Will Smith, Hitler and the Holocaust's Unanswerable Question
Will Smith found himself in hot water last week after making a statement to a Scottish newspaper that Adolph Hitler "didn't wake up going, 'let me do the most evil thing I can do today.' I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was good."
Smith's quote was preceded by the interviewer's gratuitous observation, "Remarkably, Will believes everyone is basically good." So websites pounced on Smith for allegedly believing that Hitler was "a good person," even though Smith said no such thing.
The Jewish Defense League said Smith's words "spit on the memory of every person murdered by the Nazis" and called on theaters to boycott Smith's new movie. It looked like another Mel Gibson moment in the making.
But what was lost in the controversy is that Smith's actual statement -- not that Hitler was a good person, but that Hitler thought he was a good person -- lies at the heart of one of the most baffling questions about Hitler that historians and philosophers have grappled with since the Holocaust.
The most cogent discussion of that question is laid out in Ron Rosenbaum's brilliant book Explaining Hitler, which ought to be required reading for anyone interested in deciphering the worst villainy in modern history.
Rosenbaum examines various attempts by historians and philosophers to explain "what made Hitler Hitler." And one of Rosenbaum's most interesting discussions centers on the very issue Will Smith addressed:
Did Hitler, Rosenbaun asks, "believe in some deeply deluded way that he was doing good?" In other words, was he "convinced of his own rectitude," as Hitler biographer Hugh Trevor-Roper and many other scholars have argued? Or was Hitler "deeply aware of his own criminality," as philosophers such as Berel Lang and others maintain?
To frame this discussion, Rosenbaum points to a tradition in Western philosophy going back to Plato that draws a distinction between two concepts: "evil" and "wicked."
In this tradition, "evil" can describe people who do terrible things but who think, in their own deluded way, that they are actually doing good. "Wickedness," on the other hand, is reserved for people who do terrible things "knowing they are doing wrong."
In the case of Hitler, the question of whether he knew he was doing wrong and just did it anyway, or whether he actually thought he was doing good despite his horrific acts, bedevil all attempts to understand the worst crime of the twentieth century.
And interestingly, lots of scholars come down on the side of Will Smith, arguing that Hitler was "convinced of his own rectitude."
Not all of these people are philosophical hairsplitters, either. Rosenbaum finds, for example, an "unexpected echo of this rectitude argument" in Israel's chief Nazi hunter, Efraim Zuroff of the Simon Wisenthal Center.
"When I asked Zuroff....whether Hitler was conscious of doing wrong, he was even more emphatic than Trevor-Roper. 'Of course not!' he practically yelled at me. 'Hitler thought he was a doctor! Killing germs!...He believed he was doing good, not evil.'"
Rosenbaum himself is not convinced. Later in his book he writes that he is "more inclined to see Hitler as a vicious, cold-blooded hater who fabricated, counterfeited a mask of rectitude for the sake of history and expediency."
But while many agree with Rosenbaum, many principled scholars, biographers, philosophers -- even Nazi hunters -- do not.
In fact, when you look at Will Smith's actual quote, he describes the "rectitude" argument rather concisely. Hitler, he said, did not use logic but rather "a twisted, backwards logic" to do not good but "what he thought was good." Zuroff could hardly have put it more succinctly.
As soon as the controversy erupted, Will Smith issued a statement clarifying his belief that Hitler was "a vile, heinous vicious killer responsible for one of the greatest acts of evil committed on this planet."
Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League accepted the clarification. "We welcome and accept Will Smith's statement that Hitler was a 'vicious killer,'" Foxman said, "and that he did not mean for his remarks about the Nazi leader to be mistaken as praise."
Foxman pointed out that words "can be twisted by those with hate and bigotry in their hearts. This is why all celebrities bear a special responsibility to weigh their words carefully, and an obligation to speak out against racism and bigotry whenever even a whiff of it appears, as Will Smith has done in this instance."
Well said. But journalists, bloggers and anti-hate groups also have a responsibility to weigh their words carefully, and not to stifle or demonize attempts to understand the nature of Nazi evil.
That evil stands at the center of modern history -- and modern life. Did Hitler represent, as Emil Fackenheim has said, a unique "eruption of demonism into history" -- in which case he stands at a comfortable remove from the rest of us? Or was Hitler simply a more extreme version of something much more familiar -- a person who thought he was doing good, even if it had to be accomplished by terrible means? In which case his misdeeds are much more troubling, because they are at least somewhat recognizable.
Will Smith may not be a scholar, historian or philosopher, but he was expressing a widely-held and respected side of that question. It's a question that can never be answered. But merely asking it, merely pondering it, represents a small step in humanity's struggle to assure that what Hitler did, for whatever reasons he did it, is less likely to happen again.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Since Hitler was not religious, the good and bad or evil point is meaningless. Hitler sought to build a German empire with living space seized from other countries. At the same time, he was trying to purge the continent of what he considered to be foreign blood. Note his disgust as a young man after WWI while living in Vienna at how many non germanic peoples lived there. Will Smith probably doesn't have the intellect to even comment about Hitler and that's what got him into trouble.
So the issue of Hitler as misguided but in his own mind doing something positive for the German people is once again getting discussed. All political leaders do things in a context of enhancing their control and power with the underlying assumption that what they did, or will do, is good because it was necessary.
I'll assume FDR thought he did the right thing by interning Japanese Americans. Harry Truman went to his grave without a second thought about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How about Bill Clinton's bombing of Iraq in Dec. of '98? How many innocent women and children paid with their lives for that so the Bill and Monica story would be pushed a few pages further back?
Political expediency looms larger than ever in this Twenty-first century. Not to excuse Hitler but if we want to look at the "banality of evil" we don't have to go back as far as his era. Have we forgotten about the use of Agent Orange? Is constantly going back to Hitler's time a slick ploy to allow for what's presently going on,Darfur for instance,to not gain much attention?
In an earlier posting I remarked that Hitler was probably much more complex than "thinking himself good". Nowhere is that fact clearer than with the "arianisation" (the legal declaration that a person was Aryan)of several Jews and half-Jews which only Hitler could decide. The best known case is that of General Milch of Hitler's air force who had two Jewish grandparents. Milch's sponsor was Herman Goering who once declared :"I decide in Germany who is a Jew". The wife of Colonel-General of the Army Heinrici had two Jewish grandparents yet Hitler who knew this made him the last commander in 1945 of the important Army Group Vistula to succeed Heinrich Himmler.
I praise Will Smith twice. First for the clarity of his thinking about human nature exposing how a person (Hitler in this case) could commit the most horrible and despicable acts thinking that he is somehow doing good; Second for having the integrity of clarifing beyond any doubt his positon regarding the holocaust.
What a sharp contrast to Abe Foxman of the Anti-defamation League, who ignores the genocide of the Armenian people by Ottoman Turks, just because it is not politicaly copnvenient to Israel at the present moment.
A good example of twisted, backward logic that Will Smith was refering to.
When someone gets into a position of power, they
make the situation into a refection of themselves or what they believe. If the acts
that result are evil in nature, the intent
would have been an act of self interest, the
result of insanity or health induced insanity.
I understood Hitler was basically insane because
of syphillis. Doesn't matter, he is the author
of horror. It also seems a lot of Dictators
have unusual powers of persuasion. Why would
people follow someone under the gueise of
making the world better, with evidence to the
contrary?
Saying this as a Jew, I have no problem with Smith's comment. It is exactly how I feel about Hitler. To his own twisted, backward and troubled mind, the things he did may very well seem like they were being done for the greater good. Wrong of course, and it is crystal clear to me that this was Smith's point. That it was a group like the JDL who jumped on him (racists themselves and not to be confused with the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League came out with a supportive statement for Smith) just shows what a bunch of bull s**t this whole thing is.
Sadly, most people do not realize that we are all capable of good and capable of evil. "The Lord of the Flies" by William Golding was an excellant look at how little it takes to tip us to our dark side. None of us is pure and only good, none of us. Many who are deemed evil are not well and/or not capable of knowing right from wrong or amoral.....not because they chose to be that way but because they were wired that way. We need to learn from the past so we are not condemned to repeat it. But remember we are all capable of evil whether it is the school bully, the Israel pilot bombing a Palestinian home, a Nazi gasing Jews and Homosexual prisoners or an American agent toruring a prsoner at Gitmo. We all have a pretext to justify the means, but it is still evil.
Hitler may have thought he was doing good, but if murderous cruel treatment of a whole race of people is nothing but demonic evil. Radical Muslims who would kill all who do not believe as they do is also another example of demonic evil.
Slavery is also evil no matter who practices it. be it whites, blacks, arabs or whoever. It is evil!
Will Smith simply (and more thoughtfully than most commenters I've ever read on here) suggested that Hitler was in the category of evil people who delude themselves, by engaging in a parody of actual logic, into thinking that they are actually doing good. Will's a smart guy, and I find nothing wrong with what he actually said.
While it is debatable and it may never really be known whether Hitler was "evil" (committed heinous crimes against humanity but had convinced himself that his actions were good) or "wicked" (knew very well that he was doing evil but went ahead and did it anyway) or even "villainous" (knew it was bad but figured it was easily excusable for the sake a a greater good), it is not unreasonable to conjecture "evil".
What is unreasonable is to condemn someone for that conjecture. I'd be just as angry as Will Smith is if someone so grossly misinterpreted, to the point of putting words in my mouth, such a reasonable statement.
The ease with which Nazi-like crimes have occurred all around the world argues more for the "evil" category than some demonic, consciously wicked person. It means that "it CAN happen here" applies just about anywhere the conditions are ripe for it to arise, but it also means that we are still dealing with human beings, even though they are grossly and dangerously flawed, and not dealing with unaccountable and unexplainable non-human demons - each one 'a unique "eruption of demonism into history" -- in which case he stands at a comfortable remove from the rest of us', as Mr. Rotello puts it.
What some people are made uncomfortable by is the suggestion that such monsters are still part of the same human race as the rest of us, and that given the right conditions, any one of us might also become such. Thus, for instance, the IDF grandson of a Holocaust survivor might be angry when he is confronted about his cruel behaviour towards Palestinians, but the criticism is not automatically invalid by virtue of the Nazis supposedly being beyond human.
What an interesting discussion about the nature of evil. In his seminal work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire makes the case that victims of tyranny internalize their oppressor's definition of them. Often they go on to become perpetrators themselves, thus perpetuating the cycle of violence. This may help to explain some of the evil that is so pervasive in our world, but does it absolve the people that commit these acts of brutality? (i.e. domestic abusers, the renegade state of Israel, Hutu refugees as violators in the Congo)? Do we not have a choice about how we live our lives no matter how afraid or damaged we may be? I ask this question not as an abstract academic exercise, but as the child of survivors of Nazi genocide. Growing up in my family was a nightmare. My sister and I were routinely subjected to physical emotional and sexual abuse and senseless acts of cruelty. We were pitted against each other and manipulated into vying for the dubious distinction of rescuing our parents. We remain estranged to this day. This childhood trauma had a corrosive impact on my development, interpersonal relationships and professional life for many years. I have managed to make a series of good choices that have engendered a loving family of choice, a wonderful circle of friends and nourishing work. Yet, to this day, at the age of 55, I struggle to believe in and uphold my dignity and intrinsic goodness. I find myself imposing unreasonable standards of perfection on myself and my daughter. I understand why my parents became who they did. But I don't believe that this was the only path open to them. Although I am a great admirer of Archbishop Tutu and the tremendous work of reconciliation in South Africa, I must confess to great reservations about the applicability of forgiveness in all situations. What do we do in the face of implacable evil? And can we be honest with ourselves about where we fall in the spectrum as we conduct our daily lives?
I think the reason that Smith is now trying
desperately to regurgitate his foot is that
well, frankly, in a lot of people's minds,
Hitler was a grade-A asshole. He's the guy
responsible for the third reich and all
that, of course as soon as you start talking
WWII then you also have to talk about a guy
named Prescott Bush, and a company called
IG Farben. You get the bad guys to do what YOU
really want done, then you declare them 'evil'
and go take it over later...hmmmm...the Great
Puppet Show continues...
Wouldn't it better serve to focus less on what we learned in Comparative Philosophy, and instead consider how, in a supposedly civilized society, Hitler was ever able to perpetrate such heinous crimes against humanity? He's dead. We'll never know more than we do about what guided him down that dark path. Like it or not, he defined himself as a Christian. To attempt to negate his self-proclaimed association with that faith, by calling him Pagan or anything else, is inaccurate and frankly..pathetic. He was the definitive True Believer, committed to his "Cause". The Cause trumped all, and the end justified any means necessary. We can despise his visciousness and its magnitude, but he is by no means unique. History is laden with despots. Some are doubtless responsible for even greater trespasses. No small few claimed some "cause" as justification for their deeds. We'd be wiser to spend our energy considering How he got there, rather than Why. Observing the social mechanisms through which someone can achieve such control and power should teach us all what to look out for. Propaganda..emotional buzz-words and inference in the absence of fact, are devices utilized by those who seek to control, to deflect and obfuscate the truth, turning us toward their way of thought. The important thing to remember is that, without the complicity of those willing to give up control over their own minds, such despots would have no power. Our own mental laziness invites the powerful in this country to take advantage. Con artists and opportunists view us as ripe for the picking. Too much power can set one on the road to madness. If further insulated from reality, through wealth, for example, and the barriers it buys, megalomania thrives. Those who play on our patriotism to foment jealousy and hatred, or lead us to believe that they have a pipeline to God, or use our sympathies to manipulate us..all these are of the same predatory caste..conceivably, potentially, little Hitlers in the making. Friends, we need to be very careful.
Once again the ADL demonstrates its fascist behavior in calling for a boycott of Will Smith films. Considering what Israel is guilty of with their ethnic cleansing of Palestine, violations of international law and U.N. resolutions and their apartheid policies Foxman and his buddies at the ADL would do better to clean their own house first before pointing a finger of rightous indignation at Will Smith. Talk about hypocrites.
Another must read book is Allan Bullock's 'Hitler and Stalin: Parrallel Lives'. Perhaps the best book about the 20th Century and the two men who shaped it.
What an interesting discussion about the nature of evil. In his seminal work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire makes the case that victims of tyranny internalize their oppressor's definition of them. Often they go on to become perpetrators themselves, thus perpetuating the cycle of violence. This may help to explain some of the evil that is so pervasive in our world, but does it absolve the people that commit these acts of violence? (i.e. domestic abusers, the criminal state of Israel, Hutu refugees as violators in the Congo)? Do we not have a choice about how we live our lives no matter how afraid or damaged we may be? I ask this question not as an abstract academic exercise, but as the child of survivors of Nazi genocide. Growing up in my family was a nightmare. My sister and I were routinely subjected to physical emotional and sexual abuse and senseless acts of cruelty. We were pitted against each other and manipulated into vying for the dubious distinction of rescuing our parents. We remain estranged to this day. This toxic childhood environment had a corrosive impact on my development, personal relationships and professional life for many years. I have managed to make a series of positive choices that have engendered a loving family of choice, a wonderful circle of friends and nourishing work. Yet, to this day, at the age of 55, I struggle to believe in and uphold my dignity and intrinsic goodness. I find myself imposing impossible standards of perfection on myself and my daughter. I understand why my parents became who they did. But I don't believe that this was the only path open to them. Although I am a great admirer of Archbishop Tutu and the tremendous work of reconciliation in South Africa, I must confess to great reservations about the applicability of forgiveness in all situations. What do we do in the face of implacable evil? And can we be honest with ourselves about where we fall in the spectrum as we conduct our daily lives?
Loading comments…
Posted December 27, 2007 | 05:40 PM (EST)