IRSH 52 (2007), pp. 275–290 DOI: 10.

1017/S0020859007003240
# 2007 Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis

Humour in Nazi Germany: Resistance and

Propaganda? The Popular Desire for an
All-Embracing Laughter

Patrick Merziger

Summary: Two directions in the historiography of humour can be diagnosed: on

the one hand humour is understood as a form of resistance, on the other hand it is
taken as a means of political agitation. This dichotomy has been applied especially
to describe humour in National Socialism and in other totalitarian regimes. This
article argues that both forms were marginal in National Socialism. The prevalence
of the ‘‘whispered jokes’’, allegedly the form of resistance, has been exaggerated. The
satire, allegedly the official and dominant form of humour, was not well-received by
the National Socialistic public. This article will reconstruct the rise of a third form,
the ‘‘German humour’’, and discuss the reasons for its success by looking at why
satire failed.

Whenever historical research analyses the meaning of laughter, it construes

humour either as a form of protest and resistance or as means of political
argument and an instrument of power. The reason for this dichotomy lies
in the tradition of humour theory.
There is a hereditary line of humour as resistance that can be traced back
to the contemporary German philosopher, Odo Marquard, who called
humour a ‘‘small subversion’’,1 to his teacher, Joachim Ritter, and finally to
the theories of Mikhail M. Bakhtin and Sigmund Freud. For Ritter,
laughter originates from an incongruity which is fundamentally opposed
to every norm or order.2 Bakhtin saw such incongruity expressed in the
carnival-grotesque of early modern times. He located this kind of humour
in popular culture and he saw it as an opposition to power.3 Freud found a

1. Odo Marquard interviewed by Steffen Dietzsch, ‘‘Das Lachen ist die kleine Theodizee’’, in
Steffen Dietzsch (ed.), Luzifer lacht. Philosophische Betrachtungen von Nietzsche bis Tabori
(Leipzig, 1993), pp. 8–21, 12.
2. Joachim Ritter, ‘‘Über das Lachen’’, Blätter für deutsche Philosophie, 14 (1940/1941), pp.
1–21. This essay was very influential for the development of humour theory in Germany, as the
so-called Ritter school continued its approach. See Wolfgang Preisendanz et al. (eds), Das
Komische (Munich, 1976).
3. Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin, Rabelais and his World (Bloomington, IN, 1984), first edn in
Russian 1952.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 186.168.9.167, on 15 Feb 2021 at 19:52:48, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859007003240
 276 Patrick Merziger

similar function of humour in the jokes of modern society. He

characterized the joke as an irritation, a reminder of the unconscious in
a rationalized world.4 This perspective was widely adopted in cultural
historiography.5
The concept of humour as political agitation is to be found in Henri
Bergson’s influential text Le Rire, where laughter is seen as a form that
brings together one community in order to destroy the other.6 In a
subsequent article, Jürgen Brummack described satire as ‘‘aesthetically
socialized aggression’’.7 This form of humour was consequently employed
as a political instrument by political mass movements that wanted to gain
or to retain power.8 Accordingly, political historiography emphasized the
role of satire in mass mobilization from the Reformation to the Enlight-
enment and in the political struggles of the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries.9
The concepts of humour as resistance and political agitation are taken to
be an appropriate characterization of humour in dictatorships. From this
point of view there is the ruling power that uses satire to ridicule, to
abolish, and to exclude its opponents; on the other side there are the people
who resist the regime by keeping their humour. Or at least they try to
create a sphere of communication of their own by telling deviant jokes.
This dichotomy is not used only to describe National Socialism,10 but
there it is used time and again. It parallels a perspective on National
Socialism which emphasizes totalitarian coercion instead of widespread
consent and thereby tends to separate the National Socialists from the
German people.11
The following article critically assesses the historical literature on
humour in National Socialist Germany and argues that neither humour as

4. Sigmund Freud, The Joke and its Relation to the Unconscious (New York, 2003), first edn in
German 1905.
5. Joseph Boskin, Rebellious Laughter: People’s Humor in American Culture (Syracuse, NY,
1997); Jan Bremmer et al. (eds), A Cultural History of Humour: From Antiquity to the Present
Day (Cambridge, 1997).
6. Henri Bergson, Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic (Mineola, NY, 2005), first
edn in French 1900.
7. Jürgen Brummack, ‘‘Zu Begriff und Theorie der Satire’’, Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für
Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte, 45 (1971), pp. 275–377, 282.
8. For example Georg Lukács describes the satire as a natural ally of the communist movement;
Georg Lukács, ‘‘Zur Frage der Satire’’, in Essays über Realismus. Werke, Band 4, Probleme des
Realismus I (Neuwied, 1971), first publ. 1932, pp. 83–107.
9. For example, Mary Lee Townsend, Forbidden Laughter: Popular Humor and the Limits of
Repression in Nineteenth-Century Prussia (Ann Arbor, MI, 1992).
10. Kathleen Stokker, Folklore Fights the Nazis: Humor in Occupied Norway 1940–1945
(Madison, WI, 1997); Paul Roth, Humor ist eine ernste Sache. Flüsterwitze und schwarzer
Humor in der Sowjetunion und im Danach-Rußland (Stuttgart, 2004).
11. In recent years the aspect of coercion has again been emphasized. See Richard J. Evans, The
Third Reich in Power: 1933–1939 (London, 2005).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 186.168.9.167, on 15 Feb 2021 at 19:52:48, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859007003240
 Humour in Nazi Germany 277

resistance nor humour as oppression were typical forms between 1933 and
1945. It will be seen that, with respect to the former, the ‘‘whispered joke’’
was in fact of little importance, and that, with respect to the latter, people
disliked humour that overtly expressed aggression too much for
propagandistic satire to succeed. Instead they favoured the all-embracing,
harmonious, and non-contentious laughter that established itself as the
main form of humour, the ‘‘German Humour’’. This article will discuss its
rise and the concomitant demise of the National Socialist satire, which was
originally propagated as the official form of humour when the regime was
established but then sidelined following the change in mood among the
public.

T H E ‘‘ W H I S P E R E D J O K E ’’ – ‘‘ J O K E V S N A Z I ’’ ?
Up to the present, evidence of humour as resistance has been sought in
studies of National Socialism. Cabaret is a popular subject matter in the
academic discourse. But aside from cabaret’s marginal role in society in
National Socialism it is still unclear whether its ‘‘critical’’ attitude was due
to the fact that comedians reinvented themselves after 1945.12
A theme that has fascinated academics and popular writers to an even
greater extent is the so-called ‘‘whispered joke’’, whose target was the
National Socialist authorities.13 This was a joke that, as legend would have
it, you could tell only at your peril. In these jokes the ordinary man
supposedly showed his resistance and expressed his opposition to the
regime. It was, in short, the Witz contra Nazi [Joke vs Nazi].14 The
‘‘whispered joke’’ has become a widespread myth and it has served as proof
of the disaffection of many Germans who were unable to express
themselves openly.15 This disguises the fact that the myth served an
interest of self-vindication, to separate ‘‘the German people’’ as well as
German comedians from ‘‘the National Socialists’’ and their crimes, and to
suppose a broad opposition.
The case of Josef Ludwig Müller’s publication Flüsterwitze aus brauner
Zeit [Whispered Jokes from Brown Times], used by historians as an
example of a supposedly oppositional public,16 highlights this problem. In
1933 Müller had acclaimed the National Socialist government in his book

12. Alan Lareau tries to look beneath the surface of the anecdotes in The Wild Stage: Literary
Cabarets of the Weimar Republic (Columbia, SC, 1995), pp. 126–161.
13. F.K.M. Hillenbrand, Underground Humour in Nazi Germany 1933–1945 (London, 1995);
Klaus Hansen, ‘‘Lachen über Hitler. Erörterungen am Beispiel des ‘Flüsterwitzes’’’, Geschichte
in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, 53 (2002), pp. 737–748.
14. Richard Hermes, Witz contra Nazi. Hitler und sein Tausendjähriges Reich (Hamburg, 1946).
15. Gerhard Bauer, Sprache und Sprachlosigkeit im ‘‘Dritten Reich’’ (Cologne, 1988), pp. 181–
202; Peter Longerich, ‘‘Davon haben wir nichts gewusst!’’ Die Deutschen und die Judenverfol-
gung 1933–1945 (Munich, 2006), p. 25.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 186.168.9.167, on 15 Feb 2021 at 19:52:48, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859007003240
 278 Patrick Merziger

Amtsreden zu nationalen Anlässen [Official Speeches for Public

Occasions].17 He had also successfully published several humorous books.
His Der fröhliche Feierabend [After-Work Merriment] made suggestions
for funny evening talks in the spirit of National Socialism. It ran to five
editions and the last edition was published exclusively by and for the
German armed forces.18 In 1948 the Soviet military ordered the works of
Peter Poddel, alias Josef Ludwig Müller, to be removed from circulation.19
In the Federal Republic of Germany, however, Müller was allowed to
continue publishing his work without hindrance. With the publication of
his ‘‘whispered jokes’’, he expressly avoided dwelling on wrongdoings that
took place during National Socialism and sought instead to document the
supposedly true story of the oppressed German people.20 Other volumes
refer to ‘‘the suffering and laughing German people’’ whose jokes made the
‘‘twelve years of oppression’’ bearable,21 or seek to directly ascertain the
existence of a resistance movement – ‘‘Vienna defends itself with jokes!’’ –
that never existed.22
New research has now established that these ‘‘whispered jokes’’ were
hardly widespread and rarely critical. Moreover, they actually added to the
popularity of those joked about, and the ‘‘ordinary’’ German need have no
fear of retribution at all. Under the so-called Heimtückegesetz [Treachery
Act]23 only those German citizens were punished whose biography in
general showed a hostile tendency towards the National Socialist move-
ment; they included former members of the German Communist Party.
The joke just provided an occasion to instigate a prosecution.24
These findings of historical research are consistent with the National
Socialist reaction to the ‘‘whispered joke’’, as it was openly articulated at
the time. The ‘‘whispered jokes’’ were welcomed by the regime, they were
treated with goodwill and amusement, and they were understood as a
token of affection from the people. As early as 1934 Hans Schwarz van
16. Peter Poddel (i.e. Josef Ludwig Müller), Flüsterwitze aus brauner Zeit (Munich, 1954);
Bauer, Sprache und Sprachlosigkeit, pp. 175 and 190, takes this as proof of an underground
opposition.
17. Josef Ludwig Müller, Amtsreden zu nationalen Anlässen. Mit einem Anhang: Wille, Weg
und Wesen des neuen Deutschlands in Worten des Führers und seiner Mitarbeiter (Munich [etc.],
1933).
18. Peter Poddel (i.e. Josef Ludwig Müller), Der fröhliche Feierabend. Ein Vortragsbuch, 5th edn
(Stuttgart, 1944).
19. Deutsche Verwaltung für Volksbildung in der sowjetischen Besatzungszone (ed.), Liste der
auszusondernden Literatur. Zweiter Nachtrag (Berlin, 1948), pp. 203 and 223.
20. Poddel, Flüsterwitze, pp. 5–6.
21. Vox Populi, Geflüstertes. Die Hitlerei im Volksmund (Heidelberg, 1946).
22. Wien wehrt sich mit Witz! Flüsterwitze aus den Jahren 1938–1945 (Vienna, 1946).
23. ‘‘Gesetz gegen heimtückische Angriffe auf Staat und Partei und zum Schutz der
Parteiuniformen vom 20. Dezember 1934’’, Reichsgesetzblatt (I), pp. 1269–1271.
24. Meike Wöhlert, Der politische Witz in der NS–Zeit am Beispiel ausgesuchter SD-Berichte
und Gestapo-Akten (Berlin [etc.], 1997).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 186.168.9.167, on 15 Feb 2021 at 19:52:48, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859007003240
 Humour in Nazi Germany 279

Berk, a leading National Socialist publicist,25 assured readers of Angriff

[Attack] that they could crack ‘‘whispered jokes’’ without worry.26 Angriff
was a daily newspaper published by Joseph Goebbels, whose ministry was
responsible for propaganda, and it served as the government’s mouthpiece.
Other newspapers followed suit,27 so that in the period 1934–1935 to
1938–1939 one saw a campaign that promoted a relaxed attitude to these
‘‘whispered jokes’’.
This viewpoint was also taken up in other forms of entertainment, in
comic strips and short stories for example.28 A comic strip that appeared in
Schwarze Korps [The Black Corps] in 1936 assured its readers of Hermann
Göring’s relaxed attitude to the phenomenon. At the time, Göring was
Minister of the German Air Force and Prime Minister of Prussia. The
comic strip depicts someone telling a joke about Göring, holding a hand in
front of his mouth in a secretive manner, obviously anxious about being
caught. This narrative is repeated three times as the joke is passed on to
others, each time the content of the joke is more exaggerated. Finally the
joke reaches Göring, who is not at all bothered by the joke and responds:
‘‘My God, that’s an old one! – Come up with something new!’’29
Schwarze Korps was not just a marginal magazine but the weekly
publication of the SS, so in fact the press organ of one of the most important
organizations in the National Socialist movement. It was also the most
successful periodical to be launched between 1933 and World War II. By
1937, just two years after it was founded, Schwarze Korps had a readership in
excess of 500,000.30 Institutions central to the public face of the National
Socialists, including Joseph Goebbels himself,31 continually stressed the
idea of the ‘‘whispered joke’’ as posing no problem and that it could be
permitted in daily life to those Germans who were with the regime in spirit.

25. Norbert Frei and Johannes Schmitz, Journalismus im Dritten Reich, 3rd edn (Munich, 1999),
p. 169.
26. Hans Schwarz van Berk, ‘‘Der politische Witz’’, Der Angriff, 8 June 1934.
27. Idem, ‘‘Der politische Witz’’, Bayerische Zeitung, 11 July 1935; R.L., ‘‘Der politische Witz
im Dritten Reich’’, Regensburger Echo, 22 June 1934; Carl Heinz Petersen, ‘‘Das heiße Eisen
oder der politische Witz’’, Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, 12 June 1938; idem, ‘‘Das heiße Eisen
oder der politische Witz’’, Film-Kurier, 22 September 1938.
28. Heinrich Spoerl, Man kann ruhig darüber sprechen. Heitere Geschichte und Plaudereien
(Berlin, 1937), pp. 7–8; Arthur Heinz Lehmann, Mensch sei positiv dagegen! (Dresden, 1939),
pp. 22–23.
29. Waldl (i.e. Walter Hoffmann), ‘‘Pst! – Kennen Sie schon den Witz [:::]’’, Das Schwarze
Korps, 2 (26) (1936), p. 7, reprinted in Waldl, Lacht ihn tot! Ein tendenziöses Bilderbuch
(Dresden, 1937).
30. Mario Zeck, Das Schwarze Korps. Geschichte und Gestalt des Organs der Reichsführung SS
(Tübingen, 2002), pp. 94–97; for the role of Schwarze Korps in National Socialism see also
William L. Combs, The Voice of the SS: A History of the SS Journal ‘‘Das Schwarze Korps’’ (New
York, 1986).
31. Joseph Goebbels, ‘‘Haben wir eigentlich noch Humor?’’, Völkischer Beobachter, 4 February
1939.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 186.168.9.167, on 15 Feb 2021 at 19:52:48, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859007003240
 280 Patrick Merziger

Figure 1. The ‘‘whispered jokes’’ and the regime’s public promise to be easy-going. Waldl [i.e.
Walter Hoffmann], ‘‘Pst! – Kennen Sie schon den Witz [:::]’’.
Das Schwarze Korps, 2 (26) (1936), p. 7; Arbeitsstelle für Kommunikationsgeschichte und
interkulturelle Publizistik (AKIP), Freie Universität Berlin. Used with permission.

The amount of research, and especially the collections of ‘‘whispered

jokes’’, give the impression that apart from these jokes there was no
humour or laughter to be found in Germany at this time. They report on a
period ‘‘when laughter was deadly’’32 and a laugh about a joke would have
meant a lot; ‘‘in those days laughter was worth its weight in gold, some
people even saved it up’’.33 Biographical recollections of comic artists
stress ‘‘the terrible humourlessness of the time’’.34 Behind this image lies
the motive of lending humour an element of resistance, regardless of actual
content or the conditions in which comedy functioned. In doing so the
comic artists who had performed during the era of National Socialism
sought to put their past in a better light. These assessments reappear in
academic interpretations, they distinguish the laughter of ‘‘the Germans’’

32. Ralph Wiener, Als das Lachen tödlich war. Erinnerungen und Fakten 1933–1945
(Rudolstadt 1988).
33. Poddel, Flüsterwitze, p. 6.
34. Sigmund Graff, Von S.M. zu N.S. Erinnerungen eines Bühnenautors (1900 bis 1945) (Wels,
1963), pp. 181–182; also see Hans Reimann, Mein blaues Wunder. Lebensmosaik eines
Humoristen (Munich, 1959), pp. 473–561.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 186.168.9.167, on 15 Feb 2021 at 19:52:48, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859007003240
 Humour in Nazi Germany 281

above the ‘‘fanatical earnestness of the NS ideology’’,35 and they describe a

‘‘lack of humour’’ as a ‘‘defining characteristic of the National Socialist
nature’’.36
In contrast to this picture of a very dark and serious time, there were
more laughs in National Socialism than ever. The comical dominated all
mass media after the National Socialists had consolidated their regime in
1935. After failed attempts using Thingspiele, a sort of medieval folk play,
and German classics to create a National Socialist theatre, comedies and
farces dominated the stage. The ever-increasing share of comedy in theatre
programmes was representative of the trend in all other forms of media.
After slumping to 26 per cent in 1933, it rose to 38 per cent in 1935, the
same level as the Weimar Republic had enjoyed. By 1941 68 per cent of
premiered shows were comedies.37 The public wanted comedy, it read,
heard, and watched this form of entertainment.38

THE UNPOPULARITY OF SATIRE IN NATIONAL

SOCIALISM
The form of humour that the regime proclaimed was the satire. In fact
satire was the only form of comedy which the National Socialist Party had
developed by 1933. In Angriff satire was integrated from the very
beginning. Hans Schweitzer drew the caricatures under his pseudonym
Mjoelnir, and Martin Bethke wrote satirical sketches. In 1931 the NSDAP
broadened its efforts in satire. In 1931 three satirical books were published,
based on the articles and drawings appearing in Angriff.39 The first volume
was subtitled ‘‘Hate and Laughter about our Times’’, which accurately
defined the type of satirical texts and images that had appeared until 1931.

35. Thomas Grosser, ‘‘Perzeptionssteuerung durch Propaganda. England in der nationalsozia-

listischen Karikatur’’, in Gottfried Niedhart (ed.), Das kontinentale Europa und die britischen
Inseln. Wahrnehmungsmuster und Wechselwirkungen seit der Antike (Mannheim, 1993), pp.
178–204, 182.
36. Kurt Reumann, ‘‘Das antithetische Kampfbild. Beiträge zur Bestimmung seines Wesens und
seiner Wirkung’’ (Ph.D., Freie Universität Berlin, 1966), p. 125.
37. Wilhelm Frels and Arthur Luther, ‘‘Die deutsche dramatische Produktion’’, Die Neue
Literatur, 32 (1931), pp. 209–215; ibid., 33 (1932), pp. 385–392; ibid., 38 (1937), pp. 278–286;
ibid., 39 (1938), pp. 293–299; ibid., 40 (1939), pp. 293–298; ibid., 41 (1940), pp. 185–187; ibid., 42
(1941), pp. 147–151; ibid., 43 (1942), pp. 126–130.
38. For the film industry see Gerd Albrecht, Nationalsozialistische Filmpolitik. Eine soziolo-
gische Untersuchung über die Spielfilme des Dritten Reichs (Stuttgart, 1969). For the book
industry see Tobias Schneider, ‘‘Besteller im Dritten Reich. Ermittlung und Analyse der
meistverkauften Romane in Deutschland 1933–1944’’, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 52
(2004), pp. 77–97.
39. Joseph Goebbels (ed.), Knorke. Ein neues Buch Isidor für Zeitgenossen, 2nd edn (Munich,
1931); Mjoelnir (i.e. Hans Schweitzer) and Joseph Goebbels, Das Buch Isidor. Ein Zeitbild voll
Lachen und Hass, 5th edn (Munich, 1931); Karl Martin Friedrich (ed.), Der kesse Orje.
Spaziergänge eines Berliner Jungen durch das System (Munich, 1931).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 186.168.9.167, on 15 Feb 2021 at 19:52:48, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859007003240
 282 Patrick Merziger

It sought to mock the opposition, to ridicule it, and in doing so destroy it.
Furthermore, in 1931, with O diese Nazis! [Oh These Nazis!] the first
satirical play was published in the Neuland series, which was close to the
NSDAP.40 In the same year in Leipzig Die Zeitlupe [The Slow Motion
Camera] was founded, which was also linked to the Party, and in Munich a
satirical magazine called Die Brennessel [The Stinging Nettle] was
established by the NSDAP publisher Eher.
By utilizing these satires the NSDAP tried to attract a broader audience,
as satire had been a popular form of entertainment in the Weimar
Republic; the well-known critic Alfred Kerr spoke of a ‘‘factory of
contemporary satire’’.41 As other political parties before it had done, the
NSDAP sought to use satires to its own advantage, combining entertain-
ment with propaganda. It tried to go beyond the earlier satires, which
rather crudely took up the concerns of the SA, and sought to employ
satirical forms that would attract a bourgeois audience. That can be seen at
first glance from the layout of the satirical magazines, which based
themselves on the bourgeois style of the publication Simplicissimus and
distinguished themselves from the rather unprofessional and aberrant
layout of communist satirical publications.
With the NSDAP-DNVP coalition taking power on 30 January 1933
and the setting up and foreseeable consolidation of a dictatorship, satire
appeared to assert itself as the form of comic entertainment in National
Socialism. Brennessel was seen as the leading satirical publication. In
September 1933 the editorial staff of Simplicissimus debated the magazine’s
future direction. From all sides, including the political authorities, there
emerged a general consensus that they ‘‘were all terribly dull and boring! –
that the ‘Brennessel’ is so much better!’’ Enough to drive one to
desperation were ‘‘these old maids and this ‘Gartenlaube’ spirit – that
has crept in among us’’ as one staff member commented.42 The
‘‘Gartenlaube spirit’’ that had supposedly become characteristic of
Simplicissimus was a reference to Die Gartenlaube [The Arbour], a
family newspaper that embodied the humour of the nineteenth century
and which was said to have appealed to ‘‘elderly spinsters’’. In contrast
Brennessel was regarded as young and fresh.
However, if one looks at the development of satire past 1934 –
something that historical research has neglected and even termed a

40. Max Reitz, ‘‘O diese Nazis!’’. Nationalsozialistisches Lebensbild in 3 Akten (Leipzig, 1931).
41. Alfred Kerr, ‘‘Quer durch die Zeitsatire (16.5.31) [Manuskript für eine Rundfunksendung]’’,
in Hermann Haarmann, ‘‘Pleite glotzt euch an. Restlos’’. Satire in der Publizistik der Weimarer
Republik. Ein Handbuch (Opladen, 1999), pp. 208–212, 208.
42. Rosl Thöny, the wife and agent of Simplicissimus cartoonist Eduard Thöny, in a letter to
cartoonist Erich Schilling, quoted in Ulrich Appel, Satire als Zeitdokument. Der Zeichner Erich
Schilling. 1885 Suhl/Thüringen–1945 Gauting bei München. Leben – Werk – Zeit – Umwelt
(Witterschlick [etc.], 1995), pp. 262–263.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 186.168.9.167, on 15 Feb 2021 at 19:52:48, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859007003240
 Humour in Nazi Germany 283

‘‘pointless’’ exercise 43 – it becomes clear that satire ran into difficulties as

the public began to express their dislike of its destructiveness. One
example here is the play Die endlose Straâe [The Endless Road] by the
popular playwright Sigmund Graff, which became the target of public
complaints.44 Graff’s play tells the story of a German military unit that has
fought in a battle which left half of its members dead; the survivors are now
recuperating. At this point the Zahlmeister, responsible for the organiza-
tion of provisions for the troops and the administration of units, visits the
unit. Normally he would carry out his duties further back from the front.
He wants to welcome the soldiers and has brought wine for the officers – a
friendly gesture that pleases the soldiers, who act cordially. But as the
nightly exchange of fire begins at the front, he starts to get nervous.
[A loud, long thundering shot]
Second Lieutenant: But my dear Zahlmeister! That’s just our own, they’re not
firing at us!
Zahlmeister: Yes, yes – But I must – I really must –.
Second Lieutenant: Come now! Stop making such a song and dance!
Zahlmeister [worked up]: Lieutenant, Sir! – It would be better. Otherwise I will
arrive around midday and – please believe me – it is the right thing to do [he
hurries to the exit].
At that moment, when the Zahlmeister opens the door, there is another shot. He
doesn’t know if he should go backwards or forwards. He turns back, goes again
towards the door and then stumbles out.45

In this scene Graff manages to create a lasting impression by using the

movement of the actor, the aimless running back and forth and the abrupt
change of direction, to support the dialogue. The Zahlmeister’s behaviour
stands out from the casual manner of the troops. He pretends to be heroic
but is in fact terrified when confronted with a situation that is hardly life-
threatening. In contrast to the simple life and the daily, unrewarded
heroism at the front, this appears absurd and the Zahlmeister comes across
as a farcical figure. Although the play had been running successfully at
many German theatres since 1930 and was, according to critics, a model
portrayal of World War I seen from a National Socialist perspective, it
provoked complaints from the Association of Zahlmeisters in 1933 when it
became likely that the NSDAP would be forming a stable government and
that a dictatorship would probably be the result.
In a similar fashion a seemingly harmless story about a Christmas tree,
published in Schwarze Korps, attracted complaints from the public. A
mother who lives abroad is trying to send her son a Christmas tree. The
43. Klaus Schulz, Kladderadatsch. Ein bürgerliches Witzblatt von der Märzrevolution bis zum
Nationalsozialismus 1848–1944 (Bochum, 1975), p. 202.
44. Graff, Von S.M. zu N.S.., pp. 109, 153–155.
45. Sigmund Graff and Carl Ernst Hintze, Die endlose Straâe. Ein Frontstück in 4 Bildern
(Berlin, 1930), p. 62.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 186.168.9.167, on 15 Feb 2021 at 19:52:48, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859007003240
 284 Patrick Merziger

customs officers refuse to let it through, because the import of coniferous

trees is not allowed. The article becomes satirical as the officers’ behaviour
is depicted in an exaggerated way. The officers debate whether the
regulations also apply to felled coniferous trees, if they apply only to the
import overland, if they apply to every type of coniferous tree, if you need
a certificate from a tree nursery as to its propagation, and if it would be
necessary to summon the head of the botanical gardens to act as an expert
witness.46 In response to this article the magazine received many
complaints from civil servants, who felt derided by the story, and saw it
as an attack on the civil service and therefore as an attack on the state itself.
From the reaction of Schwarze Korps it becomes clear that this was not
the first case in which the public complained about its satires. According to
the editors the magazine had been approached in confidence by ‘‘tailors,
doctors, servants, bakers, accountants and lion tamers’’ who felt derided by
their representation in Schwarze Korps and in other media and asked
Schwarze Korps and the authorities to take measures against those
ludicrous representations. But instead of complying, Schwarze Korps
blamed its readers for being too inhibited and asked for a more relaxed
attitude towards satire, for ‘‘more humour’’.47
The complaints about Graff’s play and the reaction to the story in
Schwarze Korps were far from singular. The newspaper Die Deutsche
Presse, which as the official journal of the National Press Association
reached all journalists, claimed that German society as a whole felt
offended by satires,48 and Graff felt that protests against his play
represented a broader movement.49 In addition to this the loss of the
satire’s popularity became obvious in sales figures. Brennessel was closed
down in 1938 because of dwindling sales and a lack of new subject matter.
In the same year the magazines, Kladderadatsch and Simplicissimus, which
had shared a rich tradition, had only 10,000 readers each, just one-third of
their circulation during the Weimar Republic. This loss of popularity also
extended to satires targeting opponents outside Germany, the anti-Semitic,
anti-Bolshevist, and anti-Western caricatures. In a press campaign in 1938
against the allegedly cruel treatment of the German minority in
Czechoslovakia, German newspapers were ordered to print caricatures.
By then, the reason for this order was no longer the popularity of satires as
a means of political agitation; it was that foreign newspapers were more
likely to reprint those caricatures than texts.50

46. Anonymous, ‘‘Eine leider wahre Geschichte. O Tannenbaum, o Tannenbaum’’, Das

Schwarze Korps, 2 (2) (1936), p. 5.
47. Anonymous, ‘‘Mehr Humor!’’, Das Schwarze Korps, 2 (6) (1936), p. 1.
48. W. Koeppen, ‘‘Kollektives Beleidigtsein?’’, Deutsche Presse, 25 (1935), p. 426.
49. Sigmund Graff, ‘‘Die ‘negative’ Figur’’, Der Neue Weg, 64 (1935), pp. 264–265.
50. Hans Bohrmann et al. (eds), NS–Presseanweisungen der Vorkriegszeit. Edition und
Dokumentation. 7 Bände (Munich, 1984–2001), no. 2544, 15 September 1938.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 186.168.9.167, on 15 Feb 2021 at 19:52:48, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859007003240
 Humour in Nazi Germany 285

Figure 2. The complaints of the public about satires and the reaction of Schwarze Korps ‘‘More
Humour!’’ Anonymous, ‘‘Mehr Humor!’’,
Das Schwarze Korps, 2 (6) (1936), p. 1. Copyright: Arbeitsstelle für Kommunikationsgeschichte
und interkulturelle Publizistik (AKIP), Freie Universität Berlin. Used with permission.

THE WISH TO LAUGH TOGETHER

At first the comedians reacted to public complaints by mocking their
critics and sticking to their satirical guns. Graff saw that art in general was
threatened by these complaints about satire and held the view that this
kind of public reaction would have to be stamped out through collective
effort.51 Carl-Martin Köhn, writing for Brennessel, which had received
heavy criticism for its satires as early as 1933, felt the urge to reply openly
to the critics in 1933 in a gruff tone that reflected the editors’ conviction
that they were in the right and were justified because they represented the
National Socialist interest: ‘‘And you have many associates, who, exactly
like you, anonymously and with nameless big mouths, dare to bore us with
your letters.’’52
51. Graff, ‘‘Negative Figur’’.
52. Lanzelot (i.e. Carl-Martin Köhn), ‘‘An ‘Porzia’!’’, Die Brennessel, 3 (1933), p. 182; Die
Brennessel, ‘‘In Sachen: ‘Darf die deutsche Frau [:::]’’’, ibid., p. 471.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 186.168.9.167, on 15 Feb 2021 at 19:52:48, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859007003240
 286 Patrick Merziger

Numerous articles in various media appeared in 1935 more friendly in

their wording, but still showing annoyance at readers’ conduct and their
criticism of satire. The prelude came in 1935 in Brennessel, which was
allegedly the leading light of National Socialist humour and was therefore
the first to deal with public complaints. The editorial described this
specific group of the readership as ‘‘those completely lacking in humour’’.
‘‘They peer to the left and the right, and look out for a mocking look, they
are the antennae of protest, receivers of outrage.’’53 Gunter d’Alquen, chief
editor of Schwarze Korps and so one of the most influential journalists in
Nazi Germany, brusquely recounted the times before 1933 in a foreword
to a collection of satires published in 1937: ‘‘with defiant laughter, with
biting scorn, we crushed a system of fat cats and profiteers, we made
parties and their creatures totally ridiculous, [:::] we lacerated them with
the pen, we nailed them down and handed them over to the caustic, deadly
laugh of the people.’’ But satire had its time and served its purpose to
‘‘improve’’ and ‘‘cleanse’’ Germany. So d’Alquen stressed at the end of his
introduction: ‘‘Should we, now that we have won power with our youthful
strength, forget laughter and become blunted? We have remained
youthful, we are truly laughing now!’’54 From this spirited outburst, we
can conclude that he and other satirists had been urged to abandon this
kind of humour.
With public complaints continually being voiced, it became clear that
the mood of the people had changed and that not the public protests but
satire itself had become the problem. This was articulated in an article that
appeared in the nationalistic and anti-modern Fridericus, whose publisher,
Friedrich Carl Holtz, was seen as a ‘‘pioneer and fighter for National
Socialist Germany’’.55 It responded to Schwarze Korps by laying out its
front page in a similar style and proclaiming ‘‘Humour at the Front!’’ in
large letters – an allusion to Schwarze Korps’s reply, ‘‘More humour’’, to
public criticism of the ‘‘Christmas tree’’ story. Holtz, who also authored
the article in Fridericus, stated that the ‘‘cutting humour’’ of Schwarze
Korps was no longer appropriate in the Volksgemeinschaft [community] of
National Socialism, given the new mood of the people within it.56
As the satirists were about to be sidelined they took on a gentler tone.
From 1936 none of the few satirical books came out without an
explanation or apology. In 1939 Walter Foitzick, from 1938 to 1944 chief
editor of Simplicissimus, reflected meekly on the direction humour had
taken. To joke about the National Socialist state and Party was
unproblematic, because ‘‘heavens above, when someone has so much
53. Lanzelot (i.e. Carl-Martin Köhn), ‘‘Die ohne Humor’’, Die Brennessel, 5 (1935), p. 226.
54. Gunter d’Alquen, ‘‘Wir lachen sie tot’’, in Waldl, Lacht ihn tot!, p. 3.
55. Wilhelm Freiherr von Müffling, Wegbereiter und Vorkämpfer für das neue Deutschland
(Munich, 1933), p. 217.
56. F.C. Holtz, ‘‘Humor an die Front!’’, Fridericus, 19 (1936), pp. 1–2.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 186.168.9.167, on 15 Feb 2021 at 19:52:48, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859007003240
 Humour in Nazi Germany 287

power, they can allow themselves to be taken down a notch or two’’. The
real challenge in Germany was to write satires against the ‘‘secret
superpowers’’ – the cyclists, cactus lovers, footballers, and the hard of
hearing. But, he said, he had to stop talking about these groups, as he heard
already the ‘‘drum roll and the trumpet of the court, the hard of hearing
come towards me and want to pulverize me’’.57 Ultimately he promised to
make jokes only about himself, and his books were to be understood only
in that light.
The satirists had retreated following a change in the collective mood.
The satirists themselves interpreted the lack of humour of their
complaining audience as rooted in psychological deficits. Carl-Martin
Köhn described the internal life of the humourless people. ‘‘They are not
satisfied with the honour of their profession and with their untouchable
existence. [:::] They place external approval above the quiet awareness of
their internal merits.’’58 All authors were agreed that the need to complain
came from having a very low self-esteem. From the authors’ viewpoint
people were insecure and placed too much emphasis on their status and the
symbols that projected this status to the outside world. According to
Sigmund Graff, the public therefore suffered from a misjudgement. Their
attitude derived from ‘‘a complete misjudged interpretation of Standesehre
[class honour] and an even greater misunderstanding that transferred the
totalitarian principle of the state onto the private individual.’’ Satires about
their Stand [class] should be taken in good spirit.59
But the term Stand was already politically loaded; Stand was the basic
element of the National Socialist economic organization. This new form of
organization was supposed to overcome the class conflicts and to form a
new harmonious society. The profession could no longer be understood as a
private choice and apolitical. The state’s demand for total political control
also reached into the private sphere, such as work. According to the
perception of the people the private was no longer private; it was in fact
political and public.60 Schwarze Korps described how doggedly a certain
affected group would fight for their reputation and claimed to know why.
‘‘Instead of laughing out loud, like thousands of our readers have already
done, they are angry’’, although they all know ‘‘how unshakeably secure our
civil service is in the service of the German people’’.61 The affected group did
not, however, share this impression. It was more that they felt their position
in the National Socialist state was being shaken by the satirists.

57. Walter Foitzick, Unter uns gesagt. Heitere Daseinsbetrachtung (Munich, 1939), p. 7.
58. Köhn, ‘‘Ohne Humor’’.
59. Graff, ‘‘Negative Figur’’.
60. Friedrich Bülow, Der deutsche Ständestaat. Nationalsozialistische Gemeinschaftspolitik und
Wirtschaftsorganisation (Leipzig, 1934).
61. Anonymous, ‘‘Mehr Humor!’’

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 186.168.9.167, on 15 Feb 2021 at 19:52:48, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859007003240
 288 Patrick Merziger

The structural reason underlying the changed mood of the public was
the fact that the direction of humour had changed. In a democratic society
each satire offered one opinion among many, and satirical writers of
different political persuasions could exchange blows on a level pegging.
Magazines such as Brennessel and Schwarze Korps, the Party’s press
organs, held a lot of authority as the voice of National Socialism.
Furthermore, from the public’s point of view every public statement took
on this role as the voice of National Socialism because, according to
National Socialism, the public sphere had to be seen as ‘‘uniform’’ and
‘‘totally controlled’’, and so everything appearing in the public arena
would be perceived as the direct will of the National Socialist state. If,
before, there had been various opinions entering a debate on an equal
footing and with which the public could identify, now every press organ
was above the reader and simultaneously expressed the only singular
possible ideology.
Sigmund Graff illustrates this process in his play Die endlose Straâe.
He places a loyal group, for whom there is no way out, in the scene. An
escape from this group means either ridicule, if the Zahlmeister returns to
the rear echelons, or a sure death, as behind the front lurks the enemy.
The fighting troop is a group without alternatives, which binds it with the
extreme idea of a Volksgemeinschaft. In both groups there remains no
more background against which the actions of the ridiculous figure can
be perceived as making sense or can be taken seriously. From the public’s
point of view, the satirical attacks had reached an unacceptable severity.
The understanding author in Fridericus called for ‘‘no more jokes at the
expense of people who are economically dependent, lower in rank or
those who are just defenceless. Such jokes are not humorous, but
brutal.’’62
In 1932 a National Socialist critic praised the political weapon of satire
with the statement that ‘‘laughter kills’’.63 After 1933, from the public’s
point of view, satire really did have this effect. People wanted above all
else to avoid social death by all means. Because of this it can be concluded
that the public’s complaints about satire were not an expression of
resistance; instead they showed the overwhelming desire of the greater
part of the population to belong, to be part of the Volksgemeinschaft.
Furthermore, behind these complaints lay a deep trust in the National
Socialist state. Schwarze Korps still made fun of the exaggerated reactions.
But the article that appeared in Fridericus showed that attitudes had
changed. From 1936 the various professions and social groups could rely
on the National Socialist state. The Minister of War and head of the
German armed forces, Werner von Blomberg, ordered that depictions

62. Holtz, ‘‘Humor an die Front!’’.

63. Kim, ‘‘Satire ist, wenn man [:::]’’, Die Brennessel, 2 (1932), p. 266.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 186.168.9.167, on 15 Feb 2021 at 19:52:48, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859007003240
 Humour in Nazi Germany 289

ridiculing the army cease.64 Martin Mutschmann, head of the district of

Saxony, started a campaign against depictions that ridiculed Saxony and
its inhabitants.65

THE ALL-EMBRACING LAUGHTER OF THE

VOLKSGEMEINSCHAFT
‘‘Whispered jokes’’ and satires are held up time and again as being typical
forms of humour during National Socialism. Both were surely a part of
humour in National Socialism, but they were actually marginal. The
‘‘whispered joke’’ has become a myth for the self-vindication of Germans;
unexpectedly, the National Socialist concept of satire failed as it
provoked massive protest from the public. In the specific public sphere
of National Socialism, a laugh that attempted to exclude could not be
tolerated because to be shut out of the Volksgemeinschaft meant total
exclusion.
In these protests, which were also aimed at the official National Socialist
institutions, it was not about protesting against National Socialism itself as
about protesting against the type of humour that had the means to exclude
from National Socialism. When Fridericus called for ‘‘Humour at the
Front!’’, it demanded a change of form, away from somehow irritating
jokes and away from destructive satire to a new form which allowed
humour that could bring people together, at least those ‘‘who toed the
line’’. This form, the ‘‘German Humour’’, became the humour of National
Socialism, through public pressure and not by coercion. People protested
against humour that could be understood as protest. Everyone wanted to
laugh together, and everyone laughed together, but only as long as one
wanted or was allowed to toe the line.
In his study of the functions of humour for the human being and his
perception of the world, Peter L. Berger spotted a third meaning of
humour aside from as a form of protest and aggression. He called it the
‘‘benign humour’’. But in his opinion this form of humour remained
virtually meaningless: ‘‘In this incarnation, then, the comic functions as a
mild and thoroughly healthy diversion. It is in this form that ‘Humor is
the best medicine’’’. As we have seen, this seemingly harmless humour
gains some importance – always depending upon the social context – if
the position of this ‘‘benign humour’’ is marked in the panorama of
different possible forms of humour, in the humorous landscape of a time,
and if the social group that uses and promotes this humour is defined. For
Berger this form of humour is ‘‘the most common expression of the

64. Willy Kuhnt, ‘‘Kampf dem Vereinstheater-Kitsch!’’, Volksbühnenwarte, 17 (1936), pp. 1–2.
65. Schl., ‘‘Wahrt Ehre und Ansehen des Gaues Sachsen, schützt unser Volkstum und unsere
Arbeit!’’, Die Deutsche Arbeitsfront. Gau Sachsen, 16 (1936), no. 42, pp. 2–3.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 186.168.9.167, on 15 Feb 2021 at 19:52:48, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859007003240
 290 Patrick Merziger

Figure 3. Laughing together in 1939. A popular comic artist at Ordensburg Vogelsang, a school
for the National Socialist elite.
Anonymous, ‘‘Auf der Ordensburg Vogelsang’’, in Ludwig Schmitz, Verschmitztes (Leipzig,
1941). Copyright: Arbeitsstelle für Kommunikationsgeschichte und interkulturelle Publizistik
(AKIP), Freie Universität Berlin. Used with permission.

comic in everyday life’’.66 This should be reason enough to highlight the

impact of this humour for a given society, also in democratic systems.
Perhaps this form is in fact more significant than forms that can be
interpreted in terms of aggression, protest, and political agitation.

66. Peter L. Berger, Redeeming Laughter: The Comic Dimension of Human Experience (Berlin,
1997), pp. 99–101.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 186.168.9.167, on 15 Feb 2021 at 19:52:48, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859007003240