The Third Reichs Elite Schools A History of The Napolas Helen Roche Full Chapter PDF Scribd

The Third Reich's Elite Schools: A
History of the Napolas Helen Roche

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-third-reichs-elite-schools-a-history-of-the-napolas-
helen-roche/
OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/09/21, SPi
The Third Reich’s Elite Schools

The Third Reich’s

Elite Schools
A History of the Napolas
by
HELEN ROCHE
1
1
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Helen Roche 2021
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2021
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021940026
ISBN 978–0–19–872612–8
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198726128.001.0001
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
This book is dedicated to my mother,
Elizabeth Roche,
without whom (in so many ways) this book would never have been possible.
Preface
Combining the intricacies and peculiarities of thousands of sources and millions

of words of notes, amassed over the course of a decade, was never going to be an
easy task—but it was never anything less than fascinating. Even when the project
seemed like a mountain whose summit would forever be unattainable, with the
onward path shrouded by mists and uncertainty, my belief that this book both
could and should be written never dwindled.
At the same time, in my more ironic moments, I did wonder at the quirk of fate
that had led me to dedicate a significant proportion of my life to researching a
very specific type of boys’ boarding school. Could it be that my own educational
‘socialization’ in an English girls’ boarding school had lent the topic its initial fas-
cination? After all, homesickness, (psychologically) sadistic staff in charge of
boarding, and scarcely pleasant forms of bullying were equally present at a
Catholic all-girls ex-convent school in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Was I, like
the two most prominent historians of the Napolas, Harald Scholtz and Horst
Ueberhorst, doomed to revisit my own cloistered adolescent past (even if, unlike
their own almae matres, my school had no connection whatsoever with National
Socialism)?
I was also very much aware that my own personal subjectivities (British,
female, more or less millennial) would not only shape the way in which I per-
ceived my subject—for instance, did my musicological family background, and
my training and sometime experience as a professional musician, mean that I had
over-privileged accounts of music-making at the NPEA in my notes, whereas
another scholar might have taken more interest in theatre or art?—but also the
way in which the former Napola-pupils with whom I corresponded perceived me.
As mentioned in my first book, Sparta’s German Children (2013), which was
based on the Classics PhD-project from which my interest in the more general
history of the NPEA first arose, rather than perceiving a Briton as the erstwhile
‘enemy’, many of my eyewitnesses felt more willing to trust me precisely because
they saw my intentions as untrammelled by native German shibboleths (such as
the ‘Frankfurt School’, the ‘Bielefeld School’, or the all-encompassing shadow of
‘political correctness’—for more on this kind of rhetoric, see Chapter 12).
Something about my ‘outsider’ status made it possible for me to engage with
many former pupils on a different level—leading ultimately to the strange hap-
penstance that I might be the only person to whom they could unconstrainedly
reminisce, knowing that I would not only understand exactly who or what they
were talking about, but could even refresh their own memory of arcane facts now
viii 
known only to a few survivors—for instance, that the great plough-horse at the
Napolas’ seaside retreat near Kolberg had been named Blücher, or that the care-
taker there was called Vater Heck . . . .
And then, there were the strange coincidences which revealed to me how very
many people in Germany had been in some way touched or affected by the NPEA,
even if they had never actually attended one—the museum curator whose mother
turned out to have been an NPEA secretary; the audience-member at a public
history lecture who told me afterwards that his father had been the mechanic at
the local Napola, servicing all of the school’s many cars, trucks, and motorbikes;
the archaeologist colleague whose father had been selected to take the NPEA
entrance exam, but whose conservative Catholic grandfather had been adamantly
opposed to the idea, and had sent him to the Gymnasium a year early instead . . . .
In the end, I had amassed so much material on the schools that I could prob-
ably have written this book at least three times over, using completely different
sources in each iteration. At the same time, one book can only ever be so long,
and there were countless spheres—de-Christianization, wartime alumni net-
works, musical activities, English-teaching, mining ‘missions’, the American
exchanges, and the old boys’ networks, to name but a few—where I despairingly
had to acknowledge that only the merest fraction of the material could find its
way into the final manuscript, and that to do the theme justice, each topic would
really need a subsequent article all of its own. From this perspective, when it came
to themes on which I had already published in detail, such as sport, the NPEA in
conquered Eastern Europe, the English public-school exchanges, post-war eye-
witness testimonies, or the Spartan ideal, I deliberately chose not to duplicate
most of this material, instead recommending readers to consult the volumes and
articles in question for a more in-depth analysis.
Finally, throughout the process, I was given the opportunity to realize just how
crucial the personal archives of former pupils are to preserving the full historical
record of these fascinating and contested institutions. If anyone who reads this
happens to be an eyewitness, relative, or descendant, who is wondering what they
should do with Napola-related effects, then my heartfelt plea would be: do your
utmost to find an archive that will take the material in (even contact me if you
have to . . . ). Only then will the schools’ true variety, and the multifarious nature
of their life and afterlife, be properly preserved for posterity.
*
Unsurprisingly, my first and most crucial debt of gratitude lies with the many
former NPEA-pupils who were prepared to share their memories of their school-
days with me as eyewitnesses (Zeitzeugen). Many of them went out of their way to
correspond with me over a period of several years, to welcome me into their
homes, and even to share relevant personal documents with me for the first time.
In particular, I would like to thank the late Dr. Uwe Lamprecht for allowing me
 ix
unprecedented access to his personal archive, without which this book would
necessarily have been far less comprehensive and less colourful; I will always be
grateful to him and his wife Ursula for their generosity. In this regard, Arne and
Dorothea Heinich, Dietrich Schulz, Klaus and Hannelore Schikore, and Hans and
Luise Rettkowski also deserve special mention. I am also very grateful to the
members of the NPEA Berlin-Spandau, NPEA Köslin, and Schulpforta old boys’
networks for their invaluable assistance, and the fascinating opportunities which
they granted me to experience some of their meetings at first hand.
The decade or so which I have spent working on this project has ended up
spanning many different phases of my professional and personal life. During my
time at Cambridge, first as a graduate student, and then as a Research Fellow,
I had the good fortune to be a member of Sir Richard Evans’ German History
Research Seminar, and I will always be grateful for the sage advice and guidance
which he gave me in the project’s early stages, and for the opportunity to present
my work-in-progress at the seminar regularly as it developed. At Cambridge, Jo
Whaley and Brendan Simms have also always been willing to provide valuable
mentorship as my career as a modern historian has progressed, along with Moritz
Föllmer, Suzanne Marchand, and Christina Morina beyond the fens.
Meanwhile, during darker times, Henrike Lähnemann saved my life (both lit-
erally and metaphorically), for which I will forever be in her debt; nor will I ever
forget the assistance provided by the Margaret Beaufort Institute, Cambridge
Women’s Aid, Natassa Varka, Victoria Griggs, Jane Gaffney, Antony Warren, Ian
de Massini, and John McKean, Cora Xu, and the Cambridge University Writing
Group, as well as Ric Whaite, whose support during my first year at Durham was
invaluable. I was also incredibly fortunate to have the opportunity to spend sev-
eral months at UCL working with Mary Fulbrook, Stephanie Bird, and Stefanie
Rauch as part of their AHRC-funded research project on ‘Compromised
Identities: Reflections on Perpetration and Complicity under Nazism’, before
moving on to the History Department at Durham, where I am similarly blessed
with the nicest, most supportive, and most intellectually stimulating colleagues
imaginable.
In terms of practical assistance, I would like to acknowledge here the generous
support of the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst and the DAAD
Cambridge Research Hub, the John Stewart of Rannoch Research Fund, and the
Volkswagenstiftung, which enabled my external participation in Detlef
Schmiechen-Ackermann’s relevant research project at the Institut für Didaktik
der Demokratie, Leibniz-Universität Hannover. My research trips to Berlin and
to Vienna were facilitated respectively by Christian Wendt, who arranged for my
stint as a visiting scholar with the FU-Berlin’s ‘TOPOI’ Excellence Cluster, and by
Sybille Steinbacher and Johanna Gehmacher, who made me wonderfully welcome
at the Universität Wien. Professor Steinbacher was also instrumental in facilitat-
ing my contribution to an issue of Beiträge zur Geschichte des Nationalsozialismus
x 
on ‘Sport in National Socialism’, which was crucial to the development of some of

the key ideas in this book—as was Michael Rowe’s invitation to give a paper on the
project at the Institute of Historical Research’s German History Seminar in London,
and Norbert Frei’s invitation to present a paper at the Jena Center for Twentieth-
Century History’s symposium, ‘Wie bürgerlich war der Nationalsozialismus?’.
Meanwhile, my many archival trips to Germany would not have been possible
without the generosity of all those who welcomed me into their homes for days or
weeks at a time, especially Bernhard and Josephine Cook-Müller, Christine and
Gebhard Enßle, Dorothee and Lisa Kattner, and Derrick and Gudrun Mitchell.
At various stages, Max Haberich, Nathaniël Kunkeler, and Tim Schmalz have
provided stalwart and much-appreciated research assistance, while the aid of
various archivists at the many archives throughout Germany and further afield
was also a sine qua non for the project’s success. For reasons of space, I can only
single out the following: Sven Schneidereit at the Bundesarchiv in Lichterfelde,
whose ever-cheerful and enduringly helpful demeanour when on duty in the
reading-room is always a saving grace; Günter Biele at the Sächsisches
Hauptstaatsarchiv in Dresden, who made it possible for me to catalogue the hold-
ings of the NPEA Klotzsche old boys’ network; Wolfram Theilemann at the
Stadtarchiv in Nordhausen, who has since involved me in other fascinating local
history projects; and Ulrich Burkhart and Hanum Louloudis at the Zentralarchiv
des Bezirksverbands Pfalz in Kaiserslautern, who run the most relaxed and
friendly archive that I have ever encountered in Germany or elsewhere—even
providing their readers with tea and coffee!
I am also very much indebted to those other historians of the NPEA who pro-
vided me with excellent advice and even, in some cases, hospitality: Steffi Flintrop,
Andreas Förschler, Thomas Fritz, Marie Hagenbourger, Tim Müller, Juliane
Tiffert (née Kühne), Adolf Morlang, Michal Šimůnek, and Steffen Wagner—many
of whom also very generously gave me access to their own private archives, as
well as giving me much food for thought. Steffen Wagner at Weierhof, Reinhard
Käsinger at Neubeuern, and Detlev Kraack, Arne Rogg-Pietz, and Heide Beese at
Plön also gave me tours of their respective schools and archives (culminating, in
the case of the Plön Gymnasium, with an impromptu discussion of the Scottish
referendum with an upper-school English class!). Paige Roberts and Mary
Mulligan at Andover, Matt Edmonds at St. Andrews, and Sophie Arnfield at
Tabor Academy all provided me with invaluable material and insights on the US
exchange programme, as did emeritus professor John Stephan. Meanwhile,
Christine McCrudden and Julian Girdham kindly responded to my questions
about exchanges in the British Isles (as did numerous archivists at English public
schools, most of whom are acknowledged in my 2013 article on the topic, which
addresses the material which they provided more directly).
Finally, I am very grateful to all those who advised me on the project and the
manuscript as it took shape—I benefited greatly from fruitful exchanges with
 xi
Richard J. Evans, Johanna Gehmacher, Ben Goossens, Detlef Schmiechen-

Ackermann, Nicholas Stargardt, Sybille Steinbacher, Dietmar Süß, and Michael
Wildt, as well as receiving extremely helpful comments on the manuscript from
Moritz Föllmer, Lisa Pine, Daniel Siemens, and Brendan Simms, and the
anonymous OUP readers. Many thanks are also due to everyone at OUP who has
been involved with the project over the years, especially Robert Faber, Stephanie
Ireland, and Cathryn Steele, as well as to Tess McCann, for her excellent work in
putting the maps together, and Tom Zille, for checking my translations (and for
generally making the world a better place). As ever, any remaining infelicities and
errors are my responsibility alone.
In conclusion, most importantly of all, I must thank a few of those who have
had to live with the book and its genesis on a daily basis—firstly, my mother
Elizabeth Roche, to whom this book is dedicated, and without whose extensive
and inexhaustible practical assistance its completion might never have been pos-
sible; Rob Hanson, whose decision to join the Durham University Writing Group
was ultimately so fortuitous, and who has since had to bear with my reading many
bits of the manuscript to (or at) him during the writing process—and, last but not
least, my darling Alex, whose genuine interest in my work is a constant delight,
and whose unceasing affection and support brings me strength and happiness
every day.
Contents
List of Illustrations xv
A Note on Terminology xvii
Introduction: The Napolas in Historical Context 1
I. G E N E SI S
1. Foundation and Administration: The Napolas’ Position within the
Polycratic Nazi State 31
2. ‘Selection’, Teaching, and Everyday Life 59
3. ‘Missions’ and Extracurricular Activities 136
II. VA R I E T Y W I T H I N U N I T Y
4. The Prussian Paradigm? Resurrecting Cadet-School Traditions
at the Former Staatliche Bildungsanstalten 197
5. Centralism versus Particularism: Harnessing Regional
Ambitions and Negotiating Federal Tensions at the NPEA
in Saxony, Anhalt, and Württemberg 221
6. The Annihilation of Tradition? The ‘Napolisation’
of Humanistic and Religious Foundations 247
7. Ostmark: The Annexation of the Viennese
Bundeserziehungsanstalten and Heißmeyer’s ‘Dissolution
of the Monasteries’ 268
8. The Reichsschulen and the Napolas’ Germanizing Mission
in Eastern and Western Europe 288
9. For Girls Only: The NPEA für Mädchen 312
III. NEMESIS
10. The Demands of Total War 335
11. The Endkrieg and the Last of the Napolas 358
12. Epilogue: Post-war 394
Conclusion 420
xiv Contents
Glossary 429
List of Eyewitnesses 435
List of Archives Consulted 439
List of Periodicals Consulted 443
Bibliography 447
Index 499
List of Illustrations
N.B. Although the majority of the images used here portray pupils at NPEA Rügen, former
pupils from other Napolas generally agree that they convey the flavour of analogous
activities at other schools throughout the Napola system, and very similar images can be
found in the photographic collections of pupils from many other NPEA.
1.1. Locations of the Napolas and Reichsschulen and their dates
of foundation, superimposed upon modern European state
boundaries (map by Tess McCann). 35
2.1. Pupils at NPEA Rügen hurry to wash and brush their teeth before
breakfast (author’s personal collection, courtesy of Dietrich Schulz). 73
2.2. Rollcall and saluting the flag at NPEA Rügen, c.1942 (author’s
personal collection, courtesy of Dietrich Schulz). 73
2.3. The reading room at NPEA Rügen, 1943 (author’s personal
collection, courtesy of Dietrich Schulz). 80
2.4. Pupils from NPEA Rügen folk-dancing with girls from the BDM,
1943 (author’s personal collection, courtesy of Dietrich Schulz). 83
2.5. The sickbay at NPEA Rügen, with a nursing sister in attendance,
c.1942 (author’s personal collection, courtesy of Dietrich Schulz). 85
2.6. and 2.7. Biology and Chemistry lessons at NPEA Rügen during the early
1940s (author’s personal collection, courtesy of Dietrich Schulz). 89
2.8. Antisemitic propaganda posters created by pupils at NPEA
Spandau during their stay on the Frisian island of Föhr, August 1935,
and subsequently reprinted in the school newsletter (author’s
personal collection). 97
2.9. Shooting practice at NPEA Rügen, c.1944 (author’s personal
collection, courtesy of Dietrich Schulz). 102
3.1. The ceremonial dagger bearing the schools’ motto, ‘Be more than
you seem’, with which all NPEA pupils were presented at the
‘Waffenleite’ or ‘Schwertleite’ initiation ritual (photo courtesy
of Ron Weinand). 140
3.2. Parents, staff, and pupils pose for a photograph, following
the ‘Waffenleite’ at NPEA Ballenstedt in 1940 (photo courtesy
of Ron Weinand). 140
3.3. Orchestra practice at NPEA Rügen, 1943; every pupil was
required to learn a musical instrument (author’s personal collection,
courtesy of Dietrich Schulz). 144
xvi   
3.4. Members of one of the school marching bands at NPEA Rügen,

1943 (author’s personal collection, courtesy of Dietrich Schulz). 145
3.5. Members of the cast of a production of Martin Luserke’s
Blut und Liebe at NPEA Spandau (author’s personal collection,
courtesy of Günter L.). 147
3.6. Woodwork at NPEA Rügen, 1943. Toy boats such as the ones in the
image were often used in charity drives for the National Socialist Welfare
Organisation, the NSV (author’s personal collection, courtesy
of Dietrich Schulz). 148
5.1. The monumental architecture of the ‘Napobi’ at Ballenstedt, the
only school to be purpose-built during the Third Reich. The complex was
used as a school for Socialist Party leaders during the German Democratic
Republic, and still survives today, as the following aerial photograph
shows (Wolkenkratzer, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-sa/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons: https://upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Ballenstedt_Grosser_Ziegenberg_002-.jpg;
the image has been cropped to exclude a number of buildings on the
site which were erected after the Third Reich). 230
6.1. St. Wendel, 10 January 1941: Pupils watch from the windows of
the Missionshaus as the brothers and ordinands of the Society of the
Divine Word are forced to board the waiting omnibuses by the
Gestapo (Archiv Missionshaus St. Wendel; photo courtesy of
Marie Hagenbourger). 256
7.1. Vienna, 13 March 1939: Pupils and staff from the former Austrian
Bundeserziehungsanstalten attend the ceremony at the Theresianum
which incorporated the schools into the NPEA system (author’s personal
collection). 274
7.2. Reich Education Minister Bernhard Rust speaks at the ceremony which
celebrated the transformation of the former Austrian
Bundeserziehungsanstalten into Napolas (author’s personal collection). 274
11.1. Map of the schools whose fates during 1945 are charted in detail
in Chapter 11 (map by Tess McCann). 360
11.2. One of NPEA Rügen’s ‘cutters’ (author’s personal collection, courtesy of
Dietrich Schulz). 370
A Note on Terminology
NPEA vs. Napola
The official abbreviation for the designation Nationalpolitische Erziehungsanstalt

(singular) and Nationalpolitische Erziehungsanstalten (plural) was NPEA (i.e. the
initials of National-Politische Erziehungs-Anstalt). However, although the school
authorities disliked the widespread use of the more colloquial (uncapitalized)
abbreviation ‘Napola’ (i.e. Na[tional]-Pol[itische] A[nstalt]—plural: ‘Napolas’),
and attempted to legislate against its use (see the Introduction), at times, they
would still use this abbreviation themselves—perhaps because it was simply so
much easier to pronounce. Thus, the term ‘Napola’ can regularly be found in offi-
cial media coverage on the schools, including an article published in April 1938
by the Inspectorate’s very own press officer, Helmut Trepte.¹ Moreover, it can also
be found in official correspondence by and with various government agencies,
and was also constantly used as a contemporary term of art by present and former
pupils.²
From this perspective, Gisela Miller-Kipp’s frequently asserted (yet flawed)
contention—that the use of the abbreviation ‘Napola’ is historically incorrect—
simply cannot stand.³ While it may even be true, as Miller-Kipp suggests, that the
term at one time also officially applied to the extremely short-lived
‘Nationalpolitische Lehrgänge’ (National Political Courses), this was by no means
the way in which the term was usually understood even during the Third Reich,
let alone in the post-war period.⁴ The evidence therefore overwhelmingly sug-
gests that contemporary pupils, staff, bureaucrats, journalists, and members of
the general public alike would all have assumed that the abbreviation referred to a
Nationalpolitische Erziehungsanstalt.⁵ Hence, I have used the two abbreviations
more or less interchangeably in the pages which follow.
Ausleseschule vs. Eliteschule
In German-language scholarship, since the publication of Harald Scholtz’s mono-

graph Nationalsozialistische Ausleseschulen in 1973, the Napolas have often been
described not as ‘elite schools’ (Eliteschulen), but as ‘Ausleseschulen’.⁶ The subtle-
ties of this term cannot be rendered both completely and concisely in English,
due to the racially loaded, Social Darwinist connotations of the noun ‘Auslese’
during the Third Reich—the closest two-word approximation would be
xviii    
something like ‘selective schools’. Although the prevalence of the term

‘Ausleseschulen’ in the scholarly literature can in some measure be attributed to
political and/or polemical motivations, which sought to sever the schools’ con-
nection with the culpability of Nazi ‘elites’ in the wake of denazification (as dis-
cussed in the Introduction), or which sought to repudiate the idea that National
Socialist pedagogy could ever have been capable of cultivating a ‘true’ elite, it is
also indisputable that the NPEA were commonly referred to as ‘Ausleseschulen’
during the Third Reich. In this regard, even the Napola authorities did not neces-
sarily wish either to seem too ‘elitist’, or to risk giving the impression that a high-
flying career was automatically guaranteed for all NPEA graduates.⁷
Nevertheless, as Lisa Pine has cogently remarked in her relatively recent survey
of education in Nazi Germany, any kind of highly selective education is, by its
very nature, ‘elitist’ in some measure.⁸ Moreover, it is also undeniable that the
Napolas did explicitly aim to train the future elite of the Third Reich in all walks
of life. Therefore, to cut this terminological Gordian knot, and to ensure that the
book’s title will be comprehensible (rather than confusing) to an Anglophone
audience, I have followed Pine’s lead in using the term ‘elite schools’.⁹
Place-Names in Eastern Europe and the Balkans
When discussing locations in present-day Czechia, Poland, and other countries

in Eastern Europe and the Balkans where place-names were once German or
were forcibly ‘Germanized’ during occupation, I will give the current name in
brackets when the location is first mentioned, thereafter using the designation
which was officially in use at the time in question, as indicated by the sources.
However, the names of specific schools in these regions, such as NPEA Köslin or
NPEA Loben, will always be rendered using the German form of the name, since
the official name of the school was never (for example) NPEA Koszalin or NPEA
Lubliniec.
Terms of Art
The following terms and abbreviations will not routinely be translated or

glossed—see the glossary for further information:
Anstaltsleiter: headmaster/principal.
Erzieher: member of teaching staff—ranks included Zugführer, Hauptzugführer,
or Hundertschaftsführer.
Geländespiele: cross-country wargames.
Jungmann: Napola-pupil—see also Napolaner.
    xix
Zug: class or year-group.

NPEA für Mädchen/Mädchen-NPEA: NPEA for girls.
HJ: Hitler Youth.
BDM: the female branch of the Hitler Youth.
N.B. To calculate the worth of Reichsmarks in any given year in present-day

Euros, the following tool is invaluable: https://www.dm-euro-rechner.de/die-
reichsmark/.
As an example, a machinist employed at an NPEA during the 1930s would
have received a monthly salary of around 225 RM (2,700 RM per year).
Notes
1. Helmut Trepte, ‘Die Napolas’, Berliner Tageblatt, 14 April 1938 [Bundesarchiv

Lichterfelde (BArch), R 4902/1490]; cf. ‘Was will die Napola?’, Bremer Nachrichten,
5 January 1944 [Niedersächsisches Landesarchiv—Hauptstaatsarchiv Hannover (NLA-
HStAH), ZGS 2/1 Nr. 155].
2. Cf. e.g. BArch, NS 38/3913, letter dated 16 June 1937; BArch, R 187/270b, Bl. 121; NLA-
HStAH, Hann. 180 Hannover B Nr. 95.
3. E.g. Gisela Miller-Kipp, ‘ “Klasse Schule—immer genug zu essen, wenig Mathematik”.
Elitebildung im “Dritten Reich” oder über die Herstellung von Elite-Bewusstsein’,
in Jutta Ecarius and Lothar Wigger, eds, Elitebildung—Bildungselite.
Erziehungswissenschaftliche Diskussionen und Befunde über Bildung und soziale
Ungleichheit (Opladen, 2006), 44–66, 48, n. 12; Gisela Miller-Kipp, ‘Elitebildung in den
Elite-Schulen des “Dritten Reiches”. Praxis und Systemfunktion’, in ‘Es war ein Welt von
Befehl und Gehorsam.’ Nationalsozialistische Elitebildung und die Adolf-Hitler-Schule
Sachsen in Pirna-Sonnenstein (1941 bis 1945) (Pirna, 2008), 17–36, 21, n. 15; more
recently: Gisela Miller-Kipp, ‘Review of Rainer Hülsheger, Die Adolf-Hitler-Schulen
1937–1945: Suggestion eines Elitebewusstseins’, H-Soz-u-Kult, H-Net Reviews (February
2016). Unfortunately, this error has subsequently been perpetuated in other recent
publications, such as Tim Müller, ‘A Legal Odyssey: Denazification Law, Nazi Elite
Schools, and the Construction of Postwar Memory’, History of Education 46, no. 4
(2017), 498–513, 499, n. 11.
4. On the Nationalpolitische Lehrgänge themselves, see Barbara Schneider, Die höhere
Schule im Nationalsozialismus. Zur Ideologisierung von Bildung und Erziehung
(Cologne, 2000), ch. III.3.4.
5. Nationalpolitische Erziehungsanstalt Plön. Rundbrief, Nr. 25 (October 1943), 23.
6. Harald Scholtz, Nationalsozialistische Ausleseschulen. Internatsschulen als
Herrschaftsmittel des Führerstaates (Göttingen, 1973).
7. Cf. Staatsarchiv Hamburg, 361–2 VI Nr. 604, Deutscher Gemeindetag, letter dated 25
June 1935. For accounts of the NPEA during the Third Reich which did use the term
‘elite’, see e.g. Willy Beer, ‘Elite und Norm’, Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, 20 July 1939
[BArch, NS 5/VI/18842]; Willi Jung, Deutsche Arbeiterjugend. Auslese, Förderung,
xx    
Aufstieg (Berlin, 1940), 31; ‘Elitebildung’, Das Reich, 27 April 1941 [BArch, NS 5/
VI/18842].
8. Lisa Pine, Education in Nazi Germany (Oxford, 2010), 71.
9. Quite apart from the untranslatable elements of the term Auslese, defining the NPEA as
‘selective schools’ in English would utterly fail to convey a true sense of the schools’
programme; rather, it would make them sound relatively innocuous—something along
the lines of an English grammar school.
Introduction
The Napolas in Historical Context
Berlin, October 1940: SS-Lieutenant-General August Heißmeyer, the Inspector of

the National Political Education Institutes (NPEA), expounded his megalomaniac
expectations for the development of the system of elite boarding schools under
his control to the Head of the Reich Chancellery.¹ Within the next five years, in
order to safeguard the survival of the Reich in accordance with the Führer’s will,
the number of NPEA in existence must rise from a mere twenty-one to a grand
total of one hundred. The schools would then be able to produce around three
thousand graduates each year, most of whom would go on to take up leading
positions in the Wehrmacht, Party, and state. To get this expansion programme
off the ground, fifteen new schools would have to be founded in the next financial
year alone, and 14.25 million Reichsmarks would need to be allocated for this
purpose in the Reich budget for 1941. Moreover, as soon as Germany had tri-
umphed in the Second World War, all of the NPEA which had already been
founded would necessarily have to be supplied with brand new campuses, in
keeping with their vital imperial mission to provide leaders for all of the peoples
which Germany had now conquered. Only then, Heißmeyer averred, could
Hitler’s anxieties concerning the overall stability of the Third Reich be assuaged.
Less than a year later, Heißmeyer had begun to enlist the assistance of numer-
ous architects and state construction officials in order to realize these far-reaching
proposals, including plans for a monumental ‘model campus’ on the outskirts of
Berlin which could be shown off to foreign dignitaries visiting the Nazi capital.²
At a conference of relevant architects and officials in July 1941, Heißmeyer
declared that the buildings which they were to design and construct must be
magnificent, worthy of the Reich’s greatness, and able to withstand the elements
for hundreds of years; they were to be the ‘pillars’ upholding the educational sys-
tem in every Gau.³ The following year, the Inspector also outlined plans for fur-
ther schools to be founded not only in occupied Flanders, Holland, and
Luxembourg, but also in Norway and (supposedly neutral) Switzerland.⁴
By April 1944, it seemed as if some of the Inspector’s grandiose plans might
come at least partly to fruition; twelve out of the desired fifteen NPEA had indeed
been founded in 1941, and Heißmeyer was now proudly able to boast that, since
the outbreak of war, the number of schools in existence had risen to forty-three.⁵
By now, many of the Eastern and Western occupied territories—present-day
The Third Reich's Elite Schools: A History of the Napolas. Helen Roche, Oxford University Press. © Helen Roche 2021.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198726128.003.0001
   ’  
Czechia, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg—had had schools

established to train ‘racially suitable’ future leaders from their native populations
alongside children from the German heartland of the ‘old Reich’.⁶ Even as the war
situation worsened, and Germany began to suffer defeat after defeat, the Reich
and Prussian Finance Ministries were still willing to pump millions of
Reichsmarks into the Napola system; the final school to be founded, NPEA
Bohemia in Kuttenberg (Kutná Hora), officially opened its doors as late as 21
April 1944.⁷
And yet, less than eighteen months later, with the National Socialist regime
utterly vanquished and Germany enduring fourfold foreign occupation, those
schools whose buildings still survived at all had often been ransacked and dam-
aged beyond all recognition. Thus, during a local government inspection of the
former site of the school at Potsdam, one of the few remaining NPEA administra-
tors lamented that he had been wholly unable to prevent either the local populace
or resident Soviet troops from continually looting the building—making off with
everything from roof-tiles to kitchen utensils and books from the abandoned
library.⁸ A few months on, rain and snowmelt from the damaged roof had made
most of the rooms uninhabitable, and the women who had been billeted there
routinely used the school’s ruined furniture to fuel their cooking-fires.⁹ Like all of
the Third Reich’s other Ozymandian imperial dreams, Heißmeyer’s hubris and his
putative educational empire had finally come to naught.¹⁰
Perhaps it is unsurprising, then, that even in Germany, few today are fully
aware of the role which the NPEA played in the Third Reich’s machinery of polit-
ical and racial domination—or even that they existed at all. For, unlike the
National Socialist training academies or ‘Order Castles’ (Ordensburgen) for adult
Party cadres which were newly built at Crössinsee, Sonthofen, and Vogelsang, or
the Adolf-Hitler-Schools which later inhabited their vast building complexes—
still well known as some of the most notorious surviving instances of Nazi monu-
mental architecture—the Napolas rarely formed such a ‘visible’ part of the Third
Reich’s educational landscape, either literally or metaphorically.¹¹ On occasion,
this could lead to embarrassing (if somewhat amusing) misunderstandings—for
instance, the time when the Westdeutscher Beobachter, a leading West-German
regional daily, printed an article celebrating the schools’ achievements in the
state’s annual winter charity campaign entitled ‘Italian Youth Raise Money for the
Winter Help’—having evidently assumed that the so-called ‘Napola’-pupils must
have originated from Naples.¹² In similar vein, since the term ‘Educational
Institute’ (Erziehungsanstalt) was often used to denote some kind of reformatory
or institution for young offenders, many members of the general public might
consider the ‘inmates’ at the schools to be potentially dangerous—as did one
group of visitors to NPEA Oranienstein, who were keen to espy the artistic
delights of the baroque palace in which the school was situated (including fres-
coes by van Dyck), yet did not dare to pass beyond the gates: ‘Not without reserve,
:      
they asked one of the group of pupils (Jungmannen) who were romping around
outside the magnificent wrought-iron courtyard railings how they came to be
allowed to move around so freely here. The little chap answered them mischiev-
ously, “These are only the mild cases; the more serious ones are locked up!”’¹³
From this perspective, NPEA staff and bureaucrats at the Inspectorate alike
were continually irritated by the fact that, in publicity terms, the schools appeared
to be perpetually living up to their own motto: ‘Be more than you seem’ (Mehr
sein als scheinen).¹⁴ To add insult to injury, after only a few months of existence,
the Adolf-Hitler-Schools (AHS), rival Party elite boarding schools founded by
Reich Youth Leader Baldur von Schirach and Reich Organization Leader Robert
Ley in 1937, had become far better known, due to their extremely slick and wide-
ranging propaganda campaign.¹⁵ Yet the fact that most Germans, even those who
lived in the vicinity of an NPEA, had little notion of what exactly went on there,
and that even members of the SS who wished to send their sons to a Napola might
have no idea of the schools’ real name, or how to go about making an application—
not to mention the grisly rumours that the sporting education at the schools was
so excessive that ‘most of the poor lads suffer from a heart condition’—were pri-
marily the Inspectorate’s own fault.¹⁶ Instead of placing the schools in the public
eye and informing the public about their aims and ethos on a regular basis, the
Inspectorate stringently restricted and censored all publications about the NPEA,
and, until 1937, staff at the schools were forbidden from even giving public talks
about the Napolas, or showing the films which had been made of their activities.¹⁷
It seems that these rules were (slightly) loosened only after the AHS’ competing
advent on the elite-school scene; even so, the themes of presentations by staff
were still strictly limited to discussion of their own personal work at their par-
ticular school, rather than the Napola system as a whole.¹⁸
So, what exactly were the NPEA, and why did they matter—why, indeed,
should they matter to us now? In the following section, I give a brief outline of the
Napolas’ aims and ethos (as a basis for subsequent observations), before making a
case for the originality of my approach, and defining the schools’ significance for
the history of the Third Reich as a whole. I also give a concise overview of the
various debates to which this first comprehensive study of the schools will con-
tribute, and the ways in which it builds upon existing scholarship.
In the following section, I then go on to sketch the programmatic intentions of
the key figures involved in the Napolas’ founding and subsequent development—
Reich Education Minister Bernhard Rust; the first Inspector of the NPEA, Joachim
Haupt, and the second (and last) Inspector, August Heißmeyer—touching upon
the extent to which the schools’ programme drew upon pre-National Socialist
educational traditions, including the turn-of-the-century youth movements,
reform pedagogy, and the militaristic methods of the Prussian cadet schools. In
this connection, we will also examine the schools’ educational aims—in particular,
their commitment to the ‘socialist’ elements of National Socialism, in the form of
   ’  
free or heavily subsidized places for poorer members of the racially defined
German national community under Nazism, the so-called Volksgemeinschaft.
Finally, I conclude by briefly outlining the book’s structure (chapter-wise), and
the nature of the sources used in its construction.
*
Put simply, the National Political Education Institutes (Nationalpolitische
Erziehungsanstalten), most commonly known as NPEA or Napolas, were Nazi
Germany’s principal training institutions for the future elite of the Third Reich.¹⁹
Self-confessedly modelled on an amalgam of the English public schools, the
Prussian cadet schools, and the harsh educational practices of ancient Sparta, the
NPEA aimed to take boys from the age of 10, and turn them into leaders in all
walks of life—whether military, political, or intellectual.²⁰ The schools were open
to pupils of any background—in fact, they offered a generous scheme of free or
heavily subsidized places, which were also a key element in their propaganda,
since the schools deliberately aimed to foster talented children from poorer back-
grounds, particularly the sons of workers and farmers. Nevertheless, it seems that
middle-class children still predominated.²¹
Prospective pupils were subjected to a rigorous and gruelling selection process,
which not only tested their supposed level of ‘racial purity’ and their academic
abilities, but also placed extreme emphasis on physical prowess and sheer cour-
age. Those who successfully passed all aspects of the selection examination would
then join their Napola’s first ‘platoon’ (Zug—class), learning to live in a highly
militarized and enclosed boarding-school community.²² The schools provided an
extensive variety of activities—academic lessons, though taken seriously, took a
back seat compared with physical education, which included the opportunity to
ride, glide, sail, drive, and ski, as well as engagement in pre-military training, such
as small-bore shooting and cross-country war-games.²³ Pupils also had the
chance to visit many European countries (as the Reich’s ‘cultural ambassadors’),
and to take part in exchanges with British public schools and American acad-
emies. Older boys also spent extended periods working in factories, mines, or on
German farms in the conquered Eastern territories—in order to understand the
lives of ‘the people’, whom they would one day rule in peace and lead in war.²⁴
Needless to say, the Napolas were also hothouses for the propagation of Nazi
ideology, and countless former pupils died on the battlefields of World War II. As
the Third Reich began to disintegrate, lessons were subject to ever greater disrup-
tion, and conditions at the schools generally worsened, although the situation was
still often far less dire at the NPEA than it would have been at ‘normal’ secondary
schools.²⁵ In general, boys were called up ever younger to serve as anti-aircraft aux-
iliaries or teenage soldiers. Some, convinced of the rightness of the German cause,
continued to fight on even after Germany had capitulated to the Allies in May 1945.
:      
This monograph presents an entirely original synthesis of primary source-

material collated over the past decade from eighty archives in half a dozen coun-
tries worldwide, as well as drawing upon eyewitness testimonies from over one
hundred former Napola-pupils, with whom I have been corresponding since
2009. Hence, it illuminates school life at the NPEA, and the multifarious political
projects within which the schools were enmeshed, in greater detail, and with far
greater subtlety, than any previously existing studies. In particular, it highlights
the significant ‘variety within unity’ exhibited by individual schools within the
NPEA system—including the very first Napolas which were founded in former
Prussian cadet schools; those with a long-standing humanistic tradition; those
established in the German federal states beyond Prussia and in annexed Austria,
and those founded to aid ‘Germanization’ in the occupied Eastern and Western
territories—as well as the (often overlooked) NPEA for girls.
The book follows a tripartite structure, beginning with an account of the
Napolas’ place in the Third Reich’s educational landscape, their institutional
development, and their everyday life or Alltagsgeschichte (Part I). Part II then
moves on to explore the varying regional circumstances and long-standing tradi-
tions which influenced the ethos of the different schools within the Napola sys-
tem in detail. This differentiation is especially important, given that most previous
scholarship has tended to lump all of the Napolas together indiscriminately—and,
indeed, to obliterate the differences between the Napolas and other, better-known
Nazi elite educational institutions, such as the Adolf-Hitler-Schools and the Reich
School of the NSDAP at Feldafing (for a full discussion of the relationship
between the NPEA and the AHS, see the Conclusion).²⁶ Finally, Part III depicts
the effects of total war on the schools, and the whole system’s dramatic disintegra-
tion during the final months of World War II; in conclusion, the epilogue docu-
ments the fate of the Napolas and their adherents in post-war German society.
Throughout the following chapters, we shall see that, when approached appro-
priately, the Napolas form a fascinating microcosm; a petri-dish in which many of
the Third Reich’s most fundamental tendencies can be found in magnified form.
These include—but are certainly not limited to:
• The constant conflicts caused by polycratic infighting over which political

faction (including the Education Ministry, the SA, the Party, or the military)
should gain control over the schools—and the infinite rapacity of Himmler
and the SS, which fuelled it most (Chapter 1).
• The complex relationship between the centre of the Nazi state and its
periphery—both in terms of the tensions between the central government
in Berlin and the federal states within Germany itself, and between Austria
and Germany within the context of the ever-expanding ‘Greater German
Reich’ (Chapters 5 and 7).
   ’  
• The contradiction between National Socialist claims to honour past tradi-

tions, particularly in the form of religion and humanism, and their whole-
sale erosion, rejection, and destruction (Chapter 6).
• The institutionalization of radically unequal, yet complementary, forms of
gender politics and socialization (Chapter 9).
• The related ideology and rhetoric of the racial Volksgemeinschaft, which was
made corporeal in hyper-concentrated and distilled form in the student
body itself, and the regime’s racially underpinned dreams of a new Nazi
European order, created through a radical programme of Germanization
policy in both Eastern and Western Europe (Chapter 8).
• And, last but not least, the Nazi regime’s grandiose claim to control the
future by controlling and shaping the lives of Germany’s youth, so that, in
Hitler’s own words, ‘They will never again be free throughout their entire
lives’, instead becoming ‘fleet as greyhounds, tough as leather, and hard as
Krupp-steel’ in his service.²⁷
As we shall see, the Napolas lay at the forefront of many political and socio-
cultural developments under National Socialism—whilst simultaneously reflect-
ing many others. Thus, the schools’ history can provide a fresh perspective on
Nazi subjects’ everyday behaviour and political expectations, whilst also illumin-
ating many themes which are considered to be of key importance by scholars of
the Third Reich today. For instance, the dictatorship’s concern with providing its
‘Aryan’ citizens with opportunities for personal advancement, individual enjoy-
ment, and self-expression was reflected in the schools’ expansive programme of
sporting and artistic extracurricular activities—as was the seductiveness of the
regime and the lure of the Volksgemeinschaft, of being able to define oneself posi-
tively and dominatingly against the negative pole of the racial ‘Other’.²⁸ In this
instance, the Napolas’ ‘schöner Schein’, their seductive glamour,²⁹ was arguably
even more attractive because the comradeship on offer at the NPEA was far more
‘racially exclusive’ than that which most school-children in the Third Reich might
experience. Thus, an even more marked sense of superiority could be fostered
amongst the student body, not just in opposition to societal outcasts, but in
opposition to members of the Hitler Youth, or even pupils from other types of
elite school as well.³⁰
I would therefore suggest that the student body at the Napolas should be seen
as a form of distilled or hyper-selective ‘auserlesene’ Volksgemeinschaft; that is,
pupils allegedly represented very many of the ideals prioritized in the idea of the
Nazi national community—racial, physical, and political—but in microcosm.
Traits such as purported ‘racial purity’, sporting capacity, strength and (relative)
physical perfection, political uniformity, and above all, the will to achievement, to
ever greater Leistung, which were demanded of National Socialist citizens in gen-
eral, can be found at the Napolas in particularly refined and exaggerated form.
:      
Meanwhile, what Norbert Frei has termed the ‘gefühlte Gleichheit’ (experienced
egalitarianism) of the Volksgemeinschaft can be found within the schools’ micro-
community in abundance:³¹ that is, a feeling of equality, comradeship, and
belonging, despite material and social inequalities in pupils’ family background.
Indeed, we might argue that, of all the National Socialist institutions which
offered German citizens educational opportunities or the prospect of greater
social mobility, the Napolas came closest to realizing many of the ‘aspirations of
dictatorship’, not merely in terms of their enhanced capacity to indoctrinate
German youth, but also because they realized certain facets of the promise of the
Nazi ‘social revolution’ in a way that was more than merely illusory.³²
All in all, then, we can see the Napolas as a prism through which many key
aspects of Nazism are refracted—some with particular intensity; others at a level
which mirrored that of the Third Reich at large. For this reason, I would argue—
as Jürgen Finger has suggested in his recent monograph on Nazi educational pol-
itics in Württemberg—that we can indeed gain extremely valuable insights into the
nature of the Third Reich through treating ‘Bildungsgeschichte als Zeitgeschichte’—
that is, treating the history of education as contemporary history.³³ All too
often—and not only in German history or German studies—we find research on
educational history or the history of childhood and youth being pushed to the
margins, corralled away into a subfield all its own, and to some extent spurned or
ignored by ‘mainstream’ political or social historians.³⁴ Yet, in fact, what could be
more telling than the ways in which a state seeks to indoctrinate its youth, or the
particular virtues which it seeks to instil in its citizens of the future?³⁵ The utility of
such an approach is also suggested by the fact that there now exist a number of
monographs on individual aspects of the Third Reich, including Detlef Brandes’
and Johannes Koll’s analyses of Nazi occupation policies in the conquered Czech
lands and the Netherlands respectively, or Annette Mertens’ study of religious
expropriations in Germany and Austria after the Anschluss, which have already
pointed towards the Napolas’ key role in many spheres of National Socialist policy.³⁶
Seen from this perspective, the history of education can grant us crucial
insights into the nature, goals, and priorities of many a regime—and how much
more so in the case of the training of the putative political elite? Had National
Socialism endured for longer, the graduates of the Napola system would indeed
have ruled Europe. And, even in both post-war Germanies and in Austria, a sig-
nificant number of them still went on to gain extremely prominent military, eco-
nomic, and political positions—for instance, the ex-pupils with whom I have
corresponded during the course of my research have included a former Austrian
Justice Minister, a NATO-Commander-in-Chief for Central Europe, and Erich
Honecker’s former righthand man in the East German Youth Organization,
the FDJ.
I would therefore suggest that this study can provide a model, not only for
treating Bildungsgeschichte as Zeitgeschichte, but also for treating Bildungsgeschichte
   ’  
as Alltagsgeschichte—demonstrating that, in a meaningful sense, the history of an

era, a regime, or a dictatorship can indeed be written through the medium of the
history of education or the history of childhood and youth—fusing institutional
history with experiential history of the kind which has already been successfully
pioneered in works such as Nicholas Stargardt’s ground-breaking studies of child-
hood and war under Nazism, or the new C. H. Beck history series entitled ‘The
Germans and National Socialism’ (Die Deutschen und der Nationalsozialismus).³⁷
*
So, how far does this approach chime with previous discussions of the NPEA, and
with further debates on society and pedagogy in the Third Reich more generally?
Despite the more or less recent appearance of a number of path-breaking MA
and PhD theses, including Andreas Förschler’s study of the NPEA in Backnang,
Stefanie Flintrop’s self-published doctoral dissertation on the Napolas for girls,
Tim Müller’s analysis of the NPEA and denazification, and Juliane Tiffert’s exam-
ination of Napola school trips in South-Western Europe, the state of published
scholarship on the Napolas for the most part remains preserved in aspic,³⁸ still
held in thrall to the views put forward by Horst Ueberhorst and Harald Scholtz
half a century ago, in the late 1960s and early 1970s.³⁹ Ueberhorst’s sourcebook on
the Napolas, Elite für die Diktatur (Elite for the Dictatorship), first appeared in
1969, and Harald Scholtz’s monograph treating all of the Nazi elite schools, entitled
Nationalsozialistische Ausleseschulen (National Socialist Selective Schools), was
published four years later, in 1973—yet these two publications have still remained
the unquestioned ‘standard works’ on the schools right up to the present day.⁴⁰
This is not problematic merely because both works are considerably outdated,
and rely upon a tiny fraction of the currently accessible sources (for instance, nei-
ther historian had access to documents held in what was then the German
Democratic Republic), nor even because Scholtz’s analysis is rooted in that con-
temporary vein of criticism which resolutely refused to take National Socialist
ideological and pedagogical aspirations seriously (Ideologiekritik).⁴¹ Rather, as
Tim Müller has cogently argued, the fact that both scholars had themselves been
educated at Nazi elite schools—in Ueberhorst’s case, at NPEA Oranienstein; in
Scholtz’s case, at an Adolf-Hitler-School—led them deliberately to obfuscate the
Napolas’ history, in accordance with the positive ‘post-war myths’ which had
been purposefully cultivated by former adherents of the NPEA as part of their
denazification strategy (see Chapter 12).⁴² Thus, Scholtz’s desire both to play
down the ‘elite’ status of what he preferred to term ‘selective’ schools at all costs, and
to portray the Napolas’ educational programme as ‘pathetic’, inefficient, and lack-
ing in any pedagogical coherence—a judgement which has largely been unques-
tioningly accepted in subsequent scholarship—was ultimately driven by his own
exculpatory political agenda:⁴³ namely, ‘[to distance] the Napolas and Adolf-
Hitler-Schools from Nazi sites of indoctrination, such as the SS-Junkerschulen
:      
and NS-Ordensburgen [and] to correct the negative post-war image of the Adolf-
Hitler-Schools by aligning it more closely with that of the Napolas’.⁴⁴
Meanwhile, Ueberhorst’s sourcebook, which is still used uncritically by many
scholars and students as a substitute for undertaking archival research of their
own on the NPEA, is even more deeply steeped in many of the most virulent
tropes of defensive myth-building which former staff and pupils deployed during
the immediate post-war period.⁴⁵ Thus, not only is the collection wholly biased
towards material from Ueberhorst’s old school, Oranienstein, but the (at times
misleading) selection of documents and their framing or excerpting can easily
lead to skewed interpretations.⁴⁶ As a case in point, both Scholtz and Ueberhorst
provide an analysis of the Napolas which were founded in the ‘Greater German
Reich’ which is historically untenable, ascribing beneficent motives to the NPEA
Inspectorate, and distancing the institution from Himmler’s Germanization pol-
icies in a fashion which does not bear the slightest resemblance to the facts which
can now be reconstructed (nor even to those available at the time).⁴⁷ Thus, while
both of these works may provide a starting-point for the uninitiated, they should
no longer be treated as a central foundation for future analyses.
Therefore, in opposition to such politically motivated misconceptions, I would
argue that the time is now ripe to take the Napolas’ pedagogical aspirations and
antecedents seriously—in line with more recent scholarly developments in
German educational history, which has now dismissed the school of thought
which argued that all National Socialist pedagogy must be deemed worthless ‘un-
pedagogy’ (Un-Pädagogik) or ‘non-education’ (Non-Bildung), sedulously denying
the existence of any continuities with previous types of pedagogy.⁴⁸ As the following
chapters will show, despite having begun their life in somewhat experimental fash-
ion, and having undergone various changes in direction and curricular adjust-
ments over the years, the NPEA certainly did possess a coherent programme—the
system was scarcely chaotic or shambolic in the way that Scholtz and his acolytes
have consistently implied. Moreover, while all of the Nazi elite schools were
undeniably sites of political indoctrination, the education on offer at the Napolas
generally appears to have been less academically ineffective than that offered by
the other elite schools, and acceptance was certainly defined more by one’s ability
than one’s parents’ political affiliation (which would have been unthinkable at the
AHS).⁴⁹ Indeed, it appears that, at least until the advent of World War II (and
even beyond), above-average intellectual capability was considered an essential
criterion for attendance at most NPEA, even if this was still only one of a number
of considerations which were taken into account holistically when assessing pro-
spective pupils’ suitability.⁵⁰
Overall, in less than a decade, the Napolas had genuinely managed to create a
system of schools which could in some sense be considered analogous to the British
public schools—complete with the requisite more-or-less majestic campuses,
catalogues of sporting victories, and long-standing institutional loyalties—their
   ’  
establishment had taken mere years, rather than decades or centuries. Thus, while
one may ardently wish that the Napolas had achieved nothing, to deny that they
did so because of that desire is to indulge in a form of historical obfuscation.⁵¹ The
education which the schools provided was arguably effective to a substantial
degree, when considered on its own terms. Those terms may appear deplorable to
a twenty-first-century observer, but to leave the question unexplored is to lose a
key opportunity both to analyse the intentions of the Nazi dictatorship, and to
explore how readily National Socialist educational ideologies could be put into
practice, given favourable circumstances and a ready-made arena.
From this perspective, recent work on the Ordensburgen and the Adolf-Hitler-
Schools has begun to take important steps in this direction—siting National
Socialist elite education squarely within the context of key debates concerning the
social and political history of the Third Reich as a whole.⁵² As we shall see, the NPEA
were arguably more effective and influential than either of these institutions—
indeed, much of the AHS’ educational programme was simply copied from
that of the Napolas (see the Conclusion). Nevertheless, taking these volumes’
lead, this book also treats the NPEA as one of those institutions which existed
at the inclusive end of the regime’s spectrum of mechanisms of inclusion
or ‘selection’ (Auslese), forming the ‘racial elite’ at the apex of the
Volksgemeinschaft—the other side of the coin of all those mechanisms of
exclusion and eradication (Ausmerze) which were created in order to realize
the regime’s genocidal logic.⁵³
In addition, this work also finds itself in dialogue with new transnational
approaches to the Third Reich, demonstrating that, given the Napolas’ imperial
reach and expansionist drive, their history should also be considered from a
transnational perspective.⁵⁴ Through trips, exchanges, and, ultimately, through
the Nazi regime’s war of conquest, their influence did indeed literally extend
‘from the Arctic Ocean to Rio de Janeiro; from the Russian border to New York’.⁵⁵
Furthermore, the study engages with recent historiographical advances in
regional history, women’s history, and the history of religious persecution and
colonial domination during the Third Reich, as well as engaging with key debates
concerning the nature of the Volksgemeinschaft.⁵⁶ Finally, following the lead of
other ground-breaking studies in German history which have appeared since the
turn of the millennium, the book’s range also encompasses continuities beyond
the twentieth century’s traditional temporal caesuras.⁵⁷ Thus, it not only con-
siders pre-National Socialist influences on the NPEA (thereby demonstrating
Nazism’s fundamental accommodability with existing traditions), but also traces
the impact of the schools’ education and the fates of staff and pupils beyond the
so-called ‘zero hour’ of Germany’s defeat in 1945.⁵⁸
*
In an essay published for an Anglophone readership in 1935, entitled ‘The
Educational Ideals of the German National Socialist Movement’, Joachim Haupt, the
:      
first Inspector of the NPEA, described the Napolas as ‘boarding establishments . . .

designed to combine formal learning with political social training, and to act as a
sort of advance guard on the road to the national socialistic reform of education’.⁵⁹
In similar vein, a few years later, Reich Education Minister Bernhard Rust hailed
the NPEA as ‘the granite foundations of future national political education . . . they
have become the pioneer and paradigm of National Socialist schooling’.⁶⁰
In the view of the Education Minister and both Inspectors of the NPEA, only a
boarding-school environment could sufficiently realize the National Socialist
pedagogical mission of unifying the competing educational influences of the
parental home, school, and Hitler Youth.⁶¹ From this perspective, the Napola pro-
gramme did indeed offer something new, since elite boarding schools were a rela-
tive rarity in the German educational landscape. Unlike Britain, with its many
public schools, Germany could boast only a few venerable boarding institutions
such as Schulpforta and the Saxon ducal schools at Grimma and Meißen, the aris-
tocratic ‘Ritterakademien’, the former cadet schools, and the newly conceived
Landerziehungsheime or country boarding schools, as well as (often religious-
run) boarding schools in areas where the rural population was so scattered as to
make it difficult for children to commute to school every day from outlying farms
and villages.
In general, the architects of the NPEA system were keen to stress the utter
originality or ‘Neuartigkeit’ of their brainchild at all costs, whilst disavowing the
importance of previous educational traditions. This distancing from all previous
paradigms also operated at the level of the vocabulary used at the schools; adher-
ents of the Napolas were explicitly ordered to avoid using terminology from the
‘civilian’ system as far as possible—a ‘deliberate setting-aside of terms and desig-
nations used in schools at large’.⁶² Although, from a curricular standpoint, the
NPEA generally followed academic syllabuses analogous to those of other
German secondary schools (see Chapter 2),⁶³ the Napolas’ novelty was held to lie
more specifically both in their stringent selection process, and in their claim to
provide a form of ‘total education’ (Gesamterziehung) which could mould pupils’
characters whilst indoctrinating them politically and steeling them physically,
encompassing them at all times within the school ‘community’ or Gemeinschaft.⁶⁴
Thus, the purely military methods of the cadet schools were considered to be no
more fitting a model for the Napolas’ educational praxis as a whole than the
methods of any normal day-school would have been.⁶⁵
As we shall see in Chapter 4, the NPEA did in fact inherit many traditions and
practices from the Royal Prussian Cadet Corps—but the validity of these was
always contested and open to interpretation.⁶⁶ At the same time, new models of
child-centred boarding education, such as those put forward by Hermann Lietz
and other adherents of reform pedagogy at the Landerziehungsheime and other
private boarding schools during the Weimar era, were explicitly dismissed by
Heißmeyer et al. as being far too liberalistic and averse to militarization.⁶⁷
Meanwhile, although the NPEA programme might have possessed some affinities
   ’  
with pedagogical theories put forward by Nazi educationalists such as Ernst

Krieck, there is very little evidence to suggest that these theories ever exerted a
meaningful influence on the schools’ praxis and their day-to-day functioning.⁶⁸
Thus, despite the ostensible connections which some commentators have per-
ceived between Krieck’s tract entitled Nationalpolitische Erziehung (National
Political Education), first published in 1932, and the ‘National Political Education
Institutes’—in part simply due to their shared use of the adjective ‘nationalpo-
litisch’, and their general adherence to certain key tenets of the Nazi educational
Weltanschauung—these similarities appear to have possessed little significance in
practice; not least because Krieck himself explicitly condemned boarding-school
education within the pages of the tome in question.⁶⁹
Rather, as in many other spheres of education in the Third Reich, most NPEA
praxis bypassed such academic theory-building entirely and, when in search of
inspiration, went straight to the Nazi ‘Gospel’—Mein Kampf.⁷⁰ In accordance
with the Führer’s pseudo-philosophical outpourings, the NPEA aimed to create
the National Socialist ‘new man’, whilst simultaneously drawing not only upon
those utopian ideals encapsulated within the turn-of-the-century youth move-
ments, but also upon that sphere of educational theory which Nazi educators
most affected to despise—reform pedagogy.⁷¹ Thus, while many aspects of the
Napolas’ programme, especially the extracurricular activities such as camps, war-
games, harvest ‘missions’, and borderland activism, had their basis in the practice
of the interwar youth movements (as Rüdiger Ahrens’ seminal study has shown,
many of these groups were very much attuned to the more right-wing currents in
Weimar politics), many reform-pedagogical teaching methods were equally sus-
ceptible to authoritarian adaptation at the NPEA.⁷² These might include self-
directed projects, a general emphasis on pupils’ gaining greater independence and
responsibility, and the cultivation of a varied range of artistic and practical skills
and talents (see Chapter 3).⁷³ From this perspective, we can ultimately see the
NPEA programme as a highly effective fusion combining all of the most seduc-
tive elements of reform pedagogy, youth-movement praxis, and the militarized
education offered at the Prussian cadet schools.⁷⁴
Whatever their antecedents, however, the ultimate aim of the NPEA in the eyes
of their creators was to train their pupils into regime-loyal subjects who would be
capable of serving the Nazi state in any type of leadership role—even though pro-
grammatic texts on the schools were always at pains to stress that attendance at a
Napola by no means entitled graduates to a stellar career or a favoured position in
the Reich’s political hierarchy.⁷⁵ Although there existed variations in selection cri-
teria between individual schools, as well as in their curricula, the basic demands
made of prospective pupils were always relatively consistent: they had to be
‘healthy, irreproachable racially and in terms of their character, and gifted with
above-average intelligence’.⁷⁶ Exceptions to these requirements on grounds of
political expediency appear to have been rare in the extreme, and the schools
:      
were constantly concerned to emphasize that they were far from mere institutions
for ‘charity cases’; children from disadvantaged backgrounds would only be
admitted if they fulfilled all of the schools’ other essential admission criteria (see
Chapter 2).⁷⁷
Nevertheless, in accordance with Point 20 of the NSDAP Party programme,
numerous press articles and programmatic documents written by or on behalf
of the school authorities also stressed that the social status of applicants, in
particular their parents’ wealth or standing, made no difference whatsoever to
their ability to gain a place at the schools.⁷⁸ A particularly favoured conceit
was the idea that the ‘spirit of socialism’ ruled supreme at the Napolas, so that
(for example), the son of a Major might live and work alongside the son of a
foreman in a tram garage.⁷⁹ As Heißmeyer put it in an interview with the Reich
Youth Press Service in September 1936, ‘It would be a betrayal of National
Socialism if we were to make the education of our future leaders a question of
wealth or pedigree’.⁸⁰
To this end, a generous means-tested system of free and subsidized places was
devised, which ensured that approximately 10 per cent of pupils were charged no
fees at all, with a series of incremental steps rising from Class B (c.240 RM per
year, or 20 RM per calendar month) to Class M (c.1,440 RM per year, or 120 RM
per calendar month), according to parents’ net income.⁸¹ Free places were also
offered to certain categories of Prussian and Reich civil servants.⁸² Individual
schools were additionally encouraged to seek support from local government,
town councils, firms, and Party organizations to sponsor subsidized places for
boys from their local area, in order to provide even more opportunities for the
children of financially disadvantaged citizens—and some of these initiatives do
seem to have achieved some degree of success.⁸³ In addition, those NPEA with
so-called ‘Aufbauzüge’ attached—classes starting at around 13, for those boys
who had missed out on being selected at the age of 10 in the Volksschule (primary
school)—offered a far higher ratio of free places, in a deliberate attempt to bring a
larger proportion of working-class youth into the schools.⁸⁴
In this connection, it is worth noting that the Inspectorate made it a point of
honour that no Jungmann should be expelled simply because his parents or
guardians were unable to pay the school-fees, and, in 1936, Heißmeyer concluded
an agreement with Reich Organization Leader Robert Ley that, in cases where the
local Mayor, Party offices (Kreisleitung), or Gauleitung were unable to stump up
the funds for a scholarship or a sponsored place, Ley’s German Labour Front
(DAF) would foot the bill.⁸⁵
Such social assistance not only covered the payment of school fees, however,
but also extended to all areas of school life. The Napolas provided their pupils
with all of the requisite uniforms and equipment, so that—as in the Hitler
Youth—variations in social status among the Jungmannen could never be revealed
by differences in dress.⁸⁶ All pupils received exactly the same amount of pocket
   ’  
money (around 10 RM per month), and their families were strictly forbidden
from sending further tips or top-ups to supplement this.⁸⁷ Moreover, each
Anstaltsleiter (headmaster) was charged with the duty of forcing all social distinc-
tions to vanish from his NPEA, and ‘particularly worthy, but socially badly-off
Jungmannen’ were to be provided with funding at his discretion to smooth their
path, without their having to ask for it, and without their schoolmates knowing
anything about it. This institutional generosity might include paying for journeys
home in the holidays, or subsidizing particularly expensive school trips. In 1934,
the NPEA authorities requested 3,000 RM to be set aside in the 1935 Prussian
state budget for this specific purpose.⁸⁸
The Inspectorate even made arrangements with bodies such as the Reich
Student Affairs Office (Reichsstudentenwerk) that less well-off Jungmannen would
be put forward for their funding-streams without having to participate in a spe-
cial course or Lehrgang (which all ‘normal’ applicants would have been expected
to undergo as a matter of course). Jungmannen were also given especially detailed
careers advice, both by the Reichsstudentenwerk and by the SS-Central Office,
while those exhibiting particular potential for and interest in the diplomatic ser-
vice would be automatically put forward as candidates for the Foreign Office’s
fast-track course, as well as being presented to Foreign Minister Joachim von
Ribbentrop in person at their graduation.⁸⁹ Thus, at least during the pre-war
years, the idea that attending an NPEA could open doors which would previ-
ously have been completely inaccessible to boys from a lower-class background
seems to have had some foundation in fact. This contention is also supported by
the fact that, in cases where relevant statistics exist, it appears that the majority
of Napola graduates pursued careers in the professions and in leadership posi-
tions which were at least equal to, and at times of higher social standing, than
those pursued by their parents.⁹⁰ Moreover, as H. W. Koch has argued, the repre-
sentation of children from working-class backgrounds at the NPEA during the
late 1930s was significantly greater than that offered by any other form of higher
education in Germany, either prior to the Third Reich, or for many decades
thereafter.⁹¹
*
In the chapters which follow, many of these themes will be explored in greater
depth. However, while it would be possible to gain a basic overview of the
Napolas’ functioning purely by reading Part I, especially the two longer core
chapters on daily life and extracurricular activities at the NPEA, and the chapters
in Part II have deliberately been written in such a way that they can each be read
separately as individual case studies if so desired (as could the chapters on the
schools’ wartime and post-war fate in Part III), the reader will undoubtedly gain
the most value from the volume if they read it from start to finish.
:      
Within the following section (Part I—‘Genesis’), Chapter 1 explores the foun-
dation and subsequent development of the NPEA and their administration,
including staff recruitment. Although both the Wehrmacht and the SS became
ever more concerned to gain control of the Napolas for their own ends, neither
achieved their aim, and the Education Ministry continued to retain some control
of the schools, even in the face of Himmler’s wrath. As with so many political
institutions during the Third Reich, the constant wrangling of hostile factions
formed an inevitable backdrop to the system’s expansion.
The next two core chapters then move on to focus in detail on everyday life at
the Napolas. Chapter 2 describes the various processes by which pupils were
selected for the entrance exam, the nature of the exam itself, and pupils’ first
impressions of their new environment when they arrived, as well as giving an
account of general routine at the schools, and the various types of activities in
which pupils consistently took part—whether academic, sporting, pre-military,
or purely recreational. Chapter 3 then treats the creative and artistic education
which the Napolas offered, as well as less routine occurrences, such as festivities,
trips abroad, exchanges with schools in other countries (British public schools
and US academies), and the so-called Einsätze (missions), during which pupils
were sent to live and work with farmers, miners, or factory-workers, in order to
experience their way of life at first hand.
The following six chapters (Part II—‘Variety within Unity’) then go on to ana-
lyse the different types of school within the Napola system in more detail.
Chapter 4 looks at the process of ‘Napolisation’ which took place at the Weimar
Republic’s Staatliche Bildungsanstalten, the successor institutions of the former
Prussian cadet schools. The chapter considers how far the NPEA represented a
resurrection of the cadet-school tradition, and the schools’ connection with more
broadly existing affinities between Prussianism and National Socialism. Chapter 5
then examines the tensions between the central government in Berlin and the
German federal states when it came to the foundation of non-Prussian NPEA in
Saxony, Anhalt, and Württemberg, and the Napolas’ relationship with broader
impulses towards centralization within the National Socialist state.
Meanwhile, Chapter 6 considers the Napolas’ marginalization of religious and
oppositional educational foundations, looking in detail at the Napolisation of
Ilfeld and Schulpforta, the first ‘humanistic’ NPEA to be founded, as well as the
fates of those schools at Haselünne, St. Wendel, and Neubeuern, which were far
more ruthlessly expropriated. Chapter 7 then goes on to explore the transform-
ation of the Viennese Bundeserziehungsanstalten into Napolas in the wake of the
Anschluss, whilst also depicting Heißmeyer’s ‘Klostersturm’ or expropriation of
the Austrian monasteries, due to his rapacious desire to find suitable campuses
for new schools—both processes conform to patterns of Nazification policy in
Austria more generally during this period. Chapter 8 then considers the schools’
   ’  
Germanizing mission in the Eastern and Western occupied territories within the
context of broader mechanisms of Nazi colonial domination during World War
II, while Chapter 9 looks at the curricula and contested nature of the NPEA for
girls, which fundamentally reflected competing National Socialist attitudes to the
‘woman question’ more generally.
Moving on to Part III (‘Nemesis’), Chapter 10 depicts the deterioration in the
quality of school life in wartime, including the ‘missions’ which pupils had to per-
form as anti-aircraft auxiliaries or leaders in the children’s evacuation programme
(KLV). Chronic shortages of everything from steel to salt, from teaching staff to
stable-hands, increasingly thrust the schools into a whirlwind of administrative
chaos, as Germany’s fortunes in World War II gradually worsened. Chapter 11,
the only chapter based primarily on eyewitness testimony, then charts the long
series of evacuations, treks, and (in some cases) desperate last stands in which
pupils took part, as the Allies advanced further and further into the heart of
Germany in Spring 1945. Meanwhile, Chapter 12 looks beyond 1945 to examine
the ways in which staff and pupils managed to ‘master their pasts’, both in the
immediate aftermath of the war, in the context of Allied denazification processes,
and beyond, analysing the strategies which former pupils have employed in creat-
ing their own form of ‘collective memory’, and the formation of their old boys’
networks. Finally, the Conclusion considers the effectiveness or otherwise of the
schools’ pedagogical approach on its own terms, comparing the Napolas’ per-
formance with that of other mechanisms of education and indoctrination within
the Nazi state, including normal ‘civilian’ secondary schools, the Hitler Youth,
and the Adolf-Hitler-Schools.
Given the patchy survival of sources on the NPEA—not least due to mass
burnings of documents at many schools by staff and pupils as the Allied forces
advanced in spring 1945—I have endeavoured throughout my research for this
book to seek out as broad a source-base as possible, synthesizing material from as
many archives and libraries as was practically feasible, in order to ensure that any
generalizations I might make would be well-founded. Every institution which I
visited added at least one or two more pieces to the overall mosaic. While the
official archival correspondence from the NPEA administration and government
organizations and ministries can illuminate the schools’ hierarchy and institu-
tional framework, surviving documents pertaining to individual schools, in par-
ticular their newsletters, can more readily provide insights into daily life at the
Napolas. Of course, I have routinely subjected all of my sources to the most strin-
gent criticism, especially given that media and newsletter reports necessarily por-
tray the ideal face of the system or the Napola in question, rather than presenting
some form of unvarnished reality. Nevertheless, in conjunction with surviving
private documents, these school newsletters can still give us an unparalleled win-
dow onto the schools’ endeavours, as well as revealing crucial variations in their
:      
individual ethos.⁹² Chapter 11 aside, I have tended only to use retrospective eye-
witness testimonies and memoirs corroboratively; however, in Chapter 12, I also
treat the themes of Napola collective memory which repeatedly arise in these
sources in some detail.⁹³
From this perspective, it is quite possible that some of the eyewitnesses with
whom I have corresponded may consider the conclusions of this account disap-
pointing. Some had clearly hoped that my work might vindicate their own post-
war perceptions of the Napolas’ status, and prove that the NPEA were—due to
their lack of explicit Party affiliation—‘not a Nazi school’ (see Chapter 12). All of
the surviving evidence, however, points resolutely in the opposite direction. The
NPEA were indeed instruments of the Nazi state, and their aims and ideology
were steeped in the tenets of Nazism, although they did not succumb to anti-
intellectualism and pure indoctrination in so grave a measure as the
Adolf-Hitler-Schools.
Yet, as Heidi Rosenbaum has shown, it is unsurprising that my correspondents
and interviewees follow the pattern prevalent in their generation of remembering
their schooldays as ‘normal’ and ‘unpolitical’, even when their everyday life was
shaped by the Napola (and hence by Nazism) on every level.⁹⁴ Because much of
the schools’ ideological indoctrination was covert rather than overt, and in any
case largely corresponded to views with which they would have been instilled
throughout their childhood, pupils would often genuinely have perceived noth-
ing especially political about their schooling at the time. It is only hindsight,
which reformats these recollections from direct representation of the child’s con-
temporary perceptions and emotions to an adult reconception of those same
events and experiences, that allows such memories to be accepted by ex-pupils as
indicating that their education was in fact thoroughly politicized. Hence, many
eyewitnesses are unable (or unwilling) to transform their ‘happy’, ‘normal’ mem-
ories of their schooldays into a more unpalatable, if more objective, perspective
on the past. This should not necessarily be considered the mere product of con-
scious dissimulation, but rather as a means of reconciling unbearable cognitive
dissonance; a protection mechanism aimed above all at preserving the self.⁹⁵
Ultimately, however, the Napolas were undoubtedly intended to provide an
ideal National Socialist education. And—unlike the only comparable system of
Nazi elite schools, the AHS—the NPEA can also fairly be said to have realized
much of their potential during the six years of peace following the Nazi seizure of
power. Even during the war years, the schools continued to proliferate and expand
at an astonishing rate, despite endemic war-related shortages of personnel, build-
ing materials and supplies. The desperation with which the regime sought to
uphold the Napola system during a time of total war, at enormous cost, also proves
how extraordinarily vital the Nazi regime perceived these schools to be—both for
the German war effort, and for the regime’s confidently envisaged post-war future.
   ’  
Notes
1. Bundesarchiv Lichterfelde (BArch), R 43-II/956b, Bl. 47–50, letter from Heißmeyer to

Lammers dated 22 October 1940 confirming his position, following a personal meet-
ing with Lammers which had taken place on 18 October.
2. BArch, R 4606/2022, letters dated 19 March 1941, 5 December 1941; on the further
development of these plans, see related correspondence in this file; also BArch, R
2/27762, letter dated 31 July 1942. Heißmeyer also planned to turn the schools’ retreat
at Burg Strechau in Styria into a fully functioning centre for special courses and con-
ferences (BArch, R 2/27788, report dated 12 July 1943).
3. Staatsarchiv Ludwigsburg (StAL), FL410–4 Bü 109, ‘Arbeitstagung im
Reichsfinanzministerium Berlin und in der Nat.polit. Erziehungsanstalt in Ballenstedt
vom 15.-18.7.1941’, 3.
4. BArch, NS 19/2741, Bl. 28, letter from Heißmeyer to Berger dated 24 July 1942.
5. BArch, R 1501/131026, letter dated 25 May 1944. If we also include the one NPEA
which had to be closed before the war, Wahlstatt, this means that the total number of
Napolas founded, by the Inspectorate’s own reckoning, was forty-four. However, many
of these schools were only ‘im Aufbau’—that is, they were still at an early stage in the
process of being built up from a couple of initial year-groups into a full-size second-
ary school.
6. See Chapter 8.
7. Cf. Šimůnek, Michal, ‘Poslední “vůdcovska škola” nacistické diktatury: tzv. Nacionálně
politický výchovný ústav Čechy (Nationalpolitische Erziehungsanstalt Böhmen) v
Kutné Hoře, 1943–1945 [Die “NPEA Böhmen” in Kuttenberg 1943–1945: Letzte
“Führerschule” der national-sozialistischen Diktatur]’, Acta Universitatis Carolinae 51,
no. 1 (2011), 59–81.
8. Brandenburgisches Landeshauptarchiv (BLHA), 204A MdF Nr. 2128, letter dated 4
September 1945; on the fate of other school buildings and campuses during the
immediate post-war period, see Chapter 12.
9. BLHA, 204A MdF Nr. 2128, letter dated 5 April 1946.
10. In this context, Heißmeyer’s ambitions had much in common with other wartime SS
projects anticipating the ‘final victory’, including the ‘Generalplan Ost’. As Bastian
Hein has shown, these plans were frequently characterized, firstly, by a radicalism
which went well beyond that of other Nazi state agencies; secondly, they were never
mere ‘chimeras’ which possessed no foundation in reality, but were often able to pro-
ceed well beyond the planning stage; finally, the drive for their implementation
remained largely unaffected by the severe military setbacks which Germany suffered
both in winter 1941–2, and after Stalingrad; rather, their evolution often continued
almost until the bitter end—cf. Bastian Hein, Elite für Volk und Führer? Die Allgemeine
SS und ihre Mitglieder 1925–1945 (Munich, 2012), 297–300.
11. Cf. ‘Schule der Auslese. Die nationalpolitischen Erziehungsanstalten’, Neues Wiener
Tageblatt, 13 June 1939 [BArch, R 3903/2248]. Indeed, we might ascribe the relative
dearth of recent studies on the NPEA, in comparison with the Ordensburgen and
Adolf-Hitler-Schools, to this literal lack of visibility. For a more wide-ranging com-
parison of the Napolas with both of these institutions, see the Conclusion.
:      
12. BArch, NS 2/64, Bl. 123; cf. Der Deutsche Volkserzieher 3 (1938), 429; BArch, R 4901/8,
Bl. 61, correspondence dated 4 March 1938. The Inspectorate was similarly incensed
when the NPEA were termed ‘Napoli-schools’ in an official report by a British educa-
tional commission.
13. Gustav Skroblin, ‘Vom Sinn der Gemeinschaftserziehung in den Nationalpolitischen
Erziehungsanstalten’, Frauen-Warte 6 (1941) [BArch, NS 5/VI/18842]. N.B. All trans-
lations are the author’s own.
14. Cf. ‘Vier Jahre NPEA. Nationalsozialistische Erziehungsanstalten—Musterstätten der
Gemeinschaftserziehung: Eine Unterredung mit SS-Obergruppenführer Heißmeyer’,
Rote Erde, 20 April 1937 [BArch, R 4902/1490]; F. Kopp, ‘Glauben, Gehorchen,
Kämpfen! Vom Weg und Ziel der “Nationalpolitischen Erziehungsanstalten”’,
Völkischer Beobachter, 14 March 1939 [BArch, NS 5/VI/18842]; ‘Oldenburger Jungen
auf der Nationalpolitischen Erziehungsanstalt’, Oldenburgische Staatszeitung, 4
February 1941 [Bundesarchiv Koblenz, ZSg. 117 Nr. 290].
15. BArch, NS 2/64, Bl. 121ff.; Helmut Trepte, ‘Die Napolas’, Berliner Tageblatt, 14 April
1938 [BArch, R 4902/1490]. For a full discussion of the Napolas’ relationship with the
AHS, see the Conclusion.
16. Cf. e.g. ‘Jungen der Napola spielen mit im Film. “Kopf hoch, Johannes!” wird gegen-
wärtig von Victor de Kowa gedreht’, Thüringer Gauzeitung, 29 July 1940 [Kreisarchiv
Nordhausen]; Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv Freiburg, RS 14/4 (Teil 2), letter dated 19
February 1940; Hellmann, ‘Nationalpolitische Erziehungsanstalten’, Mitteldeutsche
Nationalzeitung, 18 February 1936 [BArch, NS 5/VI/18840].
17. Österreichisches Staatsarchiv (ÖStA), BEA 7, letter dated 12 September 1938; StAL,
E 202 Bü 1746, letter dated 19 January 1937; cf. BArch, R 43/II-956b, Hempel,
‘Bergwerkseinsatz des Zuges “Walter Clausen” (6. Zug) der Nationalpolitischen
Erziehungsanstalt Plön’ (24 June 1942), §14; BArch, R 2/27788, letter dated 19 June 1942.
18. StAL, E 202 Bü 1746, letter dated 19 January 1937; cf. StAL, E 202 Bü 1747, letter
dated 6 September 1939.
19. For a discussion of these abbreviations and their contemporary usage, see the Note on
Terminology above. I shall use both abbreviations interchangeably in the pages which
follow, for reasons of stylistic variation.
20. For a detailed analysis of Spartan influences at the schools, see Helen Roche, Sparta’s
German Children: The Ideal of Ancient Sparta in the Royal Prussian Cadet Corps,
1818–1920, and in National Socialist Elite Schools (the Napolas), 1933–1945 (Swansea,
2013); on British public-school influences, see Helen Roche, ‘Zwischen Freundschaft
und Feindschaft: Exploring Relationships between Pupils at the Napolas
(Nationalpolitische Erziehungsanstalten) and British Public Schoolboys’, Angermion:
Yearbook for Anglo-German Literary Criticism, Intellectual History and Cultural
Transfers/Jahrbuch für britisch-deutsche Kulturbeziehungen 6 (2013), 101–26, 104–8;
on the cadet-school tradition at the NPEA, see Chapter 4.
21. Four girls’ schools were also founded (Hubertendorf-Türnitz in Austria, Achern,
Colmar-Berg in Luxembourg, and Heythuysen in the Netherlands respectively); their
aims and programme are discussed in detail in Chapter 9. However, given their
marginal position within the Napola system as a whole, I have based the following
overview on the state of affairs at the boys’ schools alone.
   ’  
22. For a detailed account of the selection process and daily life at the schools, see
Chapter 2.
23. For a concise depiction of sporting and pre-military activities at the schools, see also
Chapter 2; for a more in-depth analysis, see Helen Roche, ‘Sport, Leibeserziehung und
vormilitärische Ausbildung in den Nationalpolitischen Erziehungsanstalten: Eine “radi-
kale” Revolution der körperlichen Bildung im Rahmen der NS-“Gesamterziehung”?’,
Beiträge zur Geschichte des Nationalsozialismus 32 (2016), 173–96.
24. For more on all of these activities, see Chapter 3.
25. On the deterioration of the situation at the schools in wartime, see Chapter 10.
26. For an exception to this rule, see Elke Fröhlich, ‘Die drei Typen der nationalsozialis-
tischen Ausleseschulen’, in Johannes Leeb, ed., ‘Wir waren Hitlers Eliteschüler’.
Ehemalige Zöglinge der NS-Ausleseschulen brechen ihr Schweigen (Munich, 2005),
241–63.
27. The quotation ‘und sie werden nicht mehr frei ihr ganzes Leben’ is taken from a speech
which Hitler gave to the Hitler Youth in Hagen in December 1938, and has subse-
quently become a commonplace when discussing National Socialist pedagogy and the
regime’s totalitarian claims on youth; ‘flink wie Windhunde, zäh wie Leder und hart
wie Kruppstahl’ is a citation from Mein Kampf (Munich, 1943 edn, 392).
28. Cf. Moritz Föllmer, ‘The Subjective Dimension of Nazism’, The Historical Journal 56,
no. 4 (2013), 1107–32; Moritz Föllmer, Individuality and Modernity in Berlin: Self and
Society from Weimar to the Wall (Cambridge, 2013); Pamela E. Swett, Corey Ross, and
Fabrice d’Almeida, eds, Pleasure and Power in Nazi Germany (Basingstoke, 2011);
Frank Bajohr and Michael Wildt, eds, Volksgemeinschaft. Neue Forschungen zur
Gesellschaft des Nationalsozialismus (Frankfurt am Main, 2009); Martina Steber and
Bernhard Gotto, ‘Volksgemeinschaft: Writing the Social History of the Nazi Regime’, in
Martina Steber and Bernhard Gotto, eds, Visions of Community in Nazi Germany:
Social Engineering and Private Lives (Oxford, 2014), 1–25.
29. Cf. Peter Reichel, Der schöne Schein des Dritten Reiches. Gewalt und Faszination des
deutschen Faschismus (Hamburg, 2006).
30. Cf. e.g. Walter Flemming, ‘Ehemalige Schüler der Nationalpolitischen Erziehungsanstalt
Ilfeld/Südharz äußern sich über ihre Erlebnisse in der Anstalt. Walter Flemming—
Interview durch eine Studentin’ (1984), 35; Manfred F., private correspondence, 4
September 2011; Eckhard R., private correspondence, 25 February 2012. We might
compare such feelings of superiority with Katrin Kollmeier’s observations on ‘the
ordering of inequality’ within the Hitler Youth organization—cf. Katrin Kollmeier,
Ordnung und Ausgrenzung. Die Disziplinarpolitik der Hitler-Jugend (Göttingen,
2007), 13–14.
31. Norbert Frei, ‘ “Volksgemeinschaft”. Erfahrungsgeschichte und Lebenswirklichkeit
der Hitler-Zeit’, in 1945 und wir. Das Dritte Reich im Bewußtsein der Deutschen
(Munich, 2009), 121–42.
32. Cf. David Schoenbaum, Hitler’s Social Revolution: Class and Status in Nazi Germany
(New York, 1966); further literature on this theme will be discussed in the relevant
sections below.
33. Jürgen Finger, Eigensinn im Einheitsstaat. NS-Schulpolitik in Württemberg, Baden und
im Elsass 1933–1945 (Baden-Baden, 2016), 21–45.
:      
34. Cf. e.g. Kristine Alexander and Simon Sleight, ‘Introduction’, in Kristine Alexander
and Simon Sleight, eds, A Cultural History of Youth in the Modern Age (London, forth-
coming); also Martha Saxton, ‘Introduction to the First Volume of The Journal of the
History of Childhood and Youth’, in Heidi Morrison, ed., The Global History of
Childhood Reader (New York, 2012), 103–4; Paula S. Fass, ‘Introduction: Is There a
Story in the History of Childhood?’, in Paula S. Fass, ed., The Routledge History of
Childhood in the Western World (New York, 2013), 1–14.
35. For similar sentiments, see Nicholas Stargardt, ‘German Childhoods: The Making of a
Historiography’, German History 16, no. 1 (1998), 1–15, esp. 12–14; Charles Lansing,
From Nazism to Communism: German Schoolteachers under Two Dictatorships
(Cambridge, MA, 2010), 7–8; Machteld Venken and Maren Röger, ‘Growing up in the
Shadow of the Second World War: European Perspectives’, European Review of
History/revue européenne d’histoire 22, no. 2 (2015), 199–220, esp. 203.
36. Detlef Brandes, ‘Umvolkung, Umsiedlung, rassische Bestandsaufnahme’.
NS-‘Volkstumspolitik’ in den böhmischen Ländern (Munich, 2012); Johannes Koll,
Arthur Seyß-Inquart und die deutsche Besatzungspolitik in den Niederlanden
(1940–1945) (Vienna, 2015); Annette Mertens, Himmlers Klostersturm. Der Angriff auf
katholische Einrichtungen im Zweiten Weltkrieg und die Wiedergutmachung nach 1945
(Paderborn, 2006).
37. Nicholas Stargardt, Witnesses of War: Children’s Lives under the Nazis (London, 2006);
Nicholas Stargardt, The German War: A Nation under Arms, 1939–45 (London, 2015);
titles in the C. H. Beck series thus far include Tim Schanetzky, ‘Kanonen statt Butter’:
Wirtschaft und Konsum im Dritten Reich (Munich, 2015), Moritz Föllmer, ‘Ein Leben
wie im Traum’: Kultur im Dritten Reich (Munich, 2016), and Dietmar Süß, ‘Ein Volk,
ein Reich, ein Führer’: Die deutsche Gesellschaft im Dritten Reich (Munich, 2017). On
the significance of educational Alltagsgeschichte for the study of Fascism, see Luca la
Rovere, ‘Totalitarian Pedagogy and the Italian Youth’, in Jorge Dagnino, Matthew
Feldman, and Paul Stocker, eds, The ‘New Man’ in Radical Right Ideology and Practice,
1919–45 (London, 2018), 19–38; on the importance of exploring the history of chil-
dren’s everyday life in Nazi Germany, see also Heidi Rosenbaum, ‘Und trotzdem war’s
’ne schöne Zeit’. Kinderalltag im Nationalsozialismus (Frankfurt am Main, 2014),
esp. 11–14.
38. Andreas Förschler, ‘Die Nationalpolitische Erziehungsanstalt Backnang. Eine
Eliteschule im Dritten Reich’ (MA thesis, Stuttgart, 2002); Stefanie Jodda-Flintrop,
‘Wir sollten intelligente Mütter werden’. Nationalpolitische Erziehungsanstalten für
Mädchen (Norderstedt, 2010); Tim Müller, ‘From Racial Selection to Postwar
Deception: The Napolas and Denazification’ (PhD thesis, McMaster University, 2016).
Although the latter contains some factual errors in the chapters on the Third Reich
itself, due to the limited nature of the archival research which the author was able to
undertake, Müller’s analysis of the post-war period is extremely useful, and some of
the most valuable sections of the thesis have now been published in his article ‘A Legal
Odyssey: Denazification Law, Nazi Elite Schools, and the Construction of Postwar
Memory’, History of Education 46, no. 4 (2017), 498–513. Other works by local histor-
ians and school and university students are of variable quality; most only treat a single
school, and many of the authors in question tend to make erroneous generalizations
   ’  
about the entire Napola system based on their limited research; most make no attempt
whatsoever to engage with broader historiographical debates concerning culture and
society in the Third Reich in general. However, the most useful examples of this type of
publication include Arnulf Moser’s Die Napola Reichenau. Von der Heil- und
Pflegeanstalt zur nationalsozialistischen Eliteerziehung (1941–1945) (Konstanz, 1997),
Adolf Morlang’s ‘Neuer Stil im alten Schloss’. Die Napola/NPEA Oranienstein 1934–1945
(Diez, 2002), and Matthias Paustian’s Die Nationalpolitische Erziehungsanstalt Plön
1933–1945 (Rostock, 1995). In cases where I consider works of this type to possess
scholarly value, I have cited them in the relevant sections discussing individual schools;
those which have been published are also listed in the bibliography. For a more detailed
critique of the extant literature, see also Roche, Sparta’s German Children, 4–5.
39. Gisela Miller-Kipp’s highly tendentious contributions to the debate on Nazi ‘elite’ edu-
cation are particularly noteworthy in this regard (as discussed in this volume’s Note
on Terminology); cf. n. 50. For discussion of an analogous ‘timewarp’ problem con-
cerning scholarship on the Waffen-SS, see Martin Gutmann, Building a Nazi Europe:
The SS’s Germanic Volunteers (Cambridge, 2017), 7: ‘Perhaps as a result of the monop-
olization of Waffen-SS literature by former Waffen-SS members and their apologetic
supporters, serious historians long wrote the topic off. With the exception of [a few
studies], the history of the military arm of the SS was neglected for almost fifty years.
As the historiography of the Nazi regime and its war crimes has become a lot more
complicated over the past few decades, dealing with everything from race, class, gen-
der, and sexuality to transnationalism, historians’ assumptions about the origins and
role of the Waffen-SS were frozen in time’. Although Klaus Schmitz’s monograph
Militärische Jugenderziehung. Preußische Kadettenhäuser und Nationalpolitische
Erziehungsanstalten zwischen 1807 und 1936 (Frankfurt am Main, 1997) avoids these
pitfalls to some extent, Schmitz’s fairly brief treatment of the NPEA (pp. 245–304)
only considers the first three years of the schools’ existence, and is far more concerned
with the minutiae of ministerial power-politics than with elucidating the nature of
everyday life at the schools.
40. Horst Ueberhorst, Elite für die Diktatur. Die Nationalpolitischen Erziehungsanstalten
1933–1945: Ein Dokumentarbericht (Düsseldorf, 1969); Harald Scholtz,
Nationalsozialistische Ausleseschulen. Internatsschulen als Herrschaftsmittel des
Führerstaates (Göttingen, 1973).
41. On the prevalence of Ideologiekritik during this period, see Lutz Raphael, ‘Pluralities
of National Socialist Ideology: New Perspectives on the Production and Diffusion of
National Socialist Weltanschauung’, in Martina Steber and Bernhard Gotto, eds,
Visions of Community in Nazi Germany: Social Engineering and Private Lives (Oxford,
2014), 73–86, 73–4; on prevailing scholarly views concerning the necessity of discard-
ing such forms of criticism and taking National Socialist ideology seriously, see e.g.
Richard J. Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich (London, 2003), Preface;
Richard J. Evans, ‘The Emergence of Nazi Ideology’, in Jane Caplan, ed., Nazi Germany
(Oxford, 2008), 26–47; Peter Fritzsche, Life and Death in the Third Reich (Cambridge,
MA, 2008), 15; Thomas Rohkrämer, Die fatale Attraktion des Nationalsozialismus. Zur
Popularität eines Unrechtsregimes (Paderborn, 2013), 10–12; Gudrun Brockhaus,
‘Einführung: Attraktion der NS-Bewegung—Eine interdisziplinäre Perspektive’, in
Gudrun Brockhaus, ed., Attraktion der NS-Bewegung (Essen, 2014), 7–28, 8–9.
:      
42. Müller, ‘Legal Odyssey’, 512; Müller, ‘Postwar Deception’, 23.

43. Scholtz, Ausleseschulen, esp. 8–10, 57, 61–2, 76–7, 97ff., 107–8; for similar criticisms
of Scholtz’s portrayal of the Adolf-Hitler-Schulen, see Wolfgang and Barbara Feller,
Die Adolf-Hitler-Schulen. Pädagogische Provinz versus ideologische Zuchtanstalt
(Weinheim, 2001). For more recent overviews of education in the Third Reich which
have tended to take Scholtz’s negative interpretation of the NPEA at face value, see e.g.
Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich in Power (London, 2006), esp. 282–5; Lisa Pine,
Education in Nazi Germany (Oxford, 2010), ch. 4.
44. Müller, ‘Postwar Deception’, 23.
45. e.g. Ueberhorst, Elite, 9–13, 28–30, 36–7, 41–4, 93–4, 137, 399; cf. Müller, ‘Legal
Odyssey’, 512; also Chapter 12.
46. For criticism of Scholtz’s similarly limited sourcebase, see Feller and Feller, Adolf-
Hitler-Schulen, 230–1. While Erhard Naake’s two extant discussions of the NPEA—his
unpublished doctoral dissertation, entitled ‘Zur Theorie und Praxis der Erziehung in
den Nationalpolitischen Erziehungsanstalten und ähnlichen faschistischen
“Eliteschulen”’ (Jena, 1971), and his article ‘Die Heranbildung des Führernachwuchses
im faschistischen Deutschland’, Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 21, no. 2 (1973),
181–95—are completely imbued with politicized antifascist jargon and Communist
assumptions (including a concerted attempt to prove that fascist tendencies in elite
pedagogy were being cultivated in present-day West Germany), Naake’s critique of
Ueberhorst’s work on this score does possess some basis in reality—including the fact
that the sourcebook presents exculpatory denazification documents as ‘evidence’ for
the schools’ programme (cf. Naake, ‘Heranbildung’, 187).
47. For a more detailed discussion of these failings, see Helen Roche, ‘Herrschaft durch
Schulung: The Nationalpolitische Erziehungsanstalten im Osten and the Third Reich’s
Germanising Mission’, in Burkhard Olschowsky and Ingo Loose, eds, Nationalsozialismus
und Regionalbewusstsein im östlichen Europa: Ideologie, Machtausbau, Beharrung (Berlin,
2016), 127–51, 148–50.
48. For an excellent survey of these historiographical debates, which were known (in analogy
with the so-called Historikerstreit) as the Bildungshistorikerstreit (Educational Historians’
Dispute), see Jeanette Bair, ‘Nationalsozialismus als Gegenstand bildungshistorischer
Forschung—Ein Überblick über Neuanfänge, Kontinuitäten, Brüche und ihre diszi-
plinäre Rezeption’, in Klaus-Peter Horn and Jörg-W. Link, eds, Erziehungsverhältnisse im
Nationalsozialismus. Totaler Anspruch und Erziehungswirklichkeit (Bad Heilbrunn, 2011),
13–26. For a similar approach to the history of the Adolf-Hitler-Schools, see Feller and
Feller, Adolf-Hitler-Schulen.
49. See Chapter 2. Thus, in contrast with the Adolf-Hitler-Schools, prospective pupils’
parents were not investigated politically as a matter of course, and Hitler Youth
reports were not generally considered a necessary part of the application process
either (Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz, I. HA Rep 151 IC, Nr. 7422/1
and I. HA Rep 151, Nr. 1094, Bd. 2; Landesarchiv Berlin, A Rep. 343 Nr. 1252, Bl.
184–5). The decision over whether parents had to provide certificates of political reli-
ability appears to have lain with individual Anstaltsleiter (cf. BArch, R 3016/65,
Deutsche Justiz, 26 November 1937, Nr. 47, Ausg. A S. 1830). In general, such demands
seem to have been a rarity (although Bensberg and Ballenstedt provide exceptions to
the rule).
   ’  
50. Pace the numerous effusions to the contrary by Gisela Miller-Kipp, who has even
claimed (with no evident historical justification, and in plain contradiction of much
of the surviving archival evidence discussed in Chapter 2) that ‘one only needed to
possess a certain level of age-appropriate general knowledge; to put it plainly: anyone
could get in who hadn’t been dropped on the head’—cf. Gisela Miller-Kipp, ‘ “Klasse
Schule—immer genug zu essen, wenig Mathematik”. Elitebildung im “Dritten Reich”
oder über die Herstellung von Elite-Bewusstsein’, in Jutta Ecarius and Lothar Wigger,
eds, Elitebildung—Bildungselite. Erziehungswissenschaftliche Diskussionen und Befunde
über Bildung und soziale Ungleichheit (Opladen, 2006), 44–66, 54. This fallacious
assumption may also be due to Miller-Kipp’s persistent (and erroneous) tendency to
lump all of the elite schools together, thus treating the academically far less rigorous
Adolf-Hitler-Schools as more or less identical with the NPEA.
51. Cf. Wolfang Keim, ‘Kontinuitäten und Traditionsbrüche. Die Inkorporation des
Weimarer Erziehungswesens in den NS-Staat’, in Albert Moritz, ed., ‘Fackelträger der
Nation’. Elitebildung in den NS-Ordensburgen (Cologne, 2010), 47–80, 68–9; also
Ulrich Herrmann and Jürgen Oelkers, ‘Zur Einführung in die Thematik “Pädagogik
und Nationalsozialismus”’, in Ulrich Herrmann and Jürgen Oelkers, eds, Pädagogik
und Nationalsozialismus (Weinheim, 1989), 9–17, 10.
52. Particularly notable in this regard are the contributions to the following pair of
edited volumes: Albert Moritz, ed., ‘Fackelträger der Nation’. Elitebildung in den NS-
Ordensburgen (Cologne, 2010), and Klaus Ring and Stefan Wunsch, eds, Bestimmung:
Herrenmensch. NS-Ordensburgen zwischen Faszination und Verbrechen (Dresden,
2016).
53. Cf. Kiran Klaus Patel, ‘“Auslese” und “Ausmerze”. Das Janusgesicht der nationalsozialis-
tischen Lager’, Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 54 (2006), 339–65; Stefan Schnurr
and Sven Steinacker, ‘Soziale Arbeit im Nationalsozialismus—Auslese und Ausmerze im
Dienste der Volkspflege’, in Klaus-Peter Horn and Jörg-W. Link, eds, Erziehungsverhältnisse
im Nationalsozialismus. Totaler Anspruch und Erziehungswirklichkeit (Bad Heilbrunn,
2011), 253–73; also my forthcoming article with Lisa Pine, entitled ‘Zwischen Auslese und
Ausmerze: The Biopolitics of Education in the Third Reich’s “Special Schools” and “Elite
Schools”’. On the importance of considering such mechanisms of inclusion as well as
exclusion, see Roche, ‘Herrschaft durch Schulung’.
54. Cf. Gutmann, Nazi Europe, 9; Jochen Böhler and Robert Gerwarth, ‘Non-Germans in
the Waffen-SS: An Introduction’, in Jochen Böhler and Robert Gerwarth, eds, The
Waffen-SS: A European History (Oxford, 2017), 1–15, 4; Daniel Siemens,
Stormtroopers: A New History of Hitler’s Brownshirts (New Haven, 2017), intro. In this
context, my study also aims to facilitate future transnational (or trans-chronological)
comparisons between the NPEA and other types of elite school, without exploring
these explicitly (which would be impossible within this book’s remit).
55. See Chapter 3. Indeed, as Luca la Rovere has noted, the Italian Fascist ideologue Julius
Evola even saw the NPEA as a model for the boarding schools founded by Mussolini’s
Fascist youth movement, the GIL (la Rovere, ‘Totalitarian Pedagogy’, 33, n. 52).
56. N.B. I have deliberately chosen not to take an explicitly masculinity studies-defined
approach to the boys’ schools; however, future analyses from this perspective could
certainly be fruitful, taking recent studies of the Wehrmacht and the SS by Thomas
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
be brought from a vessel which had recently reached the coast. A
great event was the arrival of three vessels with two hundred
Spaniards, eighty horses, and a full complement of arms,
ammunition, and other effects, partly bought and partly enlisted by
the agents whom Cortés had despatched to the Islands during the
previous autumn. Among the new-comers were Julian de Alderete of
Tordesillas, appointed royal treasurer for New Spain, and the
Franciscan Pedro Melgarejo de Urrea of Seville, bearing a supply of
papal indulgences for the men who had been engaged in the
crusade. That the soldiers were conscious of frequent transgressions
may be judged from the suggestive and not wholly reverential
observation of Bernal Diaz, that “after patching their defects the friar
returned to Spain within a few months, a rich man.”[1075]
Cortés was cheered by offers of submission and alliance, owing
partly to the good offices of Tezcucans and other allies. Some came
from places quite distant, such as Nautla and Tuzapan, on the coast
north of Villa Rica, laden as usual with presents.[1076] Another
pleasing evidence of still more devoted loyalty came not long after
from the south, from the country of the valiant Chinantecs, of the
long pikes. During the great uprising, when Spaniards in small or
straggling parties had everywhere been slaughtered, this people
faithfully protected the two soldiers who happened to be with them,
and were in return aided by their prowess and advice to achieve
victories over adjoining tribes. One of these men, Captain Hernando
de Barrientos, sent two natives in April with a letter to his
countrymen imparting the assurance that Chinantla and its six sub-
towns were loyal.[1077]
The recent successes and the arrival of the two hundred men
induced Cortés once more to propose peace to Quauhtemotzin. To
this end, during passion week, he bade some of the captured nobles
proceed to Mexico with a letter as a symbol of their commission, and
impress upon their master the superiority in arms and skill of the
Spanish forces, their constant and large reinforcements, and their
unvarying success in the field. They must point out the generous and
humane treatment of the provinces which had submitted, and assure
the Aztec leaders that equal forgiveness would be accorded them.
Refusal to return to their allegiance would lead to the destruction of
themselves and their city. Only two of the captives ventured to
accept the commission, for according to Aztec articles of war any
noble who returned to his country after having been captured by an
enemy was doomed to decapitation unless he had performed some
extraordinary deed.[1078]
No answer came from Mexico, and it was afterward learned that
the messengers had suffered death. The Aztec ruler had not even
given a thought to peace. He was watching his opponents, prepared
to take advantage of any neglect or relaxation in their effort. No
sooner had Sandoval been induced by peaceful appearances to
retire from Chalco than Aztec forces again prepared to invade the
province. The Chalcans had due warning, and close upon the heels
of Sandoval came two messengers lamenting louder than ever, and
exhibiting a painting wherein were named the many towns whose
forces were coming upon them, fully fifty thousand strong. These
constant menaces and movements were exasperating, and Cortés
resolved personally to inflict a lesson which might be lasting. At the
same time he proposed to complete his reconnoissance of the lake
region and encourage his troops with spoils from hostile localities
whereon the Aztecs yet relied for support.[1079]
Cortés selected thirty horse, three hundred infantry, a number of
Tlascaltecs, and over twenty thousand Tezcucans, under Prince
Ixtlilxochitl, to which twice that number of other allies were added on
the way. A large proportion of archers and aquebusiers were taken,
together with Alvarado, Olid, Alderete, Melgarejo, and others, while
Sandoval was left in charge of Tezcuco, with instructions to watch
and promote the completion of the brigantines against which several
incendiary attempts had been made.
The expedition left Friday, the 5th of April, and passed through
Chalco, Tlalmanalco, and Chimalhuacan,[1080] and crossing in a
south-westerly direction into the Totolapan province, they entered the
hills which form the southern border of the Mexican valley. By this
time the forces had assumed proportions hardly inferior to those of
the Iztocan campaign, when over one hundred thousand moved
against the foe. Highly picturesque was the spectacle of this army, its
naked hordes of warriors relieved by plumage and glittering iztli
points which rose above the broad line of gaudy shields; its white
adventurers in mail of cotton and metal, surmounted by bright
helmets, and armed knights on proudly stepping steeds: picturesque
in particular as it wound in almost endless line along the rounded
slopes of the cliffs, or climbed in clearly defined file across the hill-
tops, only to descend again into gulches gloomy as their own sinister
purpose.
Alarmed by the invasion, the inhabitants had abandoned their
valley homes, and had sought refuge on the summits, whence they
hurled missiles at the passing lines. Little attention was paid these
irregular bands, composed as they were to a great extent of women
and children. On entering the Tlayacapan Valley, however, and
observing on the craggy sides of an almost perpendicular isolated
rock, perched there like an eagle’s nest, a place of refuge peopled
with more pretentious opposers, in a fit of insensate folly Cortés
ordered the place to be assailed. He seemed to think the honor of
the army demanded it, and was ready to stake the lives of valuable
men on its destruction.
Orders were given to attack from three several sides, the
steepest being assigned to Alférez Corral, a brave and spirited
leader. Verdugo and Villafuerte were given another side, and Ircio
and Monjaraz the third. Each party consisted of about threescore
men, and included archers and arquebusiers. At a given signal all
rushed forward to the ascent. Soon they were on hands and knees,
crawling over projections and pulling themselves up by means of
shrubs. All the while stones and darts rattled on helmet and
breastplate; and huge rocks came rolling down upon them. In vain
they sought shelter in crevices and under crags; they must face the
storm. Bernal Diaz followed Corral, and after receiving many a hard
knock they gained what was called two turns of the rock. There they
paused and looked around, wondering at their success thus far.
Supporting himself against a small tree, his face bathed in blood, his
banner rent, Corral said, “Señor Diaz, it is useless to advance
farther; not a man will survive.” Then they shouted a warning to
Pedro Barba, at the head of his archers, not to climb farther. “The
order is to advance!” was the reply. The next moment Barba was
wounded by a stone, and a soldier at his side was killed. Cortés then
sounded the recall, but not until eight brave men had laid down their
lives, victims of their commander’s puerility, and of the rest most of
them returned wounded.[1081]
The recall was likewise prompted by the approach of a
considerable force in the valley. This the cavalry charged and quickly
routed, following in close pursuit, though the broken ground soon
enabled the fugitives to gain shelter. During this ride some of the
horsemen came, a league beyond, to another hill fortress, strong in
its natural features, and held by a large force. Near by were some
springs. The need of water was pressing, which afforded a plausible
excuse for abandoning the scaling of Tlayacapan, and the whole
force was moved to the springs. Early next morning Cortés
examined the approaches to the new stronghold. It extended over
three hills, the central one exceedingly steep and held by the largest
force; the others easier of ascent, though higher, and occupied by
smaller numbers. In reconnoitring, Cortés advanced toward the
centre. This movement led the occupants of the other hills to infer an
attack on the central height, and they began to abandon their
positions with a view to reënforce the threatened point. Observing
this, Cortés ordered Barba to occupy the most commanding
elevation with some fifty arquebusiers and archers, while he himself
continued to scale the centre as a feint, for there was little hope of
capturing a point so steep and strongly held. The stones and darts
rained here as previously, and man after man was struck down,
some bleeding freely from the wounds sustained.[1082]
Meanwhile Barba’s sharp-shooters had made so effective a use
of their weapons that within half an hour the volleys from the fortress
ceased, and the women began to wave their robes in token of truce,
shouting their submission. Cortés graciously met the advances, and
extended full pardon. He also prevailed on the chiefs to induce the
Tlayacapans to submit. On the extensive surface of the rock were
collected all the inhabitants of the neighborhood, with their effects,
which Cortés ordered not to be touched.[1083]
The army remained encamped for two days to refresh
themselves after their arduous march, and after sending the
wounded to Tezcuco, Cortés proceeded to Huastepec. The report of
the clemency extended to preceding settlements had a reassuring
effect on this town, whose cacique came forth to welcome them, and
tender his palace for their entertainment. This was situated in a
garden, celebrated throughout New Spain for its beauty and extent,
and the immense variety of its plants, collected partly for scientific
purposes. A river with tributary canals flowed through its grounds,
which extended over a circuit of nearly two leagues, murmuring its
melody in unison with winged songsters hidden in arbors or playing
between bush and hedge, mingling their bright color with the green
expanse. Adjacent were steep rocks, on whose smooth surface were
sculptured the portraits of noted warriors, statesmen, and orators,
with hieroglyphic inscriptions of their fame. It was a paradise formed
equally for student and idler, and to the weary soldiers no spot could
perhaps have proven so grateful. Cortés certainly grows ecstatic in
describing it, declaring it “the largest, most beautiful, and freshest
garden ever seen.”[1084] Tempting as was the retreat, Cortés tore
himself from it the following day, and proceeded in a south-westerly
direction to Yauhtepec. Although many warriors were gathered there,
they fled on the approach of the Spaniards, and were chased, with
some slaughter, for about two leagues, into the town of Xiuhtepec.
[1085] The women and effects there found were appropriated as
spoils, and rendered agreeable the two days’ stay. The ruler failing to
appear, the place was fired, and terrified by this warning the lord of
Yauhtepec hastened to proffer submission.
After a day’s hard march the army came in sight of
Quauhnahuac,[1086] capital of the Tlahuicas. They were one of the
Nahuatlaca tribes, which according to tradition had entered the
Anáhuac country to supplant the Toltecs. Coming rather late, they
found their brethren already in possession of the lake region, and so
they crossed the range to seek a home on the headwaters of the
Zacatula, where soon a number of settlements rose round
Quauhnahuac. They afterward fell under the sway of the
Chichimecs, and finally the Aztecs took advantage of internal discord
to establish sovereignty,[1087] maintaining it by a garrison in the
capital. This was a natural stronghold, situated on a tongue of land
between two steep ravines over forty feet in depth, and through
which ran a little stream during the rainy season. It was further
protected by strong walls, particularly on the side where a strongly
guarded gate opened to a fine stretch of country. Two other
entrances faced the ravines, sometimes spanned by bridges, which
were now removed.
Situated at the gateway to the tropical southern valleys, between
which and the colder lake region interposed a range of mountains,
the spot stood as a new Eden in its manifold beauties. A sight even
of the pine-fringed mountains that rolled off toward the north, with
their green slopes shaded by oak and birch, and bathed in soft
though bracing airs, was refreshing to the indolent inhabitants of the
burning plain beyond. On the other hand the sturdy toilers of the
northern plateaux might in this sunny south seek relaxation in the
varied charms of a softer air balmy with the incense of a more
lustrous vegetation.[1088]
It was an opulent community that of Quauhnahuac, surrounded
as it was by endless resources and advantages, and the people
were in no mood tamely to yield their wealth to invaders. And in this
determination they were sustained by their lord, Yohuatzin,[1089] who
was not only a vassal but a relative of Quauhtemotzin. Confident in
the impregnable position of his city, in which supplies were ample, he
replied with volleys to the demands of the Spanish forces as they
appeared on the other side of the ravines. It seemed almost
impossible to effect a crossing and climb the steep wall of the ravine
to the city; nevertheless Cortés selected a position and began to
open fire so as to occupy the attention of the garrison and cover the
scaling parties.
While they were thus busied a brave Tlascaltec reconnoitred and
came to a point half a league beyond, where the ravine was steepest
and narrowed to an abyss. On the two sides grew two large trees,
which inclined toward each other, with branches intertwined, forming
a sort of natural bridge, though by no means secure. He called the
attention of his party to this and led the way across, followed by
several Spaniards. The natives, who were more accustomed to this
kind of tactics, found comparatively little difficulty in swinging
themselves across; but to the soldiers it was far from easy, and three
of them, overcome by dizziness or weight of armor, slipped and fell.
[1090]
The attention of the inhabitants being attracted elsewhere, a
number of the invaders had gained a secure foothold within the city
before they were observed. Even now a few resolute men might
have driven them back, but such were wanting, and the sudden
appearance of the dreaded white men, as if indeed they had
dropped into the stronghold from some cloud made radiant by the
sun whose reputed children they were, struck terror to the hearts of
the poor natives. All impotent and nerveless, they permitted the
daring strangers to lower the drawbridge, and turned to spread the
panic. Meanwhile the reports of a formidable army advancing from
the rear so wrought on the fears of the garrison that, when the
handful who had crossed on the bushy bridge fell on them, they
offered no resistance. This also allowed the scaling forces to pour in,
so that within a short time the siege was turned into a rout, wherein
the cavalry played a prominent part. The zeal of the allies was
already indicated by smoky columns in different parts of the city, and
the foot-soldiers hastened to share in the rich plunder and intercept
the women.
Most of the fugitives had gathered on an adjacent height, and
though no attempt was made that day to molest them, yet they
began to fear that men who could so readily capture one of the
strongest fortresses in the country, would find no difficulty in reaching
them anywhere; therefore, after listening to the advice of
messengers sent by Cortés, Yohuatzin concluded to surrender, and
presented himself on the following day with a large retinue and rich
presents. The Mexicans were as usual blamed for the opposition
offered. He would have submitted before, but thought it best to
expiate the fault of resistance by allowing the Spaniards to pursue,
so that after spending their fury they might be more ready to forgive.
[1091]
There was no time at present to extend the reconnoissance

farther in this direction, and after a brief rest Cortés turned northward
to the lakes. The route over the mountains proved far more difficult
than before, and after issuing from the pine forest the army entered a
desert country terminating in a three-league pass through the Ajuzco
Mountains. Here thirst became so intense that several natives
succumbed.[1092] This suffering was relieved in a hamlet not far from
the pass.
On the following day they passed through a fine and cultivated
country toward Xochilmilco, that is to say, Field of Flowers, aptly
named, for round almost every house, particularly on the outskirts,
was a flower-garden enclosed by canals. Many of them were of the
chinampa class, or floating gardens,[1093] the outgrowth of early
Aztec weakness, now forming a picturesque border to the lake
towns. Altogether the aspect was most pleasing, while the buildings
of the central parts were artistic and striking. Besides the strength
added by canals and moats, pile buildings were frequent, and
intrenchments had been thrown up and drawbridges raised to defend
the approach against any enemy of the Aztecs, for its loyalty to the
queen city was fully as great as that of Iztapalapan. It was the most
important place on the thickly settled fresh-water lake. Bishop
Garcés relates that angels were heard to sing praises in the Mexican
tongue when it was converted.[1094] The usual summons was issued
by the Spaniards, and no heed being given, they attacked in three
divisions by different approaches. The enemy fell back behind the
raised bridges and intrenchments, whence they kept up a steady
volley. The archers and arquebusiers replied briskly, and covered the
van as it plunged into not very deep water and waded across to
capture the fortifications. This effected, the foe was driven from one
retreat to another. Seeing how affairs went, they sought to parley, but
the pursuers paid no heed, regarding it as a trick to gain time for the
removal of their families and property. Within half an hour the greater
part of the city was won, and soldiers and allies were sacking as they
advanced. The foe rallied now and then to cover their retreat, and in
one instance managed to despatch two soldiers who had allowed
avarice to overcome prudence.
Not long after, a body of some ten thousand warriors, reënforced
by fugitives from the city, was seen advancing from the rear as if to
cut off retreat. They were already close at hand when first observed,
and without losing a moment Cortés charged them at the head of a
body of cavalry.[1095]
At first they boldly faced the animals, and fought so well as to
severely wound four, besides several riders; but the mounted body
kept breaking through their ranks and then turned to fall on the rear.
This movement proved decisive, and the enemy dispersed in flight,
the horsemen scattering in pursuit. Already weakened by the severe
march across the mountains, the horse of Cortés became quite
exhausted, and while its rider was striking right and left into a large
body of fugitives, it fell. No other horseman being near, the enemy
gathered courage and rushed upon the general, who had risen to his
feet and stood with sword in hand to defend himself. It was a critical
moment, and had not a brave Tlascaltec warrior come to his rescue
thus opportunely, the career of the Estremaduran would have ended
there; for he had already received a severe blow on the head and
was about to be dragged away when thus rescued. The general’s
body-guard then came up and cut in pieces his late stupid assailants
—stupid because they might so easily have killed him, and did not.
[1096]
The pursuit was not long maintained, tired as the horses were,
and remounting his steed Cortés led the way back to camp in the
square.
Late as it was he superintended the filling of all the channels
which broke the causeways, and the erection of defences, and
ordered the soldiers to put in order their arms and prepare arrows.
The forces were distributed at three points, and extra guards were
posted for the night, together with bodies of troops at probable
landing-points. These precautions were prompted chiefly by the
evident effort of the last body of the enemy to shut up the army
within the city, a movement which boded other attempts, as Cortés
rightly supposed.
When Quauhtemotzin heard that the Spaniards had marched
against Xochimilco he called a council to consider the course to
adopt, and the result was the despatch of reënforcements. Finding
that the city had so easily fallen, he became furious. The gods were
indignant at the outrages of the strangers. Arms must be employed
more manfully, and, these failing, the loyal ones must let their nails
grow, as the last means of protection. The first step should be the
recovery of Xochimilco. That very night two thousand canoes were
sent with some twelve thousand warriors, and a similar force by land,
all approaching stealthily, without music.[1097]
The rumor of a probable night attack kept the Spanish camp on
the alert, and advised of this, the enemy made no attack. At dawn
their canoes were already swarming round the city, the inmates
rending the air with loud and repeated shouts, and brandishing their
weapons, those of the chiefs being captured Spanish swords. “With
your own arms you shall be killed, and we will eat you!” they cried.
“We fear you not, for Montezuma is dead!” At the same time the land
forces were seen approaching, evidently to assist the fleet in
besieging the Spaniards within the city, which would give the
Mexicans greater advantage, as they had well learned during the
siege of Mexico. Cortés understood the manœuvre, and leaving the
greater part of the infantry and allies to guard the city, he sallied with
most of the horse, in three parties, a few of the infantry and several
hundred Tlascaltecs, breaking through the enemy’s ranks and
gaining the foot of a hill in their rear, the Tepechpan.
While the enemy were rallying, Cortés led the horse round to
their denser flank, and gave orders to the infantry to allure the
Mexicans by climbing the steepest part of the hill and pretending to
escape. This succeeded, and the next moment they were attacked in
several directions with such effect as to cause a panic and drive
them in flight toward a quarter where one division of horse had taken
a stand. Five hundred Mexicans covered the field and five leaders
were among the captured, while the Spanish loss was only one
soldier and a few allies, including three Tlascaltec chiefs, although a
number were wounded. During the pursuit the foremost division of
horse came upon a further Mexican reënforcement, estimated at ten
thousand, which rallied the fugitives and caused the pursuers to halt.
Soon, however, the remaining force came up, the charge was
continued, and the Mexicans routed.[1098]
Too tired for long pursuit, the Spaniards returned by ten o’clock
in the morning to Xochimilco, where their garrison had repulsed the
lake force. The fight had been fierce, and the soldiers had exhausted
all their ammunition, capturing in return two Spanish swords. These
victories brought little satisfaction, however, for the captives gave
information that the forces so far sent were but detachments of the
armies destined for Xochimilco, which must be recovered, and the
Spaniards driven forth, if it cost the lives of all the men in Mexico.
The Spaniards might defeat force after force, but even victory must
so weaken them that the Mexicans would finally triumph. This
seemed to be confirmed by the movements of the fleet, which,
though repulsed, was still hovering thereabout.
Cortés now gave orders to burn the city, as a warning to the
wilful inhabitants and preparatory to its evacuation. The soldiers,
who had been interrupted in their plundering the day before, obeyed
with alacrity. Xochimilco was a wealthy city, and not a Spaniard or
ally but obtained an abundance of robes, feathers, and other effects,
and even some gold, which helped to cheer those whom ordinary
merchandise and slaves did not satisfy. The enemy had been
watchful, however, and in their canoes they flitted round the city to
cut off stragglers. At one point quite a charge was made, wherein
several Spaniards were wounded and four carried off alive. This
event did more to cast a gloom over the army than many defeats, for
all knew the fate of prisoners.[1099]
After a stay of three days, all fraught with hard fighting, the army
filed out from Xochimilco, presenting the appearance of a dilapidated
caravan rather than of a reconnoitring and fighting expedition, so
much so that Cortés thought it necessary to remonstrate, but in vain.
The enemy hovered about like vultures, to harass them in what they
regarded as a retreat. The march was made in regular fighting order,
with cavalry distributed in three sections, in van, rear, and on flank.
In order to complete the reconnoissance, a north-westerly route was
taken to Coyuhuacan, the centre of a series of inner towns which lay
clustered within a radius of a league and a half, along the shores or
upon islands in the lake, all picturesque in their pyramidal temples
and their white walls, which gleamed amidst blooming orchards and
shady groves. Coyuhuacan itself was a beautiful town, and Cortés
felt so captivated with it that he afterward made it for some time his
favorite residence.[1100] It had been evacuated, but toward and
beyond Mexico the lake teemed with canoes, while in every direction
spread one continuous extent of farms and hamlets, connected by
causeways and roads with busy traffic. To Alderete and friar
Melgarejo this was a novel scene, and they could not refrain from
expressing their admiration at the enterprise and prowess of Cortés
and his followers in undertaking so vast a conquest. God’s aid alone
could have enabled them to succeed as they had done.[1101]
The army remained here over the following day, chiefly to
examine the place as intended head-quarters of a besieging force. It
was found satisfactory; and while arrows were prepared and the
wounded tended, the general advanced along the causeway leading
to Mexico and expended his remaining ammunition in the useless
capture of the temple fortress of Xoloc,[1102] during which a number
of soldiers were wounded, though the enemy suffered considerably.
After offering to heaven the fiery sacrifice of pagan temple, the army
proceeded through Tlacopan without halting, for they had no
ammunition, and this place had been examined on the previous
expedition. This unexpected haste encouraged the Mexicans to
come forth in great numbers and attack the baggage train and rear.
Owing to the level nature of the ground the cavalry found no difficulty
in repelling them, yet they caused more trouble, and succeeded
even in carrying off two of the favorite equerries[1103] of Cortés. He
was deeply grieved at the loss, and partly with a view to avenge
them, partly to inflict a lesson which should save the army from such
annoyance, he formed an ambuscade beside the road with twenty
horse. Seeing the other ten horses engaged as formerly in covering
the rear, the Mexicans continued their pursuit. At a favorable
moment the hidden horsemen appeared, and soon over a hundred
of the flower of the Mexicans lay dead upon the ground,[1104] their
rich panoplies, dresses, and arms offering a pleasing addition to the
already heavy plunder. Freed from further molestation, the army
proceeded through Azcapuzalco and Tenayocan to Quauhtitlan, all
deserted. Here the army clustered round camp fires of green wood,
wet from a recent shower and supperless. Next morning they
followed the route already pursued during the flight from Mexico,
round Zumpango Lake through Citlaltepec, and thence through
Acolman to Tezcuco.[1105]
A mass of booty and slaves being now at hand, a general
distribution was ordered, the second in Tezcuco. Again, says Bernal
Diaz, Cortés disregarded his promises and secured not only for
himself the objectionable fifth, but allowed his favorites to carry off
the prettiest women before they were brought forward at auction.
Many who remembered the former tricks hid their women and said
they had escaped, or they declared them free servants from allied
tribes; while a few managed to obtain a private branding, paying the
fifth required. A large proportion of the soldiers were so heavily in
debt for stores and fifths that their booty left them no surplus.[1106]
While the reconnoitring expeditions had on the whole been
fraught with pecuniary benefit and glory, they had nevertheless
served to open the eyes of many to the difficulty of the great
purpose, the capture of Mexico. This was particularly the case with
the Velazquez party, whose adhesion before the Tepeaca campaign
had been compulsory, and after it mercenary in its motives. Every
obstacle to them appeared terrible, magnified through constant fear
of the dreaded stone of sacrifice, on which so many comrades had
already been laid. And this they were encountering for what? the
advancement of an envied usurper and a pecuniary reward far
beneath their expectations. The failure at Iztapalapan, the repeated
inroads of the Mexicans, unabashed by constant repulses, and the
hardships of the campaigns, particularly the last, all tended to
support their arguments against Cortés’ plans as chimerical,
involving long delays, constant toil, and waste of life, and with poor
recompense save for Cortés and his favorites.
Presently the affair assumed the color of conspiracy, headed by
Antonio de Villafañe, a common soldier from Zamora, who is claimed
by Herrera to have had the active or passive sympathy of some
three hundred malcontents, nearly one third of the army. The
professed object was to secure a pliable leader who would consult
the wishes of the soldiers, even those desirous of returning. Such a
man, and withal of great influence and valor, was Verdugo, the
brother-in-law of the all-powerful patron Velazquez, and him the
conspirators chose as the new captain-general, unknown to himself,
since he might prove too honorable to engage in plots against the
commander. As a reward for his own efforts Villafañe claimed the
position of alguacil mayor, while other friends and influential men of
Narvaez were assured of the remaining offices, from alcalde mayor
and maestre de campo downward, now held by the retainers of
Cortés, as well as a share in the arms and other effects of the
doomed number.[1107] It was arranged that when Cortés was seated
at table with his intimate friends, as Alvarado, Sandoval, Olid, and
Tápia, a letter was to be handed him, as if coming from his father,
and while he was reading, the conspirators should fall on and stab
him and his supporters, since all must be removed who might prove
troublesome. The new officers were thereupon to be proclaimed,
together with the liberal plan agreed on, by which it was hoped to
allure even the friends of Cortés.
There were too many in the secret, however, and Cortés was a
man of magnetic influence. At the eleventh hour, two days after the
return from Xochimilco, says Diaz, an accomplice, struck with
compunction, rushed distractedly to the feet of Cortés and implored
pardon for having even dared to listen to the vile machinations. He
thereupon revealed the plot and stated that Villafañe carried the
names and details on a list in his breast-pocket. Cortés quietly
summoned his captains. He represented the need for a “remedy,
since, besides the scandal, it was evident that all the Spaniards must
perish if once they turned one against the other; and to this end not
only declared foes but allies would join.”[1108]
Attended by Sandoval and others, Cortés hastened to the house
of the accused and found several persons assembled. Some were
secured as they sought escape. Villafañe found time to take a paper
from his breast and tear it in pieces, but Cortés gathered and
arranged them,[1109] and was grieved to read the names of quite a
number of promising persons whom he had honored and regarded
as friends. Villafañe confessed the details of the plot, which had
been forming since the Tepeaca campaign. A court-martial was held,
presided over by Cortés himself, and there being no doubt of his
guilt, the accused was condemned to death and promptly hanged
from the window of his dwelling.[1110]
Cortés had probably no doubt regarding the guilt of the persons
named on the list, but the prosecution of so many notable men might
not be prudent, and would only widen the breach between himself
and the malcontents and gain them sympathy. The day following the
execution the general called a meeting. Many were the consciences
that pricked their possessors to trembling on that occasion. But the
sage Cortés preferred the traitors should risk their necks in winning
for him Mexico, rather than himself to break them with a rope.
Napoleon, who in national warfare could open with his sword the
veins of the people until there poured forth torrents of blood, shrank
in horror from blood shed in civil broils. It was policy with Cortés,
however. So, after finishing his narration of the conspiracy, he coolly
informed them that Villafañe had refused to reveal his accomplices,
and he could not therefore name the guilty. There were no doubt
men amongst them with real or fancied grievances which may have
induced them to harbor resentment; but let them frankly state their
wrongs and he would seek to right them. If he had erred, let the error
be named. The conclusion of the affair created general satisfaction.
Thankful for their escape, the guilty sought both by words and deeds
to prove their devotion, and although Cortés kept his eye upon them,
there was no indication that he suspected any. He rather sought to
win them back with favors.[1111] So impressed were his intimate
followers by the risk to which so valuable a life had been exposed
that they insisted on his accepting a body-guard of twelve select
men, under the command of Antonio de Quiñones, an hidalgo of
Zamora,[1112] who watched over him day and night.
FOOTNOTES
[1062] This is according to Cortés; others differ slightly, and Ixtlilxochitl increases
the Tezcucan force to 60,000. Hor. Crueldades, 13.
[1063] From tocatl and xal, spider and sand. Chimalpain, Hist. Conq., ii. 29. The
lake in which it lies is divided about the centre by an artificial causeway about one
league long, running from east to west, the southern water being now known as
San Cristóbal Ecatepec, from the town of that name, and the northern water as
Xaltocan or Tomanitla, San Cristóbal being also the general term for both waters.
[1064] See Native Races, ii. v.
[1065] Bachiller Alonso Perez, afterward fiscal of Mexico. Bernal Diaz, Hist.
Verdad., 135.
[1066] This incident was commemorated by some poetic follower in a ballad which
became a favorite with the conquerors:
En Tacuba está Cortés,

Con su esquadron esforçado,
Triste estaua, y muy penoso,
Triste, y con gran cuidado,
La vna mano en la mexilla,
Y la otra en el costado.
Which may be translated literally:
In Tacuba stands Cortés,

With his troopers strong and brave:
Sad he was and deeply grave;
Sad, and heavily oppressed.
With one hand his cheek he pressed;
Against his side, the other.
[1067] So runs Bernal Diaz’ account, which appears a little exaggerated, for
recently Cortés had shown the greatest caution, and would hardly have allowed
himself to be so readily trapped on so memorable a spot. Hist. Verdad., 126.
Cortés states that not a Spaniard was lost, though several Mexicans fell. Cartas,
187.
[1068] Herrera, dec. iii. lib. i. cap. vii.
[1069] They begged permission to return home, says Chimalpain, Hist. Conq., i.
31. Herrera relates that the efforts of Ojeda, by Cortés’ order, to take from the
Tlascaltecs the gold part of their booty so offended them that they began to desert.
The extortion was accordingly stopped, dec. iii. lib. i. cap. vii. Clavigero doubts the
story. Prescott regards the departure of the allies as distasteful to Cortés; but we
have seen that he did not care at present to encumber himself with too many
unruly auxiliaries to prey upon the peaceful provinces. The Tlascaltecs would
willingly have remained to share in raiding expeditions.
[1070] Including 8000 Tezcucans under Chichinquatzin. Ixtlilxochitl, Hor.

Crueldades, 15. On March 12th, says Vetancurt, Teatro Mex., pt. iii. 154.
[1071] Also known as Chimalhuacan-Chalco, to distinguish it from Chimalhuacan

on Tezcuco Lake.
[1072] Lorenzana inspected the position in later times. Cortés, Hist. N. Esp., 214.
[1073] ‘Que todos los que allí se hallaron afirman.’ Cortés, Cartas, 190. The
general lauds the achievement with rare fervor for him. Bernal Diaz sneers at the
river of blood story; but then he was not present to share the glory. The Roman
Mario was less dainty than these Spaniards under a similar circumstance,
commemorated by Plutarch; or as Floro more prosaically puts it: ‘Ut victor
Romanus de cruento flumine non plus aquæ biberit quam sanguinis barbarorum.’
Epitome, lib. iii. cap. iii.
[1074] Fifteen, says Bernal Diaz. Chimalpain, the Chalcan narrator, states that his
tribe lost 350 men, but killed 1500 foes, capturing the captain-general,
Chimalpopocatzin, a relative of the emperor, who now became a captain among
the Tezcucans, and was killed during the siege. Hist. Conq., ii. 34. Some of these
facts are evidently not very reliable. He also assumes that Sandoval lost eight
soldiers on again returning to Tezcuco.
[1075] The ‘comissario’ or clerk in charge of the bulls was Gerónimo Lopez,
afterward secretary at Mexico. Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 129. This author names
several of the arrivals, some of whom became captains of vessels. A number also
arrived during the following week, he adds, notably in Juan de Búrgos’ vessel,
which brought much material.
[1076] Gomara mentions also Maxcaltzinco as a distant place. Hist. Mex., 186.
[1077] The chiefs were awaiting orders to appear before Cortés. The general told
them to wait till tranquillity was more fully restored. The name of the other soldier
was Nicolás. Cortés, Cartas, 203-5. Herrera assumes that Barrientos arrived in
camp during the late Tepeaca campaign, dec. ii. lib. x. cap. xvii.
[1078] Of the rank and file none suffered penalty on returning, for captivity was
regarded as disgraceful only to a noble. Native Races, ii. 419.
[1079] Bernal Diaz states that the soldiers were tired of these repeated calls, many
being also on the sick-list, but Cortés had now a large fresh force only too eager
for a fray attended with spoliation.
[1080] According to a native painting the army entered here April 5th, which is a
day or two too early, and received a reënforcement of 20,000. See copy in
Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., ii. 523.
[1081] So says Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 130, who names four. Cortés allows
only two killed and twenty wounded; how many fatally so, he carefully omits to
mention. Cartas, 194.
[1082] Twenty fell, says Bernal Diaz. He speaks of two futile attempts on the
previous evening to scale the central hill. It seems unlikely for soldiers, tired by
repulse and march, to undertake so difficult a feat, and that at the least assailable
point.
[1083] Yet Bernal Diaz relates a story to show that the order was a mere pretence.
[1084] Cartas, 196; Torquemada, i. 536.
[1085] Some write Xilotepec. Bernal Diaz mentions Tepoxtlan, which may have
been visited by a detachment.
[1086] Place of the Eagle. Corrupted into the present Cuernavaca, which
singularly enough means cow’s horn.
[1087] See Native Races, v.
[1088] Cortés was so captivated by the alluring clime and scenery that he made
the town his favorite residence in later years. It was included in the domains
granted to him, and descended to his heirs. Madame Calderon speaks of his
ruined palace and church. Life in Mexico, ii. 50.
[1089] Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., 311. Brasseur de Bourbourg calls him Yaomahuitl.
[1090] ‘El vno se quebró la pierna ... y se me desvanecia la cabeça, y todavia

pasè yo, y otros veinte, ô trienta soldados.’ Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 132. Solis
misinterprets the passage, and gives this author credit for leading the party. Hist.
Mex., ii. 362. Vetancurt calls the district toward this spot Amanalco. Teatro Mex.,
pt. iii. 155.

The Third Reichs Elite Schools A History of The Napolas Helen Roche Full Chapter PDF Scribd

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

The Third Reichs Elite Schools A History of The Napolas Helen Roche Full Chapter PDF Scribd

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Third Reichs Elite Schools A History of The Napolas Helen Roche Full Chapter PDF Scribd

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Third Reich's Elite Schools: A

History of the Napolas Helen Roche

The Third Reich’s Elite Schools

The Third Reich’s

This book is dedicated to my mother,

Combining the intricacies and peculiarities of thousands of sources and millions

on ‘Sport in National Socialism’, which was crucial to the development of some of

Richard J. Evans, Johanna Gehmacher, Ben Goossens, Detlef Schmiechen-

xvi   

3.4. Members of one of the school marching bands at NPEA Rügen,

NPEA vs. Napola

The official abbreviation for the designation Nationalpolitische Erziehungsanstalt

Ausleseschule vs. Eliteschule

In German-language scholarship, since the publication of Harald Scholtz’s mono-

xviii    

something like ‘selective schools’. Although the prevalence of the term

Place-Names in Eastern Europe and the Balkans

When discussing locations in present-day Czechia, Poland, and other countries

The following terms and abbreviations will not routinely be translated or

    xix

Zug: class or year-group.

N.B. To calculate the worth of Reichsmarks in any given year in present-day

1. Helmut Trepte, ‘Die Napolas’, Berliner Tageblatt, 14 April 1938 [Bundesarchiv

Berlin, October 1940: SS-Lieutenant-General August Heißmeyer, the Inspector of

   ’  

Czechia, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg—had had schools

:      

   ’  

:      

This monograph presents an entirely original synthesis of primary source-

• The constant conflicts caused by polycratic infighting over which political

   ’  

• The contradiction between National Socialist claims to honour past tradi-

:      

   ’  

as Alltagsgeschichte—demonstrating that, in a meaningful sense, the history of an

:      

   ’  

:      

first Inspector of the NPEA, described the Napolas as ‘boarding establishments . . .

   ’  

with pedagogical theories put forward by Nazi educationalists such as Ernst

:      

   ’  

:      

   ’  

:      

   ’  

1. Bundesarchiv Lichterfelde (BArch), R 43-II/956b, Bl. 47–50, letter from Heißmeyer to

:      

   ’  

:      

   ’  

:      

42. Müller, ‘Legal Odyssey’, 512; Müller, ‘Postwar Deception’, 23.

   ’  

There was no time at present to extend the reconnoissance

[1064] See Native Races, ii. v.