Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Hitler : The Rise Of Evil?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hitler : The Rise Of Evil?

    I saw the two-part series just the other week. I was wondering if anyone else in here has seen it? I thought Robert Carlyle did a good job really.
    At potraying the infamous tyrant of the 20th century.

    Although i'm at somewhat a loss in that some facts and statements are out of place. And the Wagner/Hitler connection permeates the whole story.
    Making me think like: 'Hey? I listen to Wagner... Will i turn into a tyrant aswell?'. I think this is a cheap shot at explaining the Tyrant with a big T. "Wagner didn't appreciate tyrannical rule", at least thats what an old friend who studies classical guitar and music at a high level, and shares some of my tastes in classical music said. Although Wagner had to, at some points, take back some of his statements on jews since most of his friends/colleagues where jews.

    Some daring historians speculate now that Hitler only used the already residing hatred for Jews when he came to the beerhalls and started those hatefull speeches (Although i don't doubt his own hate). And ruined german culture and philosophy/litterature for decades in only 12 years.
    It did not however tell how the french exploited germany with the Versaille Treaty or Goubineau's & Co twisted litterature on race hygien and race ranking. Nor does it tell about the communists in germany after WW1 and their crimes. Can history really blame one man is the issue i guess?.. I know i do though...

    To my own disdain, anti-semitic remarks are still around here in my country. Although i share no sympathy for nationalistic jews.
    I fear something is wrong with whats being taught in school and in public.
    About the us/them thinking. I have nothing against semitic people.
    And the hate against foreigners from the middle-east is also still around in this country, parents unknowingly passing it on to children! "Do as i say not as i do" mentality i guess? I have some discourse with "them" from time to time about history culture and language. Which i think they should promote in schools here.. Ghettotizing isn't goin to help us at all. The world is getting smaller everyday and also bigger.
    And don't 'Say'.... DO!

    Have a nice weekend guys & gals!

  • #2
    I feel I've researched so much about Hitler, Mussolini and their associates that I have my own clear read of the dictator. Therefore I'm more likely to argue with semi-fictional accounts of Hitler's story. So I didn't enjoy the two-parter very much. I do think it's worth studying one's own reactions to the things Hitler loved -- Strauss more than Wagner, most likely, though he felt obliged to say Wagner. Hitler loved all the kitsch that I love -- including the novels of Karl May - and he shared many tastes with Stalin, for instance. But that is no doubt which makes them able to communicate with the rest of us and persuade us to their particular dreams. It doesn't make us like them because we enjoy the same things, but it does make us more vulnerable to their influence.
    We should always look at romanticism which a bit of a hard eye. It's usually good for escape, but doesn't work to well when applied to real life.

    Pre-order or Buy my latest titles in Europe:
    The Whispering Swarm: Book One of the Sanctuary of the White Friars - The Laughter of Carthage - Byzantium Endures - London Peculiar and Other Nonfiction
    Doctor Who: The Coming of the Terraphiles - Kizuna: Fiction for Japan - Modem Times 2.0 - The Sunday Books - The Sundered Worlds


    Pre-order or Buy my latest titles in the USA:
    The Laughter of Carthage - Byzantium Endures - London Peculiar and Other Nonfiction - The Sunday Books - Doctor Who: The Coming of the Terraphiles
    Kizuna: Fiction for Japan - The Sundered Worlds - The Winds of Limbo - Modem Times 2.0 - Elric: Swords and Roses

    Comment


    • #3
      Wagner was an anti-semite as was Neitzch. Both of whom Hitler had a liking to say the least. The ring cycle was probably an influence on his visions of a master race as was the Germanic/Tuatonic influence that Himmler was so keen on.

      Just a thought.

      Comment


      • #4
        The Master Race issue adopted wholly by nazis, was influenced mostly by Gobineau's book 'The Inequality of Human Races'. Wagner knew and met with him on occasion's, but Wagner was more influenced by vegetarianism as a key to purifying the german race (weird? i know!). Hitler copied most of Gobineau's Pseudo-Scientific material for his #1 bestseller..

        Many europeans where/are Anti-Semites, even candidly so...
        Chopin, Carl Orff, are some of the other Composers who where
        anti-semites. Should we dissmiss them and their musical genius?
        Although i definetely don't like Wagner's character.
        His music makes me happy.. The opera's are another matter of taste,
        and one i don't like much.. But the main theme in Wagners opera's is just one of unconditional love. A condition more worthy of experiencing than being a "Master Race".

        Note: I'm not defending R. Wagner, Nazi ideology, or for that matter
        'Anti-Semitism'.

        P.S. Seems people find more reasons to hate than to love. Sad really!

        Comment


        • #5
          Hitler was not - as Mike said - the only dictator to play with the romance of Nationalism - I don't think he tapped into a natural German anti-semitism (afterall, how did Germany develop such a large Jewish population?), so much as a natural racism that exists in many populations, that is always brought to the fore by tough economic conditions.

          What I mean is if Germany had had a sizeable minority population from the Indian sub-continent, rather than a Jewish one, I have no doubt that Wagner would still have been complaining about the pollution of Germanic culture, and Hitler would have been in the beerhalls complaining about them taking good German jobs away.

          I was exposed, through my wife's degree, to the actual writing (rather than summarised ideas of) Neitzche, in particular his attitudes towards Jewish religion, and written down it was like reading someone ranting rather than philosophy. I mean like a crazed preacher.

          I think it should be made clear that he wasn't exactly defending Christianity either, more holding that the Jewish religion was the roots of the Christianity, and thus the source of a negative philosophy.

          As for Chopin, Orff, etc - I think part of the issue is that it was the opinion of the day, much as other forms of racism (inc.slavery) were acceptable in centuries past, but we don't divide our art up by the artists attitudes then.

          Shakespeare's Jewish characters are nothing to be proud of either, but I think a good example of how we can tolerate a bit of racial stereotyping (i.e. put it in the context of it's time) because fundamentally the message of the Merchant of Venice is not an anti-Semitic one.

          Now can anyone tell me exactly what crimes the Communists were engaged in in Weimar Germany?

          Comment


          • #6
            I didn't really mean the weimar republic but the 'communist revalutionaries'.
            I was thinking about the way Karl Liebknecht and Rosa "Bloody Rosa" Luxemburg. Tried with a putsch of their own, and the many that followed.
            Without any elections etc. And going over the head of civilians..

            http://www.smoter.com/revoluti.htm

            And the Weimar allied itself with the 'Freikorps'. That also went around on a rampage...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jules
              I was exposed, through my wife's degree, to the actual writing (rather than summarised ideas of) Neitzche, in particular his attitudes towards Jewish religion, and written down it was like reading someone ranting rather than philosophy. I mean like a crazed preacher.

              I think it should be made clear that he wasn't exactly defending Christianity either, more holding that the Jewish religion was the roots of the Christianity, and thus the source of a negative philosophy.

              As for Chopin, Orff, etc - I think part of the issue is that it was the opinion of the day, much as other forms of racism (inc.slavery) were acceptable in centuries past, but we don't divide our art up by the artists attitudes then.
              Have to agree with Jules. I'm not saying that Neitzche was a great guy, or anything, but his philosphy takes a little too much blame for the rise of Nazism. Neitzche felt that all religions were suspect and ultimately made people weak. Since he was a lightning rod, it was easy to parse and summarize his words in general (how many people think the only thing Neitzche really said was "God is dead?"), and into anti-Semitism in particular. Such simplification of and omissions in his work let Hitler, et.al. use Neitzche as one of their bases to scapegoat Jews.

              Of course, Wagner was much more direct and focused in his sentiments, and Neitzche's association with him made it easy for people to draw some of the conclusions that they did. When it comes to Chopin and Orf, however, they may be guilty of reflecting their times, which great art often does, but I'm not sure of their complicity in creating them. Or maybe I'm feeling guilty about my Carmina Burana CD . :D

              I also have to comment on the not always judging people by today's standards. Those of us from the US should remember that the man who wrote that all men are created equal was one of the most famous slave owners of his day. Most of us easily compartmentalize that fact, even though we probably should question it.

              Comment


              • #8
                I forgot to add, Theocrat, that I couldn't agree more when you said that it's sad we seem to find more reasons to hate than to love.

                Maybe love changes the world in slow, measured, and mystical ways, while hate changes it violently and abruptly, so we don't find more reasons to hate, we only notice that hate more than the love.

                Hmmm... That might be just as sad.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Jews were definitely a â€‍normal“ factor in German society of the late 19th century. In the cities and industrial zones they were more or less integrated, while not loved by all. Many even achieved nobility under the Kaiser or the several other monarchs of the federation for their merits. The officers’ corps managed to keep Jews out until during WW1 and was a strong bastion of Anti-semitism. But it also had to do with a general “exclusivityâ€? - in Prussia you found very few Catholic officers and for example in Bavaria the reverse situation: hardly a Protestant getting a commission.

                  Anti-Semitism concerned all of Europe, just look at the disgusting “Dreyfuss-Affaire� in France where a respectable officer of Jewish origin was suspected and convicted of “espionage for Germany “ (then the arch-enemy) and had to be rehabilitated some years later, already a broken man. In UK there was the obscure “Will-o-the-wisp� case, a hysteria about Jews and “Anarchists� conspiring in the stricken quarters of London against Queen and Country. In Russia being a Jew wasn’t exactly funny either (read “Byzantium Endures�), and the same applied to the rigidly Catholic countries in Southern Europe; Hungary is probably even today the country where anti-Jewish sentiments are most openly displayed. Even Sweden can't be exempted. The utter destruction of occidental human values in WW1 and the overturning of hitherto stable factors (like the monarchy) led to an easy acceptance of wild theories of “betrayal� through “Jewish conspiracies� and populistic racial theories that appealed to a nation that felt unjustly defeated (One nation? No, don't forget how these ideas appealed to many in Austria, were people felt absurdly "strangled by Chechoslavakia and Jewish interests). Of course, Wagner was anti-Semite, as were many others, but they were composers and artists first of all and didn’t run the country. Germany in the late 19thcentury was (within the European context) a modern industrial society in which race and religion mattered less and less. Only under particular circumstances did the inclinations of Wagner and theories of others suddenly have an impact, a deadly release. One of my favourite British authors of period, “SAKI� (whose brilliance in descriptive satire also MM recognises) was a die-hard anti-Semite, yet this sad part of his thinking had little impact, because the circumstances weren’t, fortunately, that it imported much. Without wanting to exonerate these artists and thinkers (Nietzsche!), they had no idea how their sentiments and thoughts would finally be instrumentalized by some of history’s greatest criminals – and their latter-day apologists, mind you! Wagner certainly gave Hitler a great, dramatic musical score for his evil, megalomanic schemes, and all movie-goers of today will agree on how important the right music is for the success of a film.

                  It is also very important to remind that German culture was not totally destroyed, no, it survived, although shaken!! Even Humphrey Jennings, a British “war-effort�-filmmaker showed in one of his excellent propaganda films “A Diary for Timothy� a scene in which an old lady plays Bach (sorry Mike) on a piano in a bombed-out concert hall in London during the “Blitz�-days. The commentary said that “we are fighting this war also to bring back this culture to the country of its origins�. The many people in exile returned to help restore the country and forge a new culture with elements of the old one plus many new ideas they learnt in exile. Nothing near perfection, of course. It is still “under construction�, and I hope will always be.

                  And in a few days, on July 20th we shall live the 60th anniversary of a courageous, if controversial, attempt to assassinate Hitler and do away with his politics by a mixed assortment of officers, aristocrats, Social Democrats and other men and women who mostly payed with their lives under horrendous circumstances.
                  A Franco- Englishman (or an Anglo-Frenchman?) has put up a website in commemoration of the attempted revolution: http://www.joric.com/Conspiracy/Center.htm
                  It is full of information and interesting facts and interviews.
                  Google ergo sum

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yes of course sweden is no exception. I heard at work when we where talking about American politics. A guy who i work with asked me a frank question "Who do you think controls the White House?". My guess was "those damn neo-conservatives!". His reply was "No! The Jews!".
                    Some of us argued against this statement, some didn't....

                    A second example was when i was discussing Wagner and germany et al.
                    I got as a reply from a young guy "Well the jews brought it on themselves!" in that kinda fashion.

                    One other question i got earlier was "Why where the Jews hated?".
                    I tried to answer as best i could during the time, but it was really hard to explain plainly. And it's something thats really not explained in public.

                    I think the public outcry against Jews in germany was brought on by the fact that many jews where leaders and participants of the Communist revolution in germany, after germany lost WW1. Many jews where clinging to an ideology hoping to eradicate anti-semitism or bring about an end to it instead of going for nationalist politics, which didn't really accept them. Hitler used the Communist/Jewish connection head on, and was even trained by the military how to use propaganda and what to say at speeches and rally's. And that's what is missing from the 2 part movie.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I read somewhere that last year saw the first net migration from Israel TO Germany since WW2 - the quote was 'I feel safer in Germany' (and of course to most Germans, the Turks are the new problem race).

                      Freud and Kafka are as much part of Germanic culture as Wagner, which is what always made the talk of a pure Germanic culture or race a farce - but the same ideologies are still with us - it's interesting to note how in American politics the Right repeatedly chooses the language of nationalism - un-American, anti-American and unpatriotic - to batter it's opponents.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        ... and bear in mind that in most of the "allied" countries prior to WWII, Hitler was regarded as generally a good sort (if a bit rowdy) for his stance on socialism. It was only when he threatened other countries' foreign policy that they were forced to try and deal with him. If he'd have stuck to his own borders, don't you think it's possible his internal policies might have caught on elsewhere? vide the McCarthy era in the US, the Daily Mail backing for Moseley in the 30s, acceptance of Franco and Salazar post WWII.
                        \"Killing me won\'t bring back your apples!\"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          This is becoming a very interesting thread. When one considers the idea of a master race or holocaust we tend, quiet naturally, to concentrate on the ' jewish question' as Heydrich put it in 1942.

                          However Hitler went far beyond this to persecute all and sundry types of people from gypsies to Jehovah's Witnesses. These are perhaps the forgotten victims of Hitlers totalitarian regime? :(

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by zakt
                            ... and bear in mind that in most of the "allied" countries prior to WWII, Hitler was regarded as generally a good sort (if a bit rowdy) for his stance on socialism. It was only when he threatened other countries' foreign policy that they were forced to try and deal with him. If he'd have stuck to his own borders, don't you think it's possible his internal policies might have caught on elsewhere? vide the McCarthy era in the US, the Daily Mail backing for Moseley in the 30s, acceptance of Franco and Salazar post WWII.
                            Most countries (except france i guess) thought it was a probably a good thing for germany to revoke the versaille treaty. Many stated that the treaty was just a continuation of the war. Even President Wilson of the United States remarked to his Secretary of War: "If I were German, I think I should never sign it."

                            "Under the terms of the Treaty, the Germans were to be forced to admit their "war crimes" by turning over to the Allies those designated as "war criminals" for judgment. Because of "German aggression," she was also to be made defenseless and was allowed no air force, no submarines, no tanks, no heavy guns, virtually no navy, and her army was forbidden to number more than a 100,000 men. All of Germany's principle inland waterways were to be internationalized. The Allies also expected Germany to pay for all "war damages" and though the Germans offered to repair all physical damage in Belgium and France caused by the war, their proposal was rejected. The Allies, keeping in tune with their earlier dreams, came up with a unique scheme. Since the idea was to keep Germany from ever experiencing a revival, the cost to the Germans would not be set, but would function along a sliding scale. Anytime in the future that it appeared the Germany economy was gathering strength, a new payment scale would transfer more money to the Allies. If Germany was incapable of paying, goods would be demanded."

                            The list as you know went on and on..

                            And with that treaty it's no wonder that fascism was adopted later on.

                            And the scapegoating by Hitler (as a result from jewish marxist's part in the violent revolution & austrian sovjet government) served only to further the hate & violence of it's counterpart.

                            And we all know most of the arguments made by the American Government after 9/11.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              "This is becoming a very interesting thread. When one considers the idea of a master race or holocaust we tend, quiet naturally, to concentrate on the ' jewish question' as Heydrich put it in 1942. However Hitler went far beyond this to persecute all and sundry types of people from gypsies to Jehovah's Witnesses. These are perhaps the forgotten victims of Hitlers totalitarian regime?"

                              I'll take this opportunity to hop back in after a couple week absence (vacation, job change). Clearly, the assault on the Jewish population was the most pronounced, but Hitler (and Stalin, for that matter, who made Hitler look like a minor leaguer in the genocide game) was, ironically, not discriminating in his hatred. There are people (most notably Michael) who have researched this more than I have, and I would ask for their input, but my understanding is that Hitler first and foremost was taking steps (albeit the steps of a madman) to consolidate then expand his power.

                              I think that in this context, the Jews were attacked less because of religious reasons than nationalist reasons. If you ask a Catholic or Protestant what nationality they are, there is almost zero chance that they will answer "Catholic" or "Protestant". If you ask a Jew what nationality they are, there is a greater liklihood, or, if you rather, at least the possibility, (depending on where you are) that they will answer "Jewish" rather than the country in which they reside. Hitler's "detente" with the Catholic Church is now well-known. I would reckon that if the Holy See had taken a firmer position with Hitler - and given him any reason to consider the average German Catholic as more likely to adhere to the Vatican than to him, the "six million" number would have climbed significantly. This, to me, explains in part why the Poles were slaughtered to the degree they were, as well as the Hungarians, but not, for example, the Catholics or the Austrians. These were not people in a strong power position, but they did present the perception, at least in Berlin, of representing a competing nationalism at a time when Hitler was relying on nationalistic pride to form his power base.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X