Munich 1938

[monk222]

When Chamberlain met with Hitler on September 15 at the Burghof, Hitler's Berchtesgaden mountain retreat, he came away with a hopelessly mistaken impression of the German leader, writing to one of his sisters that "in spite of the hardness and ruthlessness I thought I saw in his face, I got the impression that here was a man who could be relied upon when he had given his word."

-- "Warlord: A Life of Winston Churchill at War, 1874-1945" by Carlo D'Este

Comments

[antilapsarian.livejournal.com]

Hmm, not to play devil's advocate (possibly quite literally!), but the photo got me thinking about the perceptions of both men in history. (I've been reading lately about post-Churchhill Labor leadership increasing the welfare state in Britain...and I've always been upfront about my dislike for Winston.) We think of Chamberlain as an appeaser, Hitler as pure evil, etc..

But I'm struck with Dubya's attempts to improve his historical image lately and wondering if he's quietly figured out by now (despite public face otherwise) that his own view and what people think of him may be at odds.

What I'm getting at is the unknowable souls of the two in the photo. What did Eva Braun see in Adolf, for instance?

Long story short is at my museum last month I took the guided tour of the U-505 which includes a bit about how advanced German technology was--esp. compared to the US. We're sort of raised on a steady diet of American rah-rah, but you see the photos of the young 17 year olds who were captured and they don't look like "Nazis." With my beard now, I would have blended in fine. They were inexperienced kids learning to use superior technology...not all that different from the vagueness of today's wars the US is fighting.

I guess what I'm saying is when I look at the photo I see two dudes who couldn't possibly understand the full impact of what they were doing.

As the new year approaches, I'm just waxing philosophical about living our own history as best we can. Mostly I feel sorry for both of them...within about 5 years they'd both be dead and hated.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Ah, I remember well this inclination to see both sides from the cloudly heights, sapping the situation of its normative potential. I mean, if you cannot see Hitler's nazism as bad, then probably nothing is - it's all just tragic.

As for the nazi youth, I can appreciate what you're saying - largely kids sucked up in something much larger than themselves - everyone is just fighting for their countries, their families, and their lives. But I'm not sympatthetic at all with brushing over Hitler's murderous derangement. He was very much the captain of the nazi enterprise, and the man obviously knew no moral bounds in the pursuit of his dark empire. He's not worthy of your philosophical rationalizations.

[antilapsarian.livejournal.com]

Nice reply, thanks. Yes, as Charlie Chaplin said, "life is a tragedy in closeup, a comedy in longshot." It really is just all tragic in some ways.

But yeah, that was the point I was making about the youth on the U-boat.

Although the Hilter thing I'm not so sure of. I'm not by any means trying to excuse him...just understand him. And, yes, I do think we can understand evil somewhat even if to say it was Joker-style done for the sake of mayhem and chaos. Evil is a lot like art in that way. The opposite really--destruction rather than creation.

What I'm saying is that even as captain of the Nazi machine, there was method in the madness that makes him no less evil, but fully human. Humanity can be evil sometimes--often--even if I believe we lean towards good most of the time. In that way it makes evil--as has been pointed out before by people far smarter than me--quite boring and weak. It's the common low road and to understand, say, the Holocaust is to try to understand our very worst qualities by knowing that they are also pathetically easy to channel.

Light and dark is a good metaphor for that reason, right? It takes spark and energy to create light. Darkness thrives in the absence of that.

Nature of Evil

[poovanna.livejournal.com]

I do think we can understand evil somewhat even if to say it was Joker-style done for the sake of mayhem and chaos. Evil is a lot like art in that way. The opposite really--destruction rather than creation.

If you do have time, take a look at this page. You might find it interesting.

If you do not have time, then take a look at my comment here and let me know what you think? :)

Re: Nature of Evil

[antilapsarian.livejournal.com]

Didn't have much time to look, but took a quick glance. I'm with you most of the way...esp. appreciation that the usual def of evil is either not fully analyzed or bound up in personal/power issues. I'm definitely sympathetic to evolutionary notions about the benefits of altruism. Perhaps evil then is a kind of socially selfish behavior that fails to regard others as oneself?

But that opens a can of worms for me about not giving to the homeless who ask for change here in Chicago. It definitely makes me feel guilty to say no sometimes...one could make the argument that is a kind of evil.

No to Analysis

[poovanna.livejournal.com]

But I'm not sympatthetic at all with brushing over Hitler's murderous derangement. He was very much the captain of the nazi enterprise, and the man obviously knew no moral bounds in the pursuit of his dark empire. He's not worthy of your philosophical rationalizations.

I don't know man. I have heard many others hold the same view, and honestly, I agree with this girl that it is a cop-out.

``No, let us caricature the bastard.'' As if they were afraid that if other aspects of his human self were studied, it might somehow make him look like less of a demon.

Re: No to Analysis

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Straw man. I'm not saying that we should not study the man to everyone's intellectual contentment and just caricature him. I would say that it is a cop-out to refrain from taking a moral stance, as though afraid to recognize that some values are indeed superior to others. If one cannot identify Hitler as evil, then one's philosphy seems useless and even self-destructive, but I think such thinking is just more symptomatic of living comfortably in liberal, democratic society - too coddled. People need to be able to tell the difference between a bin Laden and a Gandhi. How smart can one be if one cannot tell the difference between night and day?

Re: No to Analysis

[poovanna.livejournal.com]

If one cannot identify Hitler as evil, then one's philosphy seems useless and even self-destructive...

Begging the question.

1. A good philosophical investigation must find some X as evil.
2. Investigation Y does not condemn X as strongly as you want.
3. Y is sub-standard.

Re: No to Analysis

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

No, I'm not begging the question. I didn't just hear about Hitler yesterday. Like all knowledgeable, intelligent people, I came to understand that Hitler is evil. If Y cannot see that Hitler is, say, worse than Gandhi, then, yes, I don't think much of Y, and it is only silly or dangerously confused not to be able to make that moral discrimination.

But I understand that people can reach different conclusions, and I know that there are people today who worhsip the man and still want to carry out his agenda. And I'm just not going to agree with those people. I just hope that you personally won't think much of their aspirations, either, but it's your life.