Adolf Hitler, Our Contemporary
Hitler is 123 today, and he is alive and well. The Führer is going strong not because a vast neo-Nazi conspiracy is about to take over the Western world, kill the Jews, expel the Muslims and make April 20 the Day of Aryan Rebirth, but because he is an all-time favorite of the neoconservative-neoliberal duopoly at home and abroad.
When you advocate bombing a faraway nation of which we know little, call its leader a new Hitler (and, by extension, condemn the failure to bomb as a new “Munich”). When you want to discredit domestic opponents of migratory population replacement or abortion, compare them to Hitler. When you want to demonize the European civilization, Christian religion, national identity, or traditional culture, Hitler is ready. Six decades after the phenomenon was defined by Leo Strauss as reductio ad Hitlerum, the practice is more widely spread than ever. If you dislike a person/policy/idea, find a Hitlerian point of contact and thus prove that the PPI in question is a priori bad, mad and worthy of criminalization.
The final corollary of the concept is that we are all potential Hitlers, and only by vigilantly guarding against deviant thoughts (“I like Americans better than Somalis”), emotions (“I enjoy the Master Singers more than Porgy & Bess”) and practices (“I enjoy walking my German Shepherd in the Bavarian Alps”) can we protect ourselves from the lure of the inner Adolf.
There are literally thousands of offerings to illustrate the syndrome, starting with A for AHMADINEJAD…
- Newt Gingrich calls Iran’s president a new Hitler, says that he is as big a threat to global security as Adolf Hitler was in the 1930s.
- In interview (April 2009), acting Israeli prime minister Olmert said the Iranian president “speaks as Hitler did in his time …”
- U.S. Senator compares Ahmadinejad to Hitler and makes fun of his name.
- Mitt Romney likened Ahmadinejad to Hitler in a speech to Jewish university.
- Charles Krauthammer in The Washington Post on “finishing Hitler’s work”: “His successors now reside in Tehran… Hitler was only slightly more direct when he announced seven months before invading Poland that, if there was another war, ‘the result will be . . . the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.’ … When Iran's mullahs acquire their coveted nukes in the next few years, the number of Jews in Israel will just be reaching 6 million. Never again?”
… and ending with T for TRIFKOVIC (e.g., with Michael Sells on “Hitler in full oratorical flight” in Breivik, Trifkovic, and Radical Serb Ideology) and W for WAGNER.
One-hundred twenty-three years after Hitler’s birth, an attempt to advance towards normalization of his person and legacy is both possible and necessary. It need not and must not end up either in trivializing his grotesque record or in succumbing to the temptations of the historian’s prejudices. Perhaps a barrier will always separate us and him, but the effort is intellectually and morally legitimate.
It cannot be done for as long as he is alive and well, thanks to those who profess to abhor him. On current form the world deserves him. Many happy returns, Adi!
Entries(RSS)
As long a Hitler still lives in our consciousness, the corollary association with his Holocaust also remains alive and front and center. The association of Iran with Hitler gives Israel the moral high ground with its Arab neighbors and especially the hated Persians who incidentally haven't invaded a country in living memory (US backed Iraq attacked Iran) and they do not operate open air concentration camps like the one in Gaza. To mention this fact in the media or around certain people is to be labeled an anti-Semite.......or another Hitler.
Srdja Trifkovic says the only thing we can agree on today as a people is who and what was evil. Can anyone around here think of anybody we could all agree was good?
an attempt to advance towards normalization of his person and legacy is both possible and necessary
This is absolutely true. We can't do it unless we also understand the historical context of his time, the context that made him what he became. In turn, we cant do that unless we free our minds from the wartime propaganda concerning the war and how it really got started, or rather, both world wars and how they got started. That includes international Communist revolutionary activity in post-Great War Germany, Soviet plans for the conquest of Europe and the world, etc., not to mention the warmongering that we now know very well that Roosevelt and others were up to. At the very least, if Hitler wanted war, he most certainly was not the only one who wanted it, and all indications, coming from real research as opposed to propaganda, indicate that Hitler did not want war, much less to conquer the world.
I can't for the life of me see how abortuaries or cluster bombs and drones are more moral than gas chambers or machine guns and pits, not to mention napalm or atom bombs dropped on cities, or quite a few other things done by American and other Western governments, not to mention our Soviet allies.
It's time to put an end to the great morality play. Otherwise, we go on and on, our 'democratic' rulers painting the swastika on everyone they earmark for destruction, at home and abroad, from Serbs to Iraqis to Iranians to Putin's Russia, to white Americans, to whomever will be next before they destroy what's left of the civilisation they began destroying in 1914 and 1939.
And no, writing what I just wrote does not make me an anti-semite, or anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. It doesn't even make me a 'bigot' or a 'racist'.
Srdja Trifkovic says the only thing we can agree on today as a people is who and what was evil. Can anyone around here think of anybody we could all agree was good?
I was about to name Our Lord, but there is a large segment of the population who claims to admire the man they call "Jesus of Nazareth" without acknowledging that He is in fact the Christ and therefore cannot be said to admire Him but only a chimera and a parody of Him.
The British left-wing magazine, The New Statesman, managed to write an entire lead article about Breivik's influences without mentioning Hitler once (on Hitler's birthday, too) even though they cast their net wide when apportioning blame.
The piece reads like a desperate attempt by a left-wing hack to conjure up some mud to sling at those on the right. I can sympathize. It must have been a grievous disappointment that the Norwegian police did not come up with more useful ammunition from the left.
The following quote gives the gist of the 'argument'.
" It is convenient for some to dismiss Breivik’s views as the ramblings of a mad narcissist and a psychopath. But strip away his more outlandish rhetoric and there is little to separate them from those frequently expressed on the pages of the conservative press. It was Breivik’s actions, rather than his beliefs, that distinguished him from other right-wing ideologues. His tropes of choice – the rise of “Eurabia”, the insidious influence of “cultural Marxism” – will be familiar to anyone who has read the work of Melanie Phillips or Mark Steyn, two of the writers cited in Breivik’s manifesto. The neoconservative author Norman Podhoretz titled his work on “Eurabia” World War IV. Breivik merely pursued such ideas to their extreme conclusion. As Voltaire wrote, “those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities”.
Even now, supposedly mainstream figures encourage the beliefs that animate fanatics such as Breivik. In France, fighting for re-election as president, Nicolas Sarkozy has run a shamelessly demagogic campaign, indulging anxieties over immigration and the influence of Islam in a desperate attempt to win over the supporters of the National Front’s Marine Le Pen. He has argued that there are “too many foreigners” in France and has vowed to ban halal meat from state schools. In Britain, much of the mainstream press continues to treat Muslims as an alien force, fuelling Islamophobia through misinformation and distortion. So long as this remains the case, the rhetoric of those same publications that express horror at Breivik’s behaviour – his fascist salute, his absence of regret – will be seized on by more of his kind. "
There is nothing funnier than reading ill-informed academics trying to handle subjects for which they are out of depth. The text is organized, there are footnotes, quotes and other signs of dedicated scholarship. But not to understand a damn thing afterall is pathetic! Particularly funny is the paragraph that starts with "I've been exploring ... (I am paraphrasing) what Trifkovic was doing on Pale during Srebrenica episode." M. Sells is apparently associated with University of Chicago, but his miswritings are awfully reminiscent of another hillarious fraud, the one and only Marco Atilla Hoare from the Cambridge. I hope Mr. Sells has the guts to appear at this forum so that he can receive his due.
I just thought of another example of conceptual lack of understanding that is so common with many mainstream authors who try to write about former Yugoslavia. It is Robert Kaplan's "Balkan Ghosts", where the author before embarking on an extensive trip to the area has trouble locating a travel guide, a "Balkans on $20 a day', so he finds it necessary to roam through antique bookstores in NYC for weeks, where he finally finds some obsure John Reed's Balkan travelogue from the early 20th century and for an exorbitant price. Then when he gets to the Balkans he makes a series of poorly thought out observations. He tries to reconcile what he sees with what he read and of course it is impossible, eighty years later. For example, he rides local buses and thinks that everyone around him is going through porno magazines all the time and concludes that that is one nastylocal habit! These are some sick people around him! All this is not so far removed from the misconceptions of our academic from U of Chicago.
Although I believe that the tone has changed somewhat, at the outset of Germany's participation in NATO military operations in Afghanistan, there were no few Germans relieved that elements of the Germany army were now killing and maiming in the name of "democracy" rather than in the name of Hitler. Moral progress has definitely been made.
So, the author's purpose is to make, '...an attempt to advance towards normalization of his person and legacy is both possible and necessary. It need not and must not end up either in trivializing his grotesque record or in succumbing to the temptations of the historian’s prejudices. Perhaps a barrier will always separate us and him, but the effort is intellectually and morally legitimate.'
I only have one question. What is normalization? OK, we don't want Hitler's legacy 'trivialized' and we don't want to succumb to 'historian's prejudices.' I'm afraid I still don't understand what the author means. Is using Hitler for humor trivial? Maybe, but I say it is perfectly legitimate to do so. Hitler made Mel Brook's career; was that a bad thing? I still love a good Hitler joke. And really, Stalin and Mao are just incredibly boring. What the heck is historians prejudice? Are we to understand that historians pre-judge the material they study? If so, why do they study it? I think maybe prejudiced historians are not really historians at all. Even if they are, who gives a fig what they think? People should do their own homework.
Yep, it sure likes like the author is trying to say something to his readers, I just don't see what it is. I'm afraid I have to take the position that there is nothing more natural than using Hitler to illustrate darn near anything. Hitler is a natural. We can use him to illustrate all manner of behavior, make jokes, poke fun, insult, inspire terror and mislead.
In fact, Srdja seems to be doing a little bit of NAZI misinformation in his article. Would Hitler have really expelled the Muslims? After all, in his time, he was their ally. Nice try Srdja, but you have to get up early in the morning around here. Good try though, Hitler would have approved.
Or is the joke on us for even trying to achieve a perfect understanding of Hitler and what he means in the context of each historical moment? Srdja may have used the infamous NAZI pincer movement against us by hitting us on one side with misinformation and the other with sardonic humor. Nice move Srdja, you have us surrounded. I guess I know a Hitler inspired author when he beats me in battle by golly.
looks like - is what I wanted to say. Darn blog has no editing options. See? It's Hitler's fault. And Hitler is quite dead and a good thing too. If another like him pops up, watch out, cause whatever else he was, he was a political genius. Dangerous critters them geniuses.
This column is quite relevant now that Marin Le Pen came toe to toe with Hollande and Sarkozy.
wc writes:
"Would Hitler have really expelled the Muslims?"
In a Bertehsgaden minute, WC.
Hitler was a good friend of Hajj Amin Al Husseini, who assisted him in purging thousands of Jews and Serbians in the Balkans. He seemed to sympathise with those Muslims such as Al Husseini who seemed to be of a Caucasoid persuasion (he was Lebanese or Palestinian, I think), who shared his common enemies, and who appeared to be ruthless. Moreover, Hitler saw Christianity as too soft, and saw in Mohammedans a hardness missing in his Christian European brethren.
On the basis of these facts, it seems Hitler would have tolerated hordes of Muslim migrants, provided they declared themselves fully German, fully loyal to the Reich, and fully willing to follow all orders to kill.
On the basis of these facts, it seems Hitler would have tolerated hordes of Muslim migrants, provided they declared themselves fully German, fully loyal to the Reich, and fully willing to follow all orders to kill.
It would likely have been preferable that these Muslims also be of a white phenotype.
You've pretty much taken the words out of my mouth, Mr. Sanjay. And that is why I find the tendency of many on the Christian right, not to sympathize with Hitler but to imply that at the least we would have been better off with Hitler controling Europe than with Stalin and the Americans divvying it up, quite naïve. Even if we discount the death camps, Naziism is a very bizarre, ego-centric form of neo-paganism with highly perverse overtones.
Prateek, your conceptual understanding of Hitler's relationship with the Grand Mufti is incomplete. I'll leave it up to you to work out why your premise and therefore the conclusion is erroneous.
Much is made in general of Hitler's hostility towards Christianity. Without engaging in a running contest of why this is trivial, I would posit that the Reich was planned to be an Ariyan entity, based on superior genetical traits of Northern Europeans and their traditions; of all the traditions. religion being the most important one.
The Christian church and the bible could never sanction Hitler's butcheries. But in a generation or two, with racial purity achieved and atrocities of WW2 fading in memory, there might have been an accomodation between the church and the Nazis.
The Reich was always first about genetically superior Arians, that is Northern Europeans. Everyone else was destined for either annihilation or slavery with plenty of candidates without any need to import any Muslims. Hitler's deviance should not let us be fooled. Hitler did not need the Muslim Waffen SS to work his evil in the Balkans as he was quite good at it on his own. But perhaps Waffen SS was good PR in the eyes of Arabs. During Rommel's campaign Arab support might have been important therefore the PR, but after Stalingrad, there was very little that the Muslims could have done for Hitler and the Nazis.
Hitler on Islam (according to Albert Speer): "The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
Speer on Hitler on Islam: "Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire."
This is what I meant when I wrote that I do not wish to engage in a running contest of trivia. But hopefully to end it here, I will say that in Hitler's time there was no Islamized Germans to speak of thanks to the strong Christian faith of the erstwhile German Kings.
While Hitler was burning synagoges, building minarets in their place would have been unthinkable. Anything else was just the lively coctail hour at the Berghof.
Thank you all for your excellent insights on Hitler's relations with Muslims. I had hoped to elicit your reactions. Hitler was not likely to have invited many Muslims into Germany proper either during or after the war. Which is where many now reside, to Srdja's point. However, he used Muslim troops from the beginning of the war and even formed them into SS units toward the end. Politically, he kissed some ass along the way. The Muslims were most effectively employed in the numerous anti-partisan sweeps in the east and in the Balkans where their inferior training, leadership and equipment didn't matter as much. The point I was trying to draw out in my original comment was that Srdja's wish for a nearly perfect understanding of Hitler was not a realistic or necessary goal. Clearly, with all the knowledge you each command, the 'weeds' still make anything like complete understanding impossible. Our imperfect understanding is plenty good enough I think. Kind of impressive actually. Beyond that, I would also dispute that we have inner Hitlers and that understanding Hitler offers us any protection. But that's enough of that. Thanks again guys.
Oh, there is one question I've wanted an answer to. I once came across some curious references to the SS stealing train-loads of laborers belonging to Hess's labor battalions so they could use them in their camps and that Hess returned the favor. Not sure if this happened or how often it happened but I know the fiefdoms were very competitive and increasingly desperate from around late 1943 on. If true, it's very funny and something I did not know about. Those many, many books notwithstanding.... if you guys know, and I bet one of you does, I thank you for educating me.
Replace Hess with Speer and I will be all better again. Sheesh.