Many did not actually find her as relatable as most presented her to be for the young woman growing up in Nazi Germany should aspire to be. Traudl Junge whose father was an ‘opinionated’ anti-semitic actually said she was turned off by her, saying “She was just bourgeois and she was so ugly and wasn't fashionable at all.” (Spartacus Educational) As stated above, it must be understood that in the region of Germany, prior to the 1930s and 1940s was experiencing its first wave of feminism before the entire conversation regarding the role of women was overtaken by males. Her job was to mass indoctrinate millions of these women into the Third Reich. However, popularity and the legality of much of self determination for women regarding anything to do with themselves was no longer theirs but their country’ and their ideology of women belonging with their children, in their kitchen, and at their church (kinder, küche, kirche) eventually won out. Comparatively speaking regarding women studied as perpetrators of genocide, Scholtz-Klink did not have as much agency as many of the women. While women like Irma Geese incited some of the worst acts of violence and psychological terror against their fellow women and Scholtz-Klink did help to set the feminist movement back several years and advocated exclusionary policies towards Jewish women, Scholtz-Klink’s activities and programs …show more content…
Scholtz-Klink fell into the ideology of the Third Reich and the environment they created that was a combination of many aspects that sustained violence and incited racial and religious hatred, even causing much of it herself. The question that I would ask her is the question that often surrounds perpetrators of genocide, what aspects of the environment that allowed her to advocate for the extermination of people? How can someone turn away from such a level of suffering to achieve institutional