西姆斯的希特勒傳記：另眼看獨裁者
有關納粹主義的歷史似乎要改寫了？愛爾蘭歷史學家西姆斯的《希特勒：一本全球傳記》提出了新的視角。但是這也可能只是希特勒肖像的一塊新的拼圖。
（德國之聲中文網）有關希特勒的書作數不勝數。尤其最近幾年來，不少知名歷史學家都為其撰寫了傳記。現在，劍橋大學國際關係史教授布倫丹·西姆斯（Brendan Simms）也加入其中。這本上千頁的傳記在去年秋天出版，其德語版於本週面世。
在德國，新出的希特勒傳記總會引起關注。德語版問世前一周，德國《明鏡周刊》就已發表了西姆斯強調其主要論點的採訪文章。西姆斯認為，希特勒內政外交的動力來源於其對英美國家愛恨交加的態度。促使其發動戰爭和滅絕行動的不是對布爾什維克主義和蘇聯的恐懼，而是要與英美一較高下的決心。
希特勒與英美：羨慕嫉妒恨
在西姆斯看來，與這種態度息息相關的是希特勒在1914和1918年期間的經歷："(對英美國家的欽佩和敬仰）來自他在一戰期間的經歷。希特勒反复提及他在前線親歷的英國人的頑強精神。
西姆斯是劍橋大學國際關係史教授
甚至希特勒的反猶太主義的最深根源都不是對猶太人發自內心的仇恨，而是與美國主導的全球資本主義的競爭意識。西姆斯補充道，而那時在美國掌權的就是猶太人。這意味著，現在要重新評估人們對待希特勒及其動機的看法嗎？
多本詳實的希特勒傳記在過去幾年內都提出了不同的觀點。其中的經典之作依舊是英國歷史學家伊恩·克肖（Ian Kershaw）分別於1998年和2000年出版的兩卷本希特勒傳記。克肖重點關注了希特勒和民眾的"合作"。這位作者認為，當時的德國人自發地為納粹意識形態提供了社會土壤。
傳記何其多重點卻不同
在克肖出版希特勒傳記的前後，德國內外有關希特勒的各種傳記都有各自的重點。早在1973年，德國歷史學家阿希姆·菲斯特（Joachim Fest）就在潛心研究希特勒的基礎上為其書寫了一部鴻篇傳記，也曾一度被視作經典之作、穩坐暢銷書排行榜。之後，有證據顯示，菲斯特在研究過程中犯下錯誤，原因之一是他太過相信希特勒的軍備部長阿爾伯特·施佩爾（Albert Speer）的言論。猶太人大屠殺並非菲斯特書中的重點。
西姆斯的希特勒傳記封面
然而，記者兼歷史學家斯文-費利克斯·克勒霍夫(Sven-Felix Kellerhoff）去年表示，菲斯特的傳記依舊是"七本最重要的希特勒傳記"之一。他說："有一些通俗專業書能夠成為經典之作，他們可能內容過時，但依舊值得一讀，這本書就是一個例子。"多方從文學角度肯定了菲斯特的希特勒傳記。
對於希特勒及其政策的解釋，長久以來歷史學界有兩大陣營為此爭論不休。所謂的"蓄意主義者（intentionalist）"認為，希特勒是一個決定性的強大領袖，其思想意識形態對1933年和1945年期間的事件產生了重大影響。而另一派"功能主義者（functionalist）"則側重強調納粹體系中各種相輔和相對的團體，而不是希特勒的政治角色。
希特勒其人：歷史學家迄今爭執不休
至於希特勒政權領導的納粹主義是如何運行的，為此也有各種具有爭議的解讀：一些科學家對希特勒是否曾是一名理智行事的政治家提出質疑。研究希特勒精神狀態的書籍和文章也層見迭出。
現在西姆斯出版了《希特勒：一本全球傳記》。英語國家對此書的反響褒貶不一。英國《衛報》（The Guardian）猛烈批評了本書的主要論點：希特勒的行為僅歸咎於他對英美的執念。一位歷史學家在"歷史新聞網"（History News Network）上指責道，西姆斯居然認為希特勒"精神穩定"，他筆下的希特勒是"理性的","而並非一個極度缺乏安全感同時又自戀的反社會者"。美國保守派刊物《國家評論》（National Review）則較為客氣地評價道，西姆斯太過強調希特勒的美國視角，這本書雖有缺陷，但卻值得一讀，哪怕是將其視為爭論的一部分，因為正如西姆斯坦言，書中的描述並沒有勾勒出"完整的希特勒"。
西姆斯有意重新解讀歷史
西姆斯在書中的前言確實寫道，"該書……從多種角度而言不可與此前的傳記同日而語"，"它顯然不是首本、也不會是最後一本重要的希特勒傳記"。這些話聽似謙遜，但是不久這位作者便以第三人稱自信地評價自己的作品稱："如果他的論點經得起推敲，那麼也許人們將要重新考量有關希特勒的傳記以及或許整個'第三帝國' 的歷史。"
除了專注於盎格魯撒克遜人的政治、社會和歷史話題--西姆斯不厭其煩地重複希特勒和其有關英美國家的思索--他對歷史的解讀裡還有其他要點，其中包括：對希特勒而言，法國和蘇聯沒有英美重要，因為希特勒沒有將它們視作競爭對手，更沒有把蘇聯視為威脅。
西姆斯：希特勒對國民評價尖刻
西姆斯在書中還提到，希特勒對自己人民的總體印象非常負面，1933年之後也不例外："他不太看得起起德國人民。他深知他們的貧窮和傲慢，"西姆斯如是寫道。早在戰爭爆發的兩年前，鑑於本國的生活條件，希特勒已經認為德國在與英美國家的競爭中敗下陣來，"1937年五月希特勒其實已經認輸"。
希特勒成為反猶太主義者主要是由於他對資本主義強國美國的不滿，西姆斯指出："事實上，他主要是因為仇恨英美資本主義強國才成為反猶太主義者。"
希特勒與英美國家的關係充滿矛盾。早些年裡，希特勒直言其羨慕之情："他對美國尤其感興趣，也許甚至超過英國，他起初將美國視作榜樣國家"，西姆斯寫道，這主要和希特勒認為美國具有地理優勢有關。同時他還認為，這個國家的建立也要歸功於從德國過去的移民。
希特勒希望把德國打造成美國的抗衡力量
希特勒很長一段時間"只"想把德國歐洲打造成一個歐洲大國，並無其他目標。他想要一個可以抗衡美國的力量："希特勒的目標並不是稱霸世界，而是德國自保。"
西姆斯總結道："希特勒的戰略從頭至尾都是利用布爾什維克主義的威脅產生對德國、歐洲尤其是英美國家的政治影響。"這是一個大膽的觀點，無疑會在歷史學家之間引發討論，而且不僅限於德國。
DW.COM
Hitler’s manifesto has not been reprinted in Germany since World War II ended.
When the Nazi party was founded 95 years ago, naming Adolf Hitler as its chief of propaganda, the future chancellor cultivated a cult-like dedication to the cause through mass rallies and patriotic parades.
http://ti.me/1LyU5J9
http://ti.me/1LyU5J9
(Hugo Jaeger—The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images)
Erich Fried (1921-1988)， 這首所謂＜入籍＞（Einburgerung）
實為入越南籍之謂，詩成於越戰時期，所寫皆為越南當時景象
白手
紅發
藍眼
白石
紅血
藍唇
白骨
紅沙
藍天
這國度座落在七步
及一石之擲處
南部的一半
稱作民主
在首都"罪城"(1)
一佔領軍在讀《我的奮鬥》(2)
僧人是佛教徒
或天主教徒
和尚
常被稱為紅色
實際上他們是黃色的
但燒過之後便不是
儂族(3)說中國話
能叫沈默者開口
蔣介石早就會
法國佬也會
開了口的儂人
現在一天拿五塊美金
不是華盛頓給
而是大兵們自己掏口袋
紐約時報稱這種審訊是
東方式的詰問遊戲
被捕的黨人都受洗
都取名叫作P. L. (4)
肉有兩種方法
調製
以固化的汽油慢來(5)
或逕以液態的快制(6)
後者被稱作野蠻
前者則否
無論二者的那一個
都不必預先屠宰
這個國度易於到達
即使作大規模的考查
外國人的導遊
被稱作"惡夢"(7)
你穿越豬玀灣
去到妓院不需繞路
女子們都是小個頭
她們的棺材也都不重
死者焚化
同燒活人一樣
如果你閉眼
坐著不動
老遠就能看見
在那個國度上演的一切
(1)Sodom聖經所載罪惡之城，原在巴勒斯坦，已遭神毀。
(2)Mein Kampf《我的奮鬥》希特勒之自傳。
(3)Nung儂族，中國西南近越南邊界之少數民族。
(4)Patrice Lumumba，不知何所指，待考。【パトリス・ルムンバ 【Patrice E.Lumumba】. コンゴ(現ザイール)の政治家。民族運動を推進。 1960年獨立後、初代首相。コンゴ動亂中に殺害される。(1925-1961). （『息子よ未來は美しい』P ...】
(5)即Napalm。
(6)即普通汽油。
(7)即Ephialtes。
繁體字多只介紹〈 怎麼回事〉 （ What happens） ， 讀起來好像西洋繞口令， 但言簡意賅，大有深意。 寫這首詩的， 乃是現代奧地利猶裔詩人艾立克‧ 福萊德（ Erich Fried,
1921－ 1988） ， 他是近代文壇少有的「 不幸的勇者」。南方朔 翻譯成＜／發生了甚麼事？＞（2003/07/02） 英文可參考：
http://www.ettoday.com/2003/07/02/1029-1476577.htm
What It Is
It is madness
says reason
It is what it is
says love
It is unhappiness
says caution
It is nothing but pain
says fear
It has no future
says insight
It is what it is
says love
It is ridiculous
says pride
It is foolish
says caution
It is impossible
says experience
It is what it is
says love.搶著站在巨人的肩上
-----
"By shrewd and constant application of propaganda, heaven can be presented to the people as hell and, vice versa, the wretchedest existence as a paradise," he wrote in "Mein Kampf."
He was at work on "Mein Kampf," begun in prison, but at the same time continued quietly at the task of rebuilding his shattered group and developing the foundations for his mass movement.
War Came as a Deliverance
Then came the war. It lifted Hitler from obscurity into a state of exaltation.
"To me those hours were like a deliverance," Hitler wrote of the outbreak of the war in "Mein Kampf." "I am not ashamed to say that, overcome by a storm of enthusiasm, I fell on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart."
Series of Broken Promises
Those who had hoped that success at home and extension of his power abroad would make him more circumspect and reluctant to pursue the program of conquest he had outlined for himself in "Mein Kampf" and in his speeches had abandoned that hope when, in violation of his promise to respect the integrity of Czechoslovakia after Munich, he marched on Prague and reduced that nation to a German protectorate.
說到德國 我早上在書庫碰到一本書 Ibsen and Hitler
說 我的奮鬥 某章某節大抄人民公敵某幕某景 2012
課題 (待查)
可能胡適在駐美大使時 拿到 'Mein Kampf' 卻讀不下去 又聽說原書德文也很差
In 1923, Hitler attempted an unsuccessful armed uprising in Munich and was imprisoned for nine months, during which time he dictated his book 'Mein Kampf' outlining his political ideology.
＊德國爭論《我的奮鬥'Mein Kampf' 》能否出版
一家英國出版社希望在德國出版希特勒《我的奮鬥》的摘錄版，
1923年11月11日開始，這名犯人因為「叛國罪」
煽動文字成為「暢銷書」
到1933年為止，一共售出了將近30萬本價格便宜的「大眾版」
拙劣的作品
數十年來，歷史學家對《我的奮鬥》給出了明確的定論：偏激，
有害的政治宣傳？
德國禁止出版《我的奮鬥》，這本書被視為敵視憲法的政治宣傳，
版權法的侷限
今年初開始，是否能夠出版《我的奮鬥》的問題再次產生爭議，
可是，一名作者死後70年，其作品的版權就會失效。這意味著，
用於科學研究的出版
有關這本書的學術整理工作其實早就在進行。
而關於是否應該在德國的書報亭裡出售該書摘要版的問題，
----2013.4
希特勒《我的奮鬥》在德國面臨解禁爭議
二戰後取得希特勒著作《我的奮鬥》
******
What George Orwell said about Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’******
As my colleague Anthony Faiola reported this week, Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is expected to be reissued in Germany for the first time since the end of World War II. Although widely available elsewhere in the world, the book — Hitler's testament and what's considered the founding text of Nazism — was never reprinted in postwar Germany.
Its planned reissue in Germany, The Post notes, will come in the form of a 2,000-page academic tome that supplements Hitler's own text with sharp commentary and criticism. The new version offers "a useful way of communicating historical education and enlightenment," says one of the scholars behind the project. "A publication with the appropriate comments, exactly to prevent these traumatic events from ever happening again."
There was a time, though, when "Mein Kampf" was not just the repugnant treatise of the 20th century's greatest villain. More than seven decades ago, Hitler and the message of Nazism had great traction, and it required clear-eyed thinkers to cut through its seductions.
George Orwell's 1940 review of an English edition of the book is as important now as it would have been then. (You can read a digitized version of the piece, which appeared in the New English Weekly, here.) That's not because he's uniquely right about the threat of Hitler — at this point, World War II was already in full swing. But the celebrated British man of letters has a special lens into the dangers and allure of fascism.
Orwell offers this withering assessment of Hitler's ambitions:
What [Hitler] envisages, a hundred years hence, is a continuous state of 250 million Germans with plenty of “living room” (i.e. stretching to Afghanistan or thereabouts), a horrible brainless empire in which, essentially, nothing ever happens except the training of young men for war and the endless breeding of fresh cannon-fodder. How was it that he was able to put this monstrous vision across?
It's not sufficient to answer that last question just by looking at the political and economic forces that buoyed Hitler's rise, Orwell contends. Rather, one has to grapple with the inescapable fact that "there is something deeply appealing about him."
Hitler, Orwell writes, "knows that human beings don’t only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene... they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades."
For good reason, the Atlantic's Graeme Wood quoted this same piece in his lengthy meditation on the worldview of the militants of the Islamic State. The militarist pageantry of fascism, and the sense of purpose it gives its adherents, echoes in the messianic call of the jihadists.
Wood cites this passage in Orwell's review: "Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people 'I offer you a good time,' Hitler has said to them, 'I offer you struggle, danger, and death,' and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet."
But, in my view, the most poignant section of Orwell's article dwells less on the underpinnings of Nazism and more on Hitler's dictatorial style. Orwell gazes at the portrait of Hitler published in the edition he's reviewing:
It is a pathetic, dog-like face, the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs. In a rather more manly way it reproduces the expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubt that that is how Hitler sees himself. The initial, personal cause of his grievance against the universe can only be guessed at; but at any rate the grievance is here. He is the martyr, the victim, Prometheus chained to the rock, the self-sacrificing hero who fights single-handed against impossible odds. If he were killing a mouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon. One feels, as with Napoleon, that he is fighting against destiny, that he can’t win, and yet that he somehow deserves to.
Hitler projected this image — of a self-sacrificing hero, wounded by the universe — and went on to unleash horrors on the world. But the narcissism of a "martyr" and the penchant to make dragons out of mice, as Orwell puts it, can be found in demagogues of all political stripes. It's worth keeping these words in mind when watching the spectacle of our contemporary politics.
As my colleague Anthony Faiola reported this week, Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is expected to be reissued in Germany for the first time since the end of World War II. Although widely available elsewhere in the world, the book — Hitler's testament and what's considered the founding text of Nazism — was never reprinted in postwar Germany.
Its planned reissue in Germany, The Post notes, will come in the form of a 2,000-page academic tome that supplements Hitler's own text with sharp commentary and criticism. The new version offers "a useful way of communicating historical education and enlightenment," says one of the scholars behind the project. "A publication with the appropriate comments, exactly to prevent these traumatic events from ever happening again."
There was a time, though, when "Mein Kampf" was not just the repugnant treatise of the 20th century's greatest villain. More than seven decades ago, Hitler and the message of Nazism had great traction, and it required clear-eyed thinkers to cut through its seductions.
George Orwell's 1940 review of an English edition of the book is as important now as it would have been then. (You can read a digitized version of the piece, which appeared in the New English Weekly, here.) That's not because he's uniquely right about the threat of Hitler — at this point, World War II was already in full swing. But the celebrated British man of letters has a special lens into the dangers and allure of fascism.
Orwell offers this withering assessment of Hitler's ambitions:
What [Hitler] envisages, a hundred years hence, is a continuous state of 250 million Germans with plenty of “living room” (i.e. stretching to Afghanistan or thereabouts), a horrible brainless empire in which, essentially, nothing ever happens except the training of young men for war and the endless breeding of fresh cannon-fodder. How was it that he was able to put this monstrous vision across?
It's not sufficient to answer that last question just by looking at the political and economic forces that buoyed Hitler's rise, Orwell contends. Rather, one has to grapple with the inescapable fact that "there is something deeply appealing about him."
Hitler, Orwell writes, "knows that human beings don’t only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene... they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades."
For good reason, the Atlantic's Graeme Wood quoted this same piece in his lengthy meditation on the worldview of the militants of the Islamic State. The militarist pageantry of fascism, and the sense of purpose it gives its adherents, echoes in the messianic call of the jihadists.
Wood cites this passage in Orwell's review: "Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people 'I offer you a good time,' Hitler has said to them, 'I offer you struggle, danger, and death,' and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet."
But, in my view, the most poignant section of Orwell's article dwells less on the underpinnings of Nazism and more on Hitler's dictatorial style. Orwell gazes at the portrait of Hitler published in the edition he's reviewing:
It is a pathetic, dog-like face, the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs. In a rather more manly way it reproduces the expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubt that that is how Hitler sees himself. The initial, personal cause of his grievance against the universe can only be guessed at; but at any rate the grievance is here. He is the martyr, the victim, Prometheus chained to the rock, the self-sacrificing hero who fights single-handed against impossible odds. If he were killing a mouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon. One feels, as with Napoleon, that he is fighting against destiny, that he can’t win, and yet that he somehow deserves to.
Hitler projected this image — of a self-sacrificing hero, wounded by the universe — and went on to unleash horrors on the world. But the narcissism of a "martyr" and the penchant to make dragons out of mice, as Orwell puts it, can be found in demagogues of all political stripes. It's worth keeping these words in mind when watching the spectacle of our contemporary politics.
沒有留言:
張貼留言