Traudl Junge, Brunhilde Pomsel and the Guyanese protégés

Aug 21, 2016 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

It came as no surprise to any Guyanese, no matter where he/she lives, that there were outpourings of eulogies for Forbes Burnham on his death anniversary in the first week of August. The identical scenario goes into motion when Cheddi Jagan’s time comes in the month of March. In the immediate future and long after generations would have come and gone, the methodology used to assess the nature and role of these two men will endure.
Burnham will continue to be seen by people he protégéd as a phenomenally brilliant man whose visionary endowments have no parallel in modern Guyana. These protégés have passed on their emotions to subsequent generations and the adulation of Burnham continues. A letter in this newspaper overflowing with panegyrics of Burnham was written by someone who acknowledged that he was three years old when Burnham died.
It obviously calls into question where he got his material from. The answer is obvious. Without even a slight shift in vocabulary, Jagan’s school of cadres that he nurtured many moons ago will write the dictionary of Jagan using the same sentiments and Freudianism that you find with Burnham’s admirers. So come next year, President Granger will enter the Botanic Gardens and sing praise to the uniqueness of Burnham. In March next year, Moses Nagamootoo and Ralph Ramkarran will remind us how special Jagan is to Guyana.
What both sides do is what historians will find completely unacceptable. The protégés and their younger generations will pull down from the stars, the wonderful nuances from the lives of Burnham and Jagan. Falling on the ground will be pieces of astral materials that remind them that Burnham and Jagan were not that great after all. But they will wrap the stellar nuances in starry gift paper and conveniently throw the astral vices in the dustbin. Why would they do that? Maybe a glimpse into the lives of two controversial German women holds the key to understanding why aficionados of Burnham and Jagan cannot accept that their greatness was equally matched by their badness.
Traudl Junge was Adolf Hitler’s secretary and stayed with him in his bunker until the moment he took his life. Junge’s memoirs, “Until the Final Hour,” caused furious reactions around the world for two reasons. She asserted she did not know about the killings, the murders, the annihilation of the Jews, the authoritarian state machinery. That stretches one’s imagination to nauseating limits. Hitler ran a one-man show. He ranted and raved every second of his chancellorship, yet Ms. Junge said she knew nothing of Hitler’s badness.
Is she lying? The answer is yes and no. It is when you read the other reason for her attitude to Hitler then a complex situation becomes incomprehensible, ironically yet understandable. She said that all she knew and could remember were Hitler’s generosity and kindness to her. Through a Freudian process of displacement, Ms Junge substituted Hitler’s personal, gentle attitude to her and she locked away memories of his evil side. When she wrote her memoirs, only the good things Hitler did for her came into her consciousness.
Junge died in 2002, but Brunhilde Pomsel is still alive at age 105. Her story is made into a documentary titled, “A German Life.” Ms. Pomsel was the secretary of one of Hitler’s most feared and trusted friends, Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. It is from his name, we got the adjective, Goebbelsian. Pomsel’s account of life under the Nazis is uncannily similar to Junge’s. She said she knew nothing of the evil side of Goebbels. The same Freudian process occurred with Pomsel as what happened with Junge. Pomsel in “A German Life,” recounted the generosity of Goebbels and his wife. Both Hitler and Goebbels treated their secretaries finely and appeared as modest leaders to them.
These kinds of attitudes play on the psychology of protégés. The disciples internalize the favoured memories, they become lodges inside the sub-conscious and it dictates how they feel about their leaders. I told David Hinds last week on the balcony of the magistrates’ courts that Burnham was learned, visionary and charismatic. He charmed his disciples with transformational vision. They were fascinated with his futuristic plans like hydro-power, multilateral schools, local agri-manufacturing. That is what they remember him by. They do not want to hear about the death of Walter Rodney. It doesn’t exist for them.
Jagan’s disciples can only conjure up memories of a simple, incorruptible, modest man who wanted the best for the poor. They don’t want to see his dark side where he made Guyana into a pawn of the USSR. As the world goes on, there will be millions more like Junge, Pomsel and the protégés of Burnham and Jagan.

---

---