Reflections, Analysis, and Interpretation of The German Lesson (Deutschstunde) by Siegfried Lenz

There are sentences that sound harmless yet reveal an entire worldview.
“I was only doing my duty.”

Few sentences were heard more often after the fall of Fascism whenever people sought to distance themselves from responsibility. It sounds sober, almost matter-of-fact. In reality, however, it contains a dangerous shift: the individual no longer decides how to act—duty does. A remarkable invention. It turns perpetrators into instruments, choices into necessities, and responsibility into nothing more than an unfortunate administrative oversight.

It is precisely this idea that Siegfried Lenz explores in his 1968 novel The German Lesson (Deutschstunde). On the surface, the novel tells the story of a painter who is forbidden to paint during the Nazi era. In truth, it asks a far more universal question: What happens to a society when people exchange their conscience for official instructions?

In 1968, this question was highly relevant. Germany had only begun to confront its National Socialist past more openly. A younger generation no longer asked their parents merely what they had done, but above all why. Far too often, the answer amounted to little more than: “I had no choice.” Or: “It was my duty.” Lenz does not enter this debate through a historical treatise but through literature. He does not portray party leaders or generals. Instead, he focuses on a village policeman. That choice is deliberate. Monsters reassure us. Jens Ole Jepsen is no monster. He is simply a conscientious civil servant. That is precisely what makes him so frightening.

Jepsen is ordered to deliver a painting ban to his friend, the artist Max Ludwig Nansen, and to ensure that it is obeyed. What initially appears to be a routine administrative task gradually becomes an obsession. Jepsen does not persecute the painter because he hates him. He does so because he sincerely believes he is fulfilling his duty. That is the real tragedy. The remarkable thing about Jepsen is not his cruelty but his ordinariness. Fanatics are easy to recognize. The truly dangerous people are those who leave home neatly dressed each morning, sign the correct forms on time, and return in the evening convinced they have lived an entirely respectable life.

Lenz presents neither an optimistic nor a pessimistic view of humanity. His characters are neither heroes nor demons. They act within the limits of their circumstances and find themselves caught in conflicts that could confront anyone. Good does not arise automatically from good intentions, just as evil does not always require hatred. Sometimes it is enough simply to believe that independent thought falls outside one’s job description.

The same applies to Lenz’s portrayal of society. Every society depends on rules and obligations. Without them, coexistence, administration, and justice would scarcely be possible. Bureaucracy is, in itself, a wonderful invention. It builds roads, organizes schools, and ensures that pensions are paid. It becomes dangerous only when it imagines that morality can also be processed with an official stamp. Wherever duty becomes more important than humanity, order and discipline are transformed into instruments of inhumanity. Forms, after all, possess neither compassion nor a conscience—which is precisely why human beings should never become forms themselves.

For this reason, Lenz places the artist opposite the policeman. Max Ludwig Nansen refuses to obey the painting ban. He continues to paint. His resistance is quiet. He organizes no revolution. He delivers no political speeches. He simply does what defines an artist: he creates art. From the perspective of any dictatorship, that is almost outrageously inconvenient. An artist who insists on thinking instead of obeying is enough to drive even the most efficient bureaucracy to the brink of a nervous breakdown.

Caught between these two opposing worlds is Siggi Jepsen. He watches his father increasingly identify himself with his official role while simultaneously discovering, through the painter, a very different understanding of responsibility. When Siggi begins hiding paintings, he knowingly crosses a legal boundary in order to remain faithful to a higher moral principle. Lenz therefore poses an uncomfortable question: Can disobedience, under certain circumstances, be more responsible than obedience? The novel answers that question without ever having to state the answer explicitly.

This question touches the very core of individual agency. Siggi discovers that even a single person can act. His possibilities are limited. He cannot overthrow the system. He cannot abolish the painting ban. But he can decide whether to remain a spectator or accept responsibility. In Lenz’s world, agency begins the moment people refuse to hand their conscience over to the next authority in the chain of command. After all, conscience is not a houseplant. You cannot leave it neglected in a corner for years and expect it to flourish again the moment you need it.

Power appears in many different forms throughout the novel. The most obvious power belongs to the authorities. They issue bans, persecute individuals, and confiscate works of art. Yet the novel also reveals the limits of that power. No decree can prevent an artist from remaining an artist inwardly. The abuse of power therefore lies not only in state violence but equally in the willingness of ordinary people to exercise authority without questioning it. Jepsen is dangerous not because he possesses extraordinary power but because he mistakes responsibility for official responsibility- as though the latter could ever replace the former.

Equally striking is the fact that the novel does not end with the end of the war. The political system disappears. The habits of mind do not. Jepsen continues pursuing the painter long after nobody requires him to do so. Duty has ceased to be an external command; it has become part of his identity. Uniforms can be taken off. Habits are far more stubborn. Many people lost their insignia in 1945—but not their obedience. The swastikas disappeared remarkably quickly. The urge to hide behind regulations proved far more enduring.

In this way, The German Lesson joins a long tradition of post-war literature. Heinrich Böll asks what individual responsibility means under social pressure. Max Frisch’s Andorra explores how prejudice creates reality. Friedrich Dürrenmatt’s The Visit reveals how morality collapses under the influence of external interests. Lenz belongs firmly within this tradition, exposing one of humanity’s most comfortable self-deceptions: those who invoke duty often imagine they have fulfilled responsibility as well.

That is precisely why the novel remains remarkably relevant today. Modern societies also depend on regulations, procedures, and institutions. Governments, companies, and organizations all require rules. Anyone who believes this has nothing to do with them need only listen to how often people begin a sentence with: “That’s not my responsibility.” The distance between “not my responsibility” and “I’m not responsible” is much shorter than many would like to admit. Wherever people hide behind procedures while abandoning moral responsibility, Lenz’s question returns with full force: Is it really enough simply to have done one’s duty? If so, evolution might just as well have spared humanity the inconvenience of developing a conscience. A well-organized filing cabinet would apparently have been sufficient.

The novel’s central message is not that people should refuse every order. Rather, it reminds us that no one can delegate their conscience. Responsibility always remains personal.

The German Lesson is not merely a story about guilt in the past. It is a reminder that freedom does not simply mean being allowed to do whatever one wishes. Freedom begins where people are willing to think for themselves—and to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. A society in which everyone faithfully does their duty but no one accepts responsibility may function with remarkable efficiency. That does not make it humane.

View all topics