First They Came...

Fiction | Poem | Adult | Published in 1946

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Poem Analysis

Themes

Symbols & Motifs

Literary Devices

Themes

Antifascism

Fascist movements came to the forefront of European politics in the 1920s through the 1940s as fascism gained traction in several places across the continent. Fascism was most famously employed by Benito Mussolini, head of Italy’s National Fascist Party, and by Adolf Hitler, head of the German Nazi Party. A political philosophy and mass movement, fascism is usually characterized by militant nationalism, anti-democratic structures of power, conservative values, and strict social hierarchies. In short, fascist governments are authoritarian right-wing regimes led by all-powerful dictators. In exchange for total allegiance, these governments claim to offer their citizens lasting prosperity and peace.

In “First they came…” the speaker witnesses the effects of these hierarchies firsthand. The Nazis believed that variations from the Nazi definition of an “ideal person,” including religious, ethnic, and racial differences, were direct threats to those at the highest level of hierarchy. Fascists protected those ideal citizens by eliminating what they believed were the undesirable “others.” Liberal values, pluralism, and coexistence all threaten the total power of the state, and so in fascist societies, they are punished to the extreme. The socialists, who abide by a different political philosophy, are done away with. The trade unionists, who abide by a different economic philosophy, likewise eliminated. Jewish people, who have been excluded from the racial ideals of the party, are also done away with.

As the speaker discovers by the end of the poem, self-preservation cannot fight fascism; it requires one to “speak out” (Lines 1, 2, 3) on behalf of groups that the speaker might not belong to or even like. In the 1920s and early 1930s, Niemöller agreed with the Nazi party’s economic, political, and antisemitic values, so he remained complicit. The poem implies an alternate history in which Niemöller banded with groups he didn’t agree with or like to preserve all of their existences. Antifascism, then, requires acting against the state on behalf of persecuted groups, regardless of whether the speaker belongs to them. What’s more, being complicit in persecution is its own sin. Niemöller stated as much in a 1946 speech: “I only began to speak out when it was about the Church. I know I’m guilty” (Marcuse, Harold. “The Origin and Reception of Martin Niemöller’s Quotation, ‘First they came for the communists….” Remembering for the Future: Armenia, Auschwitz, and Beyond, edited by Michael Berenbaum et al., 2015). The only way to preserve oneself and others in fascism is with active antifascism.

Apathy and Personal Responsibility

“First they came…” marks the speaker’s continuing neutral compliance with the state in the face of elevating dangers. The speaker has no part of the conflict, viewing themselves as neither an oppressor nor an oppressed person. The phrase “I did not speak out—because I was not a…” anticipates two questions from the audience: What did you do, and why? On an initial read, the speaker’s repeated justification of their actions might appear as a defensive move. However, the end of the poem reveals that the speaker understands that their own actions led to their own demise. Repeated readings reveal the poem as a straightforward confession. The speaker frames the past in such a removed and efficient manner because they are aware of exactly how wrong their actions were, and they have no desire to justify them. By articulating the consequences of complying with state violence, the speaker is warning the audience about the dangers of apathy.

This poem about persecution, violence, and suffering is notably void of emotion. The audience learns nothing about the speaker’s feelings or thoughts on the events of the poem. Information about the speaker is given in the negative, defining them by what they are not: a leftist; a member of a trade union; a Jewish person. These details do little to inform the audience as to what the speaker’s actual politics, vocation, religious beliefs, and ethnicity are. Actions could help the reader determine what the speaker believes, but the speaker is a consistently passive actor, only ever being acted upon. Even the unnamed, vague “they” betray their values by persecuting these groups one by one. Compared to the other parties present in the story, the speaker is the emptiest, least distinct character.

The speaker’s epiphany at the end of the poem, when “there [is] no one left to speak for me” (Line 4), is rooted in compassion as well as self-interest. First, even from a purely selfish perspective, the speaker would have benefitted greatly from speaking on behalf of even one of the oppressed groups, and so the passive path was poor strategic thinking. Second, the speaker notes, for the first and only time in the poem, the lingering effects of their failure to act. The world around them is empty. There is not a single person around—“no one left” (Line 4) aside from the speaker and the oppressors. The speaker is forced to confront that the oppression of other groups does have a direct effect on the world, including the speaker’s world. Unfortunately for the speaker, this philosophy of interconnectedness and fellow feeling arrives a bit too late. Personal responsibility for others, therefore, is a matter of individual and collective well-being.

The Lutheran Church

In a 1946 speech titled “The Path to Freedom,” Niemöller recalls a postwar visit to Dachau with his wife. Outside of the crematorium, they see a sign that reads: “Here in the years 1933-1945 286,756 people were cremated” (Hockenos, Matthew. “Pastor Martin Niemöller, German Protestantism, and German National Identity, 1933-1937.” Christianity and National Identity in Twentieth-Century Europe, edited by John Carter Wood, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016). While the huge number of victims was not news to Niemöller, the years were. He was imprisoned in 1937, which meant that for four years before that, the state was executing people while he lived his life.

For Niemöller, this realization constituted personal responsibility, social responsibility, and institutional responsibility. True contrition is the precursor for forgiveness and meaningful change, and so Niemöller became committed to inspiring this radical commitment to solidarity in postwar Germany, for the sake of the nation’s soul and the future of all people. Although Niemöller faced criticism from members of his own church for shaming their institution, he never shied from conflict and remained dedicated in his message.