Golo Mann: The History of Germany since 1789 – Part II: from 1890 to 1933

 

Introduction

It has been some time since I published the first part of Golo Mann’s “History of Germany since 1789”, covering the period from Napoleon to the end of Bismarck’s rule.  In today’s post I will continue sharing with you some quotes from the book, which I consider one of the best history books on Europe. The original’s title is “Deutsche Geschichte des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts”, first published in German in 1958. I use the English translation by Marian Jackson, reprinted by Penguin Books in 1990. For ease of reference, in each quote I will use  the page number of the 1990 reprint.

This is the second part, covering the period from 1890 to the rise of Hitler and Nazism to power (January 1933).

The third part will cover the period from January 1933 to the early 1960s. I am not aiming at reproducing the great intensity of the book, or summarize it. All I want is to present some elements of the work that are representative of its author and his views, which I find stimulating and challenging.

Timeline

A timeline from 1890 to 1933, when Hitler was appointed Chancellor.

1890 – Growing workers’ movement culminates in founding of Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD).

1914-1918 – World War I

1918 – Germany defeated, signs armistice. Emperor William II abdicates and goes into exile.

1919 – Treaty of Versailles: Germany loses colonies and land to neighbors, pays large-scale reparations. Beginning of the Weimar Republic, based on a new constitution. Its early years are marked by high unemployment and rampant inflation.

1923 – Adolf Hitler, head of the National Socialist German Workers’ (Nazi) Party, leads an abortive coup in a Munich beer hall. France, Belgium occupy the Ruhr over failed reparation payments. Hyperinflation leads to economic collapse.

1924 – Hitler writes Mein Kampf – “My Struggle” – in prison.

1929 – Global depression, mass unemployment.

 

January 1933 – Hitler becomes chancellor. Weimar Republic gives way to a one-party state.

 

To facilitate the historical context, I added in some parts a [timeline tag].

Part Eight: The Age of William II (1888 – 1914)

After 1890 German affairs took a turn for the worse and therefore many historians came to the conclusion that Bismarck’s fall was a disaster and the beginning of all Germany’s misfortune. But it needs little acumen to show the erroneousness of this view. (p. 415)

Our character is determined partly by the reality in which we live, by the tasks that confront us. (p. 422)

The semi-dictatorship which Bismarck had exercised in order to preserve the peace, to deprive German development of its momentum, had collapsed in 1890. The verdict was final; it could not be reversed five years later. The energies of the German Reich could no longer be neutralized as in Metternich’s day. Something had to be done with them. (p.426)

Great states, that is states which under given conditions regard themselves as great, want to be influential beyond their own frontiers. History confirms this a hundred times. (p. 426)

“Only complete political dishonesty and naive optimism can fail to recognize that, after a period of peaceful competition, the inevitable urge of all nations with burgeois societies to expand their trade must now once more lead to a situation in which power alone will have a decisive influence on the extent to which individual nations will share in the economic control of the world, and thus determine the economic prospects of their peoples and of their workers in particular” Max Weber (p.434)

“Bernhard Bullow (German Chancellor from 1900 to 1909) is clean-shaven and flabby, with a shifty look, and usually has a smile on his face. Although he has no ideas in stone for emergencies he adopts the ideas of others and reproduces them skilfully… If Bullow wants to set one man against another he says with a charming smile ot the one that the other does not like him. The method is simple and almost infallible.” Geheimrat Holstein (p.437)

Once people had made the mistake of regarding the nation-state as the ultimate human goal and its “greatness” as an absolute purpose, there was no escape from the wearying game of threats and reconciliations, attempts to expand and withdrawals, of ever-changing speculative combinations; while always on the horizon there was the thing which everyone and no one believed in, war. (p.438) …alliances, however peacefully meant, always provoke others, and thus increase the danger they try to avert. (p.439)

On the contrary, in the nineteenth century Germany had been definitely popular among the Anglo-Saxons. The unpopular countries were France and Russia, France because it was revolutionary, imperialistic and restless, and Russia because it was exotic, barbarian and despotic. .. Only in the last ten or twelve years before 1914 did Germany become unpopular in Britain. The Germans lost the sympathies of the world because they did not believe that they had them and boastfully announced that they could do without them. (p.443)

There are two sides in every conflict and it would be wrong to hold German diplomacy alone responsible for the intrigues and fears that poisoned the European atmosphere in the decade before 1914. Foreign policy is largely irrational and comes up against elements that are also irrational. .. Economic competition can be controlled by sensible aim of making money; the same does not apply to political competition. (p.445)

Franz Ferdinand en Hertogin Sophie in Sarajevo 1914
Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie in Sarajevo 1914

The trouble with all youth movements is that they fail to keep their promises, however hard they try. German youth did have ideals when it came to nation and state, but given modern society as it was these ideals could only be cultivated by a small, young circle. This led to disappointments and later also to political aberrations. (p.466) The concept of the nation had no logical place in the Habsburg Empire. (p.467)

The Habsburg monarchy was a survival of the past, the only great non-national state in the age of nationalism. (p. 468) Economic interests bring people together, politics divide them. Political activity is competitive and threatening. The question of whether you can kill me or I can kill you arises between all living beings who do not share the same laws and do not trust each other. (p. 476)

The living know they will die but they do not believe it because they have become used to life and only know life. Such, more or less, must have been the mood before 1914. (p.478)

It was an old Austrian axiom that the “monarchy” would not last much longer than Turkey. Both states were supra-national and violated the principle of the nation-state. If Balkan nationalism triumphed over Turkey it would also triumph over Austria and in Austria. The Austrians therefore regarded the end of the First Balkan War as a defeat. (p.478)

Part Nine: War

Nothing is inevitable until it has happened. (p.481)

3g11266u-1112

Text: Subscribe to the war loan! The Army and Navy expect it from you!. Date Created/Published: Berlin : Hollerbaum & Schmidt, 1917.

July 1914

His (Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria) views on Serbia were more or less those of Bismarck, namely that its plum trees and pigs were not worth the bones of an Austrian soldier. (p.482)

The War Guilt Question

Nobody knew what anybody else would do. This was the basis of the risk, of the bluff, the sportsmanship of the affair; this has always been the game of politics. (p. 492)

Moods

By nature man oscillates between egoism and the desire to destroy himself for a great cause. (p.496)

louvain

Frustrated plans

All countries believed they were the victim of attack, but all attacked. All general staffs had long prepared and nurtured grand offensive plans which they now put into action. … After six weeks nothing was left of any of these plans and elaborate stratagems. (p. 501)

War have almost never gone according to plan; sooner or later they have developed in a way not foreseen by the strategists on either side. (p.502)

War Aims and Domestic Friction

In wartime it is not political sense that rules, but war – the generals or civilians who know how to wage it.  (p.508)

The aims had not led to the war, but the war, once there, led to the aims… Only German Social Democrats believed from the first day of the war to the last in the idea of peace without conquests, thus proving once again how superior their political education was to that of the middle classes. (p. 511-512)

It is difficult to have sensible aims in the midst of an orgy of senselessness… What would the peoples, the masses, do if they suddenly saw the whole enormous war effort as a cruel piece of foolery? (p. 512)

Changes

War is known to strengthen the strong and to weaken the weak, those who are already on their way down. The strong were those who were capable and could be made use of, but they were also vulgar, ruthless and shameless. (p. 520)

Armisticetrain_(slight_crop)

By Unknown – Press photo published all over the world. F.ex. Jan Dąbrowski “Wielka wojna 1914-1918” ( The Great War 1914-1918) Warsaw 1937, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9423922

Chronology

In other countries the crisis brought to the top the most ruthless, most imaginative politicians, Lloyd George in England and a year later Clemenceau in France. … It is logical that when war penetrates and dominates everything, when it is “total” war, the general must rule. .. Ludendorff was a tremendous worker, an expert on the new weapons, a man whose head was full of figures and names but who was irritable and brutal and in the subtleties of life as inexperienced as a child. (p. 524)

The Last Year

Just as the army leaders had  never paid any attention to the psychology of the enemy, they now gave no thought to the effect which their armistice offer must have on the German masses. (p.543)

Mass_demonstration_in_front_of_the_Reichstag_against_the_Treaty_of_Versailles
Massive demonstrations in front of the Reichstag, during the armistice negotiations of 1919

Part Ten: Weimar

Two basic documents

We know today that the wars of this century are bad for everybody and that the victor cannot undo the damage done to him by doubling or increasing to hundredfold that done to the defeated enemy. If he tries to do this he multiplies the damage done to himself. Victory is an illusion. (p. 568)

But the world cannot reverse gear; it cannot. It can fall or decline, like Greece or Rome, but it can never reverse gear. (p. 569)

It is an old truth that one should place least trust in one’s own right, in one’s own power and its duration when one is on top; then is the moment for humility , the moment to doubt of one’s own merit. There is always something in victory to be ashamed of. (p. 570)

The German Government signed the treaty… The Germans signed under protest because they had no choice. They called the treaty a “dictation” which indeed it was; because genuine negotiations had taken place only between the victors, not between victors and vanquished. Such a treaty does not last linger than the political situation on which it was based. (p. 570)

The Weimar Constitution presupposed that the Germans were agreed on the basic concepts of their communal existence. That they respected each other and were prepared to live together. It was possible to have differences of interest and opinion, they existed everywhere and could be dealt with, But the nation needed to be reasonably at peace with itself and with the rest of the world. If it was not no constitution could help it…(p.574)

weimar_billions_note_medium

Unrest, Followed by Apparent Consolidation

Munich thus became the center both of Bavarian opposition and of an all-German conspiracy against Berlin democracy… Berlin was supposed to hold together the divided, threatened and deeply dissatisfied nation. (p. 576)

The economic chaos of the post-war years, the growing inflation brought with it a profound change. (p. 577)

Consequently the supporters of the old order possessed at least two attractive arguments in favor of a counter-blow from the right; the new democratic authority had feet of clay; and it allegedly offered no guarantees against the Communist or anarchist threat. (p.  582)

spengler
Oswald Spengler

The Intellectuals

Spengler, like Hegel, was aware of living at the end of an historical epoch, and he was stimulated by the war as Hegel had been by Napoleon’s appearance…What was dangerous for Hegel, the glorification of war, the worship of power and success, Spengler took over. (p.618)

What made Oswald Spengler into a central intellectual figure was his description of the present and the immediate future. (p. 619)

“Blood for gold”, was what Spengler taught, and “work for moneybags, blood for gold” was what the National Socialists sang later.  (p. 620)

By praising old Prussia but criticizing the monarchy, by ridiculing the ideal of progress, by glorifying war but claiming to be a socialist, by completely overthrowing conventional ways of thinking in politics Spengler became the co-founder of an intellectual movement which the present writer cannot ignore, however confused it was and however little came of it in the end. It was called the “Conservative Revolution” . (p. 620)

Karlsbad, Gustav Stresemann mit Gattin und Sohn
Stresemann with his wife and son

From Stresemann to Brüning

[Timeline: With the end of the First World War and the start of the November Revolution, Chancellor Max of Baden announced the abdication of the German Emperor Wilhelm II on 9 November 1918. He also appointed Friedrich Ebert as his own successor as Chancellor. The Council of the People’s Deputies, a provisional government consisting of three delegates from the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and three from the Independent Social Democratic Party (USPD), took over the executive power on the following day and called for a National Congress of Councils on 16 to 21 December to convene in Berlin. This Reichsrätekongress set elections for a national assembly to take place on 19 January 1919.]

1919 was the great hour of democracy but it was not a happy hour.  (p. 623)

The people was a chaos of conflicting hopes and fears. Chaos does not resolve itself on its own; what is needed are ideas and determination and not just a well-prepared constitution. The leaders of the Social Democratic Party replaced determination to govern by determination to keep order and by considerable, affecting integrity.(p. 624)

At the 1919 elections to the National Asembly more Germans voted for the Social Democrats than voted for the National Socialists even at the time of their greatest popular triumph in the summer of 1932. (p.683)

In fact the party which decided the fate of the Weimar Republic was the Center. (p.626)

Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-15436-0010,_Weimar,_Nationaltheater,_Denkmal_Goethe-Schiller
Deutsches Nationaltheater and Staatskapelle Weimar

(Stresemann) He received no thanks for any of his achievements and he was blamed for everything that he had failed to achieve. .. The good period of the Weimar Republic was thus, on closer inspection, not so good after all. Nor was it felt as such.  (p. 627)

The relationship between between Germany and the new Polish state could not be good. Poland had been created at the expense of Germany, as Prussia had been at the expense of Poland… The Germans felt superior to the small Slav nations in a very different sense from that in which they felt superior to the French. It seemed natural to them that Poles lived under Prussian rule because the strong expands at the expense of the weak … But the same mutual, arrogant dislike separated Germans and Czechs, the latter regarding themselves as morally superior and the former as basically stronger, as having the justification of history behind them. (p. 628)

33060-3x2-article620
Friedrich Ebert (center) with Konrad Adenauer (right) in the 1920s

The Weimar Constitution provided for the election of the President by the people, by all men and women entitled to vote. The first President, Ebert, had not been elected under this procedure, but had been appointed by the National Assembly. After his death in the spring of 1925 it became necessary to hold an election. The united right chose Hindenburg as its candidate and Admiral von Tirpitz persuaded him to accept the honour – two veterans of 1870. Hindenburg was elected, although by a narrow majority. Had the Communists not put up a third candidate, the “popular bloc”, represented by a mild Center republican, would have triumphed over Hindenburg’s “Reich bloc”. (p.631)

The idea of the Weimar Republic , to the extent that it had one, was compromise, peace between classes, not class struggle to the bitter end. (p. 635)

A few months later, at the beginning of October (1929), Gustav Stresemann died after a stroke. This was a loss of the kind which the Republic could least afford at this moment. Like no one else Stresemann had kept Parliament together, had personally made possible the compromise between labor and capital, and by his diplomacy had given meaning to Germany’s existence as a state among states. (p. 636)

hitler_1929
NUREMBERG, 1929. HITLER AT THE 3RD PARTY CONGRESS

Crisis and Disintegration of the Weimar Republic

In the Reichstag of 1928 the Nazis has mustered only 12 members and the Nazis were considered as part of the “lunatic fringe”. Hitler made no progress as long as things were going tolerably well in Germany.  But starting in 1929 the economy collapsed.

The Nazi Party had the advantage that it was in no way involved with what had happened in Germany since 1919.

In Germany the storm now turned against the Republic itself, against the whole “System” and all who had been part of it. (p.643).

[Timeline: Brüning was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg on 29 March 1930 when the grand coalition under the Social Democrat Hermann Müller collapsed.]

When the votes were counted in September 1930, it appeared that the supporters of the National Socialists had increased tenfold (my note: from 12 to 107). The New Reichstag was scarcely capable of doing the things which a Parliament is supposed to do, of positive investigation and decision.

The system by which Germany was governed depended on the pleasure of the President.

Reichskabinett Brüning I
Brüning’s first cabinet, March 1930.

After 1930 only the Army and the President – two not very republican institutions – stood between the Nazis and the Republic (p.685).

In 1932 Germany produced scarcely half of what it had produced in 1929.

[Since 1929, Germany had been suffering from the Great Depression as unemployment rose from 8.5% to nearly 30% between 1929 and 1932, while industrial production inside Germany dropped roughly 42%.]

It was the misery and the fear of misery which drove people into the Nazis arms. (p.654)

[Timeline: In March 1932, presidential elections pitted the incumbent Hindenburg, supported by pro-democratic parties, against Hitler and communist Ernst Thälmann. Hitler gained roughly a third of the vote and was thus defeated in the second round in April by Hindenburg, who gained a narrow majority.]

In Germany civil was had threatened since 1930; this was not a climate in which the economy could flourish.

sa_zeitschrift.jpg

All the major parties by this time had their own “strong arm” squads. By far the most limitant group, however, were the Sturmabteilungen – SA for short – of the Nazi Party, an army organized to fight a civil war.

[Timeline: In April 1932 Brüning had both the communist “Rotfrontkämpferbund” and the Nazi Sturmabteilung banned. The unfavourable reaction in right-wing circles further undermined Hindenburg’s support for Brüning.]

It is impossible to single out all the elements, poisonous or healthy, that fed the Nazi movement. (p. 656)

[Timeline: Hindenburg at the end of May 1932 was persuaded to dismiss Brüning as chancellor, replacing him with Franz von Papen, a renegade of the Centre Party, and a non-partisan “Cabinet of Barons”. Papen owed his appointment to the Chancellorship to General Kurt von Schleicher, an old friend from the pre-war General Staff and influential advisor of President Hindenburg. Schleicher selected Papen because his conservative, aristocratic background and military career was satisfactory to Hindenburg and would create the groundwork for a possible Centre-Nazi coalition. Papen’s cabinet had almost no support in parliament and only three days after his appointment, when faced with the opposition, had Hindenburg dissolve the Reichstag and called for new elections, for 31 July, so that the Reichstag could not dismiss him immediately.]

February-1932-Reich-President-Hindenburg-with-his-grandchildren-at-a-lunchtime-walk-in
February 1932, Reich President Hindenburg with his grandchildren at a lunchtime walk in the gardens of the Reich president’s palace, the present day location of the memorial. Image Source: Das Bundesarchiv, Bild 102-13171.

[Timeline: The July 1932 elections resulted in great gains by the Nazi Party; with 230 seats, it was the largest party in parliament but without an overall majority. Neither the Nazi Party nor Hindenburg had a governing majority, and the other parties refused co-operation. Neither side had a majority on its own, and no coalition could be formed to create a governing majority. Thus, Papen’s minority government continued, leading to another election in November.]

[Timeline: The results of the November 1932 election were a great disappointment for the Nazis. Although they emerged once more as the largest party by far, they had fewer seats than before, and failed to form a government coalition in the Reichstag parliament.]

The Weimar state was thus more an appendage of the Empire of William II or the Bismarck than it was a distinct historic epoch; it was an interregnum between two eras, the second of which was, as we know, infinitely worse. (p.685)

In an interregnum the strongest takes over and it was Hitler who happened to be the strongest. (p.686)

Machtergreifung-Hitler-u-Papen
January 30, 1933, shortly before 5 p.m .: After the first photo shoot of the new government of Hitler, the Chancellor looks deep into his vice Chancellor’s eyes

[Timeline: In the November 1932 election the Nazis lost seats, but Papen was still unable to secure a Reichstag that could be counted on not to pass another vote of no-confidence in his government. Papen’s attempt to negotiate with Hitler failed. Under pressure from Schleicher, Papen resigned on 17 November and formed a caretaker government. Papen told his cabinet that he planned to have martial law declared, which would allow him to rule as a dictator. However, at a cabinet meeting on 2 December, Papen was informed by Schleicher’s associate General Eugen Ott that Ministry of the Reichswehr war games showed there was no way to maintain order against the Nazis and Communists. Realizing that Schleicher was moving to replace him, Papen asked Hindenburg to fire Schleicher as defence minister. Instead, Hindenburg appointed Schleicher as chancellor.]

How small the people sometimes are who are in a position to make history, how base their motives, their thoughts, their character… This enmity, this paralysis of German politics caused by the conflict of the mass parties, gave them (the Nazis) their chance… An industrial society in a state of great political excitement could be ruled either democratically or demagogically and tyranically. (p.677)

In the end there was nothing sinister about the way in which Hitler came to power, because he was politically the strongest and had the most vehement popular movement behind him.(p.678)

[Timeline: On 9 January 1933, Papen and Hindenburg agreed to form a new government that would bring in Hitler. On the evening of 22 January, in a meeting at the villa of Joachim von Ribbentrop in Berlin, Papen made the concession of abandoning his claim to the Chancellorship and committed to support Hitler as Chancellor in a proposed “Government of National Concentration”, in which Papen would serve as Vice-Chancellor and Minister-President of Prussia. On 23 January, Papen presented to Hindenburg his idea for Hitler to be made Chancellor, while keeping him “boxed” in. On the same day Schleicher, to avoid a vote of no-confidence in the Reichstag when it reconvened on 31 January, asked the president to declare a state of emergency. Hindenburg declined and Schleicher resigned at midday on 28 January. Hindenburg formally gave Papen the task of forming a new government.]

Reichskabinett Adolf Hitler
The Hitler Cabinet on 30 January 1933

[Timeline: In the morning of 29 January, Papen met with Hitler and Hermann Göring at his apartment, where it was agreed that Papen would serve as Vice-Chancellor and Commissioner for Prussia. It was in the same meeting that Papen first learned that Hitler wanted to dissolve the Reichstag when he became Chancellor and, once the Nazis had won a majority of the seats in the ensuing elections, to activate the Enabling Act. In the end, the President, who had previously vowed never to let Hitler become Chancellor, appointed Hitler to the post at 11.30 am on 30 January 1933, with Papen as Vice-Chancellor. While Papen’s intrigues appeared to have brought Hitler into power, the crucial dynamic was in fact provided by the Nazi Party’s electoral support, which made military dictatorship the only alternative to Nazi rule for Hindenburg and his circle.]

It was because of Papen’s activities that Hitler became Chancellor in a particular way and this fact alone should have been enough to make Papen remain forever silent in shame and remorse. (p.679)

Once in power (1933) Hitler therefore found it terrifyingly easy to assume absolute control, and the political parties in particular were reduced to dust at his touch. (p.687)

What seemed to begin as a new chapter in German history became the adventure of a villain who forced his will on Germany and through Germany on a large part of the world. (p.688)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A visit to Nuremberg’s Kongresshalle

A visit to Nuremberg’s Kongresshalle (Congress Hall) and the Documentation Center which is located on site requires a minimum of 2 hours. The imposing structure cannot be seen from a distance. To get there by car you must be careful (unless you have a GPS). The signs are few and small. It is as if nobody wants to know about it. It is as if it is a burden, a leftover that should ideally have been disposed off.

Karte_Reichsparteitagsgelände_Nürnberg_1940

The map above shows the location of the Congress Hall in the overall area known as “Nazi Party Rally Grounds” (Reichsparteitagsgelande). It is marked as number 5.

nk1
Photo: N. Moropoulos

This entrance, like most of the building, is closed. Entry is through the Documentation Center. The facade is made of granite panels.

nk10

Photo: N. Moropoulos

The unfinished building is the largest Nazi building that survived the second world war, and most of it is not used. Some areas on the ground floor are used for storage. I had an impression that I was looking at a modern lifeless Colosseum. It just so happens that this was the inspiration of the architects who designed the hall.

nk5

Photo: N. Moropoulos

The actual height of the building is 39 meter,s compared to the planned 70 meters. The diameter is 250 meters. A few meters farther down this corridor, one could hear bobcat equipment operating inside what looked like a storage area.

nk2

Photo: N. Moropoulos

The U shaped building never had a roof, although this was the design of the Nuremberg architects Ludwig and Franz Ruff. As we enter the horseshoe, we face west. To the right (North) is the Documentation Center, to the left (South) is the home of the city’s symphony orchestra.

nk9

Photo: N. Moropoulos

The roof would cover over 50,000 people.

nk8

Photo: N. Moropoulos

Photo in the Documentation Center

nk3

Photo: N. Moropoulos

Photo in the Documentation Center

nk11

Photo: N. Moropoulos

The lake by the Kongresshalle. Notice that there are no signs whatsoever. This is in Germany, a country where people are obsessed with being precise and accurate.

nk6

Photo: N. Moropoulos

The Southern Wing of the huge building today is the home of the city’s symphony orchestra. I had mixed feelings about this. Why is the “monument” of Nazi Germany used as a concert hall? Only if it is not considered a “monument”.

nk7

Photo: N. Moropoulos

The amusement park right next to Kongresshalle. More question marks here. The park is literally a few meters away form the huge structure. In my mind such proximity almost neutralizes Kongresshalle, makes it just another of the buildings of the city. It makes you forget.

nk13

Photo: N. Moropoulos

“Every Wednesday Family Day  with half prices.”

I read that starting in Spring, the whole area becomes a huge beer garden.

nk12

Photo: N. Moropoulos

On the way out of Nuremberg, I noticed that a power transformation block of the original Party Rally compound has become a Burger King.

4152936765_338ab638e1_b
Photo credit: Rick Steve

Now that the visit is over and I had a chance to collect my thoughts, and I have read a little about the grounds, things are clear.

The Party Rally Grounds are not an area designated as historic, and thus it is not protected nor is it preserved. In a few years, the Congress Hall may become a football stadium, or something else. History is thus dissolved into  the razzle-dazzle of everyday life, never to emerge again as collective knowledge, as collective conscience, as memory, as awareness, as appreciation of what Man can do.

 

 

.

 

Action against “Evil Acts”

Dachau Concentration Camp - The perimeter fence from the outside
Dachau Concentration Camp – The perimeter fence from the outside (Photo: panathinaeos)

“In the world in which we find ourselves, the possibilities of good are almost limitless, and the possibilities of evil no less so. Our present predicament is due more than anything else to the fact that we have learnt to understand and control to a terrifying extent the forces of nature outside us, but not those that are embodied in ourselves.”

Bertrand Russell (1)

“Among the moral results of this disaster (he refers to the plague of the 14th century in Europe) the most shameful was a series of attacks upon the Jewish population, who at Mainz and other German-speaking towns were burned in their hundreds or thousands by an infuriated mob in the belief that the plague was a malignant device of the Semitic race for the confusion of the Catholic creed. ” 

H.A.L. Fisher (3)

Beginning on the day in 1975 when his guerrilla army marched silently into the capital, Phnom Penh, Pol Pot emptied the cities, pulled families apart,abolished religion and closed schools. Everyone was ordered to work, even children. The Khmer Rouge outlawed money and closed all markets. The Khmer Rouge especially persecuted members of minority ethnic groups — the Chinese, Muslim Chams, Vietnamese and Thais who had lived for generations in the country, and any other foreigners — in an attempt to make one ”pure” Cambodia. Non-Cambodians were forbidden to speak their native languages or to exhibit any ”foreign” traits. The pogrom against the Cham minority was the most devastating, killing more than half of that community.

The New York Times

Dachau Concentration Camp - Fences
Dachau Concentration Camp – Fences (Photo: panathinaeos)

Introduction

Today I want to address the issue of taking action to deter, contain, and even prevent “Evil Acts”.

I consider that it is not enough to condemn evil acts. Words of condemnation are not enough.

In my view one must also act against “evil acts”.

It all began during a visit to the Dachau Concentration Camp, in the outskirts of Munich in Bavaria, Germany.

Dachau is a sleepy suburb. But once you get to the perimeter walls and the barbed wires, you start getting the bad vibrations.

At the end of my visit I was shocked.

More than after my visit to Auschwitz.

May be because Auschwitz is relatively isolated, whereas Dachau is right in the middle of the community.

Hundreds of thousands of people were tortured and lost their life in this and other camps in Nazi Germany.

More than six million Jews lost their lives during the Holocaust.

Some Germans of the time say that they did not know about it.

This is a frightening thought.

How could you live in Dachau and know nothing about the camp?

An even more frightening thought is that there is no guarantee that evil acts will not be committed again.

As H.A.L. Fisher wrote: “The fact of progress is written plain and large on the page of history; but progress is not a law of nature. The ground gained by one generation may be lost by the next. The thoughts of men may flow into the channels which lead to disaster and barbarism.” (3)

Dachau - The Entrance Gate
Dachau Concentration Camp – The Entrance Gate (Photo: panathinaeos)

Definitions

I begin by giving some definitions of “evil acts”.

My views address only acts and their implications. I do not refer to ideas, impressions, thoughts and other abstract entities.

Two more qualifications:

  • I do not refer to natural acts, like the 1755 earthquake that destroyed Lisbon. This is almost self-evident, but the clarification is needed.
  • In addition, I will exclude one person acts like Anders Behring Breivik’s  2011 sequential bombing and mass shooting in Norway.

To start with a definition, I will paraphrase Peter Dews’ definition:

“Evil acts are profound, far reaching desecrations of the human.”

Martha Nussbaum reminds us that Kant considered the human being as capable “under certain circumstances” to commit evil acts:

“Evil is radical, according to Kant, that is to say it goes to the root of our humanity, because human beings, prior to any experience, have a propensity to both good and evil, in the form of tendencies that are deeply rooted in our natures. We are such that we can follow the moral law, but there is also something about us that makes it virtually inevitable that under certain circumstances we will disregard it and behave badly.”

Philosopher Adi Ophir in his book “The Order of Evils” offers the main contention is that evil is neither a diabolical element residing in the hearts of men nor a meaningless absence of the good. Rather, it is the socially structured order of “superfluous evils.” Evils, like pain, suffering, loss, and humiliation, are superfluous when they could have been—but were not—prevented.

Dachau - Smoking is not permitted
Dachau – Smoking is not permitted (Photo: panathinaeos)

Who is the bearer of (good or) evil?

Bertrand Russell’s view (The Reith Lectures, Lecture 6, 1948) provides the answer to this key question:

“That is why the individual man is the bearer of good and evil, and not, on the one hand, any separate part of a man, or on the other hand, any collection of men. To believe that there can be good or evil in a collection of human beings, over and above the good or evil in the various individuals, is an error; moreover it is an error which leads straight to totalitarianism, and is therefore dangerous.” (1) 

Therefore it is one or more individuals who commit “evil acts” and are responsible for them.

One more word about those who claim that the agent behind evil acts may be an impersonal entity like the State. I quote Bertrand Russell again:

“When we think concretely, not abstractly, we find, in place of ‘the state’, certain people who have more power than falls to the share of most men. And so glorification of ‘the state’ turns out to be, in fact, glorification of a governing minority.” (1)

The argument applies to all other “impersonal” agents, like a “system” (e.g. capitalism, socialism) and so on.

Dachau - Where the barracks were (Photo: panathinaeos)
Dachau Concentration Camp – Where the barracks were (Photo: panathinaeos)

Why act against “evil acts”?

One may have many diverse motives for acting against “evil acts”. The same of course applies to any other action.

One of the motives may be originating from a moral framework.

A moral framework can be prescriptive, and it is in this sense that I want to deploy it in this article.

Koertge (2) has identified the following building blocks of Popper’s Moral Philosophy:

  • self-emancipation through knowledge,
  • a dedication to communal problem solving,
  • honesty,
  • openness to criticism,
  • tolerance for other views,
  • a society that supports freedom of expression and
  • the imperatives to relieve suffering and avoid cruelty.

The moral framework explains the taking of the action and justifies its necessity.

Dachau
Dachau Concentration Camp: The Administration Building – (Photo: panathinaeos)

Acting against “Evil Acts”

In the context of the moral framework above, all acts against “evil acts” need to conform with the values of the framework and not violate it.

Otherwise, in the name of the action against “evil acts”, you end up committing evil acts. Which defeats the purpose of taking action against evil.

Acting against “evil acts” is a moral duty, if one wants to accept that there is one,

Of course as I have mentioned in a previous section, action may be taken for other reasons.

Acting against “evil acts” is not necessarily effective. This however applies to all actions. The fact that an action may not turn out to be an effective action does not imply anything against the action itself.

Taking action against evil acts is very risky.

It may kill you, or endanger you greatly to say the least.

It may be safely asserted that if evil acts are consistently deterred and contained, this will be the result of some people taking action.

Consistent outcomes cannot be the result of chance only.

Dachau Concentration Camp - A view from inside of the barracks to the outside
Dachau Concentration Camp – A view from inside of the barracks to the outside (Photo: panathinaeos)

Bad end, good end

Claus Philipp Maria Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg decided to act and attempt the assassination of Adolf Hitler and the removal of the Nazi Party from power.

He was not alone. He was one of the leaders not only of the plot against Hitler and the Nazis, but also of the German Resistance movement in the German Armed Forces (Wermacht).

Unfortunately the attempt failed and von Stauffenberg was executed in July 1944.

My maternal grandfather gave shelter in his house to a Jewish family for a period of over two years, during the German occupation of Athens.

Had he been caught, his whole family would have been killed, and the Jewish family would be sent to an extermination camp.

Luckily he was never caught, and the Jewish family found a safe way out to the Middle East.

Intention versus consequence

The French press magnate Jean Prouvost, who had collaborated with the German forces during the occupation of France, tried to redeem himself by writing a large check to the resistance when it became clear that the Germans were losing the war. After Liberation, the High Court (in France) granted him a non-lieu (a judgement that suspends, annuls, or withdraws a case without bringing it to trial). The reason he went free was probably that the resistance needed the money and later found itself obliged to keep the tacit promise of immunity that acceptance of the check implied. (4)    

This incident is worth noting because it opens up a discussion regarding the difference between intention and consequence.

The intention of the person in this case may be considered as having nothing to do with acting against evil. The act as far as intentions go appears to serve the person’s self-interest.

On the other hand, the consequences of the action may have been quite significant, judging by the immunity granted to the press magnate.

Dachai Concentration Camp - Guard Tower
Dachau Concentration Camp – Guard Tower (Photo: panathinaeos)

Deter, constrain, prevent?

Prevention is of course much better.

But is it possible?

I believe that no one can say that it is not possible, although there is no certainty regarding the outcome of preventive actions.

As an example, it is known that totalitarian regimes are more likely to commit evil acts than other regimes.

This implies that action against totalitarianism is in a way action that potentially prevents evil acts.

This can be generalized.

Once the circumstances under which evil acts are committed are established, all actions that go counter to these circumstances have the potential of preventing evil acts.

Once evil acts are committed, the issue becomes to what extent they will continue.

Action then needs to be taken to deter and contain evil acts.

However, taking action must not lead to committing of evil acts, while trying to deter and/or contain evil acts.

The Syrian Chemical Weapons issue is a good example.

Using chemical weapons is an evil act. There is no doubt about it.

Actions must be taken against the use of chemical weapons.

However, if this action prevents one of the two parties involved in the conflict to use the weapons, while it enables the other party to use them, the action will not be effective.

There is also another issue that needs to be addressed.

If we need to stop the use of chemical weapons, is it not also necessary to stop the production and trading of chemical weapons?

As I was writing this, I saw a brief from the Financial Times newspaper, announcing that “The US and Russia have agreed on a framework for Syria to destroy all of its chemical weapons by the middle of 2014. If President Bashar al-Assad fails to comply with the US-Russia agreement the issue is then to be referred to the United Nations Security Council.”

Dachau Concentration Camp - Extermination furnace
Dachau Concentration Camp – Extermination furnace (Photo: panathinaeos)

In place of a conclusion

Now that I read again what I wrote it appears to me that a generalization is in order.

I started out by asserting the necessity of action against “evil acts”.

This is good, but not good enough.

There are far too many religious overtones in the word “evil”.

It is fuzzy, blurred, unclear, and easily manipulated.

Almost everything that I wrote above stands if I replace “evil acts” with “human suffering”.

“I believe that there is, from the ethical point of view, no symmetry between suffering and happiness, or between pain and pleasure. (…) human suffering makes a direct moral appeal for help, while there is no similar call to increase the happiness of a man who is doing well anyway.” (5)

Sources

(1) Bertrand Russell, The Reith Lectures, Lecture 6

(2) Noretta Koertge, The Moral Underpinnings of Popper’s Philosophy

(3) H.A.L. Fisher, A History of Europe

(4) Jon Elster, Explaining Social Behavior

(5) Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies

Action against “Evil Acts”

Dachau Concentration Camp - The perimeter fence from the outside
Dachau Concentration Camp – The perimeter fence from the outside (Photo: panathinaeos)

“In the world in which we find ourselves, the possibilities of good are almost limitless, and the possibilities of evil no less so. Our present predicament is due more than anything else to the fact that we have learnt to understand and control to a terrifying extent the forces of nature outside us, but not those that are embodied in ourselves.”

Bertrand Russell (1)

“Among the moral results of this disaster (he refers to the plague of the 14th century in Europe) the most shameful was a series of attacks upon the Jewish population, who at Mainz and other German-speaking towns were burned in their hundreds or thousands by an infuriated mob in the belief that the plague was a malignant device of the Semitic race for the confusion of the Catholic creed. ” 

H.A.L. Fisher (3)

Beginning on the day in 1975 when his guerrilla army marched silently into the capital, Phnom Penh, Pol Pot emptied the cities, pulled families apart,abolished religion and closed schools. Everyone was ordered to work, even children. The Khmer Rouge outlawed money and closed all markets. The Khmer Rouge especially persecuted members of minority ethnic groups — the Chinese, Muslim Chams, Vietnamese and Thais who had lived for generations in the country, and any other foreigners — in an attempt to make one ”pure” Cambodia. Non-Cambodians were forbidden to speak their native languages or to exhibit any ”foreign” traits. The pogrom against the Cham minority was the most devastating, killing more than half of that community.

The New York Times

Dachau Concentration Camp - Fences
Dachau Concentration Camp – Fences (Photo: panathinaeos)

Introduction

Today I want to address the issue of taking action to deter, contain, and even prevent “Evil Acts”.

I consider that it is not enough to condemn evil acts. Words of condemnation are not enough.

In my view one must also act against “evil acts”.

It all began during a visit to the Dachau Concentration Camp, in the outskirts of Munich in Bavaria, Germany.

Dachau is a sleepy suburb. But once you get to the perimeter walls and the barbed wires, you start getting the bad vibrations.

At the end of my visit I was shocked.

More than after my visit to Auschwitz.

May be because Auschwitz is relatively isolated, whereas Dachau is right in the middle of the community.

Hundreds of thousands of people were tortured and lost their life in this and other camps in Nazi Germany.

More than six million Jews lost their lives during the Holocaust.

Some Germans of the time say that they did not know about it.

This is a frightening thought.

How could you live in Dachau and know nothing about the camp?

An even more frightening thought is that there is no guarantee that evil acts will not be committed again.

As H.A.L. Fisher wrote: “The fact of progress is written plain and large on the page of history; but progress is not a law of nature. The ground gained by one generation may be lost by the next. The thoughts of men may flow into the channels which lead to disaster and barbarism.” (3)

Dachau - The Entrance Gate
Dachau Concentration Camp – The Entrance Gate (Photo: panathinaeos)

Definitions

I begin by giving some definitions of “evil acts”.

My views address only acts and their implications. I do not refer to ideas, impressions, thoughts and other abstract entities.

Two more qualifications:

  • I do not refer to natural acts, like the 1755 earthquake that destroyed Lisbon. This is almost self-evident, but the clarification is needed.
  • In addition, I will exclude one person acts like Anders Behring Breivik’s  2011 sequential bombing and mass shooting in Norway.

To start with a definition, I will paraphrase Peter Dews’ definition:

“Evil acts are profound, far reaching desecrations of the human.”

Martha Nussbaum reminds us that Kant considered the human being as capable “under certain circumstances” to commit evil acts:

“Evil is radical, according to Kant, that is to say it goes to the root of our humanity, because human beings, prior to any experience, have a propensity to both good and evil, in the form of tendencies that are deeply rooted in our natures. We are such that we can follow the moral law, but there is also something about us that makes it virtually inevitable that under certain circumstances we will disregard it and behave badly.”

Philosopher Adi Ophir in his book “The Order of Evils” offers the main contention is that evil is neither a diabolical element residing in the hearts of men nor a meaningless absence of the good. Rather, it is the socially structured order of “superfluous evils.” Evils, like pain, suffering, loss, and humiliation, are superfluous when they could have been—but were not—prevented.

Dachau - Smoking is not permitted
Dachau – Smoking is not permitted (Photo: panathinaeos)

Who is the bearer of (good or) evil?

Bertrand Russell’s view (The Reith Lectures, Lecture 6, 1948) provides the answer to this key question:

“That is why the individual man is the bearer of good and evil, and not, on the one hand, any separate part of a man, or on the other hand, any collection of men. To believe that there can be good or evil in a collection of human beings, over and above the good or evil in the various individuals, is an error; moreover it is an error which leads straight to totalitarianism, and is therefore dangerous.” (1) 

Therefore it is one or more individuals who commit “evil acts” and are responsible for them.

One more word about those who claim that the agent behind evil acts may be an impersonal entity like the State. I quote Bertrand Russell again:

“When we think concretely, not abstractly, we find, in place of ‘the state’, certain people who have more power than falls to the share of most men. And so glorification of ‘the state’ turns out to be, in fact, glorification of a governing minority.” (1)

The argument applies to all other “impersonal” agents, like a “system” (e.g. capitalism, socialism) and so on.

Dachau - Where the barracks were (Photo: panathinaeos)
Dachau Concentration Camp – Where the barracks were (Photo: panathinaeos)

Why act against “evil acts”?

One may have many diverse motives for acting against “evil acts”. The same of course applies to any other action.

One of the motives may be originating from a moral framework.

A moral framework can be prescriptive, and it is in this sense that I want to deploy it in this article.

Koertge (2) has identified the following building blocks of Popper’s Moral Philosophy:

  • self-emancipation through knowledge,
  • a dedication to communal problem solving,
  • honesty,
  • openness to criticism,
  • tolerance for other views,
  • a society that supports freedom of expression and
  • the imperatives to relieve suffering and avoid cruelty.

The moral framework explains the taking of the action and justifies its necessity.

Dachau
Dachau Concentration Camp: The Administration Building – (Photo: panathinaeos)

Acting against “Evil Acts”

In the context of the moral framework above, all acts against “evil acts” need to conform with the values of the framework and not violate it.

Otherwise, in the name of the action against “evil acts”, you end up committing evil acts. Which defeats the purpose of taking action against evil.

Acting against “evil acts” is a moral duty, if one wants to accept that there is one,

Of course as I have mentioned in a previous section, action may be taken for other reasons.

Acting against “evil acts” is not necessarily effective. This however applies to all actions. The fact that an action may not turn out to be an effective action does not imply anything against the action itself.

Taking action against evil acts is very risky.

It may kill you, or endanger you greatly to say the least.

It may be safely asserted that if evil acts are consistently deterred and contained, this will be the result of some people taking action.

Consistent outcomes cannot be the result of chance only.

Dachau Concentration Camp - A view from inside of the barracks to the outside
Dachau Concentration Camp – A view from inside of the barracks to the outside (Photo: panathinaeos)

Bad end, good end

Claus Philipp Maria Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg decided to act and attempt the assassination of Adolf Hitler and the removal of the Nazi Party from power.

He was not alone. He was one of the leaders not only of the plot against Hitler and the Nazis, but also of the German Resistance movement in the German Armed Forces (Wermacht).

Unfortunately the attempt failed and von Stauffenberg was executed in July 1944.

My maternal grandfather gave shelter in his house to a Jewish family for a period of over two years, during the German occupation of Athens.

Had he been caught, his whole family would have been killed, and the Jewish family would be sent to an extermination camp.

Luckily he was never caught, and the Jewish family found a safe way out to the Middle East.

Intention versus consequence

The French press magnate Jean Prouvost, who had collaborated with the German forces during the occupation of France, tried to redeem himself by writing a large check to the resistance when it became clear that the Germans were losing the war. After Liberation, the High Court (in France) granted him a non-lieu (a judgement that suspends, annuls, or withdraws a case without bringing it to trial). The reason he went free was probably that the resistance needed the money and later found itself obliged to keep the tacit promise of immunity that acceptance of the check implied. (4)    

This incident is worth noting because it opens up a discussion regarding the difference between intention and consequence.

The intention of the person in this case may be considered as having nothing to do with acting against evil. The act as far as intentions go appears to serve the person’s self-interest.

On the other hand, the consequences of the action may have been quite significant, judging by the immunity granted to the press magnate.

Dachai Concentration Camp - Guard Tower
Dachai Concentration Camp – Guard Tower (Photo: panathinaeos)

Deter, constrain, prevent?

Prevention is of course much better.

But is it possible?

I believe that no one can say that it is not possible, although there is no certainty regarding the outcome of preventive actions.

As an example, it is known that totalitarian regimes are more likely to commit evil acts than other regimes.

This implies that action against totalitarianism is in a way action that potentially prevents evil acts.

This can be generalized.

Once the circumstances under which evil acts are committed are established, all actions that go counter to these circumstances have the potential of preventing evil acts.

Once evil acts are committed, the issue becomes to what extent they will continue.

Action then needs to be taken to deter and contain evil acts.

However, taking action must not lead to committing of evil acts, while trying to deter and/or contain evil acts.

The Syrian Chemical Weapons issue is a good example.

Using chemical weapons is an evil act. There is no doubt about it.

Actions must be taken against the use of chemical weapons.

However, if this action prevents one of the two parties involved in the conflict to use the weapons, while it enables the other party to use them, the action will not be effective.

There is also another issue that needs to be addressed.

If we need to stop the use of chemical weapons, is it not also necessary to stop the production and trading of chemical weapons?

As I was writing this, I saw a brief from the Financial Times newspaper, announcing that “The US and Russia have agreed on a framework for Syria to destroy all of its chemical weapons by the middle of 2014. If President Bashar al-Assad fails to comply with the US-Russia agreement the issue is then to be referred to the United Nations Security Council.”

Dachau Concentration Camp - Extermination furnace
Dachau Concentration Camp – Extermination furnace (Photo: panathinaeos)

In place of a conclusion

Now that I read again what I wrote it appears to me that a generalization is in order.

I started out by asserting the necessity of action against “evil acts”.

This is good, but not good enough.

There are far too many religious overtones in the word “evil”.

It is fuzzy, blurred, unclear, and easily manipulated.

Almost everything that I wrote above stands if I replace “evil acts” with “human suffering”.

“I believe that there is, from the ethical point of view, no symmetry between suffering and happiness, or between pain and pleasure. (…) human suffering makes a direct moral appeal for help, while there is no similar call to increase the happiness of a man who is doing well anyway.” (5)

Sources

(1) Bertrand Russell, The Reith Lectures, Lecture 6

(2) Noretta Koertge, The Moral Underpinnings of Popper’s Philosophy

(3) H.A.L. Fisher, A History of Europe

(4) Jon Elster, Explaining Social Behavior

(5) Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies