Hitler's diagnosis

Historian Aleksey Pimenov is simultaneously an orientalist and a Germanist. What is unique in its own way: in the scientific world, there are mainly monoprophic specialists. Now Pimenov is focused on the study of the history of Nazism and neo -Nazism. The scientist finishes the book "Ariyan Syndrome", for which he spent more than ten years in the archives of the Third Reich.

According to Pimenov, in German Nazism, not the Prussian, Severnonyan spirit is to blame. Rather, the south of Germany crushed the country under the dictatorship.

Archive photo

- Why is the history of the Third Reich still causes such a burning interest - and, no matter how funny, especially in the yellow press? Hitler is about to turn from the personification of evil into a toy nightmare like Genghis Khan or even Draculas.
- In my opinion, the main reasons are two. First: the history of Nazism is still a mystery in many respects. How did it happen that this open, unmamed explosion of demon, and even such a scale, turned out to be possible, not somewhere, but in the very heart of European civilization? Historians argue: is it acceptable to put Nazism on a par with other historical phenomena at all? Does the desire itself lead to its objective lighting to justify villain? And many are convinced that they are leading. “Understanding” is to some extent “understanding humanly”. And not to forgive, but - internally reconcile. And at the same time: if the phenomenon is completely unique, then how can you figure it out? Meanwhile, to do this is all the more important that those who see the source of inspiration in Nazism are much more than they seem. And this is far from always marginal.

- And how can they resist?
- I can only say about what I do personally. I try, if possible, calmly, in a businesslike way (as the Germans say, sachlich)-to show how it all happened in reality. Why Nazism arose, why they believed in it how the so-called National Socialist Revolution occurred, why after the war Nazism survived and why it threatens us today. How he changes the larvae, preserving the essence. And it is necessary to talk about this, regardless of any persons, not sparing a noby pride. This is not the case when in the houses of hanged ones you can’t talk about a rope.

- Your book makes a strong impression. It has two opposite, seemingly advantages: the ease of presentation and the fundamental of scientific research. In addition, this is a surprisingly timely book: neo -Nazism becomes popular in Russia.
- There is nothing to be surprised here. And above all, because the problems of present -day Russia have a lot in common with the problems of Weimar Germany, and Austria after the First World War. Here is the syndrome of the defeat, and the loss of the sovereign mission, and - which is especially scary - an acute crisis of identity. Who are we? What are we? Why are we? There are no intelligible answers to all these questions, but it is impossible to live without them. Moreover, all this is against the background of the poverty of some and the rapid enrichment of others. Moreover, enrichment, in the eyes of most morally unjustified, and therefore - humiliating for the rest. Of course, the analogy here is far from complete: very different cultures and different historical eras. But in both cases, an acute national crisis is obvious. More precisely, in Russia there are many national crises: the country is multinational. But, in my opinion, there is one among them, especially dangerous. This is a crisis experienced by the Russians, and now it is very similar to the one that the Germans once survived (I mean the German-speaking world as a whole, that is, the Austrians too). And, I repeat, this crisis is completely real, unreasonable. But, unfortunately, it is very difficult to talk about him, because it does not fit into any of the existing ideologies. Meanwhile, it is necessary to talk about him - and to say, forgetting about the problem of a positive hero. Turning to the essence of the society that has developed in post -Soviet Russia. And again-discussing it not in the spirit of a sort of pamphlet-they say, “who is to blame?”-and really trying to understand what is happening. Otherwise, it is inevitable that we see today: the mythologization of what is happening, including the nationalist.

One of the main techniques of the defenders of Nazism is to say that not all Nazis are equally bad.

Archive photo

- You spoke at first about the “not marginals” that are inclined to Nazism. Say, philosopher, Eurasian Alexander Dugin. What do you think, why, despite the fact that in most other European countries it would be brought out of the brackets of public life, in Russia he is a media person? What is his phenomenon?
- And where is the decent society today? There is no more that decent society in which we grew up the “kitchen” intelligentsia of the seventies, eighties and nineties. In the West, their problems are with the same political correctness. And there is no one West. I only note that if we observe linguistic conventions, then there the state of ordination is quite achievable for a person with more or less Nazi mentality. And in particular - for people larger than Dugin: what are Mircea Eliade only with Miguel Serrano! But you are right: in this sense, we just have expanse. As for Dugin, his phenomenon consists of this: he tries to make Nazism respectable. This goal is achieved in two ways. Firstly, using a differentiated approach-they say, do not cut all the Nazis under one comb. There was a bad Hitler, but there were “good” conservative-revolutionary projects, on which outstanding scientists in the intellectual centers of the SS worked. Which under the pen Dugina begin to look like just the embodiment of worldwide responsiveness. And secondly, the use of the integral approach: combining Nazism into one large “original” tradition-with teachings that have nothing to do with it. In general - erasing the boundaries between Nazism and Nonacism. Dugin solves these tasks - at his level of qualifications. This is one of many arrangers of the Nazi tradition. Not the most, by the way, radical and not the brightest, although, of course, grabbing.

- Perhaps this state of “inner fascism” is the usual state of a person? So, in particular, Liliana Cavani believes, who at one time removing the scandalous “night porter”, for which the left liberals were almost torn to the part. After all, as you know, good is given with effort, evil does not require effort, it is natural. Perhaps Nazism in this sense meets some of our internal needs?
- I do not consider the state of “inner Nazism” natural. And I do not think that evil is innocent. On the contrary, it is well known what efforts were required in order to free people from "chimera, called conscience." These efforts have shown that conscience is not a chimera at all. In my opinion, genuine horror - in another: there are methods, and extremely effective, to give out evil for good, or more precisely - for forced evil. Which you have to go, gritting your teeth, for the good of the Fatherland or even the whole genus of human. But, of course, - cleansed of the "subhuman". And from this point of view, the history of Nazism is just a storehouse of wisdom. Imagine: a person destroys his own kind - systematically, everyday, conviction. Not necessarily experiencing sadistic pleasure. He was simply inspired that this was his duty. And we will not forget that where is the debt, there are promotion. And by the way, otherwise this function of our functionary can remain a pretty decent person. And how it was possible to do it - this is a question.

Hitler convinced most of the Germans to join him, forcing him to believe that he was able to save the country from collapse, political instability and the dashing of the 1930s.

Archive photo

- One physiologist said to me that anti -Semitism is a kind of mental illness.
- Don't know. May be. When I grew up, there were a lot of conversations about anti -Semitism, but they, oddly enough, were mainly theoretical. I do not mean everyday situations when someone was not admitted to the institute because of the fifth point. Then there was a political, state Soviet anti -Semitism - mainly veiled, but there was also an open - represented, say, “our contemporary” or “young guard”, Pikul's novels. But the fact is that, say, among the acquaintances of my parents, I do not remember the anti -Semites, at least obvious. They simply could not be there. So it seemed that anti-Semitism was some kind of hypocritical political game. The way to direct social discontent at the false address. What seems to me fair today. But, alas, with one significant reservation. Simply put, later, but also in my youth, in the university years, I realized that in other layers of society there is another anti -Semitism - chores and genuine. And that the case here, alas, does not come down to political games.

- In connection with the "diseases." Don't you think that the Germans had insanity in the thirties? They proved that a whole nation can fall into a state of mournful insensibility?
“You know, I would say that this is not so.” Yes, judging by the monstrous results, we can talk about insanity. But, firstly, it was combined with the complete rationality of all the rest of the behavior. By the way, the Germans greatly distinguished from many other peoples who participated in the war.

- What do you mean?
- It is well known how the German army fought: bravely, stubbornly, fiercely. It only went on until the soldiers were counting on victory. And after Stalingrad, the situation began to change rapidly-and then the fighting spirit was greatly diminished. There was no, so to speak, German Madrid - desperate resistance without hope for success. As for ideological madness, it was far from universal. And here's what is significant: not in all German lands, the ideas of Nazism were equally popular. By the way, only extreme ignorance can explain that Nazism is so often declared the development of the Prussian spirit, the embodiment of the Prussian military, and so on. Nothing of the kind. National Socialism is in all respects the product is mainly of the Catholic German South, including Austria. Look at the founders of the movement: Hitler, Rem, Strassers, Hess, Goring, Himmler, Frick, Streicher, and the Reynlander Goebbels - solid southerners! Here in the south, assault detachments multiplied, party congresses were noisy, and shots were packed. There, the Nazis felt freely long before thirty -third. But somewhere in Berlin, not to mention Hamburg, the situation was somewhat different. There, the Fuhrer was afraid to speak publicly - before coming to power. Prussian police were probably the last to defend Jews from Nazi pogromers. However, I must say that later, by no means, not all Germans became convinced Nazis. Another thing is that very many - the elite, and officers, and the wide masses of workers and peasants - joined, deciding that this is the only way to save the homeland, to save it from poverty and humiliation. Which, I emphasize once again, were egregious. After all, what happened after the defeat in 1918? Millions of the Germans found themselves outside their country. And the neighbors, frankly, did not always show impeccable tact. And the Austrian Germans after 1918 generally found themselves in a small country-this is after the empire! -For which the name was not suddenly invented. And around - growing, new states with their nationalisms. By the way, in the disasters that fell on Germany, Western countries, primarily France, were to blame. Of course, not all of France, but its ruling circles. Here on this the Nazis played. Of course, directing the people's anger in the false direction. If only because the Jews-in any form and from any point of view-were not operated on behind the scenes of the powers of the victorious powers. Yes, to be honest, the Bolsheviks here also had nothing to do with it. They, of course, have their historical sins, but they did not show anti -German aspirations then - rather the opposite.

Scientific fact: during the Nazi dictatorship, in addition to the tyrant, there were several more centers of power. Even if not so influential.

Archive photo

- And yet the nationalism of the Germans took extreme forms.
- Yes, but if we really want to understand how Auschwitz, Maidanek and Babi Yar made of all this, and not just once again sore hands, we must remember: all this was later. Yes, of course, the dictatorship, terror - all this began immediately, but at this stage there was mainly reprisal against political opponents, and it should be noted - completely real. And the mass destruction of innocent people declared “inferior”, especially the death camps with gas chambers-all this was truly expanded later-already at the height of the world war. Here madness came to the surface. Although is it only madness? Tie everyone with a crime, and even such an incredible scale - is it possible to invent the best way to make subjects to fight, not even allowing thoughts about a truce? But, I repeat, all this was later. And at the beginning of the way, no one could think about this. I do not mean, of course, the Nazi leadership - it, as I am deeply convinced, was preparing for mass killings ahead of time. But the rest? In their eyes, everything looked beautiful and convincing. Who else, very many Germans said then, also uncompromisingly protecting German interests, who else thinks about the homeland, without fear of the Entente's shouts? And the murders of civilians, revenge? Is the Germans capable of this? Once again I want to say: I liked it all - including because the Nazis exploited the completely fair indignation of the people. Ordinary people are tired of the lies of the authorities, looking back at the strong, humiliation. And the fear of the Germans, that their state will simply disappear? Of course, these feelings are generally difficult to understand when it comes not about you. We all read “Notes from the Underground”. But in this case, Nazi demons of the demon cannot be understood. Meanwhile, it is very important to understand it today. After all, very often the question is like this: this or that phenomenon, grouping, party - is Nazism or not Nazism? Say, some kind of name today is a Nazi or just a nationalist? It seems Radzikhovsky once said well that calling someone a Nazi is a kind of political mat. But I want to emphasize the opposite: Hitler, when he went to power,-and at that time he was perceived not at all the same as we perceive the Nazis today. He saw a completely different way. And it would be nice to remember this today - looking at all kinds of enthusiasts of nationalism, and any. Of course, it is clear that not every nationalism is always certainly potential Nazism. But you can’t believe the declarations here. You cannot judge the end station at the beginning of the way.

- In your book, you also write about the forerunners of Nazism.
- It is interesting that Hitler was talkative and at the same time unusually secretive; Especially when it came to ideological predecessors. Then he recognized only Wagner. As for people smaller, not one of them burnt, trying to publicly declare himself as a mentor of Hitler. Here we can recall Rudolf Zebottentorf-the founder of the Munich Society of Tula, who played a significant role in the formation of the National Socialist Party, and the Vienna Writer, “Ariosof”, Jorg von Libenfels. The latter is especially interesting: he was very popular at the beginning of the twentieth century and, judging by many of the data available, had a huge impact on many famous writers (for example, on August Strindberg), on artists, politicians. And one of his many admirers was the young Adolf Hitler. But after Hitler came to power, the LANC was not only not invited to the court, but was generally isolated. Of course, soft. But it became clear: all his claims to the role of an ideologist should be considered unreasonable.

“Is it curious that Hitler hid if he thoroughly isolated the same Libenfels?”
- There is an explanation. Most of these currents and groups had southern roots. Hitler himself was an Austrian, but he did not want to remind about this once again: after all, he needed to win the German north-the main resources, both human and material, were there.

- What do you think about the relationship of Nazism with Christianity? Hitler was sure that he could replace Vera with a cult of almost his person?
- There were a lot of neopagan movements in Germany at that time, and for the most part their adherents were very close to Nazi soil. And above all, by the fact that, being radical, frantic anti -Semites, they brought this anti -Semitism to their logical limit, that is, to anti -Christianity. Since Christianity is also, so to speak, "Jewish things." And they returned to the roots, that is, if they call a spade a spade, with greater or less success, they constructed their neopagan, “truly Aryan” doctrines. Their mindset was very accurately expressed by Matilda Ludendorf (Field Marshal Erich Ludendorf and the famous writer and publicist Racist-neo-language direction). One of her books is called: "Getting rid of Jesus Christ." Activists of the neopagan movement demanded that they be recognized as the “third denomination” - after Lutheranism and Catholicism. And some Nazi leaders, primarily Himmler, supported them very much. But Hitler - he always kept a distance.

- Why?
- Because he was a politician. Антихристианином он был убежденным и, в общем, довольно откровенным. У него есть противоречивые высказывания, но несомненно, что христианство он глубоко презирал и ненавидел. Но он прямо говорил Герману Раушнингу (я, в отличие от многих, нахожу эти свидетельства в целом достоверными, так как очень многие материалы их подтверждают), что, хотя немцам нужна своя собственная, нехристианская, религия, в настоящее время ее еще нет, и никто не знает, какой она должна быть. И восстанавливать против себя христианское большинство, открыто объявив себя врагом христианства, он не собирался — просто соблюдая осторожность. Потому-то и сохранялась старая формула НСДАП, согласно которой партия стоит на позициях «позитивного христианства». Правда, позднее Альфред Розенберг пояснил для тех, кто не понял, в чем это позитивное христианство заключается. В чем оно состоит, решает партия, а вовсе не церкви, объяснил Розенберг. Однако создание новой религии шло — и в аппарате Розенберга, и, что особенно интересно, в структурах СС. Но открыто объявить об этом, объявить для всех, а не только для нацистской элиты, так и не решились. Что же касается культа личности Гитлера, то он, разумеется, насаждался. И все же богом его объявили лишь после падения Третьего рейха — сделали это некоторые радикальные неонацисты, поклоняющиеся ему как аватаре Вишну.

Адольф Гитлер был бы рад отменить христианство в Германии в пользу культа имени себя. Но осознавал, что это невозможно.

— Из вашей книги можно сделать вывод, что Гитлер был на свой лад романтиком. А романтики, как известно, пострашнее циников. Хотя вот Сталин-то романтиком как раз не был. Что вы думаете о так называемой «астральной битве» Сталина и Гитлера? Сталин победил или поглотил Гитлера?
— Астральная битва? Гм... Ну, коль скоро так, то это была битва двух режимов, а не двух диктаторов. Потому что в действительности Гитлер не был «немецким Сталиным». Его власть была гораздо меньше. Он не мог и вообразить себе, что можно арестовать Эмму Геринг или Магду Геббельс — как Сталин запросто арестовал Полину Жемчужину. Нацистский режим значительно больше напоминает олигархию, чем личную диктатуру. Там существовали разные центры власти. А что поглотил — это, пожалуй, верно. В самом деле, послевоенные сталинские репрессии — например, антисемитские процессы конца сороковых — начала пятидесятых — очень напоминают гитлеровские. Но только идеологически: режимы были все-таки разные, хотя кое в чем и сходные.

— Опять же из вашей книги понятно, что нацисты не могли противопоставить традиционным ценностям ничего внятного, кроме культа Вотана. И тем не менее они довольно быстро добились отзыва у населения? То есть общество так и не начало жить в ситуации христианской культуры? Когда я читала вашу книгу, мне пришло в голову, что Бог не умер, а даже еще не родился.
— Немецкое неоязычество было в основном книжным — просто потому, что в Германии сохранилось очень немного памятников дохристианской эпохи. Это не Исландия. И культ Вотана пришел к неоязычникам начала двадцатого века не из древних рун, а из вагнеровских опер. Это такой Вотан, начитавшийся Шопенгауэра. А с другой стороны — кое-кто уже тогда воспринял взрыв немецкого национализма как возрождение германского язычества, задавленного христианством, но таившегося в глубинах коллективного бессознательного. Например, Карл Густав Юнг (в свое время Томас Манн с присущей ему сдержанностью охарактеризовал отношение Юнга к нацизму как «довольно двусмысленное») попросту считал, что приход нацизма — это и есть «возвращение Вотана». Нечто подобное — конечно, без Вотана, но тоже с выходом на поверхность «родовой памяти» — можно найти в «Петербурге» Андрея Белого. Мотив был общий.

Но без традиции — живой, а не книжной — не может быть и религиозного движения. И теоретики немецкого почвенничества находили ее только за пределами Германии. Корни германства они искали и, как им представлялось, находили на Востоке: в ирано-индийской цивилизации. Началось все с того, что романтически настроенные филологи были заворожены удивительным сходством между германскими языками (прежде всего немецким) и языками древней Индии — в первую очередь санскритом. Затем — сходством верований и мифов. Что немедленно сказалось и на понимании идентичности: предками немцев были объявлены древние арии. Прошло всего несколько десятилетий, и это родство (в духе времени, ведь в моду как раз вошел расизм) — было истолковано уже не в культурном, а в биологическом смысле. А потом в дело вмешались политические интересы.

— Как вы думаете, мог ли действительно теоретик расового превосходства Ланц встретиться в Европе с Лениным?
— Встреча Ланца с Лениным — событие все-таки не вполне точно установленное. Хотя бы потому, что сообщает о нем Ланц, а уж он-то отличался прямо-таки необузданной фантазией. Но я думаю, что такая встреча была вполне возможна, как и часть тех высказываний, которые Ланц приписывает Ленину. На мой взгляд, Ленин вполне мог обозвать европейских буржуа свиньями, как об этом рассказывает Ланц. Во всяком случае, мне это представляется вполне вероятным. Мог он и назвать ланцевские идеи «интересными». Но вот утверждение Ланца, что Ленин якобы назвал его идеи правильными, мне кажется сомнительным. Думаю, что Ленин мог пошутить на эту тему, но не более того. А сходство большевизма и фашизма — в частности, нацизма... Да, по существу, оба эти направления взывают к темному и доисторическому в человеке. Да, и то и другое — провал в архаику. Но есть и большое различие: у нацистов эта направленность очевидна, она на поверхности. А у большевиков? Ни в коем случае! У них это проявилось уже после прихода к власти и, я бы сказал, вопреки субъективным намерениям многих из них. Не думаю, что Ленин мог предощущать это или мечтать об этом в шестнадцатом году.

Material on the topic: Russia protects copyrights to Hitler