"Sunshine for Napoleon"

One of the most annoying phenomena in scholarship is the worship of certain historical figures to such an extent that it amounts to idolatry.

Such figures are worshiped to such an extent that they become omnipotent figures who can do no wrong and if they fail its always someone else's fault.

A particularly striking example of this idol worship is the slavish Stalinist suck up involved in Napoleon worship.

Portrait of Napoleon by David

Now Napoleon was indeed a very great man just has many others have been great. What is perplexing is the refusal to recognize the hubristic, brutal features of his life and reign. It is all too easy to find suck ups concerning as for example collected in Geyl's Napoleon For and Against. Which stands has a monument against Hero worshiping "scholarship". Stalin was subjected to a truly repellent amount of sycophantic "journalism". Everything he did was subject to praise. His considerable atrocities, denied, excused dressed up has "right". And like Napoleon he was characterized has surrounded by evil enemies who betray the infallible "leader". Of course these "traitors" are responsible for any mistakes made by the great Leader.

Another aspect is that such sycophancy is the identification of the Leader with the nation and any attack or disagreement, in fact anything less than full, unhesitating support of the infallible leader is "treason". It never seems to occur to such people that opposition to the leader is in fact in the interest of the nation and that the leader may be sacrificing the nation to his selfish ambitions.

A related aspect is the notion that the interest of other peoples don't matter and can be dismissed as unimportant. Thus we learn that Alexander I, growing opposition to the Continental System, which was royally screwing up the Russian economy and Government revenues, is characterized has a "betrayal". The idea that Alexander I or in fact any leader or state in Europe was in any sense duty bound to sacrifice all his interests and the interests of his people to the "infallible", Napoleon and any hesitation in not obeying Napoleon in everything was "betrayal" is a very interesting vision of leaders responsibilities to their various peoples.

And it goes hand in hand with hypersensitive reactions to any criticism of the great man for whom the only "fair" criticism is sycophantic hero worship and suck up.

I was recently reminded of this when I reading a edition of Chandler's The Campaigns of Napoleon. In which someone had written comments practically all of them of the suck up variety. There was for example a few complaints about the authors occasional negative comments about Napoleon. (The comments which concerned Napoleon's ambition, ruthlessness, cruelty etc., are in my opinion entirely fair.) There were also occasional comments about "English Gold" by our writer in the margins. This indicates that the author has read the common literature concerning Napoleon that alleges that opposition to Napoleon in Europe was the result of the English government bribing other governments. That these other governments might have legitimate grievances / interests against France and or Napoleon is of course unthinkable. And the various English government's have by definition no legitimate interests against France / Napoleon and are a force for evil; thwarting the good, virtuous Napoleon in a contest between the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness. Thus any opposition to Napoleon is the result of wicked base motives, and not from either "Good" principles and / or reason that can be deemed "legitimate".

It is my opinion that the Hero worship of Napoleon was and is one of the firm foundations for the support and adulation of Dictators, Dictatorial regimes and the crimes committed in their names.

Pierre Cloutier

The Age of Justinian Part I
Justinian and his Court

Theodora and her Court

The above pictures are of mosaics from St. Vitale at Ravenna. They show the public image that the great Emperor and his equally great Empress wished to convoy. Even though many of the mosaics were usurped from mosaics designed to glorify the Gothic King of Italy Theodoric the Great, these ones seem to have been designed to glorify Justinian and Theodora. For all the glory of Justinian and Theodora's reign, like those mosaics, it seems half baked and borrowed. The appearance seems more dazzling than the prosaic reality of exhaustion and futility.

Interestingly the foremost historian, Procopius, of Justinian and Theodora's reign produced also, in secret, the salacious and libelous Secret History, which is brim full of viciousness and venomous invective. He also produced the remarkable Wars, and the classic example of suck-up brown nosing The Buildings.

Historians faced with the above productions have responded in various ways. One is to deny that Procopius wrote the Secret History, a point of view now very much out of favour and extremely unlikely anyway. The other is to explain away the Secret History. This as led and still leads to remarkable convolutions.

A typical example of a refusal to take the Secret History, seriously is the following,

We do not know why Procopius wrote the Secret History, which is so offensive that it can never have been publicly circulated. It is useless as a source of information about 'what really happened', but the the Secret History, is a goldmine of information about mid-sixth-century Byzantine social systems and is particularly informative about appropriate gender roles.

The Age of Justinian Gender and Society, Leslie Brubaker, Age of Justinian, Ed. Michael Maas, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005, pp. 427-447, at. 432-433.

The above statement is typical of the mind set that refuses to accept that behind the invective of the Secret History, are actual facts, and it is false. For example does anyone seriously doubt that the picture of Theodora's upbringing is true or that she had in fact been a courtesan (polite term for prostitute) before she met Justinian or that she had been a actress? So much for being "useless".

Its obvious that the possibility that Procopius' Secret History, might contain reliable history is intolerable to many who prefer to mistake illusion for reality. So the rhetorical strategies to avoid this unacceptable result.

The statement that we do not know why the Secret History, was written rather conveniently ignores that in the preface to the Secret History, Procopius gives reasons. So what the author of the above means has reasons means is reasons "I",the author, can accept.

Procopius says:

As long has those responsible for what happened were still alive, it was out of the question to tell the story in the way it deserved. For it was impossible to either to avoid detection by swarms of spies, or if caught to escape death in its most agonizing form. Indeed, even in the company of my nearest relations I felt far from safe.

....

So in this part of my work I feel it my duty to reveal both the events hitherto passed over in silence and the reasons for the events already described.

Procopius The Secret History, Procopius, Trans. G. A. Williamsom, Penguin Books, London, 1966, p. 37.

I can't leave this topic without quoting two quotes from the Secret History, which demonstrate its awful salaciousness and give a good indication of why its so hard for some historians to take it seriously.

And though she brought three openings into service, she often found fault with nature, grumbling because nature had not made the openings in her nipples wider than is normal, so that she could devise another variety of intercourse in that region.

....

With such lasciviousness did she misuse her own body that she appeared to have her private parts not like other women in the place intended by nature, but in her face!

Procopius The Secret History, p. 84 & 85.

Rather remarkable examples of vicious useless invective. As a side note it is of interest that the Loeb Classical library translation translated the above passages not into English but Latin!! Thus indicating that the audience, perhaps thought of has impressible children, had to be protected from such corruption. Its probably one of the most ridiculous example of censorship in classical literature.

The Secret History complete with a very good Introduction can be located at Here

Pierre Cloutier

George Steiner and Hitler
 

 George Steiner

One of the pre-eminent Literary critic cum philosopher is the polymath George Steiner. As a literary critic he is extraordinary as a philosophical commentator on history he occasionally leaves much to be desired.

In the late 1970's George Steiner published the short novel The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H. The novel brought together various thoughts that George Steiner had been percolating on for quite some time. It was eventually turned into a play.

In this novel Israeli commandos abduct Adolf Hitler and they are taking him to be tried amid difficult physical conditions. In the end Adolf Hitler gives a long soliloquy, and then the helicopter arrives.

The amusing thing is that George Steiner puts into the mouth of Hitler his own thoughts, rather transgressive of him.

What is remarkable is the intellectual poverty of Hitler's ideas in the novel. Of course the real Hitler would have have ranted out an hysterical anti-Semitic screed not the 3rd rate philosophizing of George Steiner.

In Hitler's screed, since repeated in numerous publications by Steiner, we have the standard "correct" posture of blaming the victim.

We have:

a), Hitler got his racist mind set and exterminatory ideas from the Jewish idea of the "chosen" people and his exterminatory ideas from the Old Testament, (unpleasant passages from the Books of Numbers, Joshua, Judges).

In other words Hitler's racism is a parody of Jewish. To quote the play "a Hungary Imitation". Further Hitler claims that he was carrying out the universal wishes of the whole world.

b), "The blackmail of transcendence", supposedly the Ten commandments of Moses, Sermon on the Mount of Jesus, the Social justice of Karl Marx. Supposedly the tortures of that are very bad. Hitler says "What were the camps compared to that?".

c), Hitler claims to be some sort of dark Messiah whose horrible acts enabled the Jews to re-establish Israel.

d), Steiner has claimed that since Kafka in his fiction in some ways pre-figured totalitarian terror he was in some sense "responsible", because it was suddenly there as a "possibility". Somehow Steiner blames Kafka for the death camps for conceiving of something like them in fiction.

e), In a interview Steiner has claimed, as a possibility, that since the Jews were the occasion for unimaginable bestiality it would have been better if they had never existed.

f) Steiner believes that the tortures of conscience "over the long run" are worst than the tortures of the camps.

Steiner has claimed that "I have demanded an answer [to those questions] and never got one".

To get to the last point first Steiner has been answered but has chosen to ignore the answers.

To go through the points.

a), One of the sources of Hitler's ideas was the semi racism of antiquity, has abundantly illustrated by comments concerning non-Greeks, non-Romans and foreigners in antiquity. Included in this could easily be the frequent exterminatory military campaigns of the Romans. But then Steiner greatly admires Greco-Roman civilization and avoids asking hard questions of it including it has a source of Racism. I note he does not refer to Plato and his myth of the four metals; breeding the master race from the Republic of Plato. Steiner prefers not to look and put the blame elsewhere. Aside from speculation Steiner gives no evidence concerning this alleged influence. Steiner further ignores the influence of Enlightenment Philosophers, who were frequently anti-Judaic and based their "racist" theories concerning humanity on their reading and interpretation of Classical learning. Regarding the passages from various books of the Bible, the irony is that many of the atrocities mentioned apparently never happened, unlike the rather frequent Roman atrocities. (The destruction of Carthage for example).

I could also point out the rather fundamental difference between the Judaic concept of "Chosen" and a "racist" one. Quite simply one could convert to Judaism. The idea of an "innate" essence corresponding to "race" can all to easily be seen in certain Greco-Roman attitudes. (for Example Plato, Greek attitudes towards barbarians etc.) As for the concept of "Choseness" what is remarkable is the tendency for so many to talk has if the concept is unusual. It is not. From the Chinese to the Romans, Greeks etc., the idea that my group is "chosen" is omnipresent. Certainly the human habit of naming themselves variations of "human", implying of course that others are not quite "human" bespeaks of a common if not universal characteristic.

Steiner's Hitler is quite wrong in asserting that "Mankind" secretly desired to destroy the Jews. After all Anti-Semitism is basically a western phenomena, (only recently spreading to Islam). The majority of "Mankind", has been quite non-affected. But then by universalizing Anti-Semitism Steiner can elide the issue of Christian responsibility.

b), "The blackmail of transcendence", this is really absurd. It goes back to St. Paul's notion that Christ came in part to liberate man from the burden of the "law". The "law" because of its "impossible" demands was a barrier between man and God dooming man to eternal hellfire because of inability to satisfy the demands of a remorseless deity. What is striking about this notion is its falsity. The actual demands of God in the Old Testament are not that every ritual rule had to be observed. Although given the immense network of custom we live in and have always lived in, why these "demands" were especially unbearable is beyond me. The Prophet Micah put it simply "This and this alone the Lord doth demand, that thou love mercy and walk humbly with thy God".

As for blackmail, are Mose's / Jesus' demands anymore impossible than those of Confucius, the Buddha, and that of hundreds of other religious teachers and philosophers? Just what was so irksome about these? Steiner just assumes irksomeness based, in my opinion, on a Christian tradition concerning Judaism. One response to Steiner has been to merely note that the demand are quite realizable and not irksome. Further the Christian tradition, (not shared by all Christians then or now), that assumed the irredeemably sinful nature of man, such that he could never satisfy God, which arose after Jesus and owes a lot to Pagan philosophical concepts concerning the divine is the one that set up a "blackmail of transcendence". I note that no one seems to be filled with a desire to exterminate Christians to deal with this blackmail. But then Steiner seems to be anxious to not deal with the Christian roots of anti-semitism and get Christianity off the hook.

Steiner seems to believe that the tortures of conscience are worst than actual torture. There speaks a mind innocent of reality, and one not interested in listening to the actually tortured.

c), Hitler has a "dark Messiah", is simply Steiner trying to "epater le Bourgeoise". It is trite and silly. Intellectually it is repulsive. The fact Hitler is no more responsible for Israel than a rapist is for his victim marrying her rescuer.

d), Steiner once again goes to silly street. Kafka was writing fiction, which can be demonstrated rather easily. Practically nobody read Kafka until after the Second World War. Besides it can be demonstrated that the concentration camp "universe", predated him. To give a few examples, The Boer War camps, the Belgian Congo camps, (also mass extermination), the South West Africa camps, (German colony along with Genocidal slaughter and murder), the Soviet concentration camp system. I could go on. The fact is Hitler didn't need Kafka and even before Kafka wrote, in real terms the murderous concentration camp existed and was well known in Europe. Aside from the fact how little known writer had this amount of influence despite the fact virtually no one read him until after 1945 is a bit mysterious.

e), No doubt if a woman was raped it would have been better if she had never lived because she was raped. This is simply contemptible. That Steiner thinks this morally repellent dross, which significantly ignores the perpetrator and blames the victim simply for existing is worth a hearing is beyond me. The Nazi sentenced the Jews to death for existing. Steiner thinks that it is worth serious thought that since Jews were the occasion for a unimaginable bestiality, i.e., for being a victim, for that reason non-existence might have been a good thing. In other words non-existence for being.

f), This is false and only a naive innocent could think this. Only someone who does not hear the testimony of terror from survivors could spout this gibberish. I rather doubt that Steiner is terribly interested in hearing this testimony. I would also like to hear about the evidence Steiner has for this assertion, otherwise it is just a flaky opinion. This is all for Steiner for the time being.
 

Bibliography
 

Steiner, George, The Portage to San Cristobal of A. H, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1999, (Original publication 1979).
 

Rosenbaum, Ron, Explaining Hitler, Chapter 17. George Steiner: Singling out the Jewish "Invention of Conscience", Random house Inc., New York, 1998, pp. 300-318.
 

Maccoby, Hyman, George Steiner's "Hitler", Encounter, vol. 58, No. 5, May 1982, pp. 27-34.
 

Sagiv, Assaf, George Steiner's Jewish Problem, Azure, Summer 5763 / 2003, pp. 130-154.

Pierre Cloutier

Saccarine Movie and TV Monsters

"Michele"

One of the most annoying features of modern day T.V., and movies is the phenomena of the "cute" kid.

Basically this consists of a "cute" child being "cute" to the point of inducing diabetes. The trademarks of this species of sub-humanity are a certain fake cloying sentimentality combined with lots of "cute" pouting and a extremely whining voice. The proper response to such a thing is to immediately put it out of its misery by killing it.

A classic example of the "cute" syndrome is the following scene from The Phantom Menace. Young Anakin is talking to someone and says the following in the following manner. First his hair is cut in the familiar "cute" mop top fashion to make him look "cute". Anakin moves his head sideways to look "cuter", then he puffs up his cheeks and pouts his lips and says in a whiny "cute" manner "My mommy always told me that this would be a better Universe if people were nice to each other". A truly hideous moment of mega saccharine. Now since the actor who plays Anakin was more or less alright in the rest of the movie and not anywhere near so stomach turning, we can rest assured that this moment was brought to us by George Lucas. More proof of his surrender to sick kiddie "cutedom".

In T.V. the most "memorable" moments of saccharine horror were provided by the Olson twins who played Michele in Full House, one of the most purely evil sitcoms ever. The mileage they got out of the Olson twins 'cute" pouting and mispronunciations is truly amazing and a clear example of child abuse. When Michele was no longer so "cute" they replaced her with mop top red haired twins, and caused deaths by sugar overdose.

From Opie to Gary Coleman the acres and acres of "cute" kids on T.V. is positively amazing and horrible, and generally proof of a complete lack of creativity. Its of interest that it is adults who generally find such kids entertaining, actual children tend to despise them has goody two shoes who should be beaten black and blue.

Sometime in the future I will talk about reasonably "real" kids on T.V.

Pierre Cloutier

A.J.P. Taylor and The Origins of the Second World War

A.J.P. Taylor

In 1990 The Historian, contrarian A.J.P. Taylor died. Taylor is best known for his controversial book The Origins of the Second World War, Penguin Books, London, 1961. In this book A.J.P. Taylor advanced the theory that the Second World War was basically a "accident". This is especially evident in Taylor's view of Hitler as a complete opportunist who planned nothing in advance but simply took advantage of opportunities offered.

At the time, 1961, Taylor's thesis was an added breath of fresh air from the previous consensus which advanced the view of a carefully planned Nazi plan to conquer Europe, that was carried out methodically. The problems with this view are in retrospect rather obvious. It assumed a level of calculation and detailed planning that was rather unlikely and it also did not fit with Hitler's rather opportunistic methods.

Unfortunately Taylor's idiosyncratic style and tendency to say things "pour epater le Bourgeoise", was rather infuriating further the fact that his theory was used to justify and excuse Neo-Nazi views of History didn't help. See this Website Here.

These people seem to be unaware of Taylor's The Course of German History, University Paperbacks, London, 1945. In this book Taylor rather critically views the history of Germany has a precursor to World War 1 and 2, with Germany has a dangerous influence in Europe imbuned with vicious Imperial dreams. I suspect that Taylor's distrust of German society before World War 2 lead to him downgrading the importance of men like Hitler.

At the time his thesis evoked a rather vociferous response which unfortunately was in some cases marred by Cold Warism of the worst kind.

The most amazing feature of Taylor's thesis is his ability to magically dismiss documents by reading Hitler's mind. Which is rather strange given Taylor's alleged dislike of this practice. For example Taylor states that what Hitler wanted from Poland in 1939 was Danzig and a corridor between East Prussia and the rest of Germany. Taylor holds to this thesis in the face of conspicuous evidence that Hitler wanted war and was not interested in a settlement that would deprive him of said war.

Further Taylor avoids taking into account Hitler's behavior in Poland after he conquered it. The massacres, forced deportations, destruction attempted genocide of the Poles do not fit the picture of a politician with limited aims. But then Taylor finds it impossible to take Mein Kampf, Hitler's book, seriously or so many of Hitler's paranoiac statements. Taylor seems to view this repellent brew has not worth taking seriously, so of course Hitler did not take it seriously. This is rather absurd. Hitler's behavior and decisions indicate quite conclusively that Hitler indeed took the nonsense he uttered seriously. After all the decision to murder the Jews of Europe while involved in a war with America, Britain and the Soviet Union is not the product of "rationality" but of what can only be called "irrationality", aside from being unmitigatibly evil.

Taylor's picture that Hitler was not planning for war is decisively undermined by the knowledge of truly spectacular German military expenses.

The military budget expanded rapidly, taking 17 percent of GNP in 1938-39. In the last peacetime year 52 pefennigs out of ever mark the German government spent went on defence. These were not remotely moderate proportions. In 1913, at the height of the pre-1914 arms race, the German government spent an estimated 3 percent of GNP, and devoted 24 percent of a much smaller state budget to defence purposes.

Misjudging Hitler, Richard Overy, The Origins of the Second World War Reconsidered, 2nd Edition, Gordon Martel, Routledge, New York, 1999, pp. 93-115, at. 109.

Taylor's book is now treated more and more as an example of historical literature and less and less has a serious piece of historical analysis. Its great flaw being its absurd portrayal of Hitler has a "conventional" politician. To close:

Origins remains a monument to Taylor’s passion for argument. Despite its clear signs of age, its insights still have the capacity to impress largely because of the verve and audacity of the author’s style. Yet it is often this very stylistic impudence, with its arrogant over-assertions, which grate to the extent of detracting from much of its acuity Sometimes it seems more one of Taylor’s televisual tour de force than it does a work of scholarship. His treatments of Polish policy and the transformation of appeasement after Prague still have something valuable to tell us. His insistence upon Danzig as itself the pivotal issue is against the evidence, while the immediate circumstances which produced war are simply perverse. Integral to this is his idiosyncratic picture of Hitler. It is this flaw that, like a kind of academic metal fatigue, brings the intricate structure falling to its destruction — though some parts have survived the impact. Origins has stimulated the work of a generation of historians. But its reign of influence is over. The debts to it have been fully acknowledged, and there is, frankly no reason to resort to it now other than as a piece of historiography To paraphrase the final sentence of the book: The Origins of the Second World War, has become a matter of historical curiosity.

The Phantom Crisis, Sean Greenwood, The Origins of the Second World War Reconsidered, Ed. Gordon Martel, Routledge, New York, 1999, pp. 225-247, at 244.

Bibliography and Further Reading.

Bell, P. M. H., The Origins of the Second World War in Europe, Longman, New York, 1986.

Martel, Gordon, Editor, The Origins of the Second world War Reconsidered, Routledge, New York, 1999.

Robertson, Esmonde M., Editor, The Origins of the Second World War, St. Martin's Press, London, 1971.

Taylor, A. J. P., The Origins of the Second World War, Penguin Books, London, 1961.

Weinberg, Gerhard, L., Germany, Hitler and World War II, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.

Pierre Cloutier