The Austrian-Jewish writer Stefan Zweig wrote The World of Yesterday in a hotel room in New York and New Haven in the summer of 1941 before he set off to Brazil and committed suicide with his wife.
The memoires, an illuminating account of Europe’s road to disaster from the end of the 19th century till the ourbreak of World War II, were published in 1943 after the author’s death.
Zweig left his native Salzburg in 1934 after an intimidating search of his house. He moved to the UK, where he stayed through 1940. As Patrick Wright writes in the Guardian:
”He noted the popularity among the British of Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement, but did not feel able to speak out against it.”
So he left for the US. Before leaving he made this observation about the British’s press’ coverage of Hitler on the verge of war:
”Hitler only had to utter the word ”peace” in a speech to arouse the newspapers to enthusiasm, to make them forget all his past deeds, and desist from asking why, after all, Germany was arming so madly.”
Patrick Wright compares Zweig’s autobiography with the narcissistic confessions of our time:
”It could scarsely be less like the popular confessions autobiographies of our time, which tend to be softcentred victimologies in which the self is presented as an innocent, childlike entity, while history comes across as a form of absue. Zweig tells his story without vanity or self-pity. He tends to keep a tigtly closed lid on personal feelings, preferring to articulate his life as affected by larger events.”
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
2 Comments
Z-Lo:Really nice article from the Guardian. But its place on this blog, which is overwhelmingly about ‘the threat of Islamism’ and sometimes Russia, is suspect. Those familiar with your arguments and sympathetic to your cause will undoubtedly be able to draw the connection. ‘Victimology’ and ‘appeasement’ are words that appear frequently throughout your writing.
The connection is the same as that made in the book, “Islamists and Naivists” and paraphrased in your speech accepting the ‘freedom award.’ It is equating the threat of Islamist terrorism with the threat of Fascism and Communism. And, particularly, it is the assertion that there are those who downplay and ‘appease’ these aggressive forces, failing to appreciate the true danger they pose. Am I missing something?
This somersault of logic ultimately lands on its head. First, meaning that it is wrong, but second, in that its conclusion is upside-down. But it is a clever use of argumentative technique. The Nazis are maybe the most powerful symbology in modern Western culture - anything with which you can connect them obviously is tinted by their ‘evil.’
But we are left with a strange picture, a story full of holes. If Islamist militants are an oppressive force like the Nazis, who are the oppressed? You? The parallels are just not quite there. You and many others clearly do not feel “unable to speak out against it.” I think it is far more difficult for the voice of those offended and disturbed by Europe’s recent rightward swing to be heard.
There are in fact far more that could be drawn between the Nazis and the modern anti-Islam, anti-immigrant movements in the West. It is an obvious comparison, but maybe not quite enough so to compete against the fear that drives xenophobia. Some have referred to the threat of Nazism to Europe before WWII as if it were an external force. But just as present xenophobic trends do, it came from within Europe. It also represented the the demonization of minorities in the name of things like ‘peace’ and ‘freedom.’ There are still many more parallels that could be drawn, but there are also aspects of the current situation between Islam and the West that are new and unique. On the other hand, some of these similarities are more than just resoundingly familiar, they are at their core based on some of the same ideologies and sentiments: the rhetoric of fear and xenophobia, and preserving ‘European-ness’ and ‘European ideals.’
The threat of Islamist violence is real. But it is also a basis of intimidating anti-Islam, anti-immigrant movements. These movements, rather than address the root of the problem, contribute to it and give voice to general fear and prejudice. It is unacceptable that this faction be allowed to hijack the moral high ground by placing themselves on the side of ‘free speech,’ ‘freedom’ and ‘Enlightenment ideals’ and accusing others of complacently ‘looking the other way’ and indirectly supporting ‘terrorism’ or Nazism. It’s an inappropriate analogy on many levels.
Feb 5, 2008 - 8:13 am kurder:hvornår får kurderne lidt opbakning af det internationale samfund, heriblandt Danmark? Vi er alene i mellemøsten blandt tosser og tyranner. Gør det offentligt Rose… Vi har brug for demokratiske krafter… VI har haft selvstyre i så kort tid og er milevidt foran Iran, resten af Irak, Syrien, Saudi Arabien hvad angår demokrati. Tænk over det!
Feb 6, 2008 - 3:44 am