Magda Goebbels: heart of darkness [Part I]
[NOTE: This is Part I a two-part series from the early days of my blog, January of 2006. I came across the posts by accident the other day and decided to re-post them. If you want to take a look at the comments to the earlier posts, some of which are quite interesting, see this and this. Because the posts and their comments were imported from my old Blogger blog, the comments somehow got reversed (as did all the comments from all my older posts imported from the original blog). If you want to read them in chronological order you have to go to the bottom and then scroll up.
Part II will appear tomorrow.]
Every now and then I read about a person whose life seems so strangely compelling that I can’t help but write about it. In telling such a story, I’m trying (often vainly) to somehow make sense of the puzzle that particular life presents.
Such is the case with the astounding (and I mean that in many senses of the word) Magda Goebbels. I came across a photo of her recently while doing a quick bit of research on her abominable husband, Josef. The photo looked vaguely familiar; I’d seen it before, somewhere, but never paid much attention.
Perhaps you’ve seen it, too. It’s a family group.
A lovely young mother sits with her brood of six beautiful children, her somewhat blank and vaguely sinister-appearing husband, and a grown son standing in the back row in uniform.* The family photo conveys a sense of brittleness and sharp edges, and there is a hint of desperation in the mother’s smile. But the impeccably-dressed and well-groomed offspring resemble illustrations in a picture book of ideal children, a Dick and Jane reader come to life.
Here is the photo:
The caption under it tells the reader that, in the final days of the defeated Reich, Magda was instrumental in poisoning all six of her small children before she and her husband committed suicide. A dreadful woman, a dreadful story.
But something about her face—as well as her fate—intrigued me. Something ambiguous and human and vulnerable, something that was not present in her husband’s barren eyes. And then, of course, there were those beautiful children, innocent pawns in a vicious and monstrous game.
–
Reading about Magda’s eventful life, I found that the truth—as it so often is—was actually stranger than any fiction. In fact, if it had been fiction, no one would have believed it.
There was nothing in Magda’s early life that presaged her end. Quite the contrary. (Most of the information in this post is taken from the Hans-Otto Meissner biography, and from this. That last link will take you to a website of the reprehensible David Irving, unfortunately. But it leads to an informative article from the Jerusalem Post that I can’t seem to find elsewhere online.)
Magda’s early life was characterized to an unusual degree by instability and change, making for a shaky and shifting identity. Her ill-matched biological parents briefly married, only to divorce. Her mother then married again, to a Jewish man named Max Friedlander, who became Magda’s stepfather, and whose openly Jewish surname she adopted. All three parents and Magda ended up moving to Belgium, where Magda lived from the ages of five to eighteen, the last eight years spent at a strict Catholic convent for her schooling, despite her Protestant mother and Jewish stepfather. By all accounts she was an extraordinarily beautiful and yet modest and intelligent girl who impressed all who met her.
The entire family, including her biological father, were expelled from Belgium at the beginning of World War I, when the country sent its German nationals away, and spent time in a refugee camp before returning to Germany. During this time, the Friedlanders became friendly with a Jewish family named Arlosoroff, and Magda later had a love affair with the son, Vitaly:
Vitaly became Victor in Germany and under the spell of Zionism emerged as Haim. He was a fiery and passionate orator — as at home with the poetry of Heine and the works of Goethe, as the socialist theories of Syrkin and Borochov. Magda sported a Magen David which he had given her and she attended meetings of Tikvat Zion. She was attracted to Arlosoroff because of his personality and sense of purpose rather than an independent commitment to Zion.
Arlosoroff emigrated to Israel in the 20s after the two had broken up, and became a well-known Zionist figure there. He was murdered mysteriously in 1933 on a Tel Aviv beach, only a few weeks after traveling back to Germany and communicating with Magda, who warned him to get out of the country. By this time, she had married and divorced a German businessman (converting to Protestantism for the purpose of the marriage), and then married Josef Goebbels, another fiery orator of a far different variety in a far different cause. Some speculate that Arlosoroff was killed at Goebbels’s behest.
How does a person go from being closely connected to, raised by, and even in love with, Jews, and wearing a Star of David around her neck; to marrying one of the architects of the Holocaust and becoming known as “The First Lady of the Third Reich?”
There is absolutely no evidence that Magda herself was an anti-Semite at any point in her life, or even an especially political person. She seems to have been drawn to political figures through a deep need to be allied with a powerful man with a cause. Any cause would do, it seems, as long as it was connected with such a man. The beliefs themselves were secondary at best.
In this latter quality, that of the ideas themselves being unimportant to her, Magda was—strangely enough—quite a bit like her final husband, Goebbels. Perhaps it’s part of what drew them together; who knows? In Magda this characteristic appeared as a sort of spacey ignorance and a need, through her own weakness, to follow a strong leader. In Goebbels, it seems to have been a purely sociopathic nihilism, compounded by enormous narcissist drives (the following is taken from the Meissner book):
As far as one could tell, Goebbels had no beliefs at all. People still living [the book was written in 1980], who were part of his immediate circle or his household, agree absolutely about this. To him all human existence was nothing but chaos. He considered himself one of the very few intellects capable of surveying it and mastering it.
In fact, it may be that Goebbels didn’t even particularly hate Jews, at least no more than he hated the entire human race. His interest was in power, self-promotion, and persuasion, and he was a rare genius at all three, willing to do literally anything to further those causes. A short and unattractive man with a crippled leg, he—like Hitler—was a mesmerizing speaker. All evidence is that, though Magda initially went to hear him on a lark, his speech had a life-transforming effect on her. Apolitical before, she joined the Nazi party. From the moment she heard Goebbels, she seemed to come under a kind of evil spell.
When I read this material, I suddenly saw her as resembling one of Charles Manson’s followers. A certain sort of weak, blank, and lost young woman of relative privilege, a searcher trying to fill a void in her life, can find herself transformed by coming under the influence of an unattractive, evil, and yet extremely powerful figure, as though a large gravitational object has trapped her in its orbit. Sadly, she can end up spiraling straight into its surface, crashing in death and destruction, and taking others with her. This, I believe, is what happened to Magda, who nevertheless still bears the responsibility for her own terrible trajectory.
[* NOTE: In the original version of the post, I had mistakenly identified Magda’s grown son, the one in uniform, as her stepson. I had meant it was Josef’s stepson. I have since learned that he was not in the original photo—he was placed there afterwards and the photo retouched.]
[ADDENDUM: Commenter “g6loq” has called to my attention this documentary about Magda Goebbels. I just watched the first part; it has some excellent footage.]
I ran down the Wikipedia link to find out what happened to her son through the previous marriage. He appears to have done quite well for himself.
The German businessman that was Magda’s second husband was his father. And he remained on good terms with the Goebbels – to the point where Josef and Magda were married on one of his properties (Adolf Hitler was apparently the best man).
The son was captured by the Allies in 1944, and survived the war. After the war, he helped his half-brother rebuild their father’s firms, married one of his father’s secretaries, and inherited the company along with his half-brother after their father’s death. He died in a plane crash in 1967, and left his five daughters 1.5 billion deutsche marks.
She killed her 6 young kids? Putting them out of her misery no doubt. Sick.
“In Goebbels, it seems to have been a purely sociopathic nihilism, compounded by enormous narcissist drives. …..To him all human existence was nothing but chaos. He considered himself one of the very few intellects capable of surveying it and mastering it.”
Who does this remind you of today? 🙁 🙁 🙁
I suspect that it wasn’t that, so much as…
The Reich was doomed, and it was finally impossible to deny. The Soviets were assaulting Berlin, and Hitler was finally throwing in the towel. Any of her kids that had survived would have become trophies for the Soviets. Because of who their parents were, either the Soviets would have taken their frustrations out on the kids, or they would have used them as some sort of display piece or prop. Either way, it would have likely been a miserable life for the kids. So, in the midst of her despair, she killed them.
Imagine that Adolph and Eva had a son. And imagine that the kid had survived the war. Think of all the attention – most of it negative – that would have been thrown his way merely because of who his parents were. And the Soviets *hated* the Nazis. 1945 was, for the Soviets, payback for 1941 and 1942. They didn’t need the horrors of the Holocaust to think of the Nazis as pure evil incarnate.
I can’t say that I agree with her decision. But I also can’t say I don’t understand why she did it.
Bleh…
My comment was directed at Steve’s comment about Magda killing her kids, and not Mike’s attempt to draw parallels with a certain someone else.
Part II goes into some of the supposed reasons about why she and her husband killed their children.
I am sure you’ve seen this video:
Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVLDyhaRiNc
Posted in case.
“Part II goes into some of the supposed reasons about why she and her husband killed their children.”
Well, what family doesn’t have its problems?
g6loq:
No, I’d never seen that documentary. When I first wrote the post, YouTube was pretty much just a gleam in its founders’ eyes.
Fascinating! I just watched the first part and plan to watch the rest. Thanks.
Watched all the U-Tube videos about Magda. It is a cautionary tale. Though I doubt many who long for power over others would recognize it as such.
She seems, to me, to be a typical secular sort. No roots, few cares, unable to keep a man. She seemed to need someone strong, brutal really. He was a typical self-promoter… a political type who knows he has no real worth, so allowed himself to be a hollow vessel.
I look around today, at the wives of politically powerful men, and at those men, right here in this nation, and I see little difference. I also see why feminism doesn’t attack islam. It isn’t fear, it is because of hope. Hope that something will accept them, own them, even as they are… generally unworthy to typical men. Only brutes would do, for them.
It is a dark world. I don’t like looking at it too closely, too deeply, or for too long, past, present, or future. Been when called to look… sometimes I do anyway. Could be wrong. Will be rebuked. But that is what I see.
I’ve often wondered if the swarthy non aryan looking goebbels had some Jewish blood
I thought that looked photoshopped!
In reading stuff on nazi germany, it is sort of amazing how many people were so intimately connected with jews and seemed to have no personal animosity and yet still acted as they did.
I guess to an extent the same was true of the jim crow south, as many people had employees and associates who were practically family and yet still supported unequal rules, although nothing so drastic as the final solution.
neo writes:
“In fact, it may be that Goebbels didn’t even particularly hate Jews, at least no more than he hated the entire human race.”
Reference was also made about the murder of Haim Arlosoroff. That it could be argued that Goebbels might have had him killed. Why? Because he made attempt to reconnect with Magda? And that Goebbels displayed irrational obsession with Magda? Certainly plausible.
Potential conclusion:
The holocaust was triggered, in part, by a destructive jealousy harbored by Goebbels for his Magda.
Interesting.
Arlosoroff was one of the architects of the “Transfer Agreement”. His death was a factor in its failure. It’s not so surprising that there are so many connections between socialists of varying types in a small mittel-european country. How different a world we might live in if the agreement had been successful. Not necessarily better but different…
Link is to a book on the subject.
http://www.transferagreement.com
As a refresher:
Adolf SPECIFICALLY attempted to get her to take her kids out of the bunker to safety — when it was likely to be successful, though obviously risky.
She turned the opportunity down FLAT.
Instead, she started going bonkers on her fealty to Adolf — not a WORD about her husband and family!
THIS, with the entire bunker in attendance.
As for a successful escape:
The top SS officer — in charge bunker security — walked out — to the west — after the cease fire — and lived to be a VERY old man. He was not alone!
He was escorting all of Hitler’s secretaries!
So the idea that her plight was hopeless does not quite stand up.
Based upon her statements, one has to conclude that she was as spell bound by the monster as anyone there.
That was some nutty bunker!
How could Arlosoroff emigrat to Israel in the 20s? I thought it didn’t exist until 1948?
blert:
I address the issue of how the decision came to be made in Part II, which will appear today.
Rufus T. Firefly:
“Israel” is the traditional Jewish name for the land and has been for several thousand years. Geopolitically, however, the area was called “Palestine” in the 20s, but that is not a Jewish designation. See this.
Avi Says:
March 11th, 2015 at 10:13 am
I’ve often wondered if the swarthy non aryan looking goebbels had some Jewish blood…
The ‘perfect Aryan’ child used in Nazi propaganda was actually Jewish
Thanks! That jibes with what I thought I knew, but I thought maybe something happened in the ’20s that I wasn’t aware of.
It is a dark world. I don’t like looking at it too closely, too deeply, or for too long, past, present, or future. Been when called to look… sometimes I do anyway. Could be wrong. Will be rebuked. But that is what I see.
Interesting insight.
There is a cost to looking at the Truth, for it is painful and it blinds, much like the sun. Those who have seen the truth ahead of their society, were often cast out or persecuted, because individuals that can go through the pain can also disorder society by Refusing to Obey Authority, or convincing others that Authority is not righteous.
Geopolitically, however, the area was called “Palestine” in the 20s
One Roman Emperor renamed it from Judea, because of Jewish rebellions. Hadrean I think it was.
From here
Magda had confided to her trusted friend, her sister-in-law, Ello Quandt, “In the days to come Joseph will be regarded as one of the greatest criminals Germany has ever produced. The children will hear that daily, people would torment them, despise and humiliate them. We will take them with us, they are too good, too lovely for the world which lies ahead”.
In this, her perception is probably correct. In light of this perception, one can understand, though not condone, her actions.
She and her husband’s actions had doomed her children to a life of infamy, and sought, as any mother might, to save them from it.
Her solution was blatantly wrong, but as a solution, it’s an understandably human, not monstrous, one.
Someone with far, far less talent and competence at it, fortunately.
As Hitler wasn’t married, she was, indeed, “The First Lady of the Third Reich”, and probably knew and saw a lot more than we know, but the idea that she could murder her own kids because she couldn’t bear the thought of them growing up in a world without her beloved Fuhrer shows the true depth and dangers of the Cult of the Personality, not just in Nazism, but in Communism with the likes of Stalin and Mao – something we’ve seen on display in this country in the last 8 years.
To make excuses for her, and that’s what they are, is exactly what Nuremberg was all about and why many felt then and since the guilt of the “little fish” had to be exposed. As a Catholic, once she knew about what was going on, she had no justification for not speaking out, especially given her position.
After all, Eichmann contended he wasn’t guilty because he’d never physically killed anyone himself.
As a counterpoint, consider Henriette von Schirach, wife of the head of the Hitler Youth and daughter of Hitler’s personal photographer. when she personally saw Jews being bundled off in the middle of the night, she personally confronted Hitler.
Pingback:Magda Goebbels: Downfall Beyond Imagination
Excellent article, thanks. I also appreciated Doom’s “It is a dark world…” And Ymarsaker’s response “Truth…is painful and it blinds” and “individuals that can go through pain can also disorder society”. These are very deep insights.