17 ms·

Thomas Mann's War Against Hitler

44 points by samclemens 7y ago

emmelaich 7y ago
This (pre volte face) description and quote from Mann is fascinating. Echoes of the current China? "He declared that the country’s essential mission was battling the decadent Western democracies. Mann, who believed France and England were intent upon foisting doctrines that were “foreign and poisonous to the German character,” held that the profundity of its culture meant that the German nation was itself fated to transcend mere politics. Mann went to town:" > I myself confess that I am deeply convinced that the German people will never be able to love political democracy simply because they cannot love politics itself, and that the much decried ‘authoritarian state’ is and remains the one that is proper and becoming to the German people, and the one they basically want.
- xmmrm 7y ago
  He‘s right. Germans don’t love democracy, they hate themselves.
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    Is right? The text goes on to say: > After World War I, Mann, who was living in Munich, had good reason to alter his sentiments as he watched Hitler’s alarming rise [..] He did not attack the Third Reich publicly until February 1936, when he denounced German anti-Semitism in an open letter in the Neue Züricher Zeitung, stating that the barbaric campaign Hitler’s paladins were waging was “aimed, essentially, not at the Jews at all, or not at them exclusively. It is aimed at Europe and at the real spirit of Germany.” The abstract categories we put people in have neither intentions nor characters, only individuals do. So to ascribe a character or intentions to groups always seemed pointless to me, like horoscopes or wine reviews. Maybe it's useful if you have the space for one ad, and want to decide which one might be "the most appealing to Germans". But it seems like an oxymoron when talking about loving democracy, which cannot even be thought without the plurality of actual individuals.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >The text goes on to say Doesn't go on to say that authoritarianism is unbecoming to "the real spirit of Germany". Just that antisemitism is. >The abstract categories we put people in have neither intentions nor characters, only individuals do. So to ascribe a character or intentions to groups always seemed pointless to me, like horoscopes or wine reviews. Well, you can't predict what an individual molecule would do, motion wise, but you can statistically predict the behavior of a collection of lots of molecules and find it has certain characteristics, the same holds true for whole populations. In fact, those shared characteristics, tendencies, etc., we call "culture". Most people follow their culture, like fish swim in water. But even the fewer who dislike their country's culture, they are still nonetheless shaped by it in many degrees (and usually only dislike certain aspects, whereas their dislikes are also typical manifestations within the culture: e.g. how coastal americans might dislike 'flyover' norms, and vice versa). So, yeah, populations have intentions and characters, just like individuals do. And just like in individuals those are fuzzy, but still useful. Since individuals have "intentions nor characters" it would be absurd for collections of individuals not to exhibit "intentions nor characters" too, of a certain type shaped by their shared historical experiences, politics, education, enmities, culture, economy, pop culture and so on.
      - PavlovsCat 7y ago
        > Well, you can't predict what an individual molecule would do, motion wise, but you can statistically predict the behavior of a collection of lots of molecules and find it has certain characteristics, the same holds true for whole populations. Saying "this material will float in water" is of an entirely different order than statements like "Germans don't love democracy and hate themselves". > In fact, those shared characteristics, tendencies, etc., we call "culture" What does "loving democracy" mean? What does "hating themselves" mean here, precisely? We can't talk about shared characteristics without even being clear about the characteristic. > So, yeah, populations have intentions and characters, just like individuals do. If 10 people all want ice cream, that's 10 people wanting ice cream individually, not "the group wanting ice cream". We can say this is as a shorthand, as long as it's understood that in reality, it refers to the actual people. > And just like in individuals those are fuzzy, but still useful. For what? Can you show me a use for ascribing these characteristics to Germans?
serioussecurity 7y ago
This piece is a bit unsettling, most notably for it's being being barely coherent in structure, picking out seemingly random observations and facts. The observations and facts all would fit nicely into an effort to cast Mann's intellectual mission in a negative light. Tying him to russia as the closing paragraph for no discernable reason? Suggesting his ideas were self-aggrandizing? Suggesting that he was trying to induce a system of false-belief through myth-matking? They're all observations thrown together without comment or an assertion of a common thread, and represent a remarkably cherry picked subsample from the book that supposedly forms the core of the article. It feels like an opening salvo in an ad hominem attempt to dismantle a core figure in anti-Nazi thought? Coming from a journal intimately tied up with the neoconservative movement. (Yeah, that's also an ad hominem, but the point about the article stands: it's barely coherent and the things it's suggesting form the start of an unsettling attempt to frame a narrative.)
- mkl 7y ago
  I think you're misreading it. The article doesn't tie him to Russia, it states that some Americans at the time tried to (as they did with a great many people). The article says that his behaviour and the ways he chose to be portrayed changed, to be self-promotional, yes, but so that he became well-known and well looked upon so people would listen to his message, his war of words against Hitler; he was doing all he could to convince the American public to both support the war effort, and to view fascism as the enemy, not the German people. It also doesn't seem to say he was trying to promote myth-making, but that he recognised the some story tropes held particular interest for German culture, and so were inevitably going to be written, so responsible authors should preemptively use those tropes to promote people and culture, not fascism. This article taught me basically all I know of Mann, so I really am interpreting the article and not my prior knowledge; I got quite a positive view of him from it.

44 points by samclemens 7y ago

This (pre volte face) description and quote from Mann is fascinating. Echoes of the current China? "He declared that the country’s essential mission was battling the decadent Western democracies. Mann, who believed France and England were intent upon foisting doctrines that were “foreign and poisonous to the German character,” held that the profundity of its culture meant that the German nation was itself fated to transcend mere politics. Mann went to town:" > I myself confess that I am deeply convinced that the German people will never be able to love political democracy simply because they cannot love politics itself, and that the much decried ‘authoritarian state’ is and remains the one that is proper and becoming to the German people, and the one they basically want.

xmmrm 7y ago
He‘s right. Germans don’t love democracy, they hate themselves.
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  Is right? The text goes on to say: > After World War I, Mann, who was living in Munich, had good reason to alter his sentiments as he watched Hitler’s alarming rise [..] He did not attack the Third Reich publicly until February 1936, when he denounced German anti-Semitism in an open letter in the Neue Züricher Zeitung, stating that the barbaric campaign Hitler’s paladins were waging was “aimed, essentially, not at the Jews at all, or not at them exclusively. It is aimed at Europe and at the real spirit of Germany.” The abstract categories we put people in have neither intentions nor characters, only individuals do. So to ascribe a character or intentions to groups always seemed pointless to me, like horoscopes or wine reviews. Maybe it's useful if you have the space for one ad, and want to decide which one might be "the most appealing to Germans". But it seems like an oxymoron when talking about loving democracy, which cannot even be thought without the plurality of actual individuals.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >The text goes on to say Doesn't go on to say that authoritarianism is unbecoming to "the real spirit of Germany". Just that antisemitism is. >The abstract categories we put people in have neither intentions nor characters, only individuals do. So to ascribe a character or intentions to groups always seemed pointless to me, like horoscopes or wine reviews. Well, you can't predict what an individual molecule would do, motion wise, but you can statistically predict the behavior of a collection of lots of molecules and find it has certain characteristics, the same holds true for whole populations. In fact, those shared characteristics, tendencies, etc., we call "culture". Most people follow their culture, like fish swim in water. But even the fewer who dislike their country's culture, they are still nonetheless shaped by it in many degrees (and usually only dislike certain aspects, whereas their dislikes are also typical manifestations within the culture: e.g. how coastal americans might dislike 'flyover' norms, and vice versa). So, yeah, populations have intentions and characters, just like individuals do. And just like in individuals those are fuzzy, but still useful. Since individuals have "intentions nor characters" it would be absurd for collections of individuals not to exhibit "intentions nor characters" too, of a certain type shaped by their shared historical experiences, politics, education, enmities, culture, economy, pop culture and so on.
    - PavlovsCat 7y ago
      > Well, you can't predict what an individual molecule would do, motion wise, but you can statistically predict the behavior of a collection of lots of molecules and find it has certain characteristics, the same holds true for whole populations. Saying "this material will float in water" is of an entirely different order than statements like "Germans don't love democracy and hate themselves". > In fact, those shared characteristics, tendencies, etc., we call "culture" What does "loving democracy" mean? What does "hating themselves" mean here, precisely? We can't talk about shared characteristics without even being clear about the characteristic. > So, yeah, populations have intentions and characters, just like individuals do. If 10 people all want ice cream, that's 10 people wanting ice cream individually, not "the group wanting ice cream". We can say this is as a shorthand, as long as it's understood that in reality, it refers to the actual people. > And just like in individuals those are fuzzy, but still useful. For what? Can you show me a use for ascribing these characteristics to Germans?

serioussecurity 7y ago

This piece is a bit unsettling, most notably for it's being being barely coherent in structure, picking out seemingly random observations and facts. The observations and facts all would fit nicely into an effort to cast Mann's intellectual mission in a negative light. Tying him to russia as the closing paragraph for no discernable reason? Suggesting his ideas were self-aggrandizing? Suggesting that he was trying to induce a system of false-belief through myth-matking? They're all observations thrown together without comment or an assertion of a common thread, and represent a remarkably cherry picked subsample from the book that supposedly forms the core of the article. It feels like an opening salvo in an ad hominem attempt to dismantle a core figure in anti-Nazi thought? Coming from a journal intimately tied up with the neoconservative movement. (Yeah, that's also an ad hominem, but the point about the article stands: it's barely coherent and the things it's suggesting form the start of an unsettling attempt to frame a narrative.)

mkl 7y ago
I think you're misreading it. The article doesn't tie him to Russia, it states that some Americans at the time tried to (as they did with a great many people). The article says that his behaviour and the ways he chose to be portrayed changed, to be self-promotional, yes, but so that he became well-known and well looked upon so people would listen to his message, his war of words against Hitler; he was doing all he could to convince the American public to both support the war effort, and to view fascism as the enemy, not the German people. It also doesn't seem to say he was trying to promote myth-making, but that he recognised the some story tropes held particular interest for German culture, and so were inevitably going to be written, so responsible authors should preemptively use those tropes to promote people and culture, not fascism. This article taught me basically all I know of Mann, so I really am interpreting the article and not my prior knowledge; I got quite a positive view of him from it.