I have not read these essays by Thomas Mann, and maybe they are full of all kinds of German chauvinism of which there was plenty going around then, of the sort that became more extremely expressed in WW II. But, despite the links between the two WWs, they most certainly should not be mistaken for one another.
Lenin and Luxemburg were right to a large degree about WW I. It was an imperialist shootout with little good to say about either side. Those growing up in "Allied countries," (especially the US, UK, or France) are likely to have had pounded into their heads all kinds of historical propaganda about "democracy." But both Germany and Austria-Hungary were parliamentary democracies not noticeably less "democratic" than the leading nations on the other side, and Germany was arguably more progressive in certain areas of socioeconomic policy, e.g. inventing social security. If one looks at the kind of propaganda about the "Hun" and the outbursts of anti-German prejudice that happened in the US during WW I, it is downright embarrassing. It was not at all unreasonable to be proud of German culture and knowledge at that time, even if later such pride was distorted to horrible purposes.
BTW, I have just learned how this prejudice distorts our knowledge of the history of economic thought. I recently saw a paper presented by Erich Streissler who holds the Menger Chair at the University of Vienna. He argued that most of Marshallian neoclassical economics was developed in the early 1800s by German economists, notably Rau, Hermann, and Roscher. Marshall read German and borrowed heavily from them, sometimes acknowledging them. Marx was heavily influenced by them, especially Roscher, although he criticized him. This was partly suppressed in Germany by the German Historical School of Schmoller coming out of imperial Berlin, whereas these economists had been in "provincial" universities in Heidelberg, Munich, and Leipzig prior to German unification.
But in Britain and more generally in the English language tradition, besides an increasing linguistic ignorance, a major reason for the ignoring of these German economists was because of the outbreak of extreme anti-German prejudice after WW I.
But, more generally, there was a very good reason for the alienation of the "Lost Generation." WW I was a thoroughly pointless and horrendous exercise. Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Grimes <cgrimes at tsoft.com> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Monday, September 06, 1999 4:16 PM Subject: Heidegger, Mann, Arendt
>
>Like Mein Kampf, Being and Time should be studied, of course. But it
>should be studied for what it is: a philosophical reworking of the main
>themes of German reactionary thinking.
>--
>Jim heartfield
>
>--------------------
>
>To gain a perspective on Heidegger, nationalism, and the expression of
>nationalism as reactionary thinking, it is much more informative to
>follow Thomas Mann.
>
>Mann wrote a long series of essays during WWI that were supposed to
>sum up why it was good and proper that Germany was in the war and
>should win. The English translation is called, _Reflections of a
>Non-Political Man_ and the German title is _Betrachtungen eines
>Unpolitischen_.
>
>This collection was not translated into English until 1983! After
>reading a few pages it is pretty obvious why not. In another of those
>historical coincidences that leave you blinking in incredulity, the
>original edition hit the book stores in September 1918 the month of
>the German surrender. Mann and his publisher were amazed it sold out
>the first printing by the end of the year.
>
>The armistice, the formation of the Weimar Republic and the absolute
>chaos of post-war politics plunged Mann into an identity crisis. Most
>of the throws of that public and private struggle can be found in
>print by following this collection of pro-German essays, his letters
>and journal entries for the period (1914-1922) and his re-worked and
>finished _The Magic Mountain_.
>
>If you follow this reading trek through Mann you get to see a shaky
>and bizarre sort of disintegration and re-integration of beliefs and
>identity. It was a trek that Heidegger and others didn't take. It was
>what Heidegger was supposed to do and didn't. And he had all the
>intense encouragement he could have ever dreamed of since he was in
>the middle of a love affair with Hannah Arendt--their conversations,
>shared poems, and philosophical exchanges are echoed in Mann--as if
>the distinction between art and life were erased. Heidegger broke it
>off in the sort of burgerly professor mode you can imagine, and Arendt
>left to continue her graduate work under Karl Jaspers instead.
>
>What I liked about reading about this period through Mann, was how the
>tittering of personal and national history opened to voids. These
>people knew they were living in the strange dead air that accompanies
>choas and every once in a while you see it.
>
>Chuck Grimes
>
>
>
>