Winston Churchill was readying his book "Great Contemporaries" for the press. It was August 1937. In it was his article on Hitler, written a few years earlier. "Those who have met Herr Hitler face to face in public business or on social terms," he said, "have found a highly competent, cool, well-informed functionary with an agreeable manner, a disarming smile, and few have been unaffected by a subtle personal magnetism." Despite the arming of Germany and the hounding of the Jews, "we may yet live to see Hitler a gentler figure in a happier age," Churchill wrote. He was doubtful, though.
Churchill also included a short piece on Leon Trotsky, king in exile of international bolshevism. Trotsky was a ursurper and tyrant, Churchill said. He was a cancer bacillus, he was a "skin of malice," washed up on the shores of Mexico. Trotsky possessed, said Churchill, "the organizing command of a Carnot, the cold detached intelligence of a Machiavelli, the mob oratory of a Cleon, the ferocity of Jack the Ripper, the toughness of Titus Oates."
And in the end what was Trotsky? Who was he? "He was a Jew," wrote Churchill with finality. "He was still a Jew. Nothing could get over that." He called his article "Leon Trotsky, Alias Bronstein."
There's stuff like this on every page. Every paragraph, really. For those who don't know, the whole book is a series of these disconnected bits, but as you go along they weave themselves together. All meticulously documented in citations and footnotes. Amazing book. I've got to get me some more Nicholson Baker.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 6:40 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> I think you had it just right, Dennis. And if you want to keep your disgust
> fresh after Baker's excellent, horrifying book, see (you probably already
> have) Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes, which picks up the story (at least an
> aspect of it) after WWII. Neither as well presented nor as insightful as
> Baker's, it nevertheless tells a story at least as horrifying, and brings it
> up to The One. --CGE
>
>
> Dennis Perrin wrote:
>>
>> Don't get too comfy, Max, or Katha Pollitt will gum your knees.
>>
>> As I put it last June:
>>
>> "But I was somewhat thrown by Katha Pollitt's take in the recent Nation,
>> though I really shouldn't have been. She too is feeling all historical and
>> stuff, telling her readers regarding Hillary:
>>
>> "'Because she normalized the concept of a woman running for President, she
>> made it easier for women to run for every office, including the White
>> House.
>> That is one reason women and men of every party and candidate preference,
>> and
>> every ethnicity too, owe Hillary Clinton a standing ovation, even if they
>> can't stand her.'
>>
>> "Not just applause, but a fucking standing ovation. Actual politics, or
>> even
>> the philosophy and ideology that may animate politics, is a secondary
>> concern, if it's a concern at all. Hillary showed that a woman could
>> seriously run for high office. What she would do if elected isn't all that
>> important, at least when compared to the symbolism of her candidacy. This
>> is
>> why Pollitt urges those 'of every party' (the Sparts, too?) to leap up and
>> cheer Hillary. Personality trumps politics every time, that is, if you
>> want
>> to be taken seriously as a political commentator.
>>
>> "That Hillary encountered some truly misogynistic behavior on the trail
>> does
>> not beautify her squalid politics, which in this campaign included
>> conscious
>> race-baiting of Obama. Yet if you take Pollitt's hand, Hillary's ugly
>> views
>> soften in focus, but cannot be erased completely. Pollitt acknowledges
>> this,
>> mentioning Iraq and the probable racism of a portion of Hillary's
>> supporters.
>> Pollitt's not even sure that she can trust Hillary to get behind Obama,
>> but
>> in the end, these doubts fade as Pollitt advises Hillary to throw some
>> history mojo at Obama, since, once elected, he'll 'pursue policies to
>> benefit
>> all women -- on labor, healthcare, sexual violence and many other issues.'
>> I
>> bet the Concerned Women for America can't wait.
>>
>> "It's instructive to contrast Pollitt's fantasies and projections about
>> Hillary and Obama against her slagging of Nicholson Baker's excellent,
>> horrifying book, 'Human Smoke.' Over 474 pages, Baker slowly, carefully
>> describes the inevitable march to the Second World War, demystifying
>> official
>> heroes and myths, showing the similarities between democracies and
>> tyrannies
>> when it comes to nationalism and total war, and amid the madness, Baker
>> elevates the period's pacifists as the true champions of freedom and human
>> rights. This enraged Pollitt: 'By the time I finished the book I felt
>> something I had never felt before: fury at pacifists.'
>>
>> "Now, taken alone, that's not necessarily a terrible statement. Depends on
>> your view of violence, state-backed or otherwise. When I finished 'Human
>> Smoke,' I didn't share Pollitt's fury; I merely felt sadness, not only for
>> those whose prescription for humanity had absolutely no chance at that
>> time
>> (or probably any time), but for the human race overall. I don't believe
>> that
>> WWII was a 'good war,' but it was an inescapable one, given the
>> geopolitical
>> realities of the period. Still, it seems a bit odd to be furious with
>> long-dead people who opposed the mass slaughter from the beginning, and
>> who
>> had zero influence over those waging war. For these people, Pollitt has
>> contempt. For Hillary Clinton, who is dripping with Iraqi blood, who spoke
>> about obliterating Iran while backing Israeli violence against Lebanon and
>> Gaza, Pollitt has admiration, and insists that we share it and express it,
>> despite what we really think about the woman. I only hope that Pollitt
>> didn't
>> wear her good shoes when standing to applaud her hero."
>>
>> Dennis ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>