänger"
> through police lines, filtering the respectable from the rabble and little
> more. I maintain my position that in this text the "desinvolture", if there
> is any, is on the part of EJ the narrator.

You are of course correct that EJs role should not be overestimated but
he took part in some of the "action" that took place and certainly 
contributed to the outcome without bloodshed. EJ was in my opinion
downplaying
his role. There was not only letting a few stray walkers through the
line -
shooting was involved and the direction of the shots were important.
Historical experience shows that action of troops against demonstrators
can easily cause bloodshed if officers don't keep cool - show
desinvolture.

> >Maybe I expressed myself unclearly. I used the quote from the Juenger
> >biography by Karl O. Paetel. He writes (and I return to German): "Kenn-
> >zeichnend fuer die distanziert-unemotionelle Haltung, mit der Juenger
> >noch waehrend des Kapp-Putsches einer 'nationalen Revolution'
> >gegenueberstand, ist auch ein 'Lagebericht' aus seiner Reichswehrzeit 
   an Friedrich Georg."
> 
> And not just EJ, but the most of the Reichswehr were curiously uninvolved in
> the Kapp Putsch and let Kapp rapidly fall victim to the general strike
> called by the SPD led government which rendered his administration, if it
> could be graced with that title, immediately impotent. They obviously
> preferred working for such people as Noske.

True, but I think the attitude of EJ here should be noted especially
by anyone claiming that EJ was a right-wing extremist or even a fascist.

> >Paetel continues with a few interesting comments on EJs distance to the
> >Freikorps. EJ can for a short time involve himself with a collective but
> >he never has the need to totally identify himself with the collective.
> 
> Hm, he does try in the late 1920s to identify himself with the collective of
> the front soldiers and German youth. It is my belief that the memory he
> produces in this period of the First World War is quite synthetic - compare,
> for instance, Stahlgewittern 1 with Feuer und Blut 1, not to mention the
> journalistic excesses of his essays.

Yes, but there are several examples of how EJ fails to commit himself.
Although his writing might seem nationalistic at times he failed to
commit himself when it came to actual Freikorps involvement.

But I am not a specialist in the 1920s writing and activities of EJ.
My interests lie elsewhere and I am sorry if I have diverted to much
energy on the list to EJs prognosticism.

Greetings

Bertil
bertil.haggman@helsingborg.se