How far away are we from evil?
Seeing a strange girl encounter a random injury incident in the middle of the night, will you be glad that it is "it's okay not me", and then turn around and take out the garbage; hearing about the "996" overwork of Internet people, do you first envy the "good big factory, make more money", and then continue to work overtime...
As long as your little life is stable, the world will be all right. Or who cares about the world? Few people are aware that future tragedies and sufferings have laid the groundwork in today's daily lives. Look at the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany. When politicians are silent, capitalists sponsor, and countless people acquiesce, a small evil of mediocrity can eventually destroy human hope.
In the French Goncourt Literary Prize's work "The Agenda", you can see it more clearly. It tells us about the fragmentary connection between Hitler and the 24 industrial oligarchs before he came to power, and the fate of history is also scattered in these fragments.
At the beginning of September, Qi Hao Art Lecture invited Cai Hui, a senior media person and book critic, and Gao Lin, a historical writer and book critic, to carry out dialogues from the perspectives of narrative and history, share the unique reading experience of "Agenda", chat about novels, talk about history, and talk about the present. Share the highlights of the event with you today.
<h1 class="ql-align-center" >01/Cai Hui</h1>
Cai Hui, former editor-in-chief of the supplementary department of Beijing Morning Post, is a senior media person and a famous book critic.
What attracted me to the book was that it won the Goncourt Literary Prize, the largest literary prize in France. But this novel is very strange. Frankly, I watched it quickly, in an hour and a half, but what was this guy writing? Don't understand.
<h1>Mystery Novel: No plot, no protagonist</h1>
This is a novel full of mysteries. Chapter 16, basically against the timing, only fragments, no plot, no protagonist. What is this way of writing called? Non-linear writing.
We know that novels in general happen, develop, climax, and end. But the very real question is, who in our lives has ever encountered a real novel? It has nothing to do with our lives.
The reason why there is a sense of occurrence, development, climax, and ending is an illusion of human cognition. We use stories to integrate massive amounts of information to facilitate our own memorization. What is the problem with this? When we went to school alone, the teacher would say, "You have to lay a good foundation, and the building will rise from the ground," and laying the foundation until college graduation does not know that there is no use. But it was reasonable at the time, because it fits the logic of happening, developing, climaxing, ending. This kind of linear thinking of our human beings, which has reached a certain level, especially to modern society, will not work; it will bring a lot of trouble.
In this sense, the human novel can be said to have abandoned the so-called linear narrative since the beginning of the last century, because linear narrative has caused us a lot of misleading. If we pay attention to Western literature, we will find that Western modern literature is basically based on non-linear narratives.
<h1> The Evil of Mediocrity, the Absurdity and the Fear: The Structure of Modern Human Life</h1>
If you think about this novel from a non-linear point of view, you can see that it has four major themes. The first is the evil of mediocrity. All these people in the novel, they all weaken at a crucial moment, forgive themselves for a little, be irresponsible, and finally lead to this tragedy.
The second is the absurdity—that's the most interesting part of the novel. For example, the Blitzkrieg (the first German capture of Austria) resulted in a major crash. And a few of the guards sent there were pulled in by the Viennese and enjoyed the people's revelry – in fact, many Viennese at that time wanted to be annexed by Germany, so this was the case at a historic moment. Also think of what was not good when Schuschnigg negotiated with Hitler, and it turned out that Beethoven was not German.
We feel that at major historical moments, everyone must hold on to it, but in fact, in the novel, it is often the most indiscriminate, the most ordinary, the most ridiculous way to achieve. All those noble, sacred, are an illusion. This is an absurdity.
The third theme is fear. Prime ministers, ministers, generals, all these people take fear in the face of intimidation.
The fourth theme is, what ultimately led to this tragedy? The evils of mediocrity, absurdity and fear, when they come together, are a structure of modern human life that is deeply embedded in our daily lives. We say two dirty words behind the leadership' backs, we giggle and do a good job of mass relations, we can easily believe in the evil of mediocrity, and the boss scares us with fear both sentences. Combining the absurdities of "how much money to make tomorrow and how much money to make the day after tomorrow" is the fate that we collectively cannot escape.
The scene of the new book sharing meeting
There is a clear hint in the novel that a brother, Arendt's first husband, reads the newspaper every day, and he finds that historical events seem to have been published in newspapers. So we can talk about all the tragedies, all the sufferings, and in fact they are built into our daily lives. We pretend every day, carry a bag every day, take a lot of chicken soup, carry all kinds of quotes every day, tell us that we should love life, in fact, these are our daily processes, and these processes may eventually lead us to disaster.
<h1> Leave private writing and turn to major historical facts</h1>
One thing to know about this novel is that it is a non-linear narrative novel.
Although since the 19th century, generations of writers have experimented with non-linear fiction, but in the end there is a flaw: they can only write "me", write about the relationship between "me" and "my father", write about the relationship between "me" and "our family", so as to move people. Once you leave the "me", without the narrative of the individual, you can't write anymore.
"Goncourt Prize for Literature" "Agenda" (French | Eckery Vial)
And why did Agenda win the Goncourt Prize in the end? It is because it turns to evaluating major historical facts, rather than writing about individuals, not expressing one's own attitudes. Therefore, the biggest advantage of this novel is that it reveals four major themes through historical writing, and it is told to everyone in a very interesting way. There are many very interesting words in the book, and they are also deep enough that only through non-linear narratives can we see the absurdity and ridiculousness of history.
<h1 class="ql-align-center" >02/Gaulin</h1>
Gao Lin is a young history writer, book critic and founder of "Young Vienna".
First of all, I would like to thank Teacher Cai, I have never seen anyone make spoilers so complete and rich. He listed all the themes of the book, but how could they be connected? At least from Teacher Cai's explanation just now, it can be seen that it cannot be strung together as a novel. But if you think of it as a history book, the theme expressed is the rise of Nazi Germany.
Specifically, the Agenda actually addresses two very clear themes: first, how the Nazis gained a foothold in Germany, and second, how the Nazis ventured in Europe and ultimately undermined the peace of the whole of Europe and even the world. You see the first secret meeting, these 24 people came to the Capitol, it was very unevenly proportioned in the book, it took up most of the space at the beginning, why? Because it was a very crucial turning point in Nazi history.
<h1> The German Nazi Party with no money and no power</h1>
The premise of the book's popularity in France is that World War II was a very familiar event for the French and Germans, talked about every day, and everyone knew all its details and political history. But why is it so ethereal in china that we can't feel the theme of this book? Or is it that the first thing we see is confusion? Because we don't know about these things, especially this secret meeting.
The meeting took place on February 20, 1933. Berlin invited 24 German industrialists to his office, and Hitler made a speech. And before Hitler brought more than 20 industrialists to himself and forced them to donate, the Nazi Party never received a large donation from the german industrialists.
Today's view of history holds that the fascist system and the Nazis are a product of the big industrialists, because the big industrialists do not allow socialism to exist, do not want to allow the SPD and the State to coexist, and eventually ally with the Nazis. And this incident upended the relationship. These big industrialists did not come up with money for the first time until 22 February, when Hitler had been in power for almost a month. Prior to this, Hitler ran in three elections in 1932 and spent a lot of Money on the Nazis.
Source/canalhistoria
But did the Nazis have money? Unfortunately, no. The Nazis received their largest donation in 1932 from Friedrich Freik, who is also found among the 24 people in the book. So how much money did he give Hitler at that time? 50,000 marks. At that time, he invested a total of 1.8 million marks, 1.2 million to Hindenburg, who ran for president with Hitler in March 1932, and the rest of the money was mainly donated to the Socialist Democratic Party and the German Communist Party, which Hitler hated, and only 50,000 was donated to the Nazi Party, and the 50,000 marks were the largest donations the Nazis received.
<h1 class="ql-align-justify" >Why in the first place, industrialists refused to sponsor the Nazis? </h1>
They didn't need nazis anywhere. These industrialists were already titled nobles during the Second Empire. When they donated money to politicians, they were willing to donate money to people like von Hindenburg and von Papen— they were all aristocrats, and they represented the good memories of the Second Reich. Even if they were forced to donate money to the Left, they were willing to donate it to those who had the power of the trade unions, and the Nazis supported them, and certainly would not let the workers come to the factory to make trouble. If we are to understand this secret meeting, we must understand this.
Hitler never received a large sum of money before coming to power in 1933. His Cabinet Deputy Chancellor von Papen, who dissolved the parliament in September 1932, was abandoned by Hindenburg and decided to ally with Hitler. On January 7, 1933, he gathered seven industrialists around him and said, "I am going to form a national cabinet with Hitler, and you should give me some money." Krupp, who was the leader at the time, replied particularly crisply, that is, no. That is to say, all these industrialists would not have given him money until Hitler was appointed Chancellor on 30 January 1933. At the end of 1932, because the Nazis had spent a lot of money in the three previous elections, they already owed 12 million marks to the bank, and the bank was unwilling to cash new promissory notes and would not give them new loans. Even his official newspaper, the People's Observer, could no longer be printed without paying for printing.
Völkischer Beobachter (People's Observer). Source/Baidu Encyclopedia
Hitler no longer had any money to go into a new campaign. This also pushed Hitler to the brink of stepping down
Throughout 1932, he organized three elections as an opposition party, and the vote jumped between 1928 and July 1933. The Nazi Party's first participation in the national election in 1928, when it received 2.8% of the vote, soared to 18.9% in 1930, doubled to 37.9% in July 1933, that is, the Nazis achieved a triple jump, and if this trend could be maintained, the Nazi Party should be able to independently more than half of the vote, and it would be able to form its own cabinet, which is why others would support him, and why people in the Nazi Party were willing to follow Hitler. However, in November 1932 Hitler's popularity declined, the vote rate fell by a full 2 million votes, and the Nazis fell from 37.9% to 33.1%, which was a portom that once the Nazi Party ran out of money and the people got tired of them, they had no future.
Gao Lin: Why is the Agenda written so evilly?
At this time, Hindenburg made it clear that he would never appoint Hitler as chancellor, and Hitler's fate was decided, which is why Hitler was ready to retire at the end of 1932. That is to say, since Hindenburg only allowed Nazis to become deputy chancellors, and Hitler refused to be deputy chancellors, but the Nazis had to govern, what should be done? Only Hitler withdrew and let the others become deputy chancellors. Therefore, it can be said that December 1932 was the most uncertain moment in Hitler's fate, and he could either fail or be appointed chancellor. The man who saved him was von Papen, who made him Chancellor of the Hindenburg cabinet without the need for a parliamentary majority. When he became president's cabinet, he received 3 million marks through a secret meeting on February 20, which allowed the Nazi Party to finally continue his rule steadily.
<h1>Why did the Nazis keep taking risks in Europe? </h1>
But it is very interesting that it was Papen who paid for Hitler on January 7, but the February 20 meeting did not have him. This brings us to the second question we are talking about today, why the Nazis kept taking risks in Europe.
Why was it that Germany entered the Rhine in 1936, occupied the Czech Republic in the second half of 1938, completely annexed the Czech Republic in early 1938, annexed Austria in 1938, and declared war on Poland, taking a constant and sustained diplomatic adventure? It was because Hitler became Chancellor of Germany as Chancellor of the Presidential Cabinet of President Hindenburg.
The Weimar Constitution gives a cabinet two ways of governing, the first is that the law and the budget are supported by more than 50% of the votes, which is the parliamentary cabinet, but if it does not have more than 50% of the votes, it must be the presidential cabinet. In other words, he relies on the president's extraordinary legislative power to turn his laws into the laws of the nation. Hitler's every move had to be signed and appended by Hindenburg to take effect, and Hitler himself certainly did not want to maintain this state of affairs, and who wanted him to maintain it? Papen.
Hitler could not make a majority, and had to rely on Hindenburg, and as a bridge, Deputy Chancellor Papen could become the real ruler of Hitler's cabinet. At the same time, Papen brought to Hitler's cabinet royalists such as Hougenberg, the German National Revolutionary Party, who cooperated with Hitler's cabinet and the Nazi Party and believed that it was the status quo of Hitler's cabinet to maintain the existing parliamentary seats.
But what was Hitler himself trying to disband parliament in March and re-elect? The purpose was to organize an election that would give the Nazi Party a majority. In this way he could leave everyone behind, whether it was Papen, Hoogenberg, or even Hindenburg. That's why Papen didn't give them the money, which Hitler had secured through Chacht. He got the money. But what about the outcome of the election?
On February 27, 1933, the Reichstag in Berlin was burned. Image source/welt
In July 1933, Van der Lubbe was convicted of arson and attempted to overthrow the government, and was eventually sentenced to death.
Hitler received 47.8 percent of the votes in the May 1933 election, in other words, he did not yet have a majority, and Hitler was completely desperate for his independence. And if I had banned the German Communist Party and pulled down the general seats in the parliament a few seats I would have been more than half, which is why Hitler later completely abandoned the rules of the game of the Weimar Republic and let the Nazi Party take control of the Reichstag through coups such as the Reichstag arson, which is why people like Hindenburg and Papen and Hitler drifted apart.
<h1>When everyone chooses silence, the evil of mediocrity rises</h1>
If you think about it, Hitler, a politician who never won the support of the majority of the People of Germany, at the same time subverted the rules of the game in the Weimar Republic, abolished free elections, and eliminated all German parties except the Nazi Party. The Wehrmacht was in Hindenburg's hands, so why was Hitler appointed in January 1933?
In December 1932, the Wehrmacht conducted a flag exercise, and whether we could use the wehrmacht strength to suppress the wehrmacht at the same time when the Left Foresters, the Red Fighter Front of the German Communist Party, as well as the steel helmets and national flag regiments supporting the Spdnisches, the National Flag Corps, and the SA supporting the Nazis, simultaneously launched an insurrection, and then concluded that it was impossible. But by 1933 and 1934, the SA had eliminated the KP, the SPD and all other non-SA forces for the Wehrmacht, and had gathered them all into the SA. The SA in 1932 was 400,000 people, in 1934 it was 2 million people, then the Wehrmacht only had to face an enemy, and this enemy was a very inflated, unaligned SA, at this time it was much easier to eliminate Hitler than in 1933, which is why Hitler must continue to succeed, Hitler will heal the pain caused by the economic crisis of 1929 through his high employment and high welfare, so that the people will support him. But what does he use to support his high welfare and high employment? He relied on inflation, and on the dispossession of the Jews, which were uncountable, and all the opposition was waiting for him to go bankrupt.
Image source/taringa
When Germany had no more opportunities for him to play, there was only one way to go, to take risks internationally. Once Germany was drawn into a War in Europe, it at least stabilized its own situation, and Hitler did not care what would happen to Germany in the future. This is why Nazi Germany, from 1936 to 1939, actually embarked on a series of diplomatic adventures at any cost.
Why is Chamberlain here? Why describe Schuschnigg? In fact, the author wants to tell you that when the Nazi Party is taking risks in the international community, there is someone who can balance it, and as long as Britain and France once took a firm attitude to say no to Hitler between 1936 and 1938, Hitler may be bankrupted, may be overthrown, but everyone acquiesced in his actions.
Why describe the big traffic jam of tanks? Tanks were the Nazi torrents of Europe, and the torrents that later swept through France and Britain were so vulnerable that the only thing they did when they entered Austria was to block the roads. At this time, if Chamberlain said no, what was the fate of the Nazis?
At this time, we will look at what the theme of this book is, in fact, how the mediocre and evil Nazis rose from an obscure small party to the process of finally harming the whole of Europe, and everyone who could stop him chose not to act, and acquiesced to their expansion of their power step by step, so that they could get money.
The industrialists who were supposed to reject Hitler now offered money to let Hitler run, and those who were supposed to use their diplomatic rhetoric to stop the Nazis acquiesced in Hitler's conquest of Austria. The German army was trained in Austria and in the Czech Republic so that they could sweep through Europe. That is to say, in these two years, if any responsible politician stepped forward to stop Hitler, the fate of mankind would be different. This is the biggest theme of the book.
<h1>The book of "demons" that fly and write history</h1>
This book can only be seen clearly by those who are familiar with the history of World War II in France and Germany, so why write such a "demon"? For as you have discovered, although the theme is how the Nazis rose to rise, what really tells us is the theme of particularly traditional Stalinism, that is, the big industrialists brought the Nazis to power, the big industrialists got rich through the war, the big industrialists even escaped the tracking of the war, at first Krupp, and at the end it was Krupp, these big industrialists still occupy an important position in the German economy today. Such a traditional theme, if you write flat and straight, will anyone read it? But if you write in such a wicked way, historical montage, choose a series of scenes in history that are very familiar to his readers, describe them, and then let you come to this conclusion through your senses.
Image source/Life
This is the way to write history. There are three ways to look at history, one is the perspective of traditional history, overlooking. I understand the fate of this era, I understand the historical process of this era, I also know the average life expectancy of this era, the average living area, I even know what they eat, and I can generally know what your fate is like for each of you here, and at this time I will pick out two or three of you, as the empirical evidence of my point of view, as a history of overlook, or the history of today's mainstream narrative, I have completed the task.
The other is to look up at history, to describe the fate of every ordinary person, every ordinary person, and when you realize the fate of all these people, this fate hangs high above everyone's head, and these fates are the course of history, which is very interesting to write.
But there is also a kind of thing like the Agenda, which flies in the course of history, neither overlooking nor looking up, and it expresses the course of history through the feelings of all people, which is where he is evil, but this is also the interesting part of the book.
Author: [French] Eric Viaer, Translator: Meng Mei, Publisher: CITIC Publishing Group, Published on: May 2019
-End-
Meet the city-state
CITIC Publishing Group social science humanities brand
Serve people who think independently