In May 2001 I attended a conference on trans-generational trauma, truth and reconciliation. People travelled to Germany from all over the world: the United States, China, Argentina, Serbia, Albania, Israel, Palestine and Lebanon.
The fact that the event took place in the Bavarian city of Wuerzburg was not a coincidence. In March 1945 the Royal Air Force dropped 927 tons of explosive and incendiary bombs on Wuerzburg, killing 4,500 people and destroying 85% of the medieval city.
On the third and final day of the conference, I signed up to a talk given by Martin Bormann Jr.
I had no idea what to expect. The room I entered was smaller than I had imagined it would be and not every seat was taken. Bormann’s talk was in German and, unusually, no English translation was provided.
For the first 45 minutes I felt as though I was in a high school history class. I listened to the seventy year-old man plough through a story he must have recounted a hundred times. Physically imposing, with a sonorous voice, his delivery was stilted and dull. I was interested, not in the fall of the Third Reich, but in how the son of Martin Bormann, Hitler’s private secretary, had navigated his life and profoundly difficult fate.
“I once asked my father” he said “What exactly is National Socialism?, to which he replied ‘National Socialism is the will of the Fuehrer.’”
In April 1945 the Nazi academy in the Austrian Alps, where Bormann Jr. was a pupil, closed and “we were told to find our own way home”. The fifteen year-old changed his name to Bergmann and found refuge on a farm where, for two years, he lived with a devout Catholic family.
“Only then did I learn what National Socialism really was” he explained. “Following the release of Belsen, I saw the first pictures in a Salzburg newspaper. I read about the Nuremberg Trials and I saw my father’s name on the list of war criminals.
“How could my father, who I had always experienced as a kind and gentle man, have done these terrible things?”
There was silence in the room. Bormann had made it clear at the beginning of his talk that no questions were off limits.
Still, no one spoke.
He continued. “I asked my foster father What exactly is Catholicism?. He sent me to mass and he told the priest my real name. I read in the bible about deathbed confessions and this gave me hope for my father. I was received into the Catholic Church in May 1946.”
Of Bormann’s nine siblings, all but one converted to Catholicism.
At the age of 28 he was ordained and sent to the newly independent Congo as a missionary. Following a serious car accident in 1969, he was cared for by a Catholic nun.
In 1971 they both renounced their vows and were married.
Bormann subsequently taught theology until his retirement in 1992.
The lecture ended and the room went quiet. I could sense the atmosphere shift. After what seemed like a long time, a man spoke:
“Do you judge your father for what he did?” he asked.
“I don’t judge my father. I leave that to God” Bormann replied. “His political opinions have nothing to do with me. My father as a father was a role model to me. My father as a politician, however, was not.”
“How did you learn to balance these two viewpoints?” another asked.
“My conversion to Catholicism was a significant factor. I learned about forgiveness and the importance of not judging others. It is possible that what my father did at the time was something he felt was right. In hindsight of course it was wrong. We each have different roles. I am a son, a brother, a husband and a teacher.”
I asked him whether he had any children of his own. He replied that his wife was two years older than him and, by the time they got married, it was too late to start a family.
“Why do you think your father was so submissive to Hitler?” a woman asked.
“My father’s father died when he was three years old. He was raised in very modest circumstances by an extremely religious and authoritarian stepfather. In Hitler he found a father-figure as well as a powerful position in society.”
The man sitting next to me spoke.
“How was it possible to know nothing of the atrocities that were being committed around you?”
“Media was very unsophisticated back then.” Bormann explained. “There were no foreign newspapers and German radio was controlled by the Reichstag. We knew about the work camps but we didn’t know that the leaders of those camps were SS officers.”
A couple of months earlier, Bormann had been to Auschwitz. “I walked in the March of the Living alongside Jewish people from across the world” he told us. “I gathered with Israeli students in reconstructed gas chambers and took part in a ceremony of mourning. I was even presented with a peace offering. It was the first time in my life that I had been thanked by Jews” he reflected, somewhat awkwardly.
Recently I came across my notes and an audio tape of the talk. As I listened to the recording again, I thought about how theology had separated the son from the evil that defined his father. It had clearly offered him, his siblings and his mother a place of refuge. I wondered though whether it had also separated him from experiencing the pain, the grief and the rage of losing a man he loved as a father.
I have struggled to translate the title of Bormann’s talk Leben gegen Schatten. Is it ‘Life against the Shadows’ or is it ‘Living in opposition to the Shadow’. The words are ambiguous. I can’t decide which is correct.
I was curious to know whether Bormann was still alive and I put his name into a search engine. In 2011 a former pupil at a boarding school, where he was a priest and teacher in the 1960s, had accused him of rape. Other boys later came forward to report cases of physical violence against them.
Bormann denied any wrongdoing. His early onset dementia resulted in the case against him being dropped. The Catholic Church later provided compensation to the man who came forward to say that he had been raped.
As Ernest Hemingway once said “Being against evil doesn’t make you good. Tonight I was against it and then I was evil myself. I could feel it coming just like a tide ….”
Martin Adolf Bormann Jr. died in 2013 at the age of 82. In those final years, did he reflect on his own rightdoing and wrongdoing ? As he lay on his deathbed, 68 years after the suicide of his father, whose name he so faithfully carried through his life, was he accepting of the judgment he imagined might be his due?
“An act is evil if the individual, at the time of the act itself, considers what he is doing to be evil and does it anyway. Or if he considers an act to be good and doesn’t do it – this too can be considered evil. It is, however, impossible to make a definitive judgment on the state of conscience of an individual.”
Leben gegen Schatten by Martin Bormann Jr. pub. 1996
Reference: Islands in the Stream by Ernest Hemingway, pub. 1970