I am reading The Splendid and the Vile by Eric Larsen. It is a very large book (over 500 pages fine print, no pictures) about one year in the life of Winston Churchill, spring of 1940 to spring of 1941. As Mr Larsen says, this is the year that Churchill became Churchill, the bulldog of a man we think we know. Very detailled, quite engrossing. Mr Larsen draws on several personal diaries of the time, notably John Colville's (The Fringes of Power, 1985), who was Churchill's personal secretary and privy to most of Churchill's political and personal life. Of course, a book set in that period of time cannot ignore The Battle of Britain or any other notable events of the time, up to and including the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It is a fascinating view into that period of World War II.
Something that interests me is how Adolf Hitler is portrayed, both in this book and elsewhere. When we think of Churchill and Hitler, we conjure up stereotypical images of heroes and villains, believing one to be All Good and the other to be All Evil. I've certainly heard evidence that Churchill was not entirely the stereotypical hero, plenty of people have good reason to be disturbed by his role in hiistory. In this book Larsen only focuses on Churchill's moment of heroic glory, but he does not deny Churchill's lesser qualities. But what of Hitler?
In videos I've seen of Hitler's famous speeches, he appears as a fervent madman. Yet in this book Larsen quotes reporters who attended such speeches as to how genuine and convincing Hitler seemed. He was a master of rhetoric, not in the fervent madman sense but in his command of the stage, his intuitive sense of timing and his ability to convey facts and emotions in a convincing manner. It is hard to square the two impressions.
I think we make a mistake in portraying the man as solely an evil madman. He was the right man at the right time. Germans were very much hurt and suffering from the Treaty of Versailles agreed upon at the end of World War I, he addressed that suffering and offered a righteous solution to it that Germans could embrace. He of course blamed 'The Jews' as the ultimate source of German suffering, but he was not so different from many others who harboured that prejudice at that time. The fate of the St. Louis is a case in point. When other countries declared war on Germany, it was not out of outrage at the Nazi persecution and murder of Jews, but rather the very real fear that Germany under Hitler was capable of conquering all of Europe and then proceeding to conquer North America.
Like Churchill, Hitler was a great leader, he encouraged and mobilized Germans to address their social and economic distress, he made them proud to be Germans. My opinion is that we should look on Hitler as we do Churchill, a man of both good and bad qualities. If we think of him as a madman then the damage that he did is considered almost impossible to repeat, after all it was done by a madman and a psychopath and we have mechanisms in place to deal with such people.
If on the other hand we realize that he was actually an ordinary man who managed to get his hands on the levers of power, then we also realize that it could happen again, it is not so far fetched. He did after all do some good for some people, he did care about the fate of his people and much of his motivation was not out of hate but out of desire for revenge for very real hurts. A lot of people could fill those boots, it is not an extraordinary circumstance.
5 comments:
Us Irish are no fans of Churchill as you may know. Also Trump has modelled himself on Hitler, you find the "enemy" and whip the citizens into outrage. And bingo.
XO
WWW
When people desire one party (either one) to control the reins of power, this can happen. Sounds like a good book and warnings we should heed. I doubt we will as in our country it seems both sides want their side to rule. :(
Appreciated reading your thoughts on the book you mentioned. I've read extensively on the issues, actions, etc. beginning with WWI leading to WWII. Some were written long before our nation found itself with a man seeking leadership he achieved in 2016, then I noted he kept following the autocratic/dictator playbook as had AH. I was intrigued to learn what the social, cultural, other conditions were influencing AH's and other dictator's development. A couple books were especially enlightening, one by a historian and another by a high level respected religious figure who realized in retrospect their denominational leaders had been too accommodating to AH. We might ask what constitutes evil and what actions might be like those of a madman, compared to a range of acceptable human behaviors?
My motivation for this reading was wondering how an intelligent German people could have been seduced by such a leader. (I was fully convinced, I might add, that American people had learned from this horrendous experience and would never allow it to happen here. I was so wrong as I soon recognized when our previous President developed his campaign and then when he governed.) That question about the German people began forming in my mind as an adult when I recalled those years as I was growing up during WWII and my older brother went off to war in the South Pacific.
I think you're quite correct that A.Hitler did some good things for people in his country but this is part of the playbook for those individuals intent on ultimately becoming dictators, sole rulers of a country, whatever title they call themselves, even President as in Russia. I believe it is readily apparent winning the allegiance of people by doing some good, benefits such leaders in their drive to ultimately take command, since doing only negative things will hardly lend itself to accomplishing the end goal. There may even be sincere motivations for some of the good acts achieved.
Incidentally, our nation no longer has two viable political parties that can be considered on a par with one another since the former President's hijacking of his party but that's another topic. The majority of the nation's popular votes continue to favor the other party whose citizens support preservation of our constitutional democratic republic, our nations traditional values and freedoms as we know them, not changing our form of government which is that former President’s goal.
Thank you Joared for your thoughtful comment. I think two things seduced the German people to follow AH: their abject economic circumstances brought on by the Treaty of Versailles and AH's oratorical talents. He promised the people most of the things that Trump promised Americans, a return to the glory days and much improved economic circumstances. Quite frankly, most candidates for leadership will promise those kinds of things: better times for all. Also it should be remembered that Trump did not take his strategies and tactics directly from AH but rather as you say followed a similar dictatorial path. AH fully intended to conquer all of Europe and perhaps beyond, Trump only wanted to rule the USA. He withdrew American troops from hotspots and intended to shutter American military bases elsewhere. They both scapegoated certain populations, but that is a tactic as old as the word itself. Of course they both lied, but I rather think that is universal among world leaders. Comes with the territory. AH laid out his plans clearly in his book Mein Kampf at the beginning of his career, I seriously doubt Trump ever read that book (I did).
The inherent weakness of all democracies is that voters are free to choose whomever they want as their leader, and prospective candidates are free to lie to them. The one serious limitation on lying candidates is a free press, and quite frankly I think that corporate interference has undermined that. I've known a few aspiring journalists who gave it up out of disgust for what that job truly entailed. Social media has not been helpful either.
We remember Churchill as a wartime hero but as WWW points out there are large swathes of people who owe him no favours. Think Ireland and India.
Thanks for your response and I agree with your observations. Corporate interference has undermined in a lot of areas besides the press, unfortunately. I call it "corporate think" where profit-making at all costs reins supreme. I am a strong proponent for our press and search for those voices who do still reflect good journalism.
Post a Comment