You will probably not find Günther Anders and Dietrich Bonhoeffer named in one and the same sentence. But I will argue in this essay that there are at least three important themes in their work which are worthwhile to adress. Not to mention some other aggreements. And there are great differences, obvious.
Centre piece is mans accountability in modern times, loudly and clearly confessed by Anders as well as by Bonhoeffer. They challenge the church for her contribution to survival of the world and mankind.
He is a German Philosopher. The picture shows him with his first wife: famous Hanna Arendt. They were a couple 1929 – 1936.
He is Jewish, but without any sign of religious upbringing. His parents were intellectuals. His father, Louis William Stern a wellknown psychologist, founder of the ‘Entwicklungspsygologie’. Edith Stein was one of the most talented pupils of Stern Sr.
Stern was actually the surname of Günther Anders who was born 1902 as Günther Siegmund Stern in Breslau then a German town, nowadays Polish Wroclav. Anders completed his studies under celebrities as Heidegger and Husserl. After his PHD under Husserl he will not have a academic career. He becomes a journalist and freelance writer.
Here is his signature.
He is obvious a philosopher, but not an academic one. He invents the title ‘Gelegenheits-Philosophe’ to caracterize himself. He has not the ambition for building up a filosophical system. He is the philosopher of what happens with man and by man. He analyses what matters tot mankind. And he is totally and shamelees involved. No scientific ivory tower thinking. He is a moralist, he frankly admits. He is a man with a mission. Because of mans endangered position. For his message he can choose from many styles of writing. Essays, fables, metaphors, interviews, poems and even a novel. So often in a highly provocative style, sarcasm changes with broad analysis. He thinks man cannot be defined in one particular way. Therefore you must adress him from many perspectives and in many ways. He has formed the word: ‘Menschfragment’ 1 Man is so versatile that Anders’ mission has to be versatile and his method as well.
Gunther Anders’ health was of a very vulnerable nature. He had heart issues and artritis. (See the picture with an impression of his deformed hands.)
But when possible he was almost possessed with fighting the Atomic Bomb and all it stands for. He was involveld in the Bertrand Russel Vietnam Tribunal1967 as well.
Coming back from his USA asylum 1950 he felt no one of the two german nations was his. He lives in Austria till he dies 1992. He lived nearly a century, included two World Wars and the fall of the Berlin Wall.
One cannot give the exact reason why he changed his name to Anders as a writersname; – but it is far from unclear that he always tries to take different positions. He feels different. He belongs nowhere. Unless he belongs to ‘those Jews who were not in Europe when the monster ruled there’. That says it all. In 1933 he lost actually his german citizenship. His pseudonym has definitely the notion displaced, being a rebel.
That goes for mans nature as well: ‘The nature of man is that he doesn’t have one’. There is no exact definition of man. He is always different; being different is his only way of existing.
So far for introducing Günther Anders for the moment.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was four years younger than Günther Anders; born 1906.
When he is murdered 1945 by the Nazi’s, Anders outlives him almost half a century. There is a chanche that they have met because Bonhoeffer was also born in Breslau. Their parents being scientists in the psychiatry/psychology department. Bonhoeffer studied theology in Tübingen and made his PHD in Berlin. He had an academic position en became a priest in several congregations in Germany, Spain and England. Every inch a man of the Church. International orientated and of an ecumenical spirituality.
Bonhoeffer was as multi-talented as Günther Anders was. They almost ended up in music. Both word-people; people with a pen. Poets even. Quoting from a letter to Hans Jonas: “My talents are music and visual arts. That I became a writer is a failure I cannot repair anymore”2.
I myself like the Anders poetry the best. I like his immitigable engagement to all human suffering. Our world doesnot have any excuse, so Anders will not give any. Often one can hardly stand his nihilism. He will not be fobed off: life is just not better than it is. That is compelling, because you know that he chooses for life unconditionaly.
The Bonhoeffer poem “Von guten Mächten” is my favorite and makes good many others. The music by Dutchman A.C. Schuurman is very powerful.
Bonhoeffer is an important player in the controversy around the ‘Bekennende Kirche’ and in the “Judenfrage”. He has a leadership in the Finkenwalde seminary where he and is fellow pastors design a Christ-orientated lifestyle.
Being a church-person Bonhoeffer is strongly opposed to all kinds of religious behaviour. He states that you cannot believe if it has become too obvious. If God is totally filled in, Bonhoeffer is not with you. God can only speak last words, if you try to hunder God with your before-last words there is basicaly something wrong. If not anything. The significant proof for that is the Prisonletter April 30th 1944.
As far as we know the both never met. Anders never refers to a book from Bonhoeffer. That is a little bit odd. He must have noticed that the works by Bonhoeffer were published and frequently discussed.3 One may ask if this was a matter of Anders charakter: could he hardly recognise friends in his field of mission?
Anyway it is a pity that Anders didn’t react. And it is a pity as well that he didn’t comment on other well known theologians who adressed closely related issues in the field of the so called Conciliar Process. Nevertheless he mentions that he read during many decades the great religious documents and theology. I would have apreciated more names.
I asked the World Council of Churches and the Deutsche Kirchentagen office, and was told that they never invited Anders to some meeting. He could have contributed interesting stuff, that is for sure.
I just mention these differences; I will not push them.
Bonhoeffer was a big man, good at sports4. Anders was not in a good health, could even not attend his work during long periods.
Of Bonhoeffer is said that he was a cigarsmoker (Rothuizen AC p. 218 mentions a box with cigars sent to Bonhoeffer in Prison by Karl Barth), Anders smoked cigarettes.
They had a different attitude towards their homeland Germany. Anders always the hard critic. Bonhoeffer was very ‘German’. But growing older he became very critical towards the Heimat.5 Anders had to fly in exil, via Paris into the USA. Bonhoeffer could have found a save place abroad but he decides to go back to Hitler-Germany to stand by his fellow believers.
Bonhoeffer is killed by Hitler April 1945. Anders is a Hitler victim as well in the sence that he develops an emigrant-mentality and feels that way till he dies.
Bonhoeffer states that he ‘does not feel anything about Rilke’ but Anders delivered a deep going book on the ‘Duineser Elegieën’ by Rilke (in companionship with Hannah Arendt). I have no comment to that.
I certainly must mention their attitude towards women. Anders maried three times and had three divorces. We only know one fiancee for Bonhoeffer,- a little bit. We can not say more to this topic, because Anders hided as good as he could his private circumstances, and Bonhoeffer was hampered to build up a relation with a partner for life by his death. I will not make any conclusions out the love poem “Vergangenheit” that is written in his letters from prison.
We saw coming up a kind of veneration around the Bonhoeffer person; that is not the case with Günther Anders. Nevertheless he was during a certain period a much sought speaker. It was noticed that Günther Anders does not appear at all in de 2014 movie about Hannah Arendt. His violent writing can have made socializing with Anders rather difficult. At the end of his life one could say that he lives in a sort of isolation in a nursing.6
A big gap
Günther Anders can not stand institutions for one bit, especialy not religious ones. Bonhoeffer is every inch a church person. Anders is often complete hostile towards church and believers. That hostility can hardly be topped by the lines Anders writes in ‘Ketzereien’ page 94. It is about saying prayers before dinner. The heading goes:
“Speechless I sat there in pain”.7 Then:
“B. told me earlier in Frankfurt that G. Marcel payed him a visit. They came along very well while discussing ingenious primary works like the C Major Fantasy by Schumann and the d flat Concerto by Brahms. After that he invited G.M. for dinner. He was about to pray before eating. But B. withheld him and let him know in a polite way – I think I would not have the courage to do so – : ”Sir, I have always estimated the cleanliness of my house very high. If you do feel urged by some religious needs, so please do so outside this room second door on your right.” And he even handed him a towel.
So. G.M. left the room politely, he even used the towel, he did not only come back to the room; they carried on with there conversation on ingenious primary works, changing the subject to Opus 1 by Berg, when the soup was served.
Where did B. find the courageto do so? And where got G.M. this massive unworthiness?”
Never mind mocking strange believers, of course. Silliness is silliness. Bonhoeffer also criticizes believers strongly who believe in so called ‘Cheap Grace’, and behave as such. But Bonhoeffer works as hard as he can to renew the church totally; so that in the end the church does matter again. That issue you will not find in Anders works.
There is something more to say about Anders on this subject. You can call Anders a zealot where it comes to let mankind survive; I mentioned that earlier. But also his aversion towards believers seems to be a mission of his.
How do you like this frontal attack :
“Still believing in God today is blasphemy!”
This tells us more about Günther Anders than about believers, that is for sure.
But one can also wonder if Anders takes it seriously. It looks like Anders starts caricaturizing believers and then destrois them profoundly.
I feel strongly that Anders and Bonhoeffer would meet in the department of the pre-final questions. There is the department of the future of mankind. As a pre-final word (in the sence of the Hebrew word Dabar, which means word and deed) christians must behave responsible. They are accountable for justice and peace and mankinds survival. As human beings in human words.8 When Rothuizen writes9 Bonhoeffer was a sworn enemy towards all compromising, that goes for Anders the same.
Beyound the believe area there is apparently a world of understanding between the two, and affinity. That is the field where it comes to taking care of homo spaiens and his world in concreto. There lies a huge task for believers and non believers alike to make survive mankind in extreme circumstances. That is the keynote both for Anders and Bonhoeffer.
Three major issues
Secular believing by responsible man
Anders and Bonhoeffer had to deal with Hitler and his Reich. They opposed completely to them. No doubts whatsoever.
Anders against Hitler
Anders, a Jew fled for Hitler; Paris at first then into the United States of America. Once he wil admitt to regret only one thing: having not killed Hitler back in 1928. He calls himself too much a coward. As early as 1928 Anders was clear about Hitler killing millions of peolple.10 He goes into exile. Fighting The Monsterous Third Reich.
Günther Anders was allowed to analyse The Monster much longer than Bonhoeffer could. Anders had also a long and relentless fight against those who denied the ongoing monstrosity after May 1945. Especially in the two nations Germany and Austria.
He critises Nazism largely in the little booek “Wir Eichmannsöhne, offener Brief an Klaus Eichmann”. (WES) (I don’t know if there is an English translation available.) He wants to discuss with Klaus, son to infamous Adolf the roots of Hitlers Third Reich. Those roots did not die when the Tird Reich collapsed, is Anders’ strong conviction. ‘The Monster’ has the same roots as the ‘atomic state’ we live in. And the other way around. He typifies Hitlers evil doing by words as “the idea of destroying in an industrial way masses of people, or better put the idea of producing corpses systematicaly like Hitler and your father realised” p. 39.
There are two roots.
The first one being: ‘we don’t own our world anymore’. We are only allowed partaking. We are not the subject of history anymore. The technological way of existing is the only thing that matters. That is supposed to survive. To continue this system products must be replaced by others endlessly. Our potentiality to imagine is not fit for the products we can make. So we can not see the monsters we can unleash; therefore there is nothing that can stop us from making them. That is why Hitler came in power lawfully.
The second root is closely connected to the first one. “We cannot imagine the results of our deeds as our results, when the effects are too big. And there is more. There is the indirectness hidden in our way of dividing jobs into a process of small actions”.11 When the subject of history changes, your potentiality to be accountable changes as well. That is basic in fascism.
We will discuss this a little bit more when it comes to Eschatology and Secular believing by responsible man.
Bonhoeffer against Hitler
Bonhoeffer not being a Jew had connections with people who got in trouble by the Ariërlaws. When the german church has her fight with Hitler, Bonhoeffer is involved; that goes for the struggle with the so called ‘Deutsche Christen’. Bonhoeffer has chosen to endure in Germany the disaster of the Second World War although he had the opportunity to escape abroad.
When Hitler took over in 1933 Bonhoeffer saw already that ‘the Führer’ shows godlike ambitions. Therefor the church ought to reject him totally. The Ariër-laws cause Bonhoeffer to state that one cannot be a member of a church when Jews are excluded. He thinks that christians as individuals should sue the state for moral crime. But the church as an institute should call for an ‘evangelical concily’ at first. That is his way of thinking 1933.
Bonhoeffer has the opinion that one cannot oppose the anti-Jewish rules of the gouvernment as private person according to ones own personal views or conscience. Basically you don’t ‘take’ a decision in this matter, it will be brought to you from the consummation in Christ: the reality we live in radical critisised. Jezus Christus is for Bonhoeffer the consummation of human being, and in that way He challenges for true humanity.
Note that Bonhoeffer had during a longer period positive feelings about fighting for your country and about war, Anders did not.12 When Bonhoeffer took part in an assault on Hitler, later on, it felt like a sort of substitution for the people. Bonhoeffer never justified violence as such. He could not believe in violence.
Anders’ and Bonhoeffers opposition against Hitler compared
Bonhoeffer and Anders meet eachother in the vision that there is no possible compromis with Hitler. The way Bonhoeffer acted is perhaps a kind of an answer for Anders who mistrusted ‘Religions of love’ so much. Anders argues that churches evangelised non-violence to the powerless people.13 But those people were inclosed in a system that in the end could rely on violence. Anders: that is threatening with non-violence by those in power. But today we cannot afford us non-violence anymore, due to the state of emergency the men in power has brought us in.
And yet mankind has to be saved from extinction. That is the challence Anders sees lying before us. He doesn’t have a convincing theory for fustifying the use of violence. From Anders point of view everything is ruled by the state of ermegency we are in. One should act to. Especially because there is no second try when atomic bombs have fallen.
Bonhoeffer doesnot have a convincing theory either to justify deeds of resisting violently; he believes that there are situations where you embrace violence ‘in a guilty way’. Bonhoeffer sees that as an act of faith. That is his way of realising christian pacifism.
Anders has virtual the same view, but he is not interested in the question if it still might be called pacifism.
There is an other point of different views by Anders and Bonhoeffer where it comes to the evil of an Hitler. Bonhoeffer at least suggests that the decision to use violence depends on the (believing) individual person mostly; in fact it is not much of a decision of his own, it is given to him. Nobody can decide for someone else. Yet that doesn’t make him free of guilt. Anders on the other hand sees the use of violence from the perspective of the state of emergency mankind is brought into. It looks like he almost find there a kind of justification. It is very close to call for murder!
When I am right, the problem with churches is that they think as western individuals. They don’t realise the state of emergency mankind as a whole is brought into. Without any doubt it will become a hot item when human enhancement and genetic engeneering proceed in a way that ruining homo sapiens as a species becomes a possibillity. Or when human robotica develops and brings new sorts of beings to the market. The issue is then the so called ‘free science’ and ‘free technology’, because of a ‘free market’. Churches will adress moral issues for the individual scientist in big meetings. And te state of emergency for mankind as a whole wille be seen as a secondhand matter or even irrelevant.
Günther Anders and Dietrich Bonhoeffer are waiting for answers.
Unlike many scolars discussing the texts on ‘the eschaton’, Anders en Bonhoeffer both are ‘experts from experience’. They felt that time was demonic, full of evil, heavy firsthand. Neither of both thought this deepfelt misery and crime as easyly transient: brighter times should come, all suffering gone.
Bonhoeffer cites Jeremia 32:15: “Houses and fields and vineyards shalll be possessed again in this land”. Confronted with a total lack of future and with the wickedness of his era, Jeremiah gives a sign for a new bright future. Bonhoeffer continues: “Nobody should discredit optimism as a drive into the future; although it fails hundred times. That optimistic view of life is healthy; one should not pollute that. Some people don’t see this as serious thinking, and there are Christians who find it not devotional to hope for a better future in this world of ours. They believe that the meaning of the circumstances we are in, is chaos, total disorder, catastrofy. They withdraw from this world and from responsibility for rebuilding our world so that future generations have a world to live in. Maybe tomorrow is the youngest day, than we will gladly cease working for a better future, – but earlier than that, no.”14
In many ways Bonhoeffer was aware that the path of suffering and the work for a better earthly future should be very difficult. On that road man taking his responsibility is the only thing that counts. You cannot succesfully realise everything; sometimes you only can sit and wait. Sit in what he calls “Arkandiziplin”. Then the church must preserve the centre of her hope carefully; keeping up her values. Imagine that when better times arrive you don’t have anything left to make those times so good: all the words and promises of the Kingdom of God. Imagine you don’t have the hope anymore in times where hope could be realised again!
I find it important to say that ‘waiting’ for Gods time as Bonhoeffer sees it, does have a big risk. While waiting you might omit certain things and squander chances. You might loose during that period your sensitivity for the seriousness of the matter which is at stake. That is a big risk.
On the other hand: while waiting God may suprise you. Patience and receptivity should be complimentary to each other; without any complacency. Meanwhile do what can be done. Hoping to be blessed despite everything.
In a way Anders’ novel ‘The molussian Catacomb’ has also this view on ‘save the hope silently’. Anders started the novel before the war, the manuscript miraculously passed the nazi censor; it was printed however not earlier than 1992, the year Anders died.
Bottomline of the book. There is this oppressor who puts his enemies in jail, deep underground in complete darkness. Seen by no one in the upperworld. There is this old prisoner telling the stories which really matter to a young prisoner who must pass on the stories when the older one has died, and a younger one replaces him. The stories are about truth which in the upperworld has become lies. In the upperworld there is no chance that truth can be saved purely. The only thing that can be done in that darkness is ‘passing on’.
I don’t know for sure if Bonhoeffer was informed about atomic waepons being developed by Hitler or the allied forces. When Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed he was already dead. But to Günther Anders Augustus 6th 1945 is a paradigmchanging date. Final Time has begun. After this era there will not be an other one; never; not better, not worse. Since that date we are as mankind not the same anymore.
Typical for this era ‘Endzeit’ is in Anders’ mind that certain persons have the power to end time. He denies that mankind as such does so. Because mankind can only be victim in a nuclear worldwar, not subject in the same time. That is how we have built up our society: some members are entitled to destroy everything. Others allow them to do so. After that there will be nobody to tell what happened.15
Anders’ life after Augustus 6th 1945 is almost completely filled with a moral appeal to postpone that Finish of time endlessly. Every gramm of energy must be invested in that project. And we have to do it ourselves. There is no Higher Power to believe in, as christians and others may do. Such a believe goes at the expense of our own accountability. We ourselves are that Higher Power that can finis the final era.
Therefore Anders has that terrible saying: “Hope is cowardice for the weak”. Our situation is so serious that we may not hide that behind anything. Otherwise we doze off. If we somehow hope that everything becomes well we will downsize our efforts. Hope may not mislead us to trust that in the end someone else will do it for us.
Both Anders and Bonhoeffer have their inconsequenses. Bonhoeffer while he states mans full responsibility while ‘waiting for God as though he doesnot exist’. Anders relies completely on man, although he doesn’t believe that there is such a man.16
It seems to me that Bonhoeffer could have been the person to make it clear to Anders, that hope is not the same as illusion. There is a good reason that we have both words. Anders and Bonhoeffer challenge the church by asking for ‘hope brimfull with human responsibility’.
Bonhoeffer and Anders are waiting for answers.
3 . Mans responsibility
Anders finds himself a complete secular person. Nevertheless also an inconsequent nihilist. Because he chooses for survival of humanity shamelessly.
Bonhoeffer will be nothing more than a believer. He is aware that in order to make it possible to believe in modern times almost everything has to be changed in the church, and that goes for man and world in general alike, but all that changes go ‘coram Deo’: before Gods eyes.
Anders does not sympathize with believers of any kind, he feels kind of superior. In his book “Ketzereien” he collects notes from conversations with believers or clergymen. See above. In those notes a certain restyling by Anders is shown.
Often they have this scheme:
a. a believer is bothering GA;
b. GA makes (witty) remarks;
c. believer is silenced; GA did win!
He complains that so many believers try to convert him, but he himself is a person with a mission also: believers are outdated; faith has to stop.
“I would not be interested in God even if he were dead”, is one of his favorite slogans.
Bonhoeffer had a totally different attitude. Mostly caracterised as ‘live as though God does not exist’. Or ‘live even if God does nog exist’ (etsi Deus non daretur). God is not set aside, by no means; it is just childish immature leaning upon God that is forbidden for a genuin christian, even if that attitude is called pious by churchleaders. Bonhoeffer is ready for a time that church does matter again. A time when faith is meet by respect. Free from pseudo-certainties and institutional pollution. So much went wrong with church and faith but that can be restored from the live with Christ to achieve a faith that can be done by responsible people.
The heart of the matter is here: thinking and believing have their place completely within the horizon of terrestrial reality. What to do with the great filosofical systems and dogmas that we herited from the past is not clear yet. German philosopher Picht formulated it: “If you don’t know the meaning of the name of God, you cannot be an atheïst”.17
Maybe Bonhoeffer would agree? Is it possible that Anders would think about that?
Perhaps there can follow an other inquiry about relationships between the views by Bonhoeffer, Anders on one hand and the views by people like Georg Picht, Dorothee Sölle, Küng, Duchrow, Moltmann etc. For The Netherlands one can come up with names like A. Th. Van Leeuwen, Okke Jager and others. All well known in the field of the so called ‘Conciliair Proces’.
Picht wrote a book: “Hier und Jetzt: Philosophieren nach Auschwitz und Hiroshima”. Inevitable he must have met Günther Anders in his research. Picht also was of great value in the peace movement; he wrote on peace-science for exemple. So there are relations with all kinds of others.
It is here not the right place to adress Hans Jonas’ ‘Das Prinzip Verantwortung’ in extenso but it is good to have mentioned him. He is amongst the oldest and dearest friends of Anders’.
All those thinkers have their focus on mans responsibility even for what he can cause in the future. See f.e. Picht: Mut zur Utopie. Die großen Zukunftsaufgaben, München 1969
Anders is strongly involved in that field. He finds that due to the nature of our technics what we do now has consequencies for coming ages; so one cannot just say “I did my job correctly”. You are accountable for any harmful use of what you did today by others in the future. In our days this grows into demonic proportions. Everything is connected with everything.
When it is said that ‘the future is manifacturable’ we must understand that we have the ultimate opportunity to do it the right way. Only the right way. We are not allowed to give each other any chance to fail.
It seems that churches hardly realise this responsibility for this ‘final time’. Their fellow men have this attitude with them, by the way.
The famous prisonletter by Bonnhoeffer dated 30 April 1944 says: “I am puzzled incessantly by the question what is christianity to us these days, who is Christ for us today. […]We live into an era without religion; […] How can Christ become the lord for these religiousless people? Do religiousless christians exist?”
Perhaps Günther Anders would have been one of them.
Meanwhile Anders and Bonhoeffer are waiting for answers.
Citations and abbreviations
Anders, Günther (1980) Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen. Band I. Über die Seele im Zeitalter der zweiten industriellen Revolution. Munchen C.H.Beck. 5E durch ein Vorwort erweiterte Auflage. (ADMI)
Anders, Günther (1981) Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen. Band II. Über die Zerstörung des Lebens im Zeitalter der dritten industriellen Revolution. Munchen C.H.Beck. 2E unveränderte Auflage. (ADMII)
Anders, Günther (1983) Die atomare Drohung. München, C.H.Beck. (AD)
Anders, Günther (1987) Gewalt JA oder NEIN. Her. Von Manfred Bissinger. München, Knaur. (GJON)
Anders, Günther (1996) Ketzereien. München, C.H.Beck (KET)
Anders, Günther (2007), De Catacombe van Molussië Rotterdam Lemniscaat. (MOL)
Anders, Gunther (2002) Wir Eichmannsöhne. Offener Brief an Klaus Eichmann München C.H. Beck 3e Aufl. Oorspronkelijk van 1964; aangevuld met tweede brief van 1988. (WES)
Anders, Günther, (1993) Mensch ohne Welt, Schriften zur Kunst und Literatur. München, H.C. Beck 2e Auflage (MOW)
Bahr, Raimund (z.j.) Günther Anders Leben und Denken im Wort. Edition Arts Science Wenen.
Bethge, E. (1968) Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Theoloog/Christen/Tijdgenoot. Utrecht Ambo. (DB)
Bom. G.H. Van der (1999) Oneindige verantwoordelijkheid. De cultuurfilosofie van Georg Picht en haar betekenis voor de theologie. Zoetermeer, Boekencentrum.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich (1965) Widerstand und Ergebung. München und Hamburg Siebenstern. 2E auflage (WUE)
Dijk, Paul van e.a. (red) (1999)Gidsen en getuigen op de pelgrimage naar Vrede. Gorinchem Narratio.
Lange, Frits de (1995) Wachten op het verlossende woord, Dietrich Bonhoeffer en het spreken over God. Baarn Ten Have.
Rothuizen, G. Th. (1969) Aristocratisch christendom: Over Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Leven, verzet, ecumene, theologie Kampen Kok,
2Raimund Bahr, ‘Günther Anders’ p. 150
3I cannot be sure of that. I was not in the position to read alle the articles he wrote in several magazines. But I cannot believe that Anders missed the overviews of every new volume of Bonhoeffers Collected works in the “Allgemeine Wochenzeitung der Juden in Deutschland” (cf Rothuizen AC p. 17)
4However he mentions in the prisonletter dated 31-10-1933 an rheumatic attack. Anders’ hands were heavily deformed by atritis.
5Rothuizen AC p. 88 e.v.
6See Raimund Bahr “Gunther Anders Leben und Denken im Wort” 278 e.v.
7The heading is dark: where was he sitting ‘stumm’? It is a story told to Anders; he was not there himself.
8Cf Frits de Lange “Wachten op het verlossende woord” p. 186
9Cf. Rothuizen, “Aristocratisch Christendom” (AC) p. 16
10KET p. 223 e.v. He would agree to kill a politician, who was about to throw The Bomb; because there is no dogma or anything that can justify the Bomb be thrown.
11WES p 48
12Bonhoeffer was in his younger days strongly opposed to pacifism!
13Anders GJON p. 107
14WUE p. 23/24
15Moving story ‘Die beweinte Zukunft’ in Anders AD.
16See Anders MOW. After de final Era it will be: Welt ohne Mensch.