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.
Loading comments…
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
Attempts that I see in the comment section to immediately try to frame current events in light of Hitler aside, the article was very well written. We have to pipe down and let people talk and ask questions. What ever happened to freedom of thought and expression? In the decades of my life, I have never seen a time in which fewer and fewer statements are able to be made without swift and merciless condemnation. And that, kiddies, is probably more in keeping with what happened all those years ago than anything else we might experience in our current policies and political theories. So thanks for that splendid article Mr. Rotello. Well done.
Consistently missing from discussions of Hitler and the Nazis is the important consideration that Nazism is/was a RELIGION. Religion is the ritual expression of the CULTURE MYTH and does not require a god(s). People talk of the Nazis as brilliant propagandists, without making the connection.
Culture myths are incredibly powerful since they come out of the unconscious. A culture myth can motivate people to do horrendous evil. Contemplate the Aztecs' focus on human sacrifice. I think it misses the point to only see Hitler as a deviant, as a monster: he was consumed by the archetype of SAVIOR of his race.
None of this relieves anyone of responsibility for their crimes, but understanding religion might lead to a better understanding of how horror happens. I didn't make this up: read Joseph Campbell.
In between the two concepts of 'evil' and 'wickedness' is a third. Let's for the sake of argument call it 'villany'. The person knows that in the abstract his actions are evil but believes that in his case they are justified or even necessary. Often it is an exaggerated sense of patriotism or disdain for the wisdom of everyone else or revenge or religious dogmatism that is behind it.
*** "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?" ***
One of the more frightening aspecs of reading about the Third Reich's POV is that for the most part, the architects and executioners of the Shoah were not "just following orders." An authoritarian mindset was certainly part of it, but at the heart of the evil was the notion that suppressing the warning signs of guilt, pity and horror was a noble act, as it served an ultimate and greater good.
This is a more frightening and dangerous expression of evil than 'an eruption of demonism', as it suggests that evil and its outcome are not potentially present in the psyche of every human being but rather something separate from humanity itself. I don't know or care anything about what Will Smith might have meant but the reaction was disturbingly shallow.
So, for that matter, is the reaction of bloggers who see this post as an opportunity for snarking about the actions of the present-day state of Israel. That might be politically correct but in this context, it amounts to little more than a fear-based change of subject.
It is truly amazing that 62 years after Hitler's suicide the controversy is as hot as it was after the war. Maybe it is more interesting what use the evil Hitler is for certain groups. Normally when you try to capture a more critical view you have to mention that you are partly Jewish and relatives were killed in a concentration camp, preferably: Auschwitz. To have a symbolic figure of pure evil, who knows it is evil and then does it anyway, is a comforting way for those who needs it without facing to much criticism. A rallying point that is comfortable and you do not have to provide historical facts. But Hitler would not have been Hitler without accomplices that sometimes came from unexpected sources. After all the US were allied with General Franco side by side with Hitler's Germany in the Spanish civil war because of a paranoid fear of Communism. It is the 800 lbs gorilla: the political deal, that never gets mentioned. Obviously he was a successful politician. The climate he grew up with, the searing antisemitism burned the minds looking for blame for the disasters of WW I, ruthless capitalism, revanchism of Britain and France and high unemployment. To make Hitler into a person of pure evil is to reject responsibility or to comfort your helplessness. Neither is helpful or responsible for future generation.
The JDL needs to pipe down. As much as celebrities have a responsibility to weigh their words carefully, I think organizations like the JDL should have the responsibility of being prudent in their interpretation of peoples' public statements, instead of twisting them and reading things into them that aren't even there! I didn't even read Smith's comment in context, and I STILL don't hear any "praise" of Hitler. Gimme an f'in break. *Eyeroll*
It would be nice if the JDL condemned collective punishment of Palestinians by Israel. The question pertains here: is Israeli policy "evil" or "wicked"? Does it inadvertently overlook the humanity of Palestinians, or does it grind that humanity under its heel with a smile of gratification?
Your last word should be that we do all we do under the appearance of good, for desire entails a good thing that one conceives of and seeks out.
E.g.: this from a Google search of "sub specie boni", which means "under the heading of the good":
Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics - Google Books Resultby Oliver O'Donovan - 1994 - Christian ethics - 286 pages
... all human sin is performed sub specie boni, it is certainly the case that in a genuine moral dilemma each of the alternatives is viewed sub specie boni. ...
books.goog
Similar criminal events are taking place all over our world at this very moment.
Crisis situations in the Middle East and Africa as well as what took place in South America not so long ago prove that things haven't really changed that much, since Hitler's criminality took place.
One can make a conscious choice to adopt a (blue) survivor/healer mentality to replace our (yellow) victim mentality in responding to any (red) criminality that comes our way. In this way, we not only survive the evil, we can help heal to a degee the evil doer. Once again, it takes two to tango.
Motivation, meditation and mediation are the three requirements to achieve this solution.
Motivation, would be a desire to be safe and secure under any and all conditions.
Meditation, would be any of the mind sciences that enable us to positively (blue) alter consciousness (one could even use the process of devout prayer.)
Mediation, (blue) alpha-wave producing thought processes such as the following:
We share one universal mind, one humanity and one planet. Therefore, what we do to another we in turn do to ourselves. And what we do to ourselves we in turn do to others (this also aids in preventing suicide).
Had our circumstances in life been reversed, then our positions now too, would be reversed.
Let us have only love, understanding and compassion for one another, for we are all a part of each other.
Couple these (blue) alph-wave thought processes with the triggering mechanism of our (yellow) conscious ego being threatened, bruised and/or punctured due to (yellow) fear and/or impending (red) danger. This coupling is to be done during a (blue) positively altered state of consciousness.
You now have the three requirements to change the world starting with yourself.
I've just presented you with the blueprint on how to create this (blue) survivor/healer mentality and save one life - your own.
"When you save one life, you save the world" comes from an ancient Jewish writing.
Hitler thought that Poland had WMD's and acted accordingly. Goebbells got on talk radio and faux news and said he did a good thing by fighting in the other countries so that he wouldn't have to fight them in Germany and the homeland was safer because of this preventive invasion. He spread his form of gov't. which he viewed as superior. They installed their rule for 2-3 yrs. while a few dead end insurgents continued to terrorise them. They turned some corners but American and Russian forces finally invaded and installed their forms of gov't. Invaders stood up and Germans stood down. It's all madness, just different perspectives.
I am not sure that is true, about Saddam Hussein that is. Certainly when West Pakistan invaded East Pakistan (now Bhangladesh), quite possibly half a million or more Muslims died. Nor can you begin to clain that Saddam killed as many Iraqis as our invasions have - I think S.H can in no way get close to half a million.
Interestingly, Will Smith displays more accuracy in his clarification statement than does Rotello.
Rotello states that Hitler's actions are "...the worst villainy in modern history" and Smith refers to it as "...one of the greatest acts of evil..."
Once could easily argue that both Stalin and Mao's actions were worse than Hitler's because each killed more than Hitler. Indeed, one could easily argue that Mao never woke up in the morning desiring to starve to death 80 million Chinese peasants as a result of his insane economic policies during his "Great Leap Forward" but that's precisely what happened.
Will Smith is correct, Hitler was a believer in his madness. Too bad present day believers are upset.
Obviously the Jews condemn Hitler, along will millions of devout Christians, but how is it possible in good conscience? Plainly written in numerous Old Testament passages is the Word of God telling us that our days are preordained by God. How is it possible for anyone to alter God's Plan?
For example, Psalms 139:16 says "All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." If you believe the Bible contains nothing but the infallible Word of God, then this statement must be true, and God knew before any of the Holocaust victims were even born that they would perish at the hands of Hitler's Nazis. Hitler was doing neither "good" nor "evil", but was simply, mindlessly carrying out God's Plan.
Personally, I have no difficulty deciding that Hitler was evil. I know that God is imaginary, any "plans" attributed to God are make-believe, and that anyone who claims that "God has a Plan" is simply delusional. Humans have freedom of choice and can change their destiny and the destiny of others without regard to some imaginary, fictitious "plan".
If you believe in a perfect, all-knowing god, who knows ever individual's record even before being born, please explain how you condemn Adolf Hitler for his actions.
I, too, read Rosenbaum's work, and found it fascinating. And I agree that his last 'portrait', the 'laughing' Hitler, probably comes as close as we will ever come to understanding him -- namely the idea that he fully understood the enormity of what he was doing. But I think we can reconcile the 'assured of his own rectitude' and the 'celebrating his getting away with murder' protraits. we ought not to forget that Nietzsche had already given Hitler and his ilk the concept of 'relative' morality - the master or the slave morality, which are usually opposed to each other. The Superman is not bound by the values of the herd he is to replace, but he makes the new values for the new super-race. Anything promoting the advent of the super race is good, and opposing it, even if it corresponds with conventional morality, is bad. So, for the Superman and his pure race of Germans, removing the infection of the Jews was moral. That does not imply that Hitler was unaware that what he was doing was supremely wicked from the conventional point of view -- and he smirked and erupted in peals of gaiety to think about that. About how he was 'getting away with it'.
Good article Mr. Rotello, unfortunately, from the comments I read, your point: ' ... words "can be twisted by those with hate and bigotry in their hearts. This is why all [celebrities ... 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 ... evil." did not reach the readers.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
