I haven’t commented on Günter Grass’s revelations that he had been a member of the Waffen SS during WWII and I don’t intend to do so. No doubt he’s old enough to be largely beyond worldly retribution and he’s trying to get square with whatever comes next. Maybe just posterity.
But let’s not lose track of this:
Grass said in the interview that he wanted to dispel the notion that Germans were unwilling victims of Hitler. Germans, he said, were enthusiastic supporters of the Nazi regime. “Of course they were seduced as well, but many were involved with enthusiasm.
Not only the Germans but the Dutch, the Belgians, and the French need to understand. The extermination of Jews in Europe was not an aberration of those nasty German Nazis who are now, thankfully, fading from the scene, grown old and some, like Grass, with honors.
There were more Dutch members of the Waffen SS as a proportion of population than German members. The number of Frenchmen who were in the Resistance was very, very small (mostly French Communists). It was the Germans and the Dutch and the Belgians and the French who sent their Jewish fellow-citizens to camps to be killed.
We were not fighting the Nazis in World War II. We were fighting the Germans. We were not fighting the Japanese militarists. We were fighting the Japanese.
To be fair to the Dutch, they also had the highest percentage of resitance members.
Perhaps I’m being overly harsh, Pigilito, but what I’m trying to do is to point out the falsehood of the prevailing narrative: that French, Dutch, Belgians, and even the German people were victims of the Nazis. Victims, schmictims. They were participants. They weren’t just defending their lives. It was the zeitgeist.
And the French! There were more French members of the Charlemagne brigade who died defending Berlin against the Russians than there were members of the French Resistance.
This has significance to the present day. Consider, for example, that the Palestinians and Lebanese fought alongside the Vichy French i.e. for the Germans (as their fathers had fought for the Central Powers against the Allies).
Of course, my own ancestral people, the Swiss, weren’t saints, either. Neither were my mother’s people, the Irish.
The criticism of Grass that one is encountering in Germany is not about his being in the Waffen SS. People seem willing to accept that a 17 year old who grew up under Nazi propaganda may not have been fully aware of his actions. He is being criticized for his subsequent failure to to tell the truth, while at the same time accusing everyone else. Grass has always been the first to open his big mouth to denounce anyone who stood to his political right (which is just about everyone with half a brain), the Israelis (whom he criticized for their own good–as a friend of Israel), the Americans (who showed him what racism was when he was a POW by the way they treated Blacks; strangely he didn’t seem to mind Adolph’s treatment of Jesse Owens or to even recognize that extermination of the world’s Jews might also be considered a racist goal). He also loudly criticized Kohl and Reagan for visiting the Bitburg cemetery because 49 (I think) Waffen SS were buried there.
In the FAZ interview, he mentioned that he volunteered to serve as a submariner but when this didn’t work out, he chose the Waffen SS because he thought it was an elite troop. The reason for his volunteering to serve was to escape the narrowness of his family. He goes on to describe postwar Germany under the Catholic Adenauer as more bourgeois than even under the Nazis. However, in an attempt to drop a names, he remembers a fellow POW he met named Joseph who was planning to enter the priesthood when he was released. To me the most compelling proposed argument about why Grass came out with this now is that he knew that it might come out after his death and that an admission now would allow him some control (spin) over the message. Another motive could be to push his autobiography, which is due out this fall. I’ve been listening to this egomaniac for years, and he deserves nothing more than to be totally ignored for the rest of his life.
I’m afraid your history is at once facile and one sided, although the broadest point regarding the semi-ficitonalisation of popular support or opposition for Nazi type ideology would be well-taken were it not so poorly framed.
Certainly the Dutch, for example, had a rather high percentage of non-collaborators and even better active resistors (it is somewhat rich for Americans to even bother to lecture Europeans about WWII history given their own self-mythologisation and sordid avoidance of engagement until whacked in the head).
Secundo, things like this speak of grotesque ignorance: This has significance to the present day. Consider, for example, that the Palestinians and Lebanese fought alongside the Vichy French i.e. for the Germans (as their fathers had fought for the Central Powers against the Allies).: What the bloody fuck is this supposed to mean.
First, no fucking Palestinians (leaving aside perhaps an odd invidual found in French territories) fought “alongside” Vichy. Some Palestinians and others certainly made common cause with the “enemy of my enemy” against the British colonial occupiers (just as Lebanese and Syrians made common cause with the British against the French – which your absurd comment neglects, dragging in an utterly different history into the false context of the European war).
Second, you might well note side by side the North African history of Maghrebine collaboration with the Resistance and the Allies – unsurprisingly their “enemy of my enemy” was inverted. Indeed, the majority of Free French troops were Muslim Africans (West and North African) until well into 1944. But that doesn’t fit your simplistic lecuturing, does it?
Rather the drag in irrelevances, you’d be best advised to get a better grasp on the European history and not mix other histories in simple-mindedly.
Re: The Waffen-SS, Europeans, Muslims
A series of points as I am too tired to write a cogent comment:
I have no idea if any Palestinians fought alongside Vichy troops. It strikes me as unlikely as what was then Palestine was under British Mandate at the time.
There was a Pro-Nazi or Pro-Axis nationalist faction in Iraq known as “The Golden Square” that mounted an anti-British coup during the war that received Axis and Vichy support.
The propaganda antics and intrigues of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a favorite of Himmler’s, have long been documented.
The Waffen-SS had large numbers of foreign but ethnic German or
“racially kindred” recruits because for a considerable time the Waffen-SS faced stiff restrictions against competing with the Wehrmacht for available German manpower. If I recall, Hitler eventually relaxed these restrictions as his confidence in the OKH waned.
As WWII ground on, Himmler’s strict racial recruitment policies were shelved for the Waffen-SS and they admitted Balts, Latins, Magyars, some Slavs and a unit of Bosnian Muslims ( ” The Handschar”).
For other non-Jewish “untermenschen” groups that Himmler couldn’t quite bring himself to formally admit to the Waffen-SS, Sonderkommando and other puppet untis were created instead.
Hmm somewhat rich for Americans to lecture… I’LL lecture when I damn well please. Two generations of my family paid for the privilege allready. It will do no good of course. Europe still has not learned. Before I go below ground I firmly expect to hear a loud distant ringing sound with an aetherial voice announcing “World War in Europe, round three.” My foundest wish is for my decendents to have become cynical enough to simply sell weapons to both sides and allow them to exterminate each other this time.
I’ve been listening to this egomaniac for years, and he deserves nothing more than to be totally ignored for the rest of his life.
Oxymoron.
That’s exactly like saying “Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded.”
At heart, Lounsbury, what is European history other than one slaughter after another? Americans, having twice been dragged in to your silly wars, and who now see a Europe gone in the other extreme (another recurring European theme) are understandably reluctant to listen to Europeans lecture us–especially the French, who have built up an elaborate mythology on the subject. Even you would be forced to admit that.
Your history could use some brushing up: To Americans watching Europe go again up in flames, the early part of WW2 was the “sordid” aspect, not our keepiong above the fray. We wanted no part of your ritual bloodletting.
Dave,
You conclude with:
“We were not fighting the Nazis in World War II. We were fighting the Germans. We were not fighting the Japanese militarists. We were fighting the Japanese.”
That implies that you think we are fighting the Muslims as a group now, does it not? Such a decision, were the US to take it, would have far-reaching implications.
I’m not there yet, Jeff. The topic of this post is the World War II situation recalled to memory by Grass’s revelations.
WRT the pickle we’re in now I think there are pragmatic, logistical, and legitimacy reasons to define “the enemy” as narrowly as is practicable. We’re certainly potentially at war with anyone who takes up arms against us.
As I’ve written before prior to 9/11 I frequently said “The Israelis are not our friends; the Arabs are not our enemies”. I still don’t believe that the Israelis are our friends. I’m not so sure about the Arabs now and think that the burden of proof is on them at this point. Unfair of me, perhaps, but there it is.
I know there are lots of my countrymen who’d like to paint with an unnecessarily broad brush, presumably for reasons of clarity. At this point, at least, I’m not among them.
amba,
Perhaps Grass is toast in America, but I assure you that in Germany, he is heard by many people who aspire to be part of an intellectual elite, i.e. teachers, media folks, and third-rate culture types. Ulrich Wickert, the best-known anchor on German TV is retiring and will host a program on books for a short time as a sort of transition. His first guest, this Thursday, will be Grass. Grass thus gets lots of time to defend himself by attacking others.
Oh how very rich.
Hmm somewhat rich for Americans to lecture… I’LL lecture when I damn well please. Two generations of my family paid for the privilege allready.
As did untold generations of Europeans, etc.
Spare the pious rot.
Europe still has not learned.
You mean “Europeans are not agreeing with my ideological obsession du jour dressed up in fake historical clothing based on my facile understanding of the history.”
Before I go below ground I firmly expect to hear a loud distant ringing sound with an aetherial voice announcing “World War in Europe, round three.†My foundest wish is for my decendents to have become cynical enough to simply sell weapons to both sides and allow them to exterminate each other this time.
How very charming. Stupid, yet charming, rather like a chimpanzee flinging poo at itself.
And then there is this, yet more idiotically pious whanking on:
At heart, Lounsbury, what is European history other than one slaughter after another?
What is human history other than that?
What is American history other than the slaughter and dispossession of entire peoples in a near genocide, dressed up in nice patriotic language and no small bit of self-deception?
Humans are a vile lot, and I have no use either for American or European or any other mythologising or dressing up self-interest in clothes of nobility, or the pretensions of facile whankers whose grandpa may have driven a truck in Europe that somehow this gives them some great insight or moral position.
Americans, having twice been dragged in to your silly wars
Whinge, whinge.
American chose to get involved in the European conflict (no me wars fool, I wasn’t there, wasn’t alive, and me ancestors were on a colonial juant) from its own self interest, and that late in the game.
and who now see a Europe gone in the other extreme (another recurring European theme) are understandably reluctant to listen to Europeans lecture us–especially the French, who have built up an elaborate mythology on the subject. Even you would be forced to admit that.
I am not forced to admit anything other than Americans have built up such a pious mythology around their Great War that they spend so much time self-pleasuring themselves with this mythoogy and pretending that the said mythology is a lesson for all conditions at all time, that they’re frankly intolerable – above all when their “understanding” of Europe (or MENA or Russia, etc) is built around truly poorly informed and superficial stereotypes, not real honest information.
Informed and honest critiques I’ve no bloody problem with. Whanking on based on poorly informed stereotypes I do.
Your history could use some brushing up: To Americans watching Europe go again up in flames, the early part of WW2 was the “sordid†aspect, not our keepiong above the fray. We wanted no part of your ritual bloodletting.
Oh that’s bloody rich. That’s why the US turned away Jewish refugees, had sooo much to do with “ritual bloodletting.”
Bloody whanker, whinging on exactely as typical based on self-serving mythologisation of your own bloody acts. Remind me of the bloody Victorians.
Ahh an elitist troll. So nuanced in his authoritative interpretation of european history. Sadly his interpretations are simply verbose wordage. I do find his word usage a very good insight into his psychological profile. It fully matches my expectations. Having discourse with such is much akin to yelling into a sewer main, smelly and pointless.
During my decades of military service I twice had the missfortune of being stationed in Europe. I learned to volunteer for service in Asia to preclude this. Asia produced lifelong family friends, some of which vacation at my home in Alaska. Europe produced nothing except thanks to my Irish, Norwiegian ancestors for leaving.
Mr. Schuler, I do admit guilt at painting with a broad brush yet I can only do what personnal experience drives me to. The only Europeans I ever got along with were either farm folk in France or Germany (Bad Tolz in particulare) or some of the British soldiers. There is a vague hope for a renewed Europe, but it comes from the Eastern part of the continent. Hopefully those hardworking hardheaded people will come to ascendancy in another generation or so and take care of those along the Atlantic coast.
Back to your origional observations Mr. Schuler. The 50’s and 60’s were simply a generational “time out.” The social dynamics of the earlier years are still there and apparently re-asserting themselves. Any disparaging comments about America’s ruling class and it’s sheepish populace can be applied to Europe at an exponentially higher degree. Americans swallowed the story that most Germans etc. were forced into their adherance to naziesm simply because they could not believe people would willingly march so far down such a path.
I’m not quite there, either, but I can feel the slide going on.
Virtually all my life, I knew that the Iranian ayatollahs were our enemy. Indeed, my first political memories were the 1980 campaign; my first policy memories are of the embassy hostages.
After the embassy bombings, I became aware that the jihadis, though at the time I would have simply called them terrorists, were our enemy. Since the Iranian ayatollahs promote the jihadis, this was a superclass.
After 9/11, I became convinced that those who harbor, support, or fund the jihadis in any way are our enemies. Again, this is a superclass. And now many people in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and the governments of Syria and Saudi Arabia, need to be added to the enemy category, along with the Palestinians — all of them, so far as I can see.
Over time, watching events, I’ve become convinced that the Islamists are our enemy as well, though they are a longer-term threat. Even if we kill off the jihadis that are there today, we cannot prevent their reemergence so long as the Islamists are strong. This is very nearly a superclass, as all of the people and governments mentioned above are Islamists to some degree, except for Syria, who are supporting terrorism for more pragmatic reasons: they can’t fight Israel for the Golan, so they have to use proxies.
I’m not nearly to the point of concluding that all or even most Muslims are necessarily our enemy, nor that all or even most Arabs are necessarily our enemy. I am well on the way to concluding that I don’t care if we have to kill the Muslims or the Arabs by the thousands to get at the ones who are our enemies. The war in Lebanon pushed me firmly in that direction.
I think that at this point, the Arabs/Muslims who do not think that they are our enemy have a positive duty to differentiate themselves from those who are our enemy. Because if we can’t tell the difference, we will eventually slide towards a “kill ’em all” approach. And as with the Germans and Japanese, a bit of whining from the weak-kneed forty years later will not disturb our sleep one bit.
IMHO, most Arabs are not enemies of the U.S. but many of them don’t particularly care for our culture, our policies, they fear us and aren’t going to stick their necks out for us by getting themselves between the jihadi lunatics and America. As with Chinese, or Russians or Indians, interaction has to be based on calculated interests.
We can count on Arab help only when it is both in their interest to do so ( like Jordan’s security service going against Zarqawi’s network of killers) and that help can be extended with a minimum of noise. If we can get that on a quid pro quo basis we are doing about as well as can be expected.
For those Arabs or non-Arab Muslims who are supporters, enablers, funders, safe house keepers, recruiters, propagandists, website designers, couriers, preachers etc. for al Qaida & related groups – not nearly enough of them are dying for their efforts to clarify the idea that the U.S. helps its friends and punishes its enemies. Right now, if I was an Arab sitting on the fence I’d conclude that openly being America’s friend brings much risk and few rewards while being America’s enemy -provided you aren’t waving an AK-47 or RPG at U.S. troops -at least involves relatively little risk. Getting caught for being a terrorist involved in 9/11 doesn’t even get you a death penalty -what lesson can be drawn from that ?
If we can’t be clever we at least ought to be clear.
I think your take is about right, Mark. How that reconciles with this is unclear to me.
Do try to keep your story straight Lounsbury. In your first post you note that the US stayed out of WW2 because of a “sordid avoidance of engagement until whacked in the head.” Now you claim that “American chose to get involved in the European conflict … from its own self interest, and that late in the game.
As to the rest, try to do a better job keeping to the topic.
If you want a treatment of the US after staying out of both the European and Pacific theatres long enough, read something I couldn’t hope to better: “The Man in the High Castle” by Philip K. Dick.
Ah, tedious:
Do try to keep your story straight Lounsbury. In your first post you note that the US stayed out of WW2 because of a “sordid avoidance of engagement until whacked in the head.†Now you claim that “American chose to get involved in the European conflict … from its own self interest, and that late in the game.
Yes, there is zero contradiction between the two statements.
When self interest whacks one in the head.
Really, some lessons in joined-up reading and proper logic would be of great utility for you.
I note, by the way, that states acting in cold self interest is entirely proper and commendable. There was no criticism in my noting the US became involved in WWII out of self-interest, the criticism is for the mythologisation post-facto. It’s boring.
As for this from “JD”:
Ahh an elitist troll
This apparently means someone who made you feel inadequate.
Well, your lack of self-confidence isn’t my problem.
Sadly his interpretations are simply verbose wordage. I do find his word usage a very good insight into his psychological profile. It fully matches my expectations.
In short, no proper reply.
Pity, the illustration of lack of self-confidence in self and culture by rather superficial stereotyping and hostility to an entire continent really speaks poorly.
I did find this a fine illustration of the superficiality and fear driven reaction that
After the embassy bombings, I became aware that the jihadis, though at the time I would have simply called them terrorists, were our enemy. Since the Iranian ayatollahs promote the jihadis, this was a superclass.
As a matter of fact, the moujahidine a la Al Qaeda are largely Sunni and not at all promoted by the radical Shia, quite the contrary, they hate each other.
This sort of error rather reminds one of the typical American error in the Cold War of boiling anything Left down to “Commie” and missing multitude of opportunities to peel off various Left factions from genuine pro-Soviet factions.
In short, simple-mindedness hurts your own interests.
Moving along to the simple-minded idiocy of confusing all kinds of different actors (on the basis of really confused understanding of who is doing what) does no good at all:
After 9/11, I became convinced that those who harbor, support, or fund the jihadis in any way are our enemies. Again, this is a superclass. And now many people in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and the governments of Syria and Saudi Arabia, need to be added to the enemy category, along with the Palestinians — all of them, so far as I can see.
‘Enemy Categories’ are a piss-poor way of understanding political actors.
The Syrian government is no supporter of Salafi moujahidine radicals a la Al Qaeda, quite the contrary, the Alaouite dominated secularists of Syria are scared stiff of them. Some tactical collaboration as a defensive manuever against, well, the simple minded idiocy such as demonstrated in this ill-informed collapsing of different categories of non-friends and antagonists, well that is to be expected out of pure self-interest. It is also behaviour motivated by rational calculation, rather than existential and messianic hostility – as in the Al Qaeda fringe.
However, as in the case of the Cold War, if you clumsily, foolishly and against your own self-interest – out of ignorance and stupidity – lump them all together, you’ll end up making more enemies and rather unnecessarily at that.
Of course the government of KSA doesn’t fit there either, although they are indeed nasty and inclined ideologically towards supporting Sunni moujahidine, but the government is not Al Qaeda leaning – again out of self-interest, despite the spinning of the Islamophobic bigots and neo-Likoudnik types.
Driving them towards Al Qaeda through clumsy idiocy of course would serve Al Qaeda well. Above all given KSA’s inexorable rise in importance in the hydrocarbons market. Be a clumsy idiot, you get USD 150/barrel petrol.
As for the Palestinians, blindness again. You want to buy the greater-Israel spin, go right ahead. Nothing to be done.
I think that at this point, the Arabs/Muslims who do not think that they are our enemy have a positive duty to differentiate themselves from those who are our enemy. Because if we can’t tell the difference, we will eventually slide towards a “kill ‘em all†approach. And as with the Germans and Japanese, a bit of whining from the weak-kneed forty years later will not disturb our sleep one bit.
And such is the logic of genocide, dressed up in self-rationalisation of the most superficial kind. Contemptible but typical.
The pre-cursors to the Nazis said the same thing about Jews. Amusing inversion, and you use the very same history.
Contemptible but typical.
Nice try, Lounsbury. You made two opposing statements. Brushing it off doesn’t make them go away. As to the rest of your insults and innuendo, here is my response: Thanks, I’ll take it as praise from Caesar.
In the future, when you have the (apparently uncontrollable) urge to open the connection between your fertile and febrile mind and your keyboard, repeat to yourself: Pigilito says ‘praise from Caesar’. Move your lips if it helps. It will likely save you considerable time and effort. Bravo, by the way, on the amount of your output. Raising the standard should be your next task.
Now be a good lad, and go practice.
Nice try, Lounsbury. You made two opposing statements. Brushing it off doesn’t make them go away.
Brushing it off, you illiterate idiot? They’re not opposing at all. Good fucking lord, what bloody logic has self interest opposed to being whacked in the fucking head, you stupid fucking git?
Insofar as you’re unable to respond otherwise, I take it then that hiding behind hurt feelings is the admission you haven’t a fucking clue.
Practice, Lounsbury, practice. It will save you oodles of time.