Randy McDonald ([info]rfmcdpei) wrote,
@ 2005-08-14 09:18:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
[REVIEW] "Fascinating Fascism": Final Thoughts on Watch on the Rhine
I reread Watch on the Rhine to see if, just perhaps, I had misread it the first two times, if perhaps I had been unfair. If anything, it came off worse. There is the by-now standard trope of the anti-Semitic and cowardly French, unwilling to fight and gratuitously anti-American. There is the ludicrously contrived scenario that puts the SS back in the heart of German military life, their first action being the breaking-up of a crowd of protesters who (we learn later) are paid by aliens to sap the German will to survive. There is the overnight transformation of Germany into a high-tech military citadel, outlasting the France that, unlike Germany, in the real world actually has a well-funded battle-tested military not staffed by rejeuvenated nonagenarians. There is the bigoted Israeli refugee who refuses to accept that the SS has a right to redeem itself, and there is a revived Division Charlemagne staffed by good French. By the time that I got where said Israeli refugee pinned on his Judas Maccabaeus SS insignia, I gave up. Watch on the Rhine is a purely contrived scenario that no particular amount of real-world sense, existing largely to show a "good" SS fighting valiantly against the alien hordes in the name of Western civilization.

Why write a book like this? In the afterword, the authors mention that the book began as a bet, which is unsurprising. Once you go deeper into the afterword, you'll discover that this book does have deeper levels of metaphor. The SS is a product of Western culture, they observe uncontroversially enough. More, Ringo and Kratman argue, the ruthlessness of the SS desperately need to be revived by the West in the War against Terror. Softness and traitors within threaten the West; sternness and internal purity will save it. John Keegan wrote more concisely about this sort of thing, back in October 2001 for the Daily Telegraph, though as a historian of the Second World War I think he'd shy away from the SS as a role model. It's hardly as if its atrocities are faked, or as if the SS wasn't intimately involved in the Holocaust, or as if even the more conventional Waffen-SS units didn't commit crimes against humanity. after all.

In the end, Watch on the Rhine is proof of the seductiveness of Naziism, even sixty years after V-E day. Fascism in general has been given a reputation for efficiency, since (as the theory goes) fascist dictators were free to do whatever they wanted without having to bow to their weak and divided subjects. This perception seems to be particularly strong in regards to a Naziism that embraced a post-Nietzchean will to power and claimed to lack of any moral or physical restraints on the exercise of its force. This utter ruthlessness has long been known as a selling point to gearheads and sexual fetishists alike. As Susan Sontag wrote in her 1975 essay "Fascinating Fascism", "[n]ow there is a master scenario available to everyone. The color is black, the material is leather, the seduction is beauty, the justification is honesty, the aim is ecstasy, the fantasy is death." The only problem with this, in fact, is that the fascists were less efficient than the corrupt democracies despite their claims, certainly in all the areas that mattered. The SS weren't able to win the Second World War for Germany, after all. Western liberalism might be an ideology of decadents, but it consistently wins wars.

(Earlier, I blogged about Watch on the Rhine here and posted an earlier version on rec.arts.sf.written here.)

UPDATE (10:25 AM) : Crossposted to rec.arts.sf.written.



(Post a new comment)


[info]mawombat
2005-08-14 01:56 pm UTC (link)
I like the comparison that people have with the Gestapo clothing sense to the fasincation with fascism. I think indeed the only good thing about the Nazis was their fashion sense. They knew exactly which colours were the most intimidating and with a style attractive enough to make people want to join. All jokes aside though, the Nazis were, in many ways, much more efficient than other government regimes. Fascism alone can't be give the label efficient without a nod to cultural oddities and historical opportunities. Fasicism in Germany succeeded because chaos reigned in the country (and indeed the world) at an unprecedented scale. With criminally high war reparations, a crippling depression, high unemployment and inflation, Germany was a mess during the '30s. The Nazis created jobs, created an efficient transportation system, etc. It must have seemed to the German people and the world watching that this new system of government was very efficient.
During my final year in college, I did my thesis on the Concept of Honour in the Military in WW2 Germany. I focused mainly on the heroes: Stauffenberg, Rommel -- even contreversial heroes like Canaris or Guderian: people whose sense of honour forced them to go against the flow and often were killed for it. My professor told me I should also do something on the Waffen-SS. I found myself fascinated. These were men who were well-manipulated by Hitler and the system, whose sense of honour was wrapped up, not in a sense of right or wrong, but in oaths, loyalty and doing what they were told. On their belts was engraved "My Honour is Loyalty" enforcing that they have no independent ability to define their sense of honour. This I find scary beyond scariness and this I see in the modern American military mind.
Finally, in Germany Fascism didn't lose because it was inefficient, it lost because 1) it overextended itself fighting a war on all fronts even with its supposed "allies" (Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, etc..), 2) it was being run by a madman who stopped listening to his generals' very sage advice (ie, "uh, we need to send supplies to North Africa") and 3) Russia -- after the USSR joined the Allies there was no way Germany could win and the fact that she was fighting 2 countries with massive populations plus the dogged British plus the various resistance groups both external and internal to Germany. I could go on but I think I just wrote a post of my own in response to yours! Ha!
Either way, there's no way I'm reading a book that glorifies the Waffen-SS.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]rfmcdpei
2005-08-14 02:18 pm UTC (link)
I'd argue that Germany's particularly extreme variety of fascism was inefficient since it directly prompted Germany to make very bad decisions. Germany's vaunted efficiency existed only in certainly narrowly defined domains.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]autopope
2005-08-14 02:51 pm UTC (link)
Fascism is what you get when majoritarianism goes bad. When it goes right you get loyal opposition, democracy, a bill of rights, and so on; when it goes wrong you get a system that demonizes and excludes minorities and oppositionists rather than seeking consensus, that is totally uncompromising in its pursuit of goals by any means, however specious ("lebensraum", "security"), and which is triumphalist rather than introspective in tone.

Clothing is frequently an indicator of social status. Fascism uses funky uniforms because they imply that the wearer is of high status, a status which is in turn derived from their position within the system rather than from any more individual source. This in turn helps to reinforce the wearer's self-esteem but links it to their conformity with their assigned role.

The camp inmate's pyjama suit is the flipside of this -- it must have cost more to issue such uniforms to inmates than to leave them their own civilian clothes, but the convict's uniform makes an equal and opposite statement about their status to the Gestapo officer's shiny black boots and peaked cap.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]getawaywithit
2005-08-14 02:34 pm UTC (link)
Have you read any of Turtledove's World War series? Because that came to mind reading this, mainly because his situation is similar (and equally contrived) but he doesn't seem to fall into the same traps. Admittedly, it's been a while since I read them and they are briskly-written pulp SF, but while he has Nazis and Soviets fighting the aliens, from what I recall the characters are much more rounded and their ideological and psychological flaws are presented and examined.

(Reply to this)


[info]creases
2005-08-14 03:53 pm UTC (link)
The interest of gearheads and fetishists in Nazi imagery is not a product of their enchantment with the idea of absolute unchecked political power.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]rfmcdpei
2005-08-21 03:44 pm UTC (link)
Sorry for neglecting this comment. How so? Ringo and Kratman revive the SS because they think that it, and a de-Nazified minset, are superior to the workings of Germany's modern-day democracy; sexual fetishists see the Nazis as icons of absolute power and enjoy toying with this at both ends.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]creases
2005-08-21 07:46 pm UTC (link)
These Ringo & Kratman characters may very well fetishize unlimited political power. You read the book; you'd know better than me, as far as that goes. I'm not saying nobody fetishizes Nazi political power; undoubtedly, some do. But you made a generalization from that to other people's use of Nazi imagery in popular counter-culture, which I think is unfounded.

Your statement was that counter-culture embraces Nazi imagery because of a perceived efficiency and freedom from concerns for democracy or law and order. What do any of these things have to do with sex or art? You're confusing the consequence with the cause; you assume that Nazi imagery represents political power and that therefore, when the imagery is glorified, it is an implicit fetishization of Nazi political power. But you've got it backwards. Nazi imagery (uniforms and emblems; also architecture) was very carefully selected for its aesthetic characteristics, in order to cultivate psychological power. Political power followed from that. ([info]autopope makes a similar mistake when he suggests that the uniforms were "an indicator of social status"; actually, they create that status.) Nazi political power emerged from an air of personal power re-created on a mass scale. It's the personal power effects, not the political power movement, that interest rock fans and fetishists. They don't choose this imagery because the Nazis chose it and they like Nazis; they choose it for the same reasons the Nazis chose it in the first place, which is that the aesthetic is inherently charged with personal and sexual power. They are drawn to it, just as Germans were drawn to it — but now in a totally different context, making it a subversive rather than reactionary phenomenon.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]creases
2005-08-21 07:51 pm UTC (link)
This is leaving aside the element of shock, of course. In its new context, Nazi imagery becomes an apolitical statement of general contempt for conventional democratic mores. In the case we're talking about, it doesn't imply any kind of political program of general social domination.

So, in sum: Industrial rock fans and sexual fetishists don't think Nazis were cool because they had political power; they had political power because they were cool. And it's cool that uncool people hate them (for excellent moral reasons almost any of these people we're talking about will agree with; but we're talking about aesthetics, not morals).

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Wow
[info]lautreamontg
2005-08-14 07:05 pm UTC (link)
What amazes me is that you were able to hold your gut in and read it not once but three times. I probably would have used it as kindling after the first fifty pages. I mean that literally. After I found out what an ass Steve Stirling was as a human being, I used the ISOT series I had to start a marshmellow roast on the beach.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…