Interview with Helena P. Schrader
Helena Schrader earned a Ph.D. in History with a biography of the German Resistance leader who initiated the plot against Hitler on July 20, 1944. She has also written a study of women pilots in World War II, “Sisters in Arms,” and her non-fiction book about the Berlin Airlift, “The Blockade Breakers,” will be released shortly. She has published two previous novels set in World War II, as well as novels set in Ancient Sparta, and a trilogy about the Templars. Helena is an active Foreign Service Officer. Her current novel is the result of years of research and twenty years of living in Germany. Tyler: Welcome, Helena. I’m happy you could join me today. It strikes me that “An Obsolete Honor” is a story long overdue. To begin, I think many readers will be surprised to learn there was a resistance movement within Germany against Hitler and the Nazis. Will you tell us more about that movement, its organization, and its goals?
Now to your questions. I fear you are right. Most people are surprised to hear that there were Germans who opposed and even rose up in rebellion against Hitler. So was I, the first time I learned of it. What struck me at once, however, was that the German Resistance had to be qualitatively different from the other anti-Nazi resistance movements. In France, Denmark or Poland, for example, the anti-Nazi resistance movements were about freeing their countries from a foreign invader. The German resistance—which, incidentally, started long before the War began much less was lost—had more to do with moral outrage than with conventional patriotism. However, before anyone gets the wrong impression, there was not one “German Resistance Movement.” There were many Germans—from a whole range of different personal, ideological and political backgrounds, who were outraged by Hitler and his policies. Some of these people opposed Hitler long before he came to power—most especially the Socialists and Communists—others initially supported Hitler but more or less rapidly came to recognize the moral depravity of his regime. Many opponents of the regime formed small cells of resistance based on common roots in the banned political parties, the trade union movement or the like. Others came together overtime as loose coalitions of like-minded people living in a sea of fanatical supporters, opportunistic hangers-on and informers. The goals of the various resistance groups varied from the Communist cells that actively attempted to assist the Soviet Union establish a Communist regime in Germany to the unorganized individuals, who—at the risk of their own lives—tried to help the victims of the regime by providing false documents, safe-houses, food and other aid. The most important resistance organization, however, was a coalition of active and retired military officers and civilians who worked to over-throw the Nazi regime and replace it with a government dedicated to restoring the Rule of Law. This conspiracy initially hoped to put Hitler on trial for his crimes, but gradually recognized that only Hitler’s elimination would reduce the risk of civil war. They made a number of assassination attempts between 1942 and 1944, the last of which nearly succeeded. My novel focuses on two strands of the resistance: first, the primarily military conspiracy that culminated in the only coup attempt against Hitler, that on July 20, 1944, and second, the humanitarian resistance that was loosely organized, non-ideological and essentially a personal commitment to decency at the risk of one’s life on the part of each participant. Tyler: Helena, did the mood of the people in Germany toward Hitler change once the war began? Did more people become opposed to him and join resistance movements because of the war? Helena: Hitler’s popularity varied considerably over time. At the time Hitler was appointed chancellor in January 1933, the Nazi party had obtained just over 33% of the total vote in the most recent election of November 1932. This made it the largest party in the German Parliament with 196 of 584 seats—but not the majority party. The next largest party, the Social Democrats, had 121 seats and the Communists 100 seats. Together, therefore, the two leftist parties were more popular than the Nazis, while the splintered centrist parties together had 134 seats, or more than the two leftist parties separately, but less than the Nazis. I’m going into so much detail because far too many people seem to believe that Nazis won overwhelming victories in free elections. This is not true as the above figures show. Furthermore, the elections in November 1932 recorded a significant drop in Nazi support compared with the elections that had been held in July 1932. After Hitler came to power, there were no further elections and therefore no reliable means for measuring his personal popularity with the populace. Remember from the summer of 1933 onwards there was no free press, no opposition parties, and no independent trade unions. In short, there was no public means of voicing dissent or discontent. Nevertheless, there is a strong consensus among historians and eye-witnesses that Hitler’s popularity soared in the early years of his regime as he delivered on his economic promises of eliminating unemployment, stabilizing the currency domestically while at the same time ripping up the humiliating and hated Versailles Treaty with impunity. Hitler’s popularity then fell during the tensions leading up to the Sudeten Crisis, because the population feared war, but when Hitler again got away with aggression without paying a price, his popularity reached new heights. The same thing repeated itself a year later. The Germans were terrified that the Western Allies would fall on their Western frontier while the Wehrmacht was fighting in Poland, but when they didn’t and Poland was defeated in just weeks with few casualties, Hitler’s popularity bounced higher still. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that at no time was he more popular than after the stunning victory over France in just six weeks in May-June 1940. The defeat in WWI and the vindictive policies of France which followed had traumatized the Germans. They were terrified of a repeat of the bloody stalemate that had characterized most of the First World War. When Hitler delivered a victory over France in a matter of weeks, it was like divine providence to the vast majority of Germans—and Hitler seemed invincible and infallible. After that they trusted him no matter what he did. It was truly not until the German Army got bogged down deep inside Russia, casualties started to mount and the Allied Air Offensive started to bring the war home to Germany that the mood in the general population shifted. Stalingrad was the most critical turning point, but it should not be forgotten that the Wehrmacht appeared to recover from Stalingrad and in the summer of 1943 new victories followed, so Hitler’s popularity was partially restored. It never really recovered from the defeat at Stalingrad, however, and meanwhile the Allied bomber offensive ramped up, causing increasing casualties and hardship. Nevertheless, it is a point of very heated—often bitter—debate among historians just how much the mood had swung against the Nazis by July 1944. There are those who argue that had the Coup been successful, the majority of people would have been relieved. Most historians disagree and feel Hitler still had the majority of the people behind him in July 1944. The point is moot. Even if “a majority” were on the side of the Resistance in July 1944, there would have been a very substantial minority—tens of millions of people—who were fanatically loyal to Hitler even then. Tyler: Did any of the various German resistance groups have contact with the allies during the war—did they try to aid the United States or Britain in invading the parts of Europe the Nazis were controlling? Helena: The conspiracy which attempted the coup on July 20, 1944 did indeed make various attempts to inform the Western Allies of their existence and get assurances that, if they succeeded in removing Hitler and establishing an interim government, the Western Allies would negotiate with them. The first such attempt was made in the lead-up to the Sudeten Crisis in 1938. Via the Vatican the British government was informed about the possibility of a coup to prevent Hitler from invading the Sudetenland. However, the British government was not interested in aiding German generals against Hitler, and at that time even preferred Hitler to a government run, even temporarily, by the German General Staff. It was a tragic misjudgment. In the lull between the invasion of Poland and the start of the offensive in the West, one member of the Resistance, Hans Oster, warned the Dutch of the impending violation of Dutch neutrality—a move that has made him very controversial in Germany to this day. But the Dutch didn’t take the warnings seriously and were caught of guard despite the warning. Later, the Allies were far too committed to Stalin to think of seriously negotiating with a post-Hitler government. In consequence, they responded to all overtures with non-committal answers. Some members of the conspiracy hoped nevertheless that once they had killed Hitler and seized power—i.e. had proved their effectiveness and presented the Allies with a concrete opportunity to stop the loss of life in the West—they might be able to effect at least a ceasefire in the West. Some of the conspirators were willing to open the Western Front to the Anglo-Americans and invite them into Berlin while holding the Russian Front. Tyler: Helena, who are the main characters in “An Obsolete Honor” and how are they involved in the German resistance movement? Helena: The main protagonists in the novel are fictional characters. I chose to use fictional characters at the heart of the novel in order to free myself from real biographies. Fictional characters enabled me to address the topics I felt were essential to understanding Nazi Germany and the Resistance. However, while the principal characters are fictional, their fictional biographies bring them in contact with a variety of real historical figures. These historical figures are always in the places they really were at that time, doing the things they really did and holding the views ascribed to them. Wherever a historical figure appears, he or she is as accurately described as possible. The main fictional character in the novel is Philip Freiherr (Baron) von Feldburg. He is a General Staff Officer, who falls in love with a secretary at General Staff Headquarters and through her is introduced to and becomes involved in the military conspiracy. The secondary plot line revolves around Marianne Moldenauer, a medical student who personally witnesses the conditions in the Warsaw Ghetto and is so appalled that she starts trying to help the victims of the regime. Tyler: Will you tell us more about Philip’s family background? Would it have been uncommon for someone of his social class to side against Hitler? Were most of those in the resistance of a certain class or educational background? Helena: The German aristocracy was disproportionately well represented in the military resistance and conspiracy against Hitler. For example, the most famous would-be assassin was Claus Count Stauffenberg. Others who volunteered for suicide-attacks against Hitler were Axel Baron von dem Bussche, Georg Baron von Boeselager, and Rudolf-Christoph Baron von Gersdorff—to name just a few. Counts Moltke and Yorck von Wartenburg, and Count Schulenburg were important civilian figures in the conspiracy. Many lesser noblemen were also highly significant figures, for example Henning von Tresckow and Carl-Heinrich von Stülpnagel. I could list literally hundreds of German aristocrats who were members of the Resistance. The question is: Why was the German aristocracy so prominent in the Resistance? There were two factors. First, the aristocracy in Germany at the time firmly believed that a title of nobility brought with it an obligation to lead and to take responsibility for the fate of the nation. While Socialist and Communist resistance groups depended on organizations and were thus largely helpless once their organizations were shattered by the Nazis, the aristocracy’s resistance was individual. The majority of those who had formerly voted for the leftist parties became disoriented once these parties were banned and so they were co-opted by Hitler’s early successes—by jobs, higher standards of living, victory. The aristocracy, in contrast, saw the need to rescue the nation from misgovernment as their hereditary duty—a personal obligation completely disconnected from party affiliation or the existence of an organization. The second reason the aristocracy appears to be so over-represented in the resistance is that the only resistance group with a chance of successfully bringing down the Nazi regime was that group that controlled some degree of force—i.e. could command troops, had access to explosives and the apparatus of government. This meant the officer corps of the army. The Communists and Socialists had a pacifist tradition and so were hardly represented in the Officer Corps at all. In contrast, the aristocracy had for generations been the very backbone of the German officer corps. Thus the aristocracy dominated the military resistance, that strand of the resistance that made the assassination attempts and carried out the coup attempt. Tyler: Will you tell us about Marianne’s relationship with a Gestapo commissar? What is the conflict or the point you hoped to create by depicting their relationship? Helena: Marianne represents all the basically decent people in Germany who recognized how inhumane and horrible the Nazis were but were NOT in positions of power that enabled them to work toward an overthrow of the government. If you were a general, an intelligence officer, or a diplomat you had many more opportunities to take action against the brutal, criminal regime than a college student, housewife or shopkeeper. Marianne’s relationship with Peter is designed to show how horribly difficult it was for an ordinary individual in a totalitarian regime to do anything against that regime. A totalitarian regime controls every aspect of life, and 90% of the population is in some way working for that regime. It is also more likely that you will fall in love with someone who is part of the regime than someone who is opposed to it. Let me illustrate this point with one example. One of the most tragic interviews I conducted was with the widow of Generaloberst Jodl, a man who was sentenced to death by the Allied Military Tribunal at Nuremburg for complicity in the Nazis war crimes. His widow was a lovely, gentle woman, who had been the personal secretary to the leader of the German military resistance, Generaloberst Beck, in the mid-1930s, when he was Chief of the General Staff. She was furthermore a close friend of the fanatical opponent to Hitler, Henning von Tresckow. One of the few survivors of July 20, 1944, Ludwig Baron von Hammerstein, defended her with great compassion because he felt strongly that she was no less intelligent or moral than those in the Resistance, but “how can we ever know where the heart will lead us?” This is Marianne’s story. She is truly an opponent of Hitler, but she falls in love with a Nazi…. Tyler: Helena, what about the German Resistance movement intrigued you enough to write a novel about it? Helena: The fact that the German Resistance had to be traitors to their country in order to do what their conscience demanded. That is a huge burden! Members of the Norwegian, Dutch or Czech Resistance movements were brave men and women. They risked their lives because they were fighting a powerful and ruthless invader—but they knew that the vast majority of their countrymen were on their side. They were the best and bravest of their countrymen, but they were not alienated and alone. They did not endure self-doubt or face a continuous conflict between moral and patriotic duties. It is the moral and ethical dilemma of the German Resistance that sets it apart. Tyler: What else about “An Obsolete Honor” do you think makes your novel stand out among the several other novels about World War II? Helena: First, I do not rely on stereotypes. For example, many of my readers may find my portrayal of German generals “unrealistic” because I have not turned them into humorless squareheads, bigots and martinets. That is because I personally interviewed many German officers, including Generals. I have read their memoirs and more important their diaries and letters. I know that among the German officer corps the pig-headed, uneducated, unsophisticated men were the rare exception. American officers will understand what I mean! Second, my novel is designed to show how very difficult it was to oppose Hitler inside Nazi Germany – rather than treating it as self-evident and easy. Furthermore, my novel will hopefully help people to understand those who chose not to resist as well as those who did—whether it is Marianne’s mother, who doesn’t have the nerves to become a criminal after years of being a law-biding citizen, or General von Rittenbach, who believes the Communist threat has to be defeated first. Far too many books about WWII are crude caricatures, painted in black-and-white without any nuances, shades-of-grey or subtly. I can hear the screams of protest already. How could there be any “shades of grey” when facing such a diabolical regime? Well, because the regime was incredibly crafty and subtle and well disguised at first. Unless we recognize that evil is not always evident at the first instant, we run the risk of being deceived again and again. Tyler, you asked me earlier, how or why I got interested in the German Resistance. Let me say something a little provocative: It is because I cannot be 100% sure that my own beloved country could not be misled into committing crimes against humanity. When I saw the images from Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, I could only shudder at my own premonitions. We Americans no longer have the right to assume that we would never have done anything like what the Nazis did. We can no longer claim moral superiority over the Germans. We all have to realize that our own—elected! —government has committed crimes against humanity. No, the scale is not the same as the Nazi crimes—yet. But then our government is not a totalitarian dictatorship either. What if it was? What if the people responsible for the crimes at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib faced no legislative censure? What if there was no free press? What if they could do whatever they liked without fear of being called to account Tyler: Helena, that makes me have to ask you about Hitler himself. He is a very minor character in the novel, even though the book centers around attempts to assassinate him. Why did you choose not to provide a more detailed portrait of him? Do you think any novelist could do him justice? And finally, how do you see him yourself—was he just a monster—is he to blame for everything that happened in Germany? Decades later, is it possible for us to understand him? Helena: Frankly, Hitler doesn’t interest me in the least. I don’t like murder mysteries either. I am not a criminal or pathological psychologist. What interests me is how sane, rational, ordinary people can be misled, even fascinated, by a madman—and even more what enables some people not to be mesmerized by a clever, charismatic political seducer while all those around them are following along like sheep. I suppose that someone who specializes in writing about the criminally insane could do a very good job of writing about Hitler, but I suspect that most novelists would fall into the trap of demonizing or trivializing him. I have personally always found that I cannot write extensively about people I do not understand or admire in some way. As to Hitler’s role, of course he wasn’t to blame for everything. If he had not received financing, support and votes, he would have remained in complete obscurity. Only because others were willing to follow his orders, hitch their wagons to his campaign machine and exploit the political situation that he created did he get into a position to seize dictatorial powers and then use those powers to create a police state focused on genocide and wide-spread aggression. Hitler had thousands of accomplices and millions of willing minions. Most Germans, ultimately, were very happy to reap the rewards of his aggressive policies as long as all was going well. The fact that the German Resistance was so isolated, so small, and ultimately so ineffective is an indictment of the vast majority of Germans who just carried on with their lives, closed their eyes to the injustices around them, and latter were the first to claim they had “never been Nazis.” Tyler: Our reviewer at Reader Views commented that she could tell you really visited the places you wrote about. Will you tell us more about your research for “An Obsolete Honor”? Helena: I lived in Berlin for over 20 years. I could visit the historical sites, but more importantly, I or my friends lived in the apartments, used the public transport, walked in the parks and boated on the lakes described. I love Berlin. It is a beautiful city. At the invitation of friends, I also visited and stayed in a number of manors and castles, some of which are described in the novel. Tyler: You must appreciate the opportunity to interview so many of the people who lived through and were involved in the war, an opportunity that in just a few more years, writers will no longer have. How would you describe this opportunity? What did you learn about people from hearing their stories? Helena: It was a privilege. It was humbling too. I always felt so insignificant and almost embarrassed to ask people who have truly proved their moral courage to tell a young American woman about what they experienced and felt. Clearly, I had experienced nothing but peace and prosperity! I remember Axel von dem Bussche’s wife, who in the war had been married to a member of the Stauffenberg family, joking about “well, I was only condemned to death once.” I talked to a former officer who had been in the Gestapo’s central interrogation prison and realized his brother was being held in a near-by cell because he recognized the towel outside the door. I talked to people who had been in Concentration Camps, people who survived in hiding, people who contracted crippling diseases while in Nazi prisons. And yet the worst moment was when I was interviewing the widow of one of the leaders of the Resistance whose husband had been tortured by the Gestapo. I knew this from the literature. There was no question about it, and I made reference to it. She stopped me cold. “I didn’t know that,” she said. No one had ever told her about it before. Amazingly, she did not throw me out. We even continued to be friends. And the longer I worked on the project and the more I learned, the more people opened up to me. I remember interviewing the widow of Helmuth James Count Moltke, and sensing her relief when she realized I already knew about the German Resistance Movement and she didn’t have to start by telling me, “yes, there were Germans who opposed Hitler,” and “no, we didn’t all vote for him in 1932,” etc. etc. etc. Others, Axel Baron von dem Bussche and Philipp Baron von Boeselager increasingly opened up to me about military affairs when they realized I was fully conversant with the jargon, ranks, organization etc. In a way it was like peeling an onion. You got one set of answers in a first interview, and then in a second and third or over a long friendship more and more details and nuances of feeling came to light. And there is no end to the story. Each person who lived through this period had a unique experience and a unique point of view. Each and every one of the people I spoke to was worthy of a novel. That was the hardest part of writing “An Obsolete Honor”: cutting out hundreds of events, episodes, characters, insights etc. etc. Throwing out invaluable material for the sake of making a novel that worked—that was coherent and fast-paced enough to retain reader interest. So to return to your question: What did I learn? More than I could ever convey in a hundred novels, much less a short interview. “An Obsolete Honor” is only a tiny, almost pathetic, start to telling the whole of what I learned. Tyler: What about this period and the events of the war did you find most difficult to write about? Helena: The interrogation scenes. Although I interviewed and read accounts of people who had been held by the Gestapo, I still found it very difficult to imagine exactly what Marianne would have been subjected to and felt. Most books opt for the sensationalist aspects of interrogation, the torture, but like any good police force (and the Gestapo was good!), most methods of breaking people were far more subtle. I had hoped one of my acquaintances who had police experience would review and revise these scenes, but he never found the time so I had to go ahead with what I had. The other thing I found difficult was the Warsaw Ghetto Scene. This is too much of a cliché and I really dislike it. But no matter how hard I searched for an alternative, I failed to find one that would be early enough in the novel and have the consequences necessary for the rest of the plot. Helena: Helena, I understand you have won awards for your previous novels. Will you tell us briefly about your other books and also what you plan to write next? Helena: The fact is I have been writing since I was in Second Grade. This means I have been writing for more than 40 years. I have published three non-fiction books and a fourth will be released next year. The non-fiction books are a German and an English biography of the key German Resistance figure, General Olbricht, a study of women pilots in WWII “Sisters in Arms” and a book on the Berlin Airlift, “The Blockade Breakers.” In addition, I have published two other novels set in WWII, “Chasing the Wind” about the Battle of Britain, and “The Lady in the Spitfire,” a love story between a British woman pilot and an American B-17 pilot in 1943. I’m particularly proud of “Chasing the Wind” because one of the few surviving aces of the Battle of Britain, Wing Commander Bob Doe endorsed the book, telling me that it was “the best book” he’d ever read about the Battle of Britain and that it got it “smack on” the way it was for the RAF fighter pilots. “Chasing the Wind” won first prize in the “global” category from Reader Views earlier this year. My novels on Ancient Sparta are, obviously, very different, but they too are based on extensive research supplemented by common sense. These books challenge much of the popular nonsense found even in pseudo-history such as the film “300” or episodes on The History Channel. So much of what is passed off as “fact” is completely polemical and it contradicts reputable ancient sources and archeology. Anyone who enjoys getting into a different world will enjoy my novels about Ancient Sparta. If they want to learn about what it was really like in Sparta, I venture to claim my novels are closer than most of what is out there. Nevertheless—and this is important to me—these books are also fundamentally about people, and they explore universal themes like understanding our destiny, the role of physical beauty in human relationships and the like. As to what comes next, I’m not sure. I have been thinking of re-working and releasing the first two parts of my Templar Trilogy as these are out of print and the publisher has since gone bankrupt. Alternatively, I might publish a fictional biography of Leonidas of Sparta. I would welcome the “votes” from readers. They are welcome to send me their wishes via my website! Tyler: That sounds like a great opportunity for your readers, Helena. To tell you what they want you to write about. Thank you, Helena, for joining me today. Before we go, will you tell us about your website and what additional information may be found there about “An Obsolete Honour”? Helena: The best thing to do is simply visit one or all of my websites: Please be sure your readers know they can contact me via my website. I am always happy to respond to the questions from readers. It was a pleasure talking with you. Thank you again. Tyler: Thank you, Helena. It was a very educational experience for me. I wish you much success with “An Obsolete Honor” and your other works. |
Quick Links
Sign up for email updates Services for authors
Literary awards and contests
PreViews
Inside Scoop Live
Stories by Meme
Reader Views Kids
Authors Access Forum
Book giveaway
Associates |
Along with our book reviews we offer affordable services to meet the needs of our authors in the growing book publishing industry. Our service packages are budget friendly, effective, and will assist the author in showcasing their book to the reading audience.
The annual literary awards honor writers who self-publish or have their books published by a small press or independent book publisher.
Watch quality video trailers of books that communicate the ambiance of the publication and help you make literary choices.
Inside Scoop Live is the leader in providing a vehicle for the author to talk to the reading audience and the audience to hear what the author has to say. Join in and listen to the most fascinating discussions with "cream-of-crop" writers about current and social issues, finances, self-improvement, romance, mortality and much more.
Cool Stories for Cool Kids! Kids can listen to stories, read by Meme, on their computer or download mp3 files.
Reader Views Kids provides book reviews, by kids, for kids. This site is geared toward children's books and majority of the reviews are by children. 
Authors Access is a joint project with Loving Healing Press. Each week we bring insightful interviews from people around the world who can help you get your work published, and if already published, noticed. The show is podcast on Authors View Radio. 
Each month Reader Views, in partnership with publishers and authors, are having a book giveaway.
