Bildquelle
„I think most anthroposophists are still unaware of Scaligero's racial writings. Even Italian anthroposophists, who have ready access to the texts themselves. Scaligero denied his own racism in his autobiography (in fact he cast his racial writings from the Fascist era as anti-racist), and lots of anthroposophists have simply taken this at face value. What is a little more surprising is that anthroposophists seem entirely unaware of the existing scholarship on the history of Fascist race policy, which discusses not only Scaligero's role in the racist campaign, but that of other Fascist anthroposophists as well, such as Ettore Martinoli and Aniceto Del Massa. In any case, Scaligero's racist publications are not hard to find in Italy. I think it would be good if anthroposophical admirers of Scaligero would familiarize themselves with this aspect of his work.“

weiter zum Text von Peter Staudenmaier..

Tags:Scaligero, Staudenmaier

-Steiners disrupted lecture in Munich, May 1922-

Here is some of the background to the 1922 incident. Anthroposophists today sometimes claim, in standard conspiracist fashion, that it was an assassination attempt, and they often add that Steiner ceased his public appearances in Germany after this event. Those claims are inaccurate. What actually happened at Steiner's well-attended lecture on May 15, 1922 at the Hotel Vier Jahreszeiten in Munich was much less dramatic. According to eyewitness accounts by anthroposophists present at the time, a small group in the audience who were hostile toward anthroposophy interrupted the lecture with noise, turning out the lights, and similar tactics. Not only was there was no attempt on Steiner's life, he was not physically attacked, and the major disruptions did not take place until after he had left the stage.

Anthroposophist descriptions of the incident provide conflicting accounts of the perpetrators, with some blaming unidentified nationalist ruffians, some blaming Nazi agitators, others the Thule Society, and still others the Ludendorffers. The latter possibility seems most likely. There is no indication in the historical sources that Nazis were involved. The hotel where Steiner gave his lecture was an important gathering place for the far-right milieu in Munich at the time.

weiter..

Tags:Staudenmaier

Barbara Elers war so unglaublich freundlich, die schwierige Übersetzung von Peter Staudenmaiers Essay zum „Frankfurter Memorandum“ ins Deutsche vorzunehmen. Ich habe die Übersetzung ins PDF- Format umgewandelt und biete den Aufsatz hier zum Download an.

Inzwischen hat es umfangreiche Ergänzungen und Korrekturen durch Peter Staudenmaier gegeben, die ich aus Zeitgründen vorerst in einen Anhang ab Seite 10 des Aufsatzes stelle.

Tags:Staudenmaier

Peter Staudenmaier schreibt in seiner Analyse:

„As promised, here is my analysis of the recent 'Frankfurt Memorandum' on Steiner's racial teachings. I'd like to reiterate that the text is the product of a genuine effort by anthroposophists to come to terms with Steiner's race doctrines, and as I mentioned yesterday in introducing the memorandum, its authors are among the more progressive and historically interested anthroposophists in Germany today. My personal interactions with Info3 and with Jens Heisterkamp, one of the two authors of the memorandum, have been positive, respectful, and fruitful.

For reasons I explained last year, however, when we first discussed the memorandum in its original German version, I have many criticisms of the general approach that the memorandum takes toward Steiner's ideas about race. From a historical perspective, much of the memorandum remains constrained by a series of unexamined and unwarranted assumptions about Steiner and his teachings, as well as misperceptions about the historical and intellectual contexts of these teachings. These assumptions and perceptions, which are widespread among anthroposophists today, present a major obstacle to the otherwise admirable aims of the memorandum itself. I will do my best to summarize here my central concerns.“

weiter..

Tags:Staudenmaier

„Here's a quick overview of my recent research. I spent last week in the state archive in Trieste, Italy to work through the surviving documents from an important antisemitic institute during the Fascist period, the "Center for the Study of the Jewish Problem" based in Trieste from 1942 to 1943, which was renamed "The Center for Race" from 1943 to 1945, when Fascism was finally defeated. The founding director of the Trieste Center was Ettore Martinoli (1895-1958). In 1944 Martinoli became the head of the national bureau for press and propaganda in Fascist Italy's General Inspectorate for Race, a position he held up to the bitter end.

Martinoli was also one of the most prominent Italian Anthroposophists during the Fascist period, indeed during the twentieth century. He was co-founder of the Anthroposophical Society in Italy, which was founded in Trieste in 1931, and he served as its Secretary for many years. At the same time he was also a committed Fascist, from the very beginnings of Mussolini's movement (he joined the Fascist party already in 1919), and played a leading role in the persecution of Italian Jews under the Fascist regime, particularly in his hometown of Trieste, which was the site of Italy's third largest Jewish community...“

Der ganze Artikel Peter Staudenmaiers, der sich am Rande auch mit Georg Kühlewinds Idol Massimo Scaligero beschäftigt hier.

Zur Geschichte des anthroposophischen Zweiges in Triest: „Kurze Hinweise über die Geschichte des anthroposophischen Zweiges in Triest. Eine Gruppe, die sich sammelte, um Geistwissenschaft zu studieren, bildete sich gegen die zwanziger Jahre. Das Staatsarchiv in Rom verzeichnet am 13 Januar 1931 die Bildung der italienischen anthroposofischen Gesellschaft mit Sitz gerade in Triest, aber eine Briefzeugnisablegung zeigt im Jahre 1929 das wirchliche Gründigungsdatum unserer von dem Vorstand in Dornach annerkennten Landesgesellschaft. Unter den gründende Mitgliedern des Jaheres 1929 (oder 1931?) ragen die Namen von Giorgio Brusadin, Paolo Gentilli, Maria Cassini, Febe Colazza, Ettore Martinoli, Ortensia Liedl, die mit Marie Steiner an einem eingeschlossenen Studium in Portorose in der Nähe von Triest teilnahm, und Laura Eulambio hervor.
Wichtig musste die Rolle von Febe Colazza, Gattin von Giovannn Colazza sein, der gerade gleichzeitig eine Arbeitgruppe in Rom bildete und wo die Anthroposophie wahrscheinlich dank seiner Arbeit nach Italien eintritt, weil er einer der bei Steiner und der esoterischen Schule nächsten Anhänger war. Wir möchten noch daran erinnern dass Albert Steffen und Alfred Meebolt sehr oft hier in Triest gewesen sind, und dass Dora Beker, die später in Rom und Dornach arbeitete, gerade bei uns in Anthroposophie einfuhr.
Im Jahre 1938 wegen der Einführung der Rassengesetze, wurden die anthroposophische Gesellschaft und die Begegnungun in den Zweingen verboten, aber die Arbeit setzte "geheimnissvoll" zu Hause von Frau Cassini fort. ..“

Tags:Staudenmaier

Interestingly, this was sometimes Steiner's position as well, albeit without reference to the holocaust, which occurred after Steiner's death. Steiner blamed the Jews for Christ's death, for example; see Steiner, "Die Völkerseelen und das Mysterium von Golgatha" (1918), in Rudolf Steiner, Erdensterben und Weltenleben (Dornach 1967), pp. 158-9.
Steiner also blamed the Jews for antisemitism, emphasizing that "the Jews have always differentiated themselves from other people" and have thus "caused aversion and antipathy" toward themselves: Steiner, "Vom Wesen des Judentums" (1924), in Rudolf Steiner, Die Geschichte der Menschheit und die Weltanschauungen der Kulturvölker (Dornach 1968), p. 188.

weiter..

Tags:Staudenmaier

Even after a series of severe setbacks for the positive vision of Waldorf education as part of the ‘new Germany’, the hope of Steiner's educational principles making a significant contribution to the education of the Nazi state continued to animate central segments of the Waldorf movement. The October 1937 newsletter of the Waldorf school in Stuttgart contains several examples. An internal report from the director of the school declared that “today as always, the teaching staff aspires to contribute to the constructive pedagogical measures of the state. The Waldorf school has much to contribute to these efforts of the state.” The report also noted with pride the role of Waldorf pupils within the Hitler Youth. Another article in the same newsletter reflected the combination of concern and hopeful expectation: "The basic mood of the participants in this year’s membership assembly of the Waldorf school association could be described as one of ‘anticipation.’ In every face the anxious question could be seen: Will our efforts meet with understanding, will the contribution that we are willing to make to the rise of the new Germany be accepted?"

In spite of difficult circumstances and upcoming challenges, the article expressed confidence: “The conviction that our efforts are in accordance with the re-ascent of our German Volk and fatherland gives us the strength to meet these challenges.” This all-important re-ascent of Germany (Wiederaufstieg unseres deutschen Volkes und Vaterlandes) was cast in explicit reference to the Nazi ‘revolution’ of 1933, seen as a great opportunity for the Waldorf movement:

"After the turn-around of our public life in 1933, the leadership of Germany recognized the renewal of the education of our youth as its most urgent task. Both the faculty of the Waldorf school and the Waldorf school association could hope that the years of selfless labor which they had contributed toward this task would now find recognition and support." (All quotes from Mitteilungen an die Mitglieder des Waldorfschulvereins Stuttgart, October 1937)

Peter Staudenmaier

Tags:Staudenmaier, Waldorf

Waldorf enthusiasts today often believe that the German Waldorf schools were shut down by a decree of the Nazi government. This is untrue. Of the nine Waldorf schools in Germany in 1933, two were shut down by various parts of the Nazi regime: The Stuttgart school by provincial-level authorities in 1938, and the Dresden school by the Gestapo in 1941. The other Waldorf schools closed on their own initiative in 1939 and 1940, for a variety of reasons, sometimes exacerbated by restrictive measures imposed by parts of the government (one of them closed even earlier, in 1936, for reasons that had nothing to do with the Nazis).

Anthroposophical sources sometimes give inaccurate dates for these self-closures. Uwe Werner's book Anthroposophen in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, p. 375, claims that the Altona Waldorf school closed in April 1936, the Hannover Waldorf school in July 1937, the Kassel Waldorf school in June 1938, and the Breslau Waldorf school in March 1939. Wenzel Götte's dissertation “Erfahrungen mit Schulautonomie,” p. 544, citing Werner, reports the same dates. Werner’s dates refer to the earliest decision to close, rather than to the actual date of closure, and explicitly disregard the extensive 'Umschulungskurse' implemented by each Waldorf school to prepare their pupils for transferring to public schools. His data thus misrepresent by several years, in some cases, the date at which the schools ceased operation.

Werner’s claims are controverted by a mass of other evidence. One example is Emil Kühn, “Bericht des Vorstandes des Waldorfschulvereins,” Mitteilungen an die Mitglieder des Waldorfschulvereins Stuttgart, October 1937, p. 11, by an official of the League of Waldorf Schools, which refers unambiguously to eight Waldorf schools currently existing in Germany in October 1937; none of them had closed by that point. René Maikowski, leader of the League of Waldorf Schools and head of the Hannover Waldorf school, reports that the Hannover school closed in April 1939, not July 1937 (see Maikowski, Schicksalswege auf der Suche nach dem lebendigen Geist, 159); this is supported by archival sources, e.g. a September 22, 1938 memorandum from the Ministry of Education.

In a March 1938 letter to the Ministry of Education, eight months after Werner claims the Hannover school had closed, Maikowski proposed the Hannover Waldorf school as a candidate for ‘experimental school’ status, which meant official support from the Nazi state. The Hannover school was still a leading candidate for ‘experimental school’ status in October 1938, according to an October 25, 1938 letter from the League of Waldorf Schools to the Ministry of Education. As late as April 1939, League of Waldorf Schools spokesperson Elisabeth Klein noted that the Hannover Waldorf school was not only still operating but still applying for ‘experimental school’ status. (Klein's letter to Alfred Baeumler, April 2, 1939) Achim Leschinsky, “Waldorfschulen im Nationalsozialismus,” 272 indicates that the transitional courses, the 'Umschulungskurse', were not completed at the Hannover school until 1940. Archival sources also make clear that the Kassel school closed in March 1939, not June 1938.

Even the Berlin Waldorf school, which is sometimes held up as a shining example of a Waldorf school that decided to shut itself down rather than submit to further compromises with Nazi authorities, had a complicated history in this regard. After announcing in August 1937 their intention to close the following year, the faculty of the Berlin Waldorf school changed their minds a few months later. In December 1937 the school reversed course and applied for permission to rescind their prior announcement and continue operating past the following year. The municipal education authorities opposed this, and were backed by the Ministry of Education. In March 1938, when the process of 'Umschulung' or transitioning to public school was to have been completed and the school shut down entirely, the local school officials allowed the third and fourth grades to continue until April 1939 in order to prepare the Waldorf pupils adequately for transfer to public schools. Thus the 1937 decision for self-closure was not fully implemented until 1939. Also in March 1938, Maikowski proposed the Berlin Waldorf school as another candidate for ‘experimental school’ status (Maikowski's March 25, 1938 letter to Ministry of Education). The possibility of recognition as an ‘experimental school’ was still being pursued for the Berlin school even in April 1939 (Elisabeth Klein to Alfred Baeumler, April 2, 1939).

Peter Staudenmaier

Tags:Staudenmaier

Along with Rene Maikowski, Elisabeth Klein was one of the top spokespeople for the Waldorf movement during the Nazi era. She was a longtime anthroposophist who had worked with Steiner personally; she was also founder and leader of the Dresden Waldorf school. Klein was particularly successful in furthering the Waldorf cause with high-level Nazis such as Rudolf Hess and Alfred Baeumler.

Klein viewed her task in 1937 as promoting, in her words, the “honest work of the Waldorf schools in building the Third Reich.” (Klein to Baeumler, December 18, 1937 ) The opening sentence of the draft constitution for the Dresden Waldorf school, prepared by Klein in early 1939 and meant as a model for other Waldorf schools as well, stated unequivocally: “The Rudolf Steiner School in Dresden stands on the foundation of the National Socialist state.” (“Entwurf einer Konstitution der Rudolf Steiner-Schule Dresden (gleichzeitig als Entwurf für andere Waldorfschulen)” March 13, 1939, signed by Elisabeth Klein) Already in 1933, the Hannover Waldorf school (led by Maikowski) had declared: “The faculty stands entirely on the foundation of the National Socialist state.”

This perspective was shared by a number of Klein’s interlocutors within the Nazi party hierarchy, including Ernst Schulte-Strathaus on Hess’s staff. Schulte-Strathaus held that Waldorf schools “work according to National Socialist principles and produce excellent benefits.” In his view, Waldorf education was to be considered “wholly positive from the standpoint of the National Socialist movement.” His 1934 report to Hess on the Waldorf schools began as follows:
"The goals of the Waldorf schools coincide in their fundamental principles with what the Führer has called for in education: “above all the development of character, especially fostering willpower and determination, as well as educating toward a joyful embrace of responsibility, and only last scientific instruction” (Mein Kampf 452). The Waldorf schools have been fulfilling this mission, as articulated by the Führer, for fifteen years."

The report continued: "The educational approach of the Waldorf schools grows out of the German essence and is systematically directed against materialist thinking and mere intellectualism. A way must be found to make this educational approach useful to the reshaping of the educational system in order to secure the spiritual and soul content of National Socialism. This should not be difficult, since the basic principles of Waldorf schooling are much closer to the ideas of National Socialism than may appear at first glance; the words of the Führer quoted earlier prove this." (Schulte-Strathaus, “Bericht an den Stellvertreter des Führers über die Waldorf-Schulen” May 14, 1934)

Peter Staudenmaier
______________
Hier eine weitere, umfangreiche Quelle zu den Aktivitäten Maikowskis und Kleins aus den "Flensburger Heften"
Zur Biografie Maikowskis Recherche bei Kulturimpuls

Tags:Staudenmaier, Waldorf

Emphatic commitment to the national community was not confined to official statements from the leadership of the League of Waldorf Schools. A 1934 essay written by Richard Karutz on behalf of the parents at the Stuttgart Waldorf school offers a striking example of Waldorf advocates’ thinking on the new political situation in Germany. Referring to the Nazi ‘revolution’ of 1933 as the “national uprising” (völkische Erhebung), the first page announced:

"Since the national uprising of 1933, the launching of the nation toward the National Socialist unified people’s state and the most profound transformation of every political and social course of life, the school is committed to participation in the rebuilding of the Reich, along with every other cell of German life and every individual German person. Toward this goal, the school is committed to active collaboration, putting itself at the service of the leaders of the school system of the new Reich and showing them what positive values the school has to offer from its pedagogical experience." (Richard Karutz, “Erklärung aus dem Kreise der Elternschaft der Freien Waldorfschule Stuttgart” )

The leadership of the Stuttgart Waldorf school association endorsed the Karutz text and distributed it to the association’s membership in March 1934. None of the existing secondary literature quotes this eleven-page Karutz text. The passage above reads in the original: “Seit der völkischen Erhebung von 1933, dem Aufbruch der Nation zum nationalsozialistischen einheitlichen Volksstaat und der tiefstgreifenden Wandlung aller politischen, sozialen Lebensrichtung ist die Schule so gut wie jede andere deutsche Lebenszelle und jeder einzelne deutsche Mensch verpflichtet am Neuaufbau des Reiches mitzuwirken. Zu dem Zwecke ist sie verpflichtet, den Führern im Schulwesen des neuen Reiches sich zur tätigen Mitarbeit zur Verfügung zu stellen und ihnen zu zeigen, was sie aus ihrer pädagogischen Erfahrung an positiven Werten zu geben hat.”

Karutz continued:

"We declare, on the foundation of the New State, that we recognize the Free Waldorf School as an outstanding and reliable institution in accord with the New State. […] For fifteen years Waldorf pedagogy has been pursuing methodological paths and striving toward practical goals that point in the spiritual direction of the National Socialist uprising. Waldorf schooling anticipated demands of the New State and is well positioned to produce students who are thoroughly prepared in body, soul and spirit, who are capable and determined to serve the New State with personal dedication."

The text went on to emphasize that all of the Waldorf teachers at the Stuttgart school share the same “national convictions” (nationale Gesinnung), a “unified worldview” centered on “the spiritual-cultural mission of the German Volk.” As a result of this commitment, and what Karutz called the “authoritarian” methods of Waldorf pedagogy, many Waldorf graduates have “enthusiastically joined the National Socialist movement.” Karutz underscored the school’s devotion to the “national community,” boasted of the military background of the Waldorf faculty, and quoted Hitler repeatedly to demonstrate the proximity of Waldorf’s objectives to the premises of National Socialism.

Peter Staudenmaier

Tags:Waldorf, Staudenmaier

Waldorf schools had a number of enemies within the Nazi state and party apparatus, from local and regional educational officials to high-profile figures like Martin Bormann and Reinhard Heydrich. Waldorf also had quite a few supporters within the ranks of the Nazi hierarchy.


Ohlendorf*

Anthroposophical sources generally credit a small number of figures in the party apparatus with long-term efforts on behalf of Waldorf education, most prominently Rudolf Hess, Otto Ohlendorf, and Alfred Baeumler. Each of these men did indeed play an important role in promoting and sustaining Waldorf initiatives during the Third Reich, and they are recalled fondly in the memoirs of Waldorf representatives. (I've discussed each of them before, and will set them aside for now in favor of lesser-known figures.) Waldorf advocates additionally viewed two high officials within the Nazi Ministry of Edcuation as allies of the Waldorf cause: Helmut Bojunga and Albert Holfelder. Bojunga was head of the Education Office in the Ministry of Education from 1934 to 1937, and Holfelder held the same position from 1937 onward; the position was known as the Minister of Education's right-hand man.

Other powerful Nazi officials also intervened occasionally in support of Waldorf and its advocates. Hess’s counterpart at the Führer Chancellery, Philipp Bouhler, provided early assistance to the leadership of the League of Waldorf Schools and arranged crucial contacts within the party hierarchy. Hans Schemm, the founding leader of the National Socialist Teachers League, was for a time viewed as a potential protector by Waldorf adherents. Even the Interior Minister, Wilhelm Frick, acted to impede the attempts by anti-anthroposophical Nazis to dismantle the Waldorf schools. After WWII, Nazi-era Waldorf leaders Elisabeth Klein and René Maikowski identified a number of further less prominent Nazi officials who were supportive of Waldorf education.

In practical terms, however, perhaps the most influential party and governmental figures working in favor of the Waldorf movement, generally behind the scenes, were Lotar Eickhoff, Alfred Leitgen, and Ernst Schulte-Strathaus. Leitgen and Schulte-Strathaus repeatedly used their positions on Hess’s staff to promote the interests of Waldorf schools and defend them from adversaries in other corners of the far-flung constellation of Nazi agencies. From his post in the Interior Ministry, Eickhoff launched a determined campaign to establish Waldorf education as an integral part of the institutional landscape of National Socialist Germany. The work of this group was moreover made possible by the continued support of both Hess and Goering.

The Waldorf movement also enjoyed at times a notably positive reception in the National Socialist press. The August 1935 issue of the Waldorf journal Erziehungskunst, 134-36, carried three pages of excerpts from the local, regional, and national press on various Waldorf events, including reports from the local Nazi newspaper, the Stuttgarter NS-Kurier, as well as the Völkischer Beobachter, all extremely positive. Three excerpts were included from the Völkischer Beobachter alone, the flagship Nazi newspaper. Even in 1939, a lengthy article in the Völkischer Beobachter explicitly embraced the “healthy” aspects of Waldorf education as an example of what is positive and worthy of adoption from anthroposophy into National Socialism; see “Wissenschaftliche Arbeit am nationalsozialistischen Gedankengut” Völkischer Beobachter January 29, 1939, 5-6.
_________
Zu Ohlendorf: "During the first nine months of Ohlendorf's year in command of Einsatzgruppe D, this force destroyed more than 90,000 human beings. These thousands, killed at an average rate of 340 per day, were variously denominated Jews, gypsies, Asiatics, and "undesirables". Between 16 November and 15 December 1941, this Einsatzgruppe killed an average of 700 human beings per day for the whole 30-day period. The intensity of the labors of Einsatzgruppe D is suggested by an April 1942 report upon its work in the Crimea, which states- "The Crimea is freed of Jews..."" Link als Ergänzung. Elisabeth Kleins Verteidigungsschrift zu Ohlendorf findet man in ihren "Begegnungen. Mitteilenswertes aus meinem Leben" " 112 ff, Freiburg 1978. M.E.

Tags:Waldorf, Staudenmaier

The majority faction within the Waldorf movement during the Third Reich did not belong to the Nazi party, as far as I have been able to determine, or to its more notorious affiliated organizations (Waldorf teachers did belong to the Nazi teachers association), and their various expressions of sympathy for National Socialism were not for the most part accompanied by active participation in Nazism. But alongside this majority faction was another grouping, smaller but very vocal and for a time quite influential within the Waldorf milieu. This second faction included several active Nazis. It is worth noting that the mainstream Waldorf leadership sometimes boasted of its close working relationship with this openly pro-Nazi tendency within the Waldorf movement.

The most important members of the explicitly Nazi-affiliated Waldorf grouping were Eugen Link, Margarete Link, Leo Tölke, Hermann Mahle, Els Moll, and Hans Pohlmann. While the Nazi-affiliated Waldorf advocates did not all share the same vision for how to integrate Waldorf education into the National Socialist project, they did consider anthroposophy and Waldorf compatible with and congruent with Nazi ideals. Here is some basic information on each of them.

Eugen and Margarete Link, a longtime anthroposophist couple and parents of four Waldorf pupils, had known Steiner personally and belonged to the Anthroposophical Society from 1924 onward. Eugen Link was an officer in the Luftwaffe and worked on the construction of the Autobahn, while Margarete Link devoted much of her time to advancing the Waldorf cause through her various Nazi connections. Both were party members and served on influential Waldorf boards and committees.

Leo Tölke, father of four Waldorf pupils, was secretary of the Stuttgart Waldorf school and worked for the publishing arm of the Waldorf movement. He was a member of the Anthroposophical Society until mid-1934, held a position in the SA, and has been described as a “dedicated National Socialist.” (Uwe Werner, Anthroposophen in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, 118)

Another Waldorf parent, industrialist Hermann Mahle, was a prominent Waldorf official and belonged to the Christian Community. Mahle was also a Nazi party member, and one of the leading Waldorf representatives in negotiations with various party and state agencies in 1934 and 1935. Mahle additionally headed the “National Socialist Parents Group” at the Stuttgart Waldorf school, which included 53 party members and 22 members of other Nazi organizations.

Els Moll, member of the Anthroposophical Society since 1925, was among the most outspokenly Nazi advocates for Waldorf education during her time as a teacher at the Stuttgart school in 1933 and 1934. Both she and Margarete Link remained committed supporters of Waldorf for a long time after parting ways with the Stuttgart school. Moll receives a fair bit of attention in anthroposophist accounts of the Waldorf movement during the Nazi era.

Perhaps the most noteworthy and hitherto neglected member of the openly pro-Nazi Waldorf faction was Hans Pohlmann, a wealthy building contractor and longstanding anthroposophist who had known Steiner personally. Pohlmann founded the second Waldorf school in Germany in Hamburg-Wandsbek in 1922. With the exception of the failed schools in Cologne and Essen, the Wandsbek school was the only other German Waldorf school besides the Stuttgart school established during Steiner’s lifetime, and its initial faculty and curriculum were overseen by Steiner directly. Pohlmann’s role thus paralleled that of Emil Molt at the Stuttgart school. In 1933, the Wandsbek school was the second largest in Germany, after the original Stuttgart school. Pohlmann, who also headed a branch of the Anthroposophical Society in Hamburg, remained chairman of the local Waldorf school association throughout the Wandsbek school’s first seventeen years of existence. He joined the Nazi party some time before 1934. Basic background on Pohlmann can be found in Götte, “Erfahrungen mit Schulautonomie,” 299-302. Other anthroposophist sources seem remarkably reticent to discuss Pohlmann and his contributions to the Waldorf movement; Deuchert does not mention him, and Werner refers to him only in passing. None of the existing literature mentions his Nazi party membership.

Tags:Waldorf, Staudenmaier

"Many Waldorf documents from the Nazi period proclaim allegiance to the fatherland, to the nation, to the German essence, and even to National Socialism as the embodiment and vehicle of the long-awaited spiritual renewal of Germany. While the more pointedly obvious instances of Nazi vocabulary may be seen as motivated at least in part by tactical considerations, the underlying national mythology is perfectly in line with the pre-1933 anthroposophical view of the historical and cosmic mission of the German spirit. These texts often reveal more about the details of Waldorf perspectives on Nazism than the outward trappings of political conformity do (although such latter symbols – including Nazi flags, oaths, marches, portraits of Hitler, and so forth at German Waldorf schools after 1933 – merit more attention than they have so far received).  Written testimony from Waldorf supporters about their attitudes toward Nazism took a variety of forms, both public and private, official and casual. The following examples concentrate on positive expressions of political compatibility between Waldorf education and National Socialism."

weiter..

Tags:Waldorf, Staudenmaier

Many Waldorf advocates viewed the Nazi era as an opportunity, a positive opening, a chance for anthroposophical pedagogy to come into its own; Waldorf was to become the form of education appropriate to the German Volk in Germany’s newly revived status under Hitler’s leadership. Such hopes found expression in Waldorf literature throughout the Nazi period.

A June 1933 notice in Erziehungskunst, the journal of the Waldorf movement, announced a series of public talks by Waldorf representatives under the title “Contributions to overcoming intellectualism and materialism in education and pedagogy.” The notice declared that all teachers in the new Germany should “contribute to building a new education based on the German spirit” and boasted that Waldorf schools have pursued this goal for a decade and a half in order to “overcome the materialist and intellectualistic attitudes that have had such a disastrous influence on German schools in recent years.” Since Waldorf schools had shown how a true German education can be achieved, they were eager to share this experience with other educators in the present “struggle of German teachers to find new paths” in pedagogy.

Corresponding statements can be found throughout Waldorf publications at this time; see for example Caroline von Heydebrand, “Wege der Überwindung der materialistischen Weltanschauung durch die Menschenkunde Rudolf Steiners” Erziehungskunst December 1933, 493-98, which depicts Waldorf teachers as “warriors against the dragon of materialism” (498) and a bulwark against both intellectualism and materialism, which come from the West; Heydebrand here as elsewhere strongly emphasizes the Germanness of Waldorf pedagogy.

weiter..

Ein Überblick über die bisher erschienenen Artikel Peter Staudenmaiers bei den Egoisten ist hier verfügbar.

Tags:Staudenmaier, Waldorf

I took a quick look at the first article; it seems to me that Ravagli's perspective on Benesch is exactly what one would expect from him. The concept of "positive Christianity" was itself a Nazi concept, and was particularly popular among the so-called "German Christians" (Deutsche Christen), the hardcore pro-Nazi faction of the Protestant Church. It was even appropriated by Alfred Rosenberg, generally one of the more openly anti-Christian and pro-Pagan Nazi leaders. One of the things that the term "positive Christianity" denoted was an attempt to "de-Judaize" the Christian tradition.

It thus makes no sense to point to Benesch's embrace of this notion as evidence that he wasn't really a Nazi deep down. The same logic would make Rosenberg himself -- a hero to far-right Steiner fans today -- not a real Nazi. Same for Hitler. Since the Ravagli article was published in the journal of the Christian Community, I suppose we might read try to read it a little bit against the grain, keeping his primary audience in mind. Unfortunately, however, the same sorts of apologetic arguments run throughout his work. Ravagli's most recent book is among other things an extended defense of Karl Heise, the anthroposophist and antisemitic conspiracy theorist. Then there's his work on Steiner's views on race and on Jews (that portion of Ravagli's work is promoted and distributed in English by Frank Smith).

I don't know much about how Benesch's invocation of either Positive Christianity or Germanic Substance might relate to other anthroposophist views in the 1930s; these were such widespread terms that it is difficult to pin them down to one particular tradition. It also seems to me that Benesch at that point was as connected to 'mainstream' Protestantism as he was to anthroposophy, so it may be stretching things too far to relate this aspect too directly to his anthroposophical inclinations. But then, we still don't know enough -- as far as I am informed on the matter, in any case -- about just when and how and in what ways Benesch turned toward anthroposophy in the first place. It's important to keep in mind that he was a Protestant minister before becoming a Christian Community priest.

Perhaps the more interesting aspect of this affair is the effort devoted by folks like Ravagli to re-casting the history of National Socialism itself in an attempt to make Benesch's involvement seem not so bad after all. The passage that struck me the most was Ravagli's breathtakingly naive question: "If Benesch had been a real anthroposophist, if he had even begun to understand the Philosophy of Freedom or the lectures on the Gospel of John, would he have been able to remain a National Socialist?" It looks like lots of anthroposophists still have not "begun to understand" what Nazism was, how it functioned, and in what ways it interacted with other worldviews. That may be a big part of the reason why the process of anthroposophists coming to terms with the Nazis in their own past is taking such a remarkably long time to get off the ground

Tags:Staudenmaier

"Die gewöhnliche anthroposophische Redensart dieses Themas ist auffallend einfach: es wird uns erzählt, die Nazis verabscheuten die Waldörfler und die Waldörfler verabscheuten den Nazismus. Fakt ist, dass die tatsächlichen Beziehungen wesentlich komplexer waren. Innerhalb der Staffelungen der Nazipartei gab es eine Anzahl wichtiger Figuren, die eine aktive Rolle einnahmen, verschiedene anthroposophische Projekte zu unterstützen und zu befördern einschließlich Waldorfschulen (und besonders den biologisch dynamischen Anbau) während andere einflussreiche Nazis überzeugte Gegner der Anthroposophie waren. Die meisten Nazis standen wahrscheinlich eher interesselos zur Anthroposophie und deren Verzweigungen. Innerhalb der Waldorfbewegung ergab sich inzwischen eine Spaltung in zwei Parteien: einerseits die Waldorflehrer und Eltern, die sich den Nazis dedizierten und die sich mit Anthroposophie und Waldorf kompatibel erklärten, sich aber entsprechend den Nazi Idealen anpassten; auf der anderen Seite waren die, die gegenüber dem Nazismus keinen Kompromiss eingingen so lange es ihnen erlaubt war, um ihr eigenes Streben fortzusetzen zu können. In den meisten Fällen scheint die zweite Gruppe größer zu sein als die erste."

So beginnt der bereits bei uns in englischer Sprache vorliegende Artikel Peter Staudenmaiers, der nun dankenswerterweise von Elisabeth Potschka ins Deutsche übersetzt worden ist.
Weiter..

Tags:Waldorf, Staudenmaier

Peter Staudenmaier schreibt:

"In response to questions about Rudolf Steiner’s racial doctrines or the political background of German anthroposophists or various other issues that occasionally arise in discussions of the history of Waldorf education, admirers of Waldorf will often claim that the Waldorf movement in Germany was merely a victim of Nazi persecution, and nothing more, during the period of Nazi rule from January 1933 until May 1945. In some versions of this story, the claim is made that the Nazis issued a general ban on Waldorf schools, that there were no points of contact and no ideological affinities between Waldorf supporters and Nazi officials, and that the anthroposophical movement as a whole was without exception profoundly opposed to Nazism from the beginning. Each of these claims is mistaken. They nevertheless continue to be promoted by anthroposophists and Waldorf representatives.

The usual anthroposophist line on this issue is strikingly simple: the Nazis detested Waldorf, we are told, and Waldorf detested Nazism. In fact, the actual relationships were much more complex. Within the echelons of the Nazi party there were a number of important figures who took an active role in supporting and promoting various Anthroposophical projects, including Waldorf schools (and especially biodynamic farming), while other powerful Nazis were convinced opponents of anthroposophy. Most Nazis were likely indifferent to anthroposophy and its offshoots. Within the Waldorf movement, meanwhile, there were two main contending camps: on the one hand, Waldorf teachers and parents who were dedicated Nazis and who considered anthroposophy and Waldorf compatible with and congruent with Nazi ideals; and on the other hand, those who were willing to compromise with Nazism as along as it allowed them to continue their own pursuits. In most cases the second group appears to have been larger than the first."

weiter..

Tags:Staudenmaier

Peter Staudenmaier schreibt in seinem -englischsprachigen- Aufsatz:



"This post is about the life and legacy of the prominent anthroposophist Friedrich Benesch, whose Nazi past and its unexpected revelation by non-anthroposophists presents a case study in how Steiner’s followers deal with
their own history.

Friedrich Benesch (1907-1991) was a leading figure in the Christian Community, the forthrightly religious arm of anthroposophy. For thirty years, beginning in the 1950s, he was the head of the seminary in Stuttgart that trains the Christian Community’s priests. A very large proportion of all Christian Community pastors alive today were trained directly by Benesch. He appears to be popular with English-speaking anthroposophists as well; his book Reverse Ritual: Spiritual Knowledge is True Communion, for example, was published by the Anthroposophic Press in 2001, and there’s a plug for several other publications by Benesch currently at the website of the Christian Community in Australia and New Zealand."

weiter..

Tags:Benesch, Staudenmaier