Categories
Book Reviews Politics Short Essays Writings

Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Appreciated

I was in McKay’s outside Nashville recently and picked up a copy of Shirer’s 1960 The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I know probably too much about the Second World War, but I haven’t read many of the one-stop-shop accounts – and for 1960, it’s excellent.

What about 2023, though?

Well, after reading Shirer’s archival account of Hitler’s rise, one might be less than sanguine about the prospects of German absolution, much less reunification, but here we are. Still, several theses hold up well:

First, Shirer is adamant that all the senior Nazi leaders and their adjutants knew exactly what they were doing. No “banality of evil” nonsense is allowed. University professors, captains of industry, concentration camp guards – none get a pass. Hitler seduced them, sure, but they wanted to be seduced, many to the level that they believed the lies, and they seized the dark opportunities for power that were offered them with full responsibility.

Second, Hitler’s rhetorical power is acknowledged. As a reporter in prewar Germany, Shirer was present at many key speeches and witnessed their power over the crowd and over radio. His description of Goebbels’s evil talents at propaganda are also acute. Shirer is not as deft as Kenneth Burke at describing exactly how Hitler’s rhetoric works, but he does a fine job of outlining the cumulative effects on the German populace of the Nazi Party’s constant lying, Hitler’s fixation and reliance on the perceived humiliation of Versailles, and how fascistic antisemitism became the Reich’s state religion.

Third, Shirer does an excellent job of depicting the people around Hitler as an enabling pack of cunning lowlifes and shitheels, as well as the extent of his eventual mental and physical deterioration. No Nazi comes off well; even the many conspirators against Hitler in the army are roundly criticized for their repeated cowardice and incompetence.

I would give a more mixed appraisal of Shirer’s focus on diplomatic maneuvering. He is keen to work in every shifty conversation or telegram, German, Russian, British, or French, no matter how irrelevant it might have been to the outcome of, say, the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty. I would forgive him for this, given the “first draft of history” feel; better to include than exclude. One of the benefits of the abundance is a good sense of the timing of events – Hitler/Stalin/Mussolini/Chamberlain are often waiting for a telegram before they make a move, and a tactical delay here and there seems to have shaped events more than I would have thought.

The emphasis on military history is strangely variable and mostly from an eagle’s-eye view. Shirer examines Hitler’s mistakes-in-hindsight, mostly – the delay before Dunkirk, the following collapse of Operation Sea Lion, the neglect of North Africa, and the absolute disaster of Barbarossa that drove the final nail into the coffin. Overall, the message is that Hitler’s political cunning and ruthlessness was good for a military head start against the Allies, but there was no vision, industry, or luck that would have allow winning a long multi-front war against much larger nations, much less when a paranoid maniac was running the strategy. His uninformed assumptions about American resolve and industrial capacity proved particularly fatal.

The chapter on the Final Solution is brutal. It comes relatively late, serving as something of a flashback as the mechanisms were all in place well before 1939 or even 1936. Scattering it to and fro, however, would have done the subject a disservice. Better to foreshadow broadly and then hit the reader with a shovel. Again, Shirer is relentless. They knew what they were doing.

But back to 2023. I found it extremely difficult to not think about January 6, 2021 when reading Shirer’s account of the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch. There are important differences – the Nazis were trying first for Munich, not Berlin and the Reichstag; they were better organized and had something resembling a workable plan, though Hitler was not smart enough then to have firm army support; and the Munich police ended it with a strong show of force. Jan. 6 was slightly more spontaneous, and right at the Capitol during a critical vote with minimal police protection that just barely held. But the rhetoric, down to the “make Germany great again” language (Shirer offers just that translated snippet from one of Hitler’s speeches), is the same. They are the enemy – take back your country.

Trump was never quite a fascist, though – more fascist wannabe, fascist-adjacent, fascist-fanboy. Fascism requires the use (and worship) of military force as the primary function of the state. Trump failed to annex or conquer Mexico, North Korea, Germany, Syria, or any other country that bugged him; his fascination with the U.S. military’s power and how dictators can wield it more brazenly was about bragging rights.

He didn’t really have a choice, though. Hitler eventually won over his generals and made them do his twisted bidding out of sunk-cost fallacy self-interest. The Wiemar Republic’s professional holdovers from the monarchy were profoundly different from the constitution-oriented, nonpolitical officer core of the U.S. military. Indeed, the Pentagon’s visible and non-visible efforts to keep Trump out of trouble for four years largely worked (apparently it was sometimes as simple as just sitting on a crazy order until he forgot about it); Shirer is at pains to show that Hitler’s generals, most of which were blamed and purged after Barbarossa, could never really stand up to him.

The final images of the book are the pitiful leftovers of Hitler’s inner circle at Nuremberg – stripped of their scary uniforms and authority, they are nothing more than guilty old men. There is little to be done with them save hang them, and yet the book, with its unsparing accounts of Nazi atrocities, serves as a possible answer to the existential problem of the 20th century: how can we prevent another Nazi Germany, another Holocaust? Shirer, by beginning with Hitler’s early political life, sits firmly in the camp of understanding how it formed: seemingly, out of sheer rhetorical cunning and the willingness of a fair amount of Germans to believe lies and half-truths that made them feel better about themselves. Ultimately, Hitler gave them the hate that they wanted to feel.

With the right mix of political conditions and a skilled public speaker without scruples, decency, or limits, it could happen anywhere.

Categories
Book Reviews Short Essays Writings

The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, Still, in 2023

While I have read Robert Heinlein’s entire oeuvre, I keep about a dozen on hand for periodic re-reading. This summer I re-read The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, which concerns a revolution of a large convict colony of the Moon from Earth.

TMIAHM, published in 1965, is a good entry to Heinlein for an adult who’s never read him before, and a more than reasonable argument exists that it’s his best book. The author surrogate, Professor de La Paz, is less intrusive, especially since Manny, the narrator, handles the more cultural exposition, and Heinlein’s ideas are so numerous, creative, and rapidly introduced by a fast-moving plot that an occasional lecture or anecdote isn’t out of place, and even welcome as a breather.

Science fiction is a literature of ideas, it’s said, and Heinlein’s big idea through his career could be summarized as technology drives culture. Some examples:

AI: “Mike” or “Mycroft” is depicted as a trickster baby with limitless knowledge that needs to learn behavior and morals from humans – and he learns a solid set from a bunch of heart-of-gold convicts on the Moon. Not only that, but a transgender AI that is occasionally “Michelle” when talking to Wyoming (who insists “her” sense of humor means she is definitely a “she.”) On top of running seemingly every computational need for the Moon colony, the AI is capable of rapid, accurate, and convincing text generation, including poetry, as well as voice and video impersonation. The passages where Mike generates his first video persona could have been written today. Also, while Manny is the narrator, Mike could be considered the book’s protagonist. Without him, the revolution wouldn’t have succeeded, and it’s left ambiguous as how much he directed its implementation as opposed to being a friendly technological asset. Either way, only the Loonies recognize and appreciate his sentience.

Matriarchal society: A lack of females on the moon and a relative scarcity of wealth has led the convicts there to form a matriarchal society with line marriages providing stability and capital retention. The narrator, Manny, is a relatively new husband in the Moon’s oldest line, and he is quite aware (and leans into) the notion that Mimi, the senior wife, runs things and has veto power over the family, including the revolution he’s stumbled into running. Manny vets new recruits to the revolution by bringing them home for dinner to be approved by Mimi, which over the course of the novel nets a new wife (Wyoming), daughter (Hazel), and co-husband (Stu).

Libertarianism > Communism/Democracy: The Lunar revolution has Marxist trappings, but the governmental philosophies that de la Paz attempts (and largely fails) to push the Loonies toward are mostly libertarian. Heinlein creates a frontier society where a lack of laws and structure is beneficial to survival and growth. The aforementioned line marriages are an example of adaptability that Earth societies don’t have (when Manny visits Earth late in the book, he is arrested for polygamy, which outrages everyone on the Moon, especially the women). Heinlein assumes cultural innovations (themselves a kind of technology) happen in response to technological pressure (in this case, the extremes of colonizing and surviving on the Moon), and while this also implies the Moon has a superior culture than Earth, the later attempts of the Loonies to write a constitution suggests that they will end up just like Earth eventually. de la Paz’s brass cannon story summarizes, humorously, this innate tragedy. If the essential Western plot is the decline of the West, this is the beginning of the end for Luna’s unique culture; they won the revolution, and now they get to decline into committee work.

The revolution has a cell structure that benefits both from the technological assistance of Mike and the relative incompetence of Earth’s governor, as well as de la Paz’s Alinsky-style strategizing: he knows, and at one point states explicitly, that it is easier to get people to hate something than love something. These huge advantages are largely played for comedy, such as Mike’s incessant Spock-like recalculating of their exact odds of success, but this also reinforces the strengths of Luna’s value set. For example, instead of just using Mike to keep the lights running as Earth does, his sentience and worth are quickly apparent to Manny, Wyoming, and de la Paz, and they help him become the secret figurehead of a libertarian revolution – or vice versa.

Realistic Luna: The gravity is light, but if you stick around too long, you’ll have to stay, and that means underground. It’s great for growing wheat underground, though, and given its orbit over a gravity well, it’s cheap to catapult that wheat back to Earth – and, accordingly, easier for the Moon to hurl rocks at Earth than vice versa, which ultimately allows for their independence. de la Paz manipulates an Earth company into developing a horizontal rail launcher many kilometers long in India that will eventually be able to duplicate this ease (why haven’t we built this yet IRL, by the way?)

Anachronisms: As wildly creative as Heinlein was, the limits of writing science fiction in 1965 are apparent. Fusion reactors seem to exist, but Manny’s extended family only has one “line” installed for communication purposes (it can handle video, though). Mike is an extremely powerful and sentient AI, but no other computing devices seem to exist, handheld, laptop, refrigerator-sized or otherwise – much less an internet or even intranet. Luna is able to bombard Earth with impunity, suggesting no extraterrestrial missile defenses were ever invented (we could shoot down satellites in the 1980s).

Closing thoughts. Mistress is one of his best, and I like reading Heinlein, but had I ever met him, I probably would have found him as insufferable as Ayn Rand. His books at least allow a slow digestion of his ideas without immediate regurgitation. His greatest weaknesses from the hindsight of 2023 are his reliance on author surrogates that act out his apparent harem fantasies and the inevitable expository mansplaining that calls attention to itself.

However, Heinlein was self-aware. Each surrogate is unique. Stranger In A Strange Land‘s Jubal Harshaw is the prime example of brazenness, but it’s also the reverse: Jubal’s incessant bossing and lecturing ultimately do not save him from existential despair and suicide, and he undergoes a Pauline transformation. Tunnel in the Sky‘s Dr. Matson only bookends matters and benefits from being aloof, and his cryptic advice turns out to be not as useful as his wife’s bring-two-knives practicality. In Starship Troopers, Johnny Rico’s Moral Philosophy teacher, Mr. Dubois, only appears in flashback and shares some duties with the present-tense Sergeant Zim, which reinforces how deeply the MI’s values run.

Mistress‘s de la Paz gets an operatic Hero of the Revolution death, which I’ve suspected is as fake as Mike’s, but it tells me that Heinlein knew what he was known for, and delivered it without complaint and with a wink.

Categories
Book Reviews Writings

A Review

Neil Godfrey at the blog Vridar has written a highly complimentary review of my book Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem. In return, I should note Vridar is one of the best scholarly blogs out there. In our post-social-media era that has largely left the blog genre to die a slow death, Vridar is still cranking out interesting analyses of core issues in biblical studies.