The Most Important Lesson of World War II
The Most Important Lesson of World War II
or, How to Better Secure America’s Freedom for Ourselves and Our Posterity
The Fourth of July, as you know, is sacrosanct in the United States of America. For on that date in 1776, thirteen of Britain’s North American colonies unilaterally cut all ties with their mother country, largely in the name of personal and economic freedom from what was seen as London’s arbitrary and capricious rule. Therefore, this is an opportune day on which to comment about how all citizens of all legitimately democratic nations (not just the United States) can safeguard their own democracy and human rights for future generations. Important lessons come from 150 to 170 years after 1776, 63 to 75 years before today -- namely Germany of that time period
If you think that most important lesson is the oft-repeated, “Do not appease aggressors”, that is quite understandable, even legitimate - but also quite wrong to say it’s the most important lesson of that era. Guess again. If you think it’s about a German or Japanese military, diplomatic, or political blunder that caused those nations ruin, or even started the whole tragic affair in the first place, again, that’s equally wrong. In fact, the most important lesion is not even within war itself. Ok, you ask, is it the overly harsh rubbing in we, the Allies, gave Germany in 1919 that contributed to the even more horrid one later on? Not really. Maybe it’s something deeper, like certain German historical or cultural trends that contributed to the war. This time, you’re somewhat closer to the truth, but still missing the mark. Is it the pre-war German people’s lack of opposition to Hitler? This time, you’re closer, and even fairly close to the target. The real lessons are manifold: The chief ones I want to get across are these:
1) Contempt for against “undesirables” can easily be used against your country, namely by demagogues seeking power ‘on the cheap’ by using pseudo-intellectual or “common sense” arguments to appeal to people’s prejudices (even about characteristics often looked down upon that people don’t even think of as an anti-X bigotry - with X usually being a race, ethnicity, religion, language, or sexual orientation, but it doesn’t have to be)
2) Soft core disdain for undesirable “others” gives cover to the real hard core intolerant bigots, namely by providing the demagogues and bigots a “false legitimacy” on which to build their power base, and in turn increase their power. More times than not, these demagogues end up destroying even the favored group’s freedom of expression, of speech, of assembly, and perhaps even elections themselves - all in the name of keeping the hated group under control (though they’ll usually have showpiece elections for domestic propaganda purposes).
Unfortunately, it’s often hard to recognize a disdain for something if society continually turns a blind eye to it or especially condones it. Which brings up the third lesson
3) ALWAYS figure out for yourself what it is that you yourself dislike in people, then consciously and deliberately work to overcome your personal distaste of it - even if it’s a contempt for weakness or helplessness in people. This is what Norwegian philosopher Harald Ofstad argues convincingly in Our Contempt for Weakness: Nazi Norms and Values and Our Own
Ofstad’s argument is that for all the horror and barbarism of the Holocaust and death camps, anti-Semitism was not the ultimate source of Naziism. The ultimate source was contempt for weakness, combined with excessive glorification of ruthless dog-eat-dog competition in which the strong deserve power and glory because they are strong. These are notions we can all relate to, for we have all felt these at one time or another, even if in a less extreme form. Therefore, if Ofstad is correct, Nazi contempt for weakness was not so much an alien and bizarre “philosophy” (if it could be called that) as it was an exaggeration of ordinary everyday disrespect for weakness, helplessness, and other so-called “defects” (whether real or perceived). Put another way, the lesson is “Love your neighbor - even if he or she is drastically different from you in a harmlessly undesirable way, however you define ‘undesirable’. For your hatred is ultimately a threat to democracy itself”.
Now you might argue that any definitional similarities of “weak” and “defective” between those of the Nazi Party and those of “ordinary civilized people” are only superficial at most, and in fact are actually illusory. Perhaps that may well be the case despite Ofstad’s claims and my agreement, but this is beside the point. The point is that some group or culture decided that their idea of the “weak” and “defective” deserves to be eliminated simply because they were “weak” and “defective”.
No doubt the Nazis won support for their program by playing up the age-old oversimple claim that the “weak” and “defective” are a drag on the community, or a drain on their nation’s strength. Once the Nazis, in coalition with a nationalist party, achieved the majority in the Reichstag (Parliament) and gained both the Chancellorship (chief executive) and Presidency (a semi-figurehead position, analogous to the British Monarch), they began to show their true intentions - eliminate the politically radical (especially Communists), then the ultra-liberals, then the moderate liberals, then the centrists, then the mainline conservatives, then the “undesirables” (beside Jews, Gypsies, and Slavic peoples, they sought to eliminate gays and lesbians, people of non-European origin, the physically and mentally disabled, and basically anyone who was weak or stupid or had trait that could be construed as such). In short, the Nazi Party took the often unspoken but obviously present and ubiquitous assumption “the weak and defective deserve whatever disrespect they get, and for reason of those traits alone”, and followed that assumption out to its logical conclusion - the weak and defective deserve elimination.
In all fairness, I must say the ordinary German people were not aware of the true extent of Nazi atrocities until after the war ended. Still, they undoubtedly noticed certain people disappearing, perhaps only casual acquaintances, yet either didn’t question it at all or else were (understandably) too intimidated to even ask others - or even able to organize to effectively challenge Hitler’s regime. In fact, it was usually only when the allies captured a German town or village near an extermination camp and forced the citizens to walk through the camp itself that the ordinary German people finally saw what their regime had wrought - a tragic legacy for future generations of Germans to deal with, even to this day. Hitler’s Germany is the ultimate object lesson of what happens when your nation or culture doesn’t habitually question all it’s most fundamental cherished assumptions - even if that assumption is as basic and “human nature” as the definition of ‘respectworthy person’ or ‘acceptable behavior’, or even ‘normal behavior’.
So the question is “How could something like this happen in a nation as economically, educationally, and culturally advanced as Germany?”. The usual suspects are a history of unquestioning obedience to authority, a worship of militarism, and so forth. However legitimate these points are, they are only different faces of a deeper point to be made - different faces of the cube, so to speak. The ultimate source, I believe, is a combination of a) the aforesaid respect or fear of authority and b) the “contempt for weakness”. The first trait is not as prevalent in some cultures as in others. The second one, though, is universal, and undoubtedly nurtured by the general human tendency not to ask deep, analytical questions about why certain traits ought to be accepted and others ought not to be. Indeed, most people aren’t even taught or encouraged to do so, especially if they benefit from the status quo (whether political, economic, cultural, community status, or mere pecking order within their day-to-day cliques). That is why cultural and attitudinal changes are so hard to accomplish (as the generations-long struggle against racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and homophobia all show).
Nevertheless, we all have to do what we can to force ourselves beyond our personal distaste of traits much of mainstream society considers highly undesirable, like weakness. Otherwise, we could be contributing to the downfall of the very freedoms we cherish the most. Martin Luther King was and still is right “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. Perhaps most of all in our day-to-day behavior in which we have to interact with others. In the end, consciously and deliberately interacting with others is simply the truly patriotic thing to do.
|
05-July-2008, 04:35 AM
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
