Before Hitler took over Germany, Bertie was happy and trans in Berlin
In the run-up to the 2024 election, on cable news shows and at dinner tables, Americans debated a question that terrified various groups of us for various reasons. If Trump won, would he replace our democracy with fascism?
Given Republican anti-trans ad spending estimated at $215 million on network television alone ('She's for they/them, he's for you'), trans people had reason to fear that Trump would eviscerate the civil rights they'd earned over the last half-century. Sure enough, Trump immediately signed a slew of anti-trans executive orders collectively described by now-fired EEOC commissioner Jocelyn Samuels as a plan to 'erase the existence of trans people.'
Milo Todd, a Lambda literary fellow and creative writing teacher, centers his first novel on an earlier erasure, largely hidden within a bigger story: Hitler's attempt to eradicate the transgender people of 1930s Germany. When the Nazis took power, Berlin was an international gay hub, home to 100 queer bars, 25 queer journals and the Institute for Sexual Science, where the world's first sex reassignment surgeries and hormone treatments were performed by gender activist Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld. Through the eyes and heart of the novel's trans protagonist, Berthold 'Bertie' Durchdenwald, we experience the news of Hitler's takeover, which comes while he's dancing with his girlfriend in a queer Berlin club.
The music cut out in the middle of a final, lingering note. 'We interrupt to bring you important news,' the radio said. 'President Hindenburg has just appointed Adolf Hitler as the new chancellor of Germany …'
'Don't they know what this will do to Germany?' Sofie spat. All Bertie felt was cold.
Much as Trump immediately set about fulfilling his 'Day 1' campaign promise to 'stop the transgender lunacy' and 'get transgender out of the military.' Hitler immediately labeled transgender people 'sexual degenerates' and sent as many of them as his Brown Shirts could catch to the death camps. The institute was torched by a Nazi student mob, every book in its library burned in Opera Square. 'The world had changed overnight,' Bertie observes. 'The city was already draped in swastikas. Bright red flags hanging, flapping, lolling like dead tongues from every corner shop … Berlin was bleeding from the inside out.'
Heightening the contrast between the trans experience pre- and post-Hitler, Todd uses chapters alternating between Bertie's beautiful Berlin life and his eked-out 1940s existence on the farm where he and Sofie hid under aliases throughout the war. Against this tragic setting, the elegance of Todd's prose plants wonder in the reader's mind. 'The asparagus sprang up every spring without fail, an old friend, a capsule of history from when life kept growing, birthed from a better time.'
Read more: A shatteringly honest novel of trans identity gets a supremely timely reissue
Soon after word of the war's end reaches Bertie and Sofie, Bertie discovers an emaciated young man unconscious in the asparagus patch 'in the dirtied stripes of a camp prisoner.' Noting the black triangle sewed to the man's uniform, the Nazis' label for trans prisoners, Bertie realizes the man must have escaped from nearby Dachau. While feeding and bathing the dazed stranger, Bertie takes a chance. 'I'm a transvestite,' he says.
'Me, too,' says Karl.
'Why were you still in those clothes?' Bertie asked. 'Didn't the Allies liberate the camps weeks ago?'
'I fled when the Allies came.'
'Is it true? They're setting everyone but us free?'
'The only difference I've seen between [the Allies and the Nazis] is their style of murder,' Karl answers.
Devastated to learn that the Allies, too, were treating trans people as subhuman, Bertie and Sofie stop waiting to be liberated and start planning their own liberation. Their preparations to emigrate to America include training the innocent Karl to avoid recognition.
'Perhaps when you're rested,' Bertie said, 'I can teach you how to transvert.'
'I am not a man exactly like that.'
'Or you could wear some of my things,' Sofie added gently.
Here, Todd has his youngest character summarize the painful central paradox of trans life — in Nazi Germany nearly a century ago, and possibly in tomorrow's America.
'So we have to be who we're not in order to be who we are,' Karl says.
Read more: A hilarious, righteous transgender remix of 'The Odyssey' blows up the literary canon
As their need to flee grows more urgent — this time, from the Allied soldiers who are arresting queer people while freeing the rest of the country — Bertie must destroy the evidence of their assumed identities. He lights a bonfire and burns the very thing that most disaster survivors grab on their way out the door: the photo albums commemorating the once-carefree life he lived when he could be who he truly was.
'Everything had burned, ever since that night at the Institut,' Bertie reflects as the flames lick at images of his happier self. 'First the twenty thousand books and then the countless people and then the proof that any of it had ever happened at all. It seemed like every last one of the normally sexed was in on it. It hurt his heart.'
As their escape ship pulls into New York harbor, Bertie ponders the permanence of his pain. 'A great sadness fell upon him. Deutschland was behind him forever. He had loved his country. But what he loved was what it used to be, what had been lost. The things it could have been … Pride in a country was what it could do for its people, not what it could take away. Yet here they were. And he would need to get used to it.'
Exhaustively researched, gorgeously crafted and presciently timed, "The Lilac People" exhumes a buried history that could leave us mourning our lost democracy if we don't learn from, and act on, its tragic lessons.
Maran, author of 'The New Old Me' and other books, lives in a Silver Lake bungalow that's even older than she is.
Get the latest book news, events and more in your inbox every Saturday.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


UPI
6 minutes ago
- UPI
Army, Trump ready June 14th birthday parade with tanks, rocket launchers
President Donald Trump congratulates a cadet at the United States Military Academy graduation ceremony in Michie Stadium at West Point, New York, on May 24, and will review the Army's 250th birthday parade on June 14. Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo June 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. Army celebrates its 250th birthday on June 14th in the nation's capital, which coincides with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday, and will be marked by a parade that may include tanks, rocket launchers and more than 100 military vehicles. With the two birthdays occurring on the same day, the previously scheduled parade that was intended as a relatively small event at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., has grown in size and cost. Up to 300 soldiers and civilians, the U.S. Army Band and four cannons were initially slated to honor the Army's 250th birthday, with seating available for 120 attendees, The Washington Post reported. U.S. Army leaders last year sought a permit for the event, but Trump's election victory has changed its scope, while doubling as an unofficial celebration of the president's birthday. Axios reported the parade will live up to Trump's request for a showcase the U.S. miliatary's might, with dozens of tanks, rocket launchers, missiles and more than 100 other military aircraft and vehicles participating. About 6,600 Army troops will participate, and the Army is paying to house them in area hotels. The parade route has been moved to the northwest portion of Constitution Avenue and will include a flyover of F-22 fighter jets, World War II planes and Vietnam-era aircraft. The event is scheduled to start at 6:30 p.m. EDT at 23rd Street and continue along Constitution Avenue N.W. to 15th Street. Trump will review the parade on the Ellipse. The event has an estimated cost of nearly $45 million, including more than $10 million for road repairs after the heavy military equipment passes over. The parade's estimated cost has Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., skeptical about its benefits. "I would have recommended against the parade," Wicker told an interviewer on Thursday, but the Department of Defense wants to use it as a recruiting tool. "On the other hand, [Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth] feels that it will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for thousands of young Americans to see what a great opportunity it is to participate in a great military force," Wicker said. "So, we'll see."


Politico
10 minutes ago
- Politico
Negotiate or fight? Trump has colleges right where he wants them.
President Donald Trump's campaign against two of the planet's best-known universities is laying bare just how unprepared academia was to confront a hostile White House. Schools never imagined facing an administration so willing to exercise government power so quickly — targeting the research funding, tax-exempt status, foreign student enrollment and financial aid eligibility schools need to function. That's left them right where the president wants them. Even as Ivy League schools, research institutions, and college trade associations try to resist Trump's attacks in court, campus leaders are starting to accept they face only difficult choices: negotiate with the government, mount a painful legal and political fight — or simply try to stay out of sight. Groundbreaking scientific research, financial aid for lower-income students and soft power as an economic engine once shielded schools' access to federal funds. Trump has now transformed those financial lifelines into leverage. And the diversity and independence of U.S. colleges and universities — something they've seen as a source of strength and competition — is straining efforts to form a singular response to the president. 'Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on the part of universities,' said Lee Bollinger, the former president of Columbia University. 'It feels now like there has been a naïveté on the part of universities. There's been no planning for this kind of thing.' Schools are accustomed to tension with their faculty, governing boards, legislatures and governors. But punishments for resisting the Trump administration plumbed untested levels of severity this week when the president issued an executive order to bar foreign students from entering the country to study at Harvard University as his administration threatened Columbia's academic accreditation. Even though Project 2025 — The Heritage Foundation's roadmap for a second Trump administration — previewed some of the tactics the administration would use, many school leaders may have underestimated the president's determination. 'It just seemed inconceivable that we would be in this position of having massive amounts of federal funding withheld, threats to have legislation that attacks your tax status, and now these new issues with international students,' Bollinger said. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday night that blocked Trump's directive to restrict Harvard's access to international students. But the administration is brandishing its response to Harvard's resistance as a warning to other schools who might resist, as federal officials pressure schools to negotiate the terms of a truce over the administration's complaints about campus antisemitism, foreign government influence and its opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. 'We've held back funding from Columbia, we've also done the same thing with Harvard,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon told House lawmakers this past week. 'We are asking, as Columbia has done, to come to the table for negotiations,' she said, just hours before telling the school's accreditor it was violating federal anti-discrimination laws. 'We've also asked Harvard. Their answer was a lawsuit.' A Harvard spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. 'What we've seen so far when it comes to Harvard is the playbook for holding these radical schools accountable is way deeper than anyone anticipated or expected,' a senior White House official told POLITICO. 'You're starting to get to the bone, so to speak, of holding these people accountable,' said the official, who was granted anonymity to freely discuss White House strategy. 'Harvard knows they cannot endure this for long, they just can't. They're going to have to come to the table, and we'll always be there to meet them. But this was a test case of what to do.' The university described Trump's latest foreign student order this week as 'yet another illegal retaliatory step.' A federal judge in May blocked a separate administration attempt to prevent Harvard from enrolling international students. Harvard is still locked in a legal fight over more than $2 billion in federal grants the White House blocked after the school refused to comply with demands to overhaul its admissions and disciplinary policies. Trump announced plans to cancel Harvard's tax-exempt status in early May, then later floated redistributing billions of dollars in university grants to trade schools. 'It is not our desire to bring these schools to their knees. The president reveres our higher educational facilities. He's a product of one,' the White House official said. 'But in order to hold these people accountable, we will be unrelenting in our enforcement of the law and hitting them where it hurts, which is their pocketbook.' Many institutions have chosen a more muted response following months of conflict, including major public institutions in states that have also grown reliant on the full-freight tuition paid by international students. 'Universities don't have as many degrees of freedom, at least in the public sector, as you might think they do,' said Teresa Sullivan, the former president of the University of Virginia. 'One reason they seem to be relatively slow to act is there's a certain disbelief — can this really be happening?' 'We seem to be in uncharted territory, at least in my experience,' Sullivan said. 'All of a sudden, the rules don't seem to apply. I think that's disconcerting. It shakes the ground beneath you, and you don't necessarily know what to do next.' Still, some higher education leaders are trying to confront the government. More than 650 campus officials have so far signed onto a joint statement that opposes 'the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.' Sullivan and a group of other former presidents used an op-ed in The Washington Post to argue the Trump administration's offensive 'won't be confined to Harvard University.' Trade associations including the American Council on Education, Association of American Universities, and Association of Public and Land-grant Universities have joined schools in a lawsuit to block some of Trump's research funding cuts. The Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, a collective of school leaders, has also sued to challenge the Trump administration's attempts to target the legal status of thousands of foreign students. 'Your first obligation as president is you don't want to hurt the institution you represent,' Sullivan said of the relative silence coming from non-Ivy League institutions. 'These days it's hard to tell what hurts and what doesn't. I think that's the motive. The motive is not cowardice.' Schools still face a choice between negotiating with the government — and risk compromising on their principles — or inviting Trump's rage by putting up a fight. 'Every school has had an option to correct course and work with the administration, or stand firm in their violations of the law,' the administration official said. 'They have an option, they know very well what to do.' The real question, according to Bollinger, the former Columbia president, is how far the White House will go and how much resistance the schools are willing to put up. 'The power of government is so immense that if they want to destroy institutions, they can,' he said. 'What you do in that kind of environment is you stand on principle.'
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says Elon Musk could face ‘serious consequences' if he backs Democrats
US President Donald Trump said he has no desire to repair his relationship with Elon Musk, and warned that his former ally and campaign benefactor could face 'serious consequences' if he tries to help Democrats in upcoming elections. Mr Trump told NBC's Kristen Welker in a phone interview that he has no plans to make up with tech entrepreneur Mr Musk. Asked specifically if he thought his relationship with the mega-billionaire chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX was over, Mr Trump responded: 'I would assume so, yeah.' 'I'm too busy doing other things,' Mr Trump continued. Alarming — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 7, 2025 'You know, I won an election in a landslide. I gave him (Mr Musk) a lot of breaks, long before this happened, I gave him breaks in my first administration, and saved his life in my first administration, I have no intention of speaking to him.' The US President also issued a warning amid speculation that Mr Musk could back Democratic legislators and candidates in the 2026 mid-term elections. 'If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that,' Mr Trump told NBC, though he declined to share what those consequences would be. Mr Musk's businesses have many lucrative federal contracts. The US President's latest comments suggest Mr Musk is moving from close ally to a potential new target for Mr Trump, who has aggressively wielded the powers of his office to crack down on critics and punish perceived enemies. As a major government contractor, Mr Musk's businesses could be particularly vulnerable to retribution. Mr Trump has already threatened to cut Mr Musk's contracts, calling it an easy way to save money. The dramatic rupture between the President and the world's richest man began this week with Mr Musk's public criticism of Mr Trump's 'big beautiful bill' pending on Capitol Hill. Mr Musk has warned that the bill will increase the federal deficit and called it a 'disgusting abomination'. Mr Trump criticised Mr Musk in the Oval Office, and before long, he and Mr Musk began trading bitterly personal attacks on social media, sending the White House and Republican congressional leaders scrambling to assess the fallout. As the back-and-forth intensified, Mr Musk suggested Mr Trump should be impeached and claimed without evidence that the government was concealing information about the President's association with infamous paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Mr Musk appeared by Saturday morning to have deleted his posts about Epstein. In an interview, US vice president JD Vance tried to downplay the feud. He said Mr Musk was making a 'huge mistake' going after Mr Trump, but called him an 'emotional guy' who was becoming frustrated. 'I hope that eventually Elon comes back into the fold. Maybe that's not possible now because he's gone so nuclear,' Mr Vance said. Mr Vance called Mr Musk an 'incredible entrepreneur,' and said that Mr Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which sought to cut US government spending and laid off or pushed out thousands of workers, was 'really good'. Mr Vance made the comments in an interview with 'manosphere' comedian Theo Von, who last month joked about snorting drugs off a mixed-race baby and the sexuality of men in the US Navy when he opened for Mr Trump at a military base in Qatar. The Vance interview was taped on Thursday as Musk's posts were unfurling on X, the social media network the billionaire owns. During the interview, Mr Von showed the vice president Mr Musk's claim that Mr Trump's administration has not released all the records related to Epstein because Mr Trump is mentioned in them. Vice President Vance on what it's like to be Trump's VP: 'It is my job, obviously, to provide the President honest counsel…he talks to everybody. I think it's why he's in touch with normal people.' — Vice President JD Vance (@VP) June 7, 2025 Mr Vance responded to that, saying: 'Absolutely not. Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong with Jeffrey Epstein.' 'This stuff is just not helpful,' Mr Vance said in response to another post shared by Mr Musk calling for Mr Trump to be impeached and replaced with Mr Vance. 'It's totally insane. The President is doing a good job.' Vance also defended the bill that has drawn Mr Musk's ire, and said its central goal was not to cut spending but to extend the 2017 tax cuts approved in Mr Trump's first term. The bill would slash spending and taxes but also leave some 10.9 million more people without health insurance and spike deficits by 2.4 trillion dollars (£1.77 trillion) over the decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 'It's a good bill,' Mr Vance said. 'It's not a perfect bill.'