Bavarian Views looking north | Credit phb

This Blog Post is about Music and about Language. And Music is the only language for sure, as the rest is silence …

Deutsches Liedgut #1 – Volkslieder

Die Gedanken sind frei

Language: German (Deutsch)

Our translations: ENG IRI

Die Gedanken sind frei,
wer kann sie erraten,
sie fliegen vorbei
wie nächtliche Schatten.
Kein Mensch kann sie wissen,
kein Jäger erschießen
mit Pulver und Blei:
Die Gedanken sind frei!

Ich denke was ich will
und was mich beglücket,
doch alles in der Still',
und wie es sich schicket.
Mein Wunsch, mein Begehren
kann niemand verwehren,
es bleibet dabei:
Die Gedanken sind frei!

Und sperrt man mich ein
im finsteren Kerker,
das alles sind rein
vergebliche Werke.
Denn meine Gedanken
zerreißen die Schranken
und Mauern entzwei,
die Gedanken sind frei!

Drum will ich auf immer
den Sorgen entsagen
und will mich auch nimmer
mit Grillen mehr plagen.
Man kann ja im Herzen
stets lachen und scherzen
und denken dabei:
Die Gedanken sind frei

bloecker.wordpress.com · Essays on Life, Literature & Ideas

Between Port Bou and Auschwitz

Two Ways of Facing the Catastrophe

by P.H. Bloecker

On the night of 25 September 1940, Walter Benjamin died in a small hotel room in Port Bou, a Spanish border town at the foot of the Pyrenees. He had crossed the mountains on foot that day, carrying a heavy black briefcase he refused to put down under any circumstances. Spanish border guards informed him his transit visa was invalid. He would be returned to France — and to the Gestapo — the following morning. He did not wait for morning.

Four years later, in the autumn of 1944, Viktor Frankl arrived at Auschwitz. He had sewn the manuscript of his first book into the lining of his coat. It was confiscated and destroyed on the selection ramp. He had nothing left but his life — and, as he would later argue, the one freedom no external power could remove: the choice of his attitude toward what was happening to him.

Two German-speaking Jewish intellectuals. The same machinery of annihilation bearing down on both. Two irreconcilably different responses — not to politics, but to the deepest philosophical question a human being can face: what remains when everything is taken?

This essay is an attempt to hold those two responses together without resolving them too quickly into a comfortable moral. Both men were serious. Both were right about something the other could not see. And the tension between them is still alive.

I. The Burned Visa and the Heavy Briefcase

The biographical facts matter here, because neither man’s philosophy was merely theoretical. Both tested their ideas against the hardest possible reality — and the testing was not metaphorical.

Frankl had received a United States immigration visa in 1941. He was already known internationally. The road out was open. But his parents were elderly and could not emigrate, and Frankl — in a moment of moral seriousness that deserves to be called exactly that — chose to stay. He burned the visa. In Man’s Search for Meaning he describes the decision without sentimentality: he simply could not leave his parents to what was coming. Within a year he, his wife Tilly, and his parents were deported to Theresienstadt. His father died there. His mother was gassed at Auschwitz. His wife died in Bergen-Belsen. His brother perished in the camps. Frankl alone survived, liberated by American forces in April 1945 from a satellite camp of Dachau.

Benjamin’s trajectory ran in the opposite direction — outward, westward, always just ahead of the closing net. He had left Germany in 1933, lived in Paris through the 1930s on a precarious stipend from the Institut für Sozialforschung in exile. When Paris fell in June 1940 he was briefly interned as a German national — enemy alien to the country that had already stripped him of citizenship. Released, he joined the stream of refugees moving south toward the Spanish border. His guide over the Pyrenees, Lisa Fittko, recalled that Benjamin was physically unwell, suffering from a heart condition, and that the mountain crossing nearly killed him. Yet he would not surrender the briefcase. She asked him what was in it. A manuscript, he said. More important than his own life.

The briefcase was never found. What it contained — most likely a final version of his Theses on the Philosophy of History, the essay we know perhaps only as a draft — disappeared with him. We are reading, it may be, an incomplete thought.

Two manuscripts. The same catastrophe. One reconstructed on stolen scraps of paper in a death camp. One lost forever at a border crossing in the dark.

The symmetry is almost too literary to be true. But it is true. And it tells us something about the difference between the two men before we have read a single line of their philosophy.

II. The Angel and the Will

Benjamin’s last completed essay — written in Paris in the early months of 1940, while the Wehrmacht was preparing to cross into France — contains the most devastating image in twentieth-century intellectual history. He is describing Paul Klee’s small painting Angelus Novus, which he had owned since 1921 and which he carried with him into exile:

His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. This storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress.

— Walter Benjamin, Theses on the Philosophy of History, IX (1940)

This is not pessimism. It is something more precise and more uncompromising: a demand that we see history as it actually is, not as the story of improvement and accumulation that liberal modernity tells about itself. The catastrophe is not an interruption of history. It is the truth of history, laid bare. The angel cannot look away, and Benjamin will not permit us to look away either.

The philosophical lineage is clear: Marx read through Jewish messianism, mediated by the Frankfurt School’s critique of Enlightenment reason. Horkheimer and Adorno, writing Dialectic of Enlightenment in California while Auschwitz was operating, asked the same question from a safer distance: how did the reason that promised emancipation produce the industrial murder of a people? Benjamin’s answer was already implicit in the image of the angel: it produced it because it was always already heading there. Progress and catastrophe are not opposites. They are the same storm.

Now set against this Frankl’s central argument, formulated not in Paris in 1940 but in Auschwitz in 1944 — from inside the catastrophe, not theorising it from outside.

Where Benjamin’s angel faces backward, paralysed by the accumulating wreckage, Frankl insists on a forward-facing posture — not because the wreckage is less real, but because the human being who is standing in it must still answer the question of how to live today. Frankl never denies the horror. He survived it. But he observed — in himself and in those around him — that the prisoners who retained something to live for, some person to return to, some work to complete, some meaning however small and however contingent, were more likely to survive than those who had lost all orientation toward the future.

The philosophical claim that follows is not a piece of therapy. It is a metaphysics. The human being, Frankl argues, is constitutively a meaning-seeking creature — not driven primarily by pleasure as Freud held, not by power as Adler held, but by the need for significance, for a life that points toward something beyond itself. When this need is met, even in the direst circumstances, the person remains human. When it is extinguished, something essential collapses.

Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms — to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.

— Viktor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning (1946)

The contrast with Benjamin could not be sharper. Benjamin: history is catastrophe; the angel sees it and cannot turn away. Frankl: yes, the catastrophe is real; and within it the human being retains the one freedom no external force can abolish. Benjamin looks at the wreckage. Frankl looks at what, even within the wreckage, the human being can still choose.

They are not contradicting each other. They are looking at the same abyss from different positions — Benjamin from the outside, in flight, theorising what is coming; Frankl from the inside, having lived it, finding what survives.

III. Different Catastrophes, Different Inheritances

It would be too simple to say that Benjamin despaired and Frankl affirmed. The reality is more nuanced and more interesting.

Benjamin did not die because he lost hope in any simple sense. He died because a bureaucratic contingency — the transit visa, the border policy, the single night — closed the exit at the precise moment he reached it. His death was, in the most literal sense, a matter of hours. The group he travelled with was waved through the following morning. This fact, once known, cannot be unknown. It does not allow us to read his death as philosophical resignation. It was a bureaucratic murder carried out by exhaustion, fear, and the random cruelty of historical timing.

And Frankl did not simply endure. He had a psychiatric framework — Logotherapy — already formed before his imprisonment, and the camps became, in his own account, the unwilling laboratory in which it was tested. This gives his testimony an unusual dual character: it is both witness and theory, both unbearable personal loss and intellectual argument. The two cannot be fully separated, and we should not try. But we should be honest that Frankl arrived in Auschwitz with conceptual tools that most of his fellow prisoners did not have. His survival was not only a matter of will. It was also, in part, a matter of intellectual formation.

Benjamin arrived at Port Bou with a philosophy that saw history as catastrophe — and was then killed by a catastrophic history. The irony is not bitter. It is simply exact. His thought and his fate achieved a terrible coherence.

Frankl arrived at Auschwitz with a philosophy that insisted on the human capacity to find meaning under any conditions — and then survived conditions under which almost no one did. His thought and his fate achieved a different coherence, no less terrible in its origins, more hopeful in its outcome.

What we cannot do — what intellectual honesty forbids — is use one to invalidate the other. Frankl’s survival does not prove that those who died lacked meaning. Benjamin’s death does not prove that his philosophy was wrong. The catastrophe was not a test of ideas. It was a crime.

IV. Sebald’s Shadow

No essay that places Benjamin and Frankl in dialogue can avoid W.G. Sebald, because Sebald spent his entire literary career in the space between them, drawn to Benjamin’s backward-facing angel, haunted by the lost manuscripts, circling the ruins of Central European Jewish culture that both men embodied and that the Nazis destroyed in a single decade.

Sebald never writes about the Holocaust directly. He approaches it obliquely, through buildings, photographs, train timetables, the unreliable memories of witnesses. His narrator in Austerlitz moves through Europe the way Benjamin’s angel faces history: seeing the wreckage, accumulating detail, unable to reconstruct what was lost, unable to look away. The structural method, fragmentary, digressive, image-laden, refusing resolution, is itself a form of argument: the past cannot be made whole. To pretend otherwise is a form of violence toward those who were destroyed.

And yet, and this is the Frankl counter-pressure that Sebald never fully acknowledges, the act of writing, the act of bearing witness, the act of making something that will outlast the writer, is itself a gesture in the direction of meaning. Sebald’s novels exist. They carry the names and faces of the destroyed. They make the reader uneasy in precisely the way Frankl said unavoidable suffering must be held: with full awareness, without flinching, and without surrender.

Port Bou has a memorial now. The Israeli sculptor Dani Karavan installed it in 1994: Passages. A rusted steel walkway descends into the cliff face above the sea, angled toward the water, open at the end to the Mediterranean. There is no explanatory text. Only Benjamin’s name, his dates, and a single fragment from the Theses:

It is more arduous to honour the memory of the nameless than that of the renowned.

— Walter Benjamin

Sebald would have photographed it. Grainy. Without caption. The image would have appeared mid-sentence in a paragraph about something apparently unrelated, and the reader would have felt, without being able to say exactly why, that something essential had just been said.

V. What the Comparison Asks of Us

The question this essay has been circling is not primarily historical. It is present-tense.

Benjamin’s diagnosis, that modernity produces catastrophe as reliably as it produces comfort, that progress and barbarism are not opposites but companions, has not aged poorly. The twentieth century gave us Auschwitz, the Gulag, Hiroshima, Cambodia, Rwanda. The twenty-first has continued the syllabus. Anyone who reads Benjamin’s angel image in 2026 and feels it does not apply is not paying attention.

Frankl’s counter-claim, that within any catastrophe, however extreme, the human being retains the freedom of attitude, the capacity for meaning, the choice of how to respond, has also not aged poorly. The existential vacuum he diagnosed in the 1950s, the inner emptiness that hides behind abundance and distraction, is now a documented mass phenomenon. FOMO, burnout, the collapse of meaning-structures in secular societies: Frankl named the disease before the culture had the vocabulary for it.

The tension between them is not resolvable, and that is precisely its value. Benjamin tells us: see the catastrophe clearly. Do not let comfort or optimism anaesthetise your historical perception. The wreckage is real. Frankl tells us: yes, the wreckage is real. Now, what will you do with the day you have been given?

These are not competing answers to the same question. They are answers to different questions that any serious person must hold simultaneously. The question of how to read history, and the question of how to live within it, are not the same question — even though they are inseparable.

What both men shared, under the differences, is worth naming at the close. Both were formed by the same Central European Jewish intellectual culture. Both lost almost everything to the same machinery of destruction. Both wrote, under conditions that would have justified silence, because they believed that ideas matter, that how human beings think about their situation shapes what they are capable of, for good and for ill.

And both left us something we are still reading.

The briefcase that went over the Pyrenees and was never found, that loss is permanent. No amount of interpretation recovers what Benjamin may have written on those final pages. Frankl’s manuscript, reconstructed from memory on stolen scraps of paper in a labour camp near Dachau, became one of the most widely read books of the twentieth century, translated into more than fifty languages.

One text lost. One text found. The catastrophe took both men to the edge of silence. One fell silent. One spoke — and kept speaking until he was ninety-two years old.

Between Port Bou and Auschwitz lies not a choice between despair and hope, but a demand: see clearly, and live anyway.