, ,

“Truth and Treason” and Today

Helmuth Hübener, flanked by Rudolf “Rudi” Wobbe (left) and Karl-Heinz Schnibbe (right)

[WARNING: the following includes some things that maybe considered spoilers by those who haven’t seen the film.]

I’m not sure how well it is known, but the film “Truth and Treason”, currently in theaters, tells the story of a young LDS man in Hamburg, Germany in 1942. Helmuth Hübener’s story has been told before, perhaps best in Tom Rogers’ 1976 play, Huebener. The film’s story is a faithful retelling of the events, starting with the attacks on Helmuth’s friend and fellow church member, Salomon Schwarz, who was abducted by the SS that year because he was half Jewish (Salomon later died in Auschwitz). Motivated by this and by the BBC broadcasts he heard on an illicit short-wave radio, Helmuth began producing anti-Hitler pamphlets, first using a typewriter borrowed from his Hamburg branch of the LDS Church, and eventually using the branch’s duplicating machine. Enlisting two additional friends from the branch, Rudi and Karl, he distributed the pamphlets around Hamburg. Hübener was eventually caught, tried and executed by the Reich at age 17—he was the youngest person executed by the Reich for resistance.

What I liked most about the film was how sympathetically the characters were. Many retellings of the story have criticized the Hamburg branch president, Arthur Zander, who supported the Nazi party and who claimed to have excommunicated Hübener. While not excusing his actions, the film suggests the difficulty of balancing his responsibilities to the Truth, to his congregation and to his loyalty to party—the film shows him discovering one of Hübener’s pamphlets and going to turn him in, only to decide not to at the last minute.

Also sympathetic was the portrayal of the SS Commissar who was trying to identify the source of the pamphlets. We often see his family life and especially his relationship with his children. In addition, repeatedly during the film, air-raid sirens are heard and everyone heads to bunkers as the city is bombed. During one air-raid, a bomb hits the shelter where the Commissar and his family are sheltered, and his young daughter is killed. In spite of this, we see him show kindness and grace to Hübener, but also participating in his torture.

The sympathetic portrayal of most characters in the film lead me to think about how we should look at the story. We’re asked liken the scriptures to ourselves and I think that often works with other stories as well. And in this case, we are just like many characters in the story. What can we learn when we think of ourselves as Hübener? As Zander, or as the SS Commissar?

Given that the LDS filmmaker has been working on this project for twenty years (I’ve been told), I don’t think that the timing of its release is intentional in any way. However, it did open in theaters just a few days before the “No Kings” rally this past weekend, which calls attention to the increasing authoritarianism and disregard of our democratic norms by the current administration. Because of how I see our current political situation, the timing leads me to ask some questions of myself:

So, if I were in the Hamburg branch in 1942, what would I do? Would I have supported Hübener? Or would I have supported the branch president? Or to what degree would I support both?

What about earlier? Say the mid 1930s, before Kristallnacht? What would I have done? As Hitler rose, and became increasingly authoritarian, finding an enemy to hate and convincing the people to turn against them. When in the process of increasing hate and authoritarianism should I have spoken up?

I’d like to think that I would speak up early. And I hope that I am speaking up early. I hope that the current administration manipulating, twisting and ignoring the law isn’t the same as the Nazi efforts in the 1930s. I hope that the 1930s act of making an enemy of the Jews is not the same as the current administration making an enemy of immigrants, Latinos and Palestinians.

If it’s not, then when does it become so? An element of the rise of the Nazis in Germany in the 1930 was that the change happened over time — no one complained strongly enough, so the National Socialists kept going, building their ability to do increasingly authoritarian things until everyone was afraid to say anything. Maybe they thought that Hitler would get what he said he wanted and then stop. Is that ever likely? If we’re uncomfortable with what is happening now, why would we think it would stop?

I can’t predict the future. I realize that the level of authoritarian actions we are experiencing isn’t nearly as bad as what Helmuth Hübener faced. But won’t it just get worse? If it won’t, how do we know? And won’t it end up with our not being able to stop it?

Even if it doesn’t end up worse, are we really ok with this? With masked and unidentified government agents kidnapping people off the streets? With the judicial system being used for political revenge? With the administration ignoring the widely-understood interpretation of what the executive can do and what is the province of congress? With the administration firing those in government positions that were established to be independent of the executive? Even if the Supreme Court says these things are constitutional, why should we be ok with the violation of a widely-held understanding, by BOTH parties, of how our government works?

Lest someone claim that I’m just saying this because I do not belong to the party in power, I spent the bulk of my life as a Republican and as a conservative. I changed because I saw both of those positions co-opted by a man who is morally flawed and unfit for office. I ask you to ask yourself, if the other party did this, would I be screaming about how it was wrong? Are you letting all this happen just because it’s your party that benefits? Don’t you think the shoe will eventually end up on the other foot? Are you ready to be kicked by it?

Like Hübener, do we have to have fellow Church members abducted by the equivalent of the SS before we act? — If so, has that not already happened?

When do we act? Pastor Martin Niemöeller memorably captured the question, I think, in his well-known meditation on the rise of the Nazis:

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.

Are you so past feeling that you are willing to let others be ill-treated just because they are different than you? And, since LDS Church members are also, at best, a misunderstood minority, don’t you think this administration will eventually come for you?

When do we recognize the problem? When do we act? How do we act?


Comments

23 responses to ““Truth and Treason” and Today”

  1. Yet one more tribute to Helmut Hubner, that his red leaflets have been passed along in the form of a movie, and we have the opportunity to continue the chain letter. Thank you for doing so in the form of this post. Let’s all pass it on.

  2. John Taber

    I’m just reminded of how my ward was in 2003 (and into 2004) regarding George W. Bush and the Iraq war. Around May 2004 I brought up Hubener to my bishop, because I saw (and felt) lots of parallels, at least regarding parallels from the pulpit. I asked the bishop, “Why is it that so many in the ward [with similar positions] can wear their opinions on their sleeve here, but we [people like me] can’t?”

    It seemed to me at the time, that if we’d had propaganda in meetings there would have been no need to lock the doors to keep everyone inside. I could go on.

  3. Perhaps similar to the OP, I have always been more on the Republican side of the aisle. But I have great respect for our republic, and I have great respect for our traditional patterns and processes. And I still believe that a Democrat can also be a good fellow citizen — when I lived in Georgia, I voted for Sam Nunn’s re-election as senator (but otherwise, I am an 85%+ Republican voter). I am saddened by the coarseness and disregard for tradition that Donald Trump has exemplified, and I see him (and those who obsequiously follow him) as real threats to the long-term health of our republic. I did not vote for him in the 2016 Republican primary, but I did in the general election — but I did not vote for him in 2020 or 2024.

    I now live in a VERY red (Republican) area, and I participated in the 50501 rally and both No Kings rallies in my area. No one in my extended family has joined me there, and I have never seen another Latter-day Saint there.

    I think the comparisons between Trump today and the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s are foreboding and chilling — certainly, I think they should be cause for concern for all good Americans.

    I am aware of the Hübener story and how his fellow LDS branch members considered him both as a traitor to the country and as unfaithful to the church, and how these feelings persisted for many years after the war. I have not seen the movie yet because I don’t generally like sappy movies, but I have just decided that I think I will see this movie just to be supportive — and maybe, I might like it!

    Regarding the church in the 1930s, I want to show as much charity as I can for those in the past. The church counseled members in Germany to do the best they could. I have wondered if I lived in Germany in the 1930s, what side would I have supported? Assuming I was not a Nazi myself, would I have become a resister with the risks that go with that, or would I have wanted to always be present to support my family through hard times? I respect young brother Hübener’s decisions, and I salute him as a good young man living in difficult times.

    Regarding today, I cannot provide a satisfactory explanation for Trump’s support among church members. I want to show as much charity as I can for them, too. One thing that I do see, though — among some of those who support Trump, I think the driving reason is less their support for Trump but rather far more their intense dislike for Democrats and everything they associate with Democrats. I am okay with people having opinions, and I have some myself, but I still want to think that we’re all Americans first. There is room in the public square for all of us, and there is room on the playground for all of our children.

    Anyway, back to Hübener’s story — there is another story, and that is why the church itself never celebrated one of its own and even suppressed the Hübener story. I understand a little of that, but I think enough time has passed that the church could choose to re-claim him and celebrate him.

  4. my apologies, my remarks above conflate two posts I read this morning

  5. I saw the play while I was at BYU, with Karl-Heinz Schnibbe in attendance. It definitely made you think.

    ji, I suspect the Church was hesitant to tell the story because while Huebener was heroic, his branch president was not. But we’re a bit more open to admitting mistakes by leaders these days, and the story is featured in Saints.

    To preempt an objection: Hitler was almost uniquely evil, and no, Trump is not like Hitler. It’s very unlikely Trump will be directly responsible for the murder of millions (though hundreds seems likely). He’s more like Pinochet, or Franco. That’s not okay either.

  6. Kent, I understand. Culturally, we value obedience to church leaders so highly that anyone who has a different opinion than a local church leader, including on political matters, is apostate. I hope our church culture can mature beyond such a mindset.

    I also understand that part of Pres. Monson’s desire to contain the story was the church’s budding relationship with East Germany, and his desire to portray all Latter-day Saints as quiet and law-abiding.

    Anyway, I am glad for individuals who are remembering Hübener’s story, because the church as an institution certainly and purposefully did not.

  7. I was a Republican until sometime during the George W. Bush presidency. When they started lying about the effects of tax cuts, I quit. Since that time, they have lied about pretty much everything, and now, under Trump, lying is required. Just look at the nonsense that comes from Mike Johnson or Karoline Leavitt. After several years as an unaffiliated voter, I became a Democrat because they were standing up for the things I care most about: combatting global warming, making health care available to as many Americans as possible, taxing the wealthy, ending racism, preserving clean air and water, holding corporations responsible for their crimes, upholding the Constitution, and on and on. The GOP opposes all of these things and is now subservient to a completely amoral president who cares only about himself. What a sorry party. Trump is never satisfied, so don’t be surprised at how he will continue to move closer and closer to Nazi Germany. Many of his followers are already praising the Nazis. And look at the types of criminals Trump is pardoning. Their crimes are a reflection of his own. There is absolutely no place in the current GOP for any believing Latter-day Saint. So, take a stand before it’s too late.

  8. I kind of feel sorry for y’all, living in your imaginary dystopia where Trump is a fascist would-be dictator. It sounds like a dark and scary place.

    Is Trump authoritarian? Pretty much every president since Calvin Coolidge has been more authoritarian than I care for. I don’t see how Trump particularly stands out.

    The administration is “making an enemy of immigrants, Latinos and Palestinians?” The president is married to an immigrant; you might try making a distinction between legal and illegal immigration some time. Marco Rubio, a Latino, is one of the most trusted and prominent members of the administration, and Latino voters voted for Trump at historically high levels. And then the administration just negotiated a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, which has the potential to really help Palestinians. So I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

    I think there’s a difference between arresting people who have broken the law and “kidnapping people off the streets,” and I’m sure the ICE officers would be happy to take off their masks if people would stop threatening them and their families with violence.

    Using the judicial system for political revenge is bad. It would have been great if the Biden administration and Letitia James and others hadn’t done that. I’ll note that Trump did nothing resembling this in his first term, before he himself was subjected to weaponized “lawfare”. It’s like the old anti-drug commercial: “I learned it from you, Dad!”

    Whatever both parties may have agreed to earlier, many of us came to the conclusion, long before Trump came along, that establishing government positions independent of the executive (beyond the officials directly in or for the legislative or judicial branches) was probably unconstitutional and at the very least was a bad idea. It creates officials who won’t suffer any consequences for their poor decisions. If Trump can get rid of it that will help restore democratic accountability to our government. Yes, this is in fact what I voted for.

    Trump certainly has his flaws, but he’s been particularly fortunate in his opponents. They make him look sane and reasonable. Maybe if the criticisms were more in touch with reality I would take them more seriously.

  9. Hopefully we peaked on authoritarianism with COVID tyranny. Nothing has approached that since. If you did not stand up against that then you probably never will.

  10. You’re going to “both sides” yourself into the loss of the republic, Curtis. I hope you’re right that we’re all delusional. It feels less and less like that everyday.

  11. Curtis, Trump posted a video of himself wearing a crown and crapping on American’s. That stands out to me compared to any other US President. Does it not to you?

  12. Eric, who was president in 2020 during the Covid pandemic?

  13. jimbob, I’m not sure what I said that you took as “both sides”, unless it was the part about weaponizing the justice system. If that was it, let me clarify. The rule had been “don’t weaponize the justice system,” and Trump followed it during his first term. Then many Democrats threw it out the window during the Biden administration. Well, once you change the rules so they no longer protect those out of power while you’re in power, you can’t expect to go back to the old rules once you’re out. This is particularly true when many prominent Democrats are promising to go back to trying to criminalize supporting Trump if they ever get back in power. I’d like to go back to the old rule, but it doesn’t look like that will happen any time soon.

    jader3rd, I’m not going to even hint that Trump is a role model for good taste. I agree that was pretty rude, and at least in recent history most presidents have at least pretended to politeness. But I’m prepared to trade a few rude videos and such for a proliferation of international peace treaties and “draining the swamp” in Washington D.C.

  14. Jonathan, Trump was. Was COVID response a violation of civil liberties and property rigbts? Did you defend those rights then? What states were the worst offenders, the red or the blue ones? Did Biden correct anything in the direction of liberty?

  15. I saw the movie today — for some reason, I thought it would be sappy, but it was excellent! I recommend it to anyone.

  16. ji, I’m glad you saw it. I was about to say that it was definitely not sappy.

  17. FWIW, I really think some of the above comments miss the point. The question isn’t about whether you agree with my characterization of the Trump administration (although I think the disagreements seem to completely miss huge problems — the current violations dwarf the problems with COVID).

    I know that we’re clearly not to the point that Germany was in the late 1930s. But it looks like we’re heading that way.

    Given that, the question is WHEN are the actions of a government too authoritarian? When should we do something? And what should be done?

  18. Curtis, the point isn’t that the video is rude. The point is that the purpose of the video is to acclimatize you to the idea that Trump should be a crowned king, and that he is so superior to you, that you should think that it’s “right” for him to crap on you (assuming you are an American). Given that you’re focused on the rudeness aspect, I think it’s working on you.

  19. Kent, your comment that current violations dwarf problems with COVID is deceptive nonsense. Please explain to me how my life is more oppressed now than during peak COVID restrictions, and I will try not to laugh. Since they dwarf these restrictions it should be easy. Here is a little help from grok comparing now to peak COVID restrictions:

    Civil Liberties: Peak COVID vs. 2025

    During the 2020–2021 peak (e.g., spring 2020 lockdowns and winter 2020–2021 surges), governments imposed widespread, enforceable restrictions under emergency declarations to curb virus spread. These were often justified as “necessary and proportional” under legal frameworks like the Charter of Rights (in broader analyses) or U.S. constitutional tests, but they sparked lawsuits over First Amendment violations (speech/assembly/religion) and due process. Key examples:

    Movement and Assembly: 42 states issued stay-at-home orders affecting ~90% of the population; gatherings were banned (e.g., >10 people in many areas), closing businesses, schools, and places of worship. This curtailed rights to free association and mobility, with courts upholding most as temporary (e.g., via “nuisance abatement” doctrines).

    Speech and Religion: Mask mandates, protest limits, and differential treatment (e.g., casinos open but churches closed in Nevada) led to hundreds of lawsuits; the Supreme Court struck down some as discriminatory.

    Privacy and Surveillance: Contact-tracing apps and data collection raised concerns, though less intrusive than post-9/11 measures; willingness to trade liberties for health waned as cases fell.

    Global Context: 61% of governments imposed “problematic” restrictions; the U.S. saw declines in rule-of-law scores (e.g., -11% in fundamental rights per World Justice Project 2021).
    By mid-2021, vaccines and declining severity led to rollbacks; the federal public health emergency ended in May 2023, lifting all mandates. Public sentiment shifted: early support for sacrifices dropped as fatigue set in.

    In 2025, no such emergency powers exist, and restrictions are minimal and voluntary (e.g., CDC recommends masks in hospitals during surges, but no enforcement).42e000 However:
    Recent Declines: The U.S. was added to the CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist in March 2025 (first time), rated “narrowed” civic space alongside 41 countries (e.g., Pakistan, Italy). Cited issues include Trump administration actions: mass firings/appointments of loyalists, free speech curbs (e.g., media access denials), protest restrictions in 12+ states (e.g., mask bans at demos), and federal funding cuts to NGOs aiding marginalized groups. Freedom House 2025 notes no broad movement/assembly bans but flags surveillance (e.g., social media monitoring of visa applicants/protesters) and discrimination in justice systems (U.S. ranks 122nd/139 in civil justice discrimination).

    Positive Developments: New state laws protect abortion as a civil liberty (e.g., Delaware covers costs up to $750); privacy gains via Texas’s Data Privacy Act (opt-out tracking); no federal holistic privacy law yet, but court precedents hold.

    Comparison: Peak COVID’s restrictions were more pervasive (e.g., nationwide closures vs. targeted 2025 policies) and temporary, but eroded trust (e.g., “PATRIOT Act factor”—powers lingered post-2001). 2025’s issues feel more politicized (e.g., “assault on democratic norms” per CIVICUS), but civic space is “open” for most activities, with active NGOs suing over abuses. No evidence of widespread backsliding to COVID levels.

    Property Rights: Peak COVID vs. 2025
    Peak COVID directly assaulted property rights via economic controls, justified as “police powers” for public health (e.g., nuisance prevention).

    Use and Evictions: Eviction/foreclosure moratoria in 95% of jurisdictions protected tenants but halted landlords’ rights to collect/use property; non-essential businesses shuttered, leading to “takings” claims (mostly dismissed as non-compensable).b This “permanently damaged” norms, per critics, by bypassing legislatures.

    Economic Impact: Trillions in lost revenue; courts balanced via “rational basis” tests, but rights were subordinated to health.
    All moratoria expired by 2023; RESPA borrower protections rescinded in July 2025.

    In 2025:
    Current Landscape: Property rights are “widely respected,” per Freedom House—no eminent domain abuses or broad seizures.349ed6 Zoning/building codes persist (standard, not crisis-driven), but post-COVID lending is cautious (e.g., stronger guarantees for commercial loans).

    Challenges: Homeowners from the 2021–2022 boom face “underwater” mortgages (2.8% seriously underwater, up slightly Q1 2025), due to high interest rates/inventory shortages—not government restrictions.033ca0 Insurance costs soar (climate-linked), and AI tools for rentals face antitrust scrutiny (no collusion bans yet). Asset forfeiture remains a critique, but unchanged from pre-COVID.

    Comparison: COVID’s direct interventions (e.g., forced closures) were far more intrusive than 2025’s market/regulatory pressures. Equity is strong overall; no “takings” crisis.

    Overall Assessment

    Not Worse Now: Peak COVID’s emergency edicts created a “nation of rulers, not laws,” with acute, broad infringements reversed post-2023.89b206 2025 sees “narrowed” but not “repressed” space—political actions (e.g., funding cuts) chill dissent, but without lockdowns or moratoria. Indices show U.S. rule-of-law dips persisting from 2016–2021 (e.g., -16% constraints on power), but no acceleration to COVID extremes.

  20. I’m pretty sure the purpose of the video was to mock people who think anyone, even Trump, wants Trump to be a king. That’s how I interpreted it, and also how people on right wing web sites I’ve seen understood it. I also suspect the people he was dumping on were not supposed to be generic “Americans” but rather “the people in the ‘No Kings’ protests.”

    I also believe that things like the DOGE cuts are leading us away from a situation like Germany in the 1930s, not towards it. It’s a really odd form of “fascism” that tries to reduce the size and scope of the government.

  21. Thank you for this review. I hope I can see the movie before it leaves the theaters.

    P,S More than a million people in America died of Covid. Red States had higher infection and death rates.

  22. Isn’t it wonder full that we can define civil liberties as what inconveniences Eric Nielson. There is nothing more immoral than only thinking of yourself.

    The “limitations” complained about were all put in place by governments who were elected by the people, and none of those limitations were more than temporary. They didn’t affect your ability to vote or the ability of the government to continue operating as a democratic government.

    The Trump administration, in contrast, has limited my ability to depend on the US government to keep its contractual word. It has removed checks on government malfeasance — such as the ethics officers and whistleblower officials. It has attacked and fired officials from organs that are meant to be independent. Aren’t my liberties infringed when the executive cuts funds meant to benefit me and my state that were approved by congress? That is CONGRESS’s responsibility, not the presidents. That VIOLATES my rights.

    The reason this and many other things dwarf the issues with COVID is that unlike with the temporary COVID restrictions, these are permanent, AND MAKE IT EASIER for the administration to become MORE authoritarian and MORE fascist. This is why the analogy to Nazi Germany works — because the administration is chipping away at the things that make it harder for them to act unilaterally, without consulting anyone else.

    Your logic, simply put, is constitutionally, ethically and morally bankrupt.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.