Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 19:27:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Howard Hastings <hhasting-AT-osf1.gmu.edu>
Subject: Re: PLC: Plato/Marx/Nation Socialism


On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 zatavu-AT-excite.com wrote:

> >  His book was first published in French in 1939, and subsequently
> >  translated into English the next year. These are all supposedly
> >  conversations that Rauschning had personally with Hitler, which he was
> >  "recollecting."

> Well, I think we can all agree he likely did not get it all right verbatum,
> but that it's very likely he did remember the gist of the conversation. How
> does his making these attributions to Hitler regarding his admiration for
> Marxism in any way actually hurt Hitler?

Expressing public admiration for Marxism would hurt Hitler in the same way
that expressing admiration for Nazism would hurt Gore or Bush. 

Nazism set itself up publicly in opposition to Marxism. FAscism was
for racial inequality and cozy with capitalism and rooted in idealist
conceptions of spirit. Marxism was for racial equality and opposed to
capitalism and rooted in historical materialism. Hitler publicly
denegrated Marxism as a form of Jewish poison, and the operation of the
Nazi state reflects this public view.  If Hitler were to publicly say he
"admired" Bolshevism, that would be pretty odd and confusing to the rank
and file, inconsistent with Nazism.   

But one needn't assume the book was only written against Nazism. The
attempt to link Hitler--via private conversation, of course--to marxism,
is something commonly done by traditional conservatives. 

> And why is he a bad source just
> because he was able to see Hitler for what he was before most other people?

If I read Ben correctly, his point was NOT that Rauschning was a bad
source  "because he was able to see Hitler for what he was."  I believe
Ben's point was

> >  In short: these statements are completely unverifiable, and drawn up by
> >  a political opponent of Hitlers, claiming to quote, verbatum,
> conversation held years prior.

Professional historians--as well as lawyers and psychologists--would for
the most part find the below request reasonable.

> >  I think that, due to these circumstances, one would definitely have to
> >  produce independent corroborating evidence to support a claim as to
> >  Hitler's political influences (about which he would, presumably, not
> >  remain silent in public venues, i.e. outside of private conversation).

But you respond--

> You ask for sources, and I give you sources. Then you don't like my sources.

Yes, that commonly happens in intellectual discussions. Participants do
not assume that anyone given "sources" has to "like" them or immediately
accept whatever they are supposed to prove.  Sources can be 1) inaccurate
or untruthful, and even when accurate and truthful, 2) do not always
support the arguments for which they have been offered.

That is why in intellecual discussion one hopefully gets to cross examine
sources and to test the validity of arguments constructed on them. 

But you resist this cross-examination, and take its appearance as
evidence that someone else can't be reasoned with.

> You seem determined not to believe anything inconvenient to your own
> ideology. > Oh well. I can't do any more than what I have done.

It might indeed be that you cannot supply that independent corroboration
that Ben suggested would secure Rauschning's "recollections".  But if you
can't, that doesn't mean that he is behaving unreasonably in asking for
it or remaining skeptical Hitler expressed admiration for Bolshevism.

Yet if you are comfortable with Rauschning's recollections whatever the
questions raised about them, why should anyone suppose it is Ben who is
"determined not to believe any thing inconvenient to [his] own ideology"?

hh
.....................................................................




     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---