Dear Jüngerites: Markus Schopmeyer reminds us that Ernst Jünger wrote passionate words hailing the Nazi "revolution," glorifying the Swastika and welcoming the "concentration of will" in the Dictator. Shameful words indeed, but what is the point? Is is to prove that the Master (as some here have called him) was not perfect? That comes as no surprise. Is it to discredit everything that he wrote, thought and did for the remaining 84 years of his life? That idea is preposterous. The time was 1923. Jünger was 28, a much wounded and much decorated hero of World War I, possessed of a militarist spirit, contemptuous of bourgeois society and, it would seem from the cited passage, the Jews. However, he did not, to my knowledge, join the Nazis, engage in street fighting or bash in people's skulls, though it can be argued that his words may have inspired some who did. Rather, he went his own way, spun out his militarist line and turned from the Nazis as they gained power. At the peak of their power, 1939, he wrote the book that unveiled their evil essence--Auf der Marmorklippen, a book that circulated widely and contributed to anti-Nazi feeling as much as his previous writings may have contributed to pro-Nazi feeling. A few years later he was involved somehow in the plot to assassinate Hitler; certainly he did not oppose it. He emerged from the war remarkably free of Nazi taint, with French and English friends. He had not worked in a concentration camp, changed his name, or falsified records; he had turned down Nazi honors, but escaped persecution because of his WWI record. Jünger's later explanation of his behavior may not satisfy us-- "there are times when the individual cannot overcome the evil of the age," or words to that effect. But it does acknowledge his mistake, and it is largely true: should all the millions who were inspired by Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin be condemned for the rest of their lives? I think only if they spent the rest of their lives admiring the despots, sharing their ideologies, doing their work, or covering up what had been done. Jünger does not belong to their ranks. So he was not perfect, but what of the second insinuation--that he and his writings are thereby discredited forever after? I find it curious that such an approach seems to apply only to purported former fascists or Nazis. To hunt for Bolshevik pronouncements in a writer's background is regarded by most intellectuals, in America at least, as a witch hunt, an affront to intellectual freedom and proof of the hunter's McCarthyite tendencies. If we are going to search for pro-fascist statements in the early writings of a celebrated author who for decades thereafter was not a fascist, then we ought by rights to search out the pro-Bolshevik, pro-Communist and pro-Marxist enthusiasms of every other celebrated writer. "Are you now, or have you ever been, a Communist?" That ques- tion sends shivers down the spine of the progressively minded intellectual in America and inspires rage in his heart. "Are you now, or have you ever been, a Nazi?" strikes him as perfectly just. The reason is that the progressively minded intellectual follows a double standard. For him, those who paid dues to Moscow--i.e., Stalin, a butcher worth 10 or 20 Hitlers--were independently minded people joining together for a better world, but those who gave the Nazi salute were scum. The critics who want to expose the early Bolshevik sympathies of writers are low- browed McCarthyites; the critics who want to expose the early fascist sympathies of writers are high-minded humanitarians. Thus we see the progressive intellectuals making a scandal out of Heinrich Harrer's belonging to a Nazi sports club, taking a bride in accordance with Nazi regulations (including Himmler's signature) and shaking Hitler's hand at a sports contest when called over to do so. The fact that he spent the entire war in an Indian internment camp and then in Tibet does not absolve him from the charge; the fact that he spent decades thereafter preserving Tibetan culture, both physically and spiritually, earns him no credit: he should have refused to shake Hitler's hand and suffered the consequences. He didn't, so he's a Nazi forever. But those who joined the Communist party, applauded the purges, approved of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, blamed the Katyn forest massacre on the Nazis, advocated sharing the bomb with the Soviet Union, defended the Rosenbergs, blamed America for the Cold War, derided President Reagan for calling the Soviet Union the "evil empire," loved detente and remained friends of the Soviet Union right up to the end? Progressives, one and all. They taught courses in Marxism, praised the free education of Soviet citizens and some instances spent a part of their summer cutting sugar cane in a satellite dictatorship. They were working for the shining future. The case of Solzhenitsyn is interesting in this regard. Heartily despised by the left, the liberals, the progressives, he is accused of all sorts of horrors--anti-Semitism, dirty- dealing and, worst of all, irrelevance. But none of his detractors ever think to mention that he was a Leninist and even a Stalinist in his early days, before he began to see the light. That part of his life was O.K. It's the anti-Stalinist phase they don't like. They seek out quotes to prove that he's a monarchist, an imperialist, a fascist! The attempt to demean three great men--Jünger, Harrer and Solzhenitsyn--strikes me as all of one piece. The greats do not fit neatly into categories: they are separate individuals with heroic spirits, original ideas and inspiring works. Those obliged to think in accordance with established verities, especially political ones, cannot abide them for this reason. Their singularity makes people uneasy: some accept them as leaders and bow down before them; others reject them and find fault with them. I think the best thing to do is to recognize them as heroes, not gods. Recognize their greatness, acknowledge their flaws, learn what you can from them. Perhaps Herr Schopmeyer has a third purpose, not the two outlined above--namely, to keep us from hero-worship. In that case, I readily accept his reminder of Jünger's youthful and rabid militarism. I probably would not have liked the young man, and I will try not to worship the old one. But I will continue to admire him like hell. GK PS/ As an example of someone who deserves censure for his early ideas and actions, I would cite Theodore Hall, the scientist who turned over documents on the atomic bomb to Stalin in 1945. Alive today, more than 50 years later, he defends his decision, claims that he saved the world and warns would-be critics of a new age of McCarthyism. You can read about him on the BOMBSHELL website: http://www.bombshell-1.com/index.html Go to "Readers' Rendezvous" for the forum. My chief entry is entitled "Hall's Self-Justifications."
Markup © John King, 2008. Web archive generated Tue, 21st August 2007.