Littell

Jonathan Littell's Novel
Les Bienveillantes ("The Kindly Ones") ("Die Wohlgesinnten")

The skill and extensive research that is behind this huge story with realistic details is impressive. We are immersed in the terrible events of WWII (and the Nazi regime) on the Eastern front and in Germany, following a fantastic and unlikely overall plot. As I see the title, it suggests to me an important message of the book, that many well meaning "gentlemen" participated in the merciless destruction of a whole people. It is made obvious that the worst disasters that men cause stem from their conviction that what they are doing is necessary and good to reach some important goal at any cost - a goal which they fail to examine critically. Of course, as we ought to know, ignorance or error are no excuse; if we act without sound understanding, a high price has to be paid. Then, why has nobody (or almost nobody) in this story questioned what they were told?

The problem is not lack of intelligence, but of character. Even when given the right information, people refuse to accept it. This is made clear in the story of Lt. Voss, one of the comrades of the protagonist, Dr. Max Aue. Voss explains very well and with great intensity the whole idiotic nonsense of racial politics that was used to justify the "final solution", i.e., the destruction of the Jewish people. He cites all the evidence. However, Aue cannot, or will not understand it. He is not willing to accept the facts mentioned by Voss, because they go against what he believes he has to do in the execution of official policy (which is the cold blooded killing and scandalous mistreatment of captured jews). It seems clear from this that the uppermost principle we have to observe is to hold truth as more important than our goals. This is why character is so decisive. If we do not want to know the truth, we keep ourselves in the grip of error [1] and must accept the responsibility for all that follows from this.

The book is full with interesting and thought provoking speech, and we are almost participants in this world, thinking with the narrator. We learn the details of the Nazi world and their doctrines, with arguments about how to win the war and justifications for what they think they have to do.

From time to time, presumably also to keep our interest alive, we learn lots of disgusting details of Aue's sexual fantasies and unrestrained experiences, which include incest. Most annoying is the massive use of ugly German scatological expressions, but this is, indeed, part of the scenery. (That officers indulge in this, is another sign how far the great nation of "poets and thinkers" has fallen). These parts remind me of the super "realism" of Paolo Pasolini, as has been noted by others, too. It would be unnecessary in a serious work, if not a disgusting distraction, if the author would not have something very important to say.

The world that we experience here in this terrifying story of chaos and vast destruction is pervaded not only by the stench of dead bodies, it is frightfully void of morality. Behind all the talk, most of these poor souls, including Max Aue who tells his story, become totally nihilistic. It is clear from the described events, as from the historical facts, that most of these officials have gone far beyond with destruction and killing of what they had no way to avoid, once they found themselves in this situation, obliged to commit horrible crimes. That there is something essential, a core, missing in these persons is obvious right from the introductions, actually an extremely well written summary and account (Toccata), worth reading before the story unfolds. Most skillful is the way in which it becomes clear how the moral decay proceeds in the course of the events. However, the story also reveals that the cold nihilistic character that Aue displays is really to a large degree an artificial surface because he has still in his deep inside a real, violent revulsion about his life which comes out only during his outburst toward Helene in his high fever attack. In my view, this facade is kept by Aue because he knows, but does not admit it to himself, that his actions cannot be justified, so he presents the nihilism to others. The story ends with Aue in the ruins and chaos of the falling Berlin, when he commits his worst treachery by murdering his unsuspecting friend and protector perfidiously for getting his uniform, money, and documents. He escapes, ends up in France, with a different identity, has a family, remains unrecognized, and is without remorse for anything, as he assures us.

I have the impression that the narrator's personality (who is, we are told, from a broken family, hates his mother, is a jurist and homosexual) probably reflects some tendencies of the author himself. In any case, his psychological insight is most remarkable. With this massive volume we get a very high ratio of ideas per Dollar (on 1383 pages in the German edition that I read)! The acclaim which the book has received in France and Germany, and the literature prizes are deserved; the work is a great achievement. I have, however, two serious objections. First, Aue's attempted justification of his deeds, that anybody would have under the same conditions acted similarly, is not corrected anywhere with a firm statement that there is still a personal responsibility, especially of the leaders. That people are weak, are easily seduced, and act criminally is a sad statistical fact of life and one thing; the individual responsibility for these deeds, quite another! And secondly, it is not made clear that the SS, but not the Army, was until late in the war voluntary. Aue did not have to join this organization, it was his own decision. In summary, we come to the same conclusion in this novel as it was stated before by the noted Hannah Arendt, who reported on Eichmann's trial for The New Yorker. In Eichmann in Jerusalem, she concluded that Eichmann's example showed that the Nazi criminals were normal and not psychopathic, or different from ordinary people.

My fear is that the real lessons of this book will be obscured by the overwhelming detail. The experience of reading the book left me deeply impressed, disturbed because it is only too obvious that the terrible human predicament, so graphically described in the story, is not going to be avoided in the future. For possibly delaying the next catastrophe, the book is a very important contribution [2]; it raises issues that have to be resolved in order for civilization to advance.

The most important of them is that we have to admit the brutal fact that man, without the restraints of society, is capable to commit the most heinous acts, even if there is no need for them. Aue himself lists all the terrible things that all colonial powers have committed. There was no need for them, on the contrary, they have been counterproductive. Gobineau calls man l'animal méchant par excellence. It is evident from early childhood on - until good education can control these inclinations. There is an evil streak deep down in all of us to do mischief, that fact we must admit. That having this streak of wickedness will cause great problems in any society, is to be expected. But it should also be evident that in order to control it successfully, it must first be admitted; we should not continue to play harmless, putting a few deranged individuals into prison, and dream about perennial peace and sweet goodness of all. We must address a most serious problem. This is absolutely necessary because the real but unknown danger, as "Aue" has it in his Toccata, are the normal citizens of the State. The rest is an accident, the probability for which can be reduced by proper measures.

Several conclusions follow: the education of the young (especially the males) must be put on a different basis, and the penal system must be reformed. In our education, we must learn to keep truth on top of our values. From a political point of view, the lesson we have to learn is still the same which became the basis for the American Constitution, that it is extremely important to distribute power as much as possible. Internationally, the guiding principle in the community of nations must be to avoid centralization and dictatorships. If a dictatorship appears somewhere, the global community ought to eliminate it as soon as possible before it can produce a human catastrophe. Obviously, the UN as it has been constituted under the exigencies of the situation in 1945, is unable to do this (the League of Nations failed also). The record is pitiful, but understandable in view of the lack of a superior power on the globe to enforce agreement.

Notes.

[1] In Littell's novel, the real shock and shame is the realization that educated persons from a great nation can do these horrible crimes, killing in industrial fashion a whole people of innocent children, mothers, everybody, reportedly, close to 6 million. It leaves you wondering how to prevent such genocide in the future. It is simply a fact, shown throughout history, that man is not a social animal, as it was claimed by Aristotle. Man is, below a very thin layer of civilization, still a cave brute, capable of just about any perfidious bestiality (and feeling well, by doing it). I have no question that the education that most people receive, is quite insufficient for a life in the modern society. Otherwise, we would not have over 2 million prisoners wasting their lives in the American jails for many years, and we would not have juvenile crime with mass murder in some schools. I see major problems. Our value system is not realistic and the effects go throughout society. This is so particularly in the penal practices which are excessively costly and do not cure anyone (the proof are the many repeat criminals who are not impressed by multi year incarcerations). This value system, as insufficient it is, is not even inculcated sufficiently in the young. Furthermore, the young are not being instructed and guided more forcefully into a solid profession as they grow up. I have met many students at great universities who had no idea what would interest them (other than frivolous things), or what they could see as their future profession.

[2] Reading reviews of Littell's book, the most extensive of them in the French Wikipedia (Here . .), but more so from American reviews such as Elisabeth Vincentelli's in Salon (more . .), I have the distinct impression that the book has not been understood even though the key is in the title! If you compare Littell with, say, Michel Houellebecq (more . .), something the French would be inclined to do, Littell's work has a massive intellectual content, which is hard to find in the other (except for Houellebecq's courage to say things as they are). Of course, as a piece of literature, neither can come up to the level of masterpieces of world literature. But as a production of our time, Littell's is of very great importance - very much more so than the various Houellebecq novels whose main source of literary fame is their shocking effect and the nihilism. Not only by what Littell says, but how it has been received is his book interesting and valuable. It may very well be true, that in order to really appreciate Littell's work, you must have experienced at least some of the life and the WWII scenes yourself.

My belief that the book ia an important contribution is strengthened when I see the pseudo historical books that have appeared half a century after WWII. These "studies" purport to show that not Hitler, but personages in the west, such as Winston Churchill, the savior of Europe, are the real culprits who have caused this terrible catastrophe. They try to make this point be leaving out of consideration all of the aggressive actions of Germany before the war, and overlook conveniently the gravity of the criminal conduct during the war. They commit this fraud by telling the truth, but only a part of it - an old trick of the seducers of people. But, there are even some who have the nerve to deny what happened, in spite of all the evidence, in spite of the thousands of witnesses who saw what has happened when they were shown the concentration camps after they had been liberated. To deny this worst of all human atrocities ever, is itself a shameful crime. But, one cannot put the ultimate blame for the events such as described in this work on anybody else, but Adolf Hitler. Nevertheless, because of a certain ignorant and gullible clientele, pseudo historians can sell their totally wrong historical "studies".

[3] Ruth Franklin published recently an extensive review in the New Republic (Franklin .). It is probably the most thoughtful review of them all, even though, I disagree with her conclusion and think it may go too far in some cases to make crystal clear what I think may be but subconscious tendencies. A European mind seems to see things a little differently which explains that over one million copies could be sold in Europe, but most likely will not be in America. On the other hand, the discussion of the guilt question is a most meritorious part of her review. The problem is undoubtedly that in such global disasters, people get sucked into situations where even decent persons will find themselves acting, or not acting, in ways which we can say later were indefensible. Then where is the guilt of the gardner or the plumber who supported in an indirect way the bestialities in the camps? Or, how guilty is the soldier who had been made to believe he was defending his country on the front someplace in Europe - a soldier who was 18 when he came into the army, who had nothing whatever to do with the system, who came from a country that did not vote Hitler into power, or was even opposed to him? How guilty is the ordinary citizen?

The tremendously important question is this: How aware are the voters when they vote questionable characters into power that they are responsible for what is going to happen? People in Germany whom I asked after the war how it was possible that this devil of a man, Adolf Hitler, could be voted, not only into power, but who received absolute dictatorial powers in a democratic process? The answer I received from educated, well meaning persons was: But who could have foreseen what was going to happen? There you have the reason why books such as Littell's are so important even if we dislike them enormously. These stories ought to remind us of our responsibility as citizens to vote responsibly, and not as part of a popularity contest as it seems to be accepted in today's media dominated society. It is also why I think that Ruth Franklin is mistaken in her final judgment of the book, although I admit, Littell should have been more explicit in its most important message.