Look at this entry on Borges' journal commenting on the liberation of France in 1944:
"To be a Nazi (to play the energetic barbarian, Viking, Tartar, sixteenth-century conquistador, gaucho, or Indian) is, after all, mentally and morally impossible. Nazism suffers from unreality, like Erigena's hell. It is uninhabitable; men can only die for it, lie for it, wound and kill for it. No one, in the intimate depths of his being, can wish it to triumph. I shall risk this conjecture: Hitler wants to be defeated. Hitler is blindly collaborating with the inevitable armies that will annihilate him, as the metal vultures and the dragon (which must have known that they were monsters) collaborated, mysteriously, with Hercules.' (1944)"
What is interesting is that, in the volume 'The Aleph', 'Deutsches Requiem' comes right after 'The search of Averrois', which ends in a dissolving picture of the arab philosopher right after Borges realizes the impossibility of imagining how was it like to be an arab philosopher living centuries ago. But the image of the nazi, instead, is not dissolved away, probably because zur Linden is a fictional character grounded on a certain ideal type.
Sometimes fiction is more real than reality. Nazism was a fiction, and was more dangerous than many other things real.
I like the point you're making. Let's not forget the story of "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius", a story published in 1940 with a fictional postscript from 1947 - presumably when Nazism and Fascism won, and unreality takes over the whole world. Lies and propaganda becomes the new reality.
I learned a lot from this post and I've been studying Nazi history and the holocaust for years. I'm so glad you are writing again. I'll seek out that Borges story.
Born in '38 I've memories of WW II, the Reich, the Axis. For many decades I tried to understand, how the German people, etc. could support such and found it incomprehensible.
Sadly much we've seen over the last few decades clarifies such mindsets.
I would also imagine Borges’ work is making a comeback, which is even more disturbing.
My family has direct links and activity in Munich during this period; ironically my family came from both sides of this coin, joined in the middle with the arrival of the Americans.
I never thought of this in a perspective to apply to the remainder of my family history and what has unfolded here since. It is making me contemplate a book. 🤔
I find this article fascinating and well written, but I wonder if Borges' understandable aversion to Nazism is causing him to inflate it in the story into something it isn't. The Nazis certainly did not 'secretly want to lose' nor did they see themselves as acting out a fantasy of barbarianism, but rather they saw themselves as the apex of civilization and 'humanity'. Hannah Arendt's work on this subject is I think a bit closer to the truth: The Nazis were the banality of evil in its purest form, and this banality is literature's limit. Nazism as such cannot be placed in Borges' infinite library because Nazism is not a book - it is the burning of the library entire.
I take Borges to be insightful. I think his writing fills an archetype (that I detest), but he clearly advances it well.
I've been taken aback at how terrible we teach history. The lockean liberal historicism, if they can have one, is definitely a fear of groups and authority — the counterpart to the romantic Great Man theory. Besides watering down human essence and action, it makes liberal societies unprepared for when these ideals and energy invades their societies because they're a "free" country; there's no issue with it popping up in their country. I feel like that's also adjacent to the misuse, and terrible analysis, of the term "fascism".
Thanks for this post. Hannah Arendt got it wrong. Eichmann wasn't the banality of evil, he was a fanatic. Nazism was a belief system that people supported and trusted in. Hitler was seem as a messiah of sorts.
Works like "Deutsches Requiem" stand as a compelling testament to Borges' renowned assertion that the brevity of a short story or poem is not only sufficient but often more potent in encapsulating complex ideas than the sprawling canvas of a novel. His mastery lies in his ability to distill profound philosophical and metaphysical concepts into compact, yet deeply resonant, forms. This economy of language challenges conventional notions of narrative form, demonstrating that concision can be a vehicle for deeper exploration.
Thank you so much for writing this article, Chen—it's incredibly relevant to our time, particularly in an era where the art of brevity and precision is more crucial than ever.
This is what I have been searching for to peer into the mind of a Nazi. I still cannot understand why or how most or some are born this way to be evil and sadistic to destroy and kill . No conscience at all. And it’s still happening today in Modern times. So many things I want say.
Thank you Chen, I will definitely read Borges story. It had mot realised he wrote this. I look forward to reading more of your works.
Well done piece. I enjoyed this. I haven't read the story, but it sounds nuanced and complex and something you would never see today. Ditto a novel such as Lolita, by Nabokov, a brilliant novel about a crazed rapist pedophile. We used to be able to enter into the minds of these types of sadistic monsters (who are nonetheless complex human beings) but that time seems long gone. I'm sure we could learn a lot.
I have two links to add. One is to my lengthy essay on Hitler compared to Trump (not the same but some similarities) and the other is a piece about the former neo-Nazi client I had (who became an anti-hate activist) whose two memoirs I edited.
Look at this entry on Borges' journal commenting on the liberation of France in 1944:
"To be a Nazi (to play the energetic barbarian, Viking, Tartar, sixteenth-century conquistador, gaucho, or Indian) is, after all, mentally and morally impossible. Nazism suffers from unreality, like Erigena's hell. It is uninhabitable; men can only die for it, lie for it, wound and kill for it. No one, in the intimate depths of his being, can wish it to triumph. I shall risk this conjecture: Hitler wants to be defeated. Hitler is blindly collaborating with the inevitable armies that will annihilate him, as the metal vultures and the dragon (which must have known that they were monsters) collaborated, mysteriously, with Hercules.' (1944)"
What is interesting is that, in the volume 'The Aleph', 'Deutsches Requiem' comes right after 'The search of Averrois', which ends in a dissolving picture of the arab philosopher right after Borges realizes the impossibility of imagining how was it like to be an arab philosopher living centuries ago. But the image of the nazi, instead, is not dissolved away, probably because zur Linden is a fictional character grounded on a certain ideal type.
Sometimes fiction is more real than reality. Nazism was a fiction, and was more dangerous than many other things real.
I like the point you're making. Let's not forget the story of "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius", a story published in 1940 with a fictional postscript from 1947 - presumably when Nazism and Fascism won, and unreality takes over the whole world. Lies and propaganda becomes the new reality.
I learned a lot from this post and I've been studying Nazi history and the holocaust for years. I'm so glad you are writing again. I'll seek out that Borges story.
Born in '38 I've memories of WW II, the Reich, the Axis. For many decades I tried to understand, how the German people, etc. could support such and found it incomprehensible.
Sadly much we've seen over the last few decades clarifies such mindsets.
I would also imagine Borges’ work is making a comeback, which is even more disturbing.
My family has direct links and activity in Munich during this period; ironically my family came from both sides of this coin, joined in the middle with the arrival of the Americans.
I never thought of this in a perspective to apply to the remainder of my family history and what has unfolded here since. It is making me contemplate a book. 🤔
I find this article fascinating and well written, but I wonder if Borges' understandable aversion to Nazism is causing him to inflate it in the story into something it isn't. The Nazis certainly did not 'secretly want to lose' nor did they see themselves as acting out a fantasy of barbarianism, but rather they saw themselves as the apex of civilization and 'humanity'. Hannah Arendt's work on this subject is I think a bit closer to the truth: The Nazis were the banality of evil in its purest form, and this banality is literature's limit. Nazism as such cannot be placed in Borges' infinite library because Nazism is not a book - it is the burning of the library entire.
I take Borges to be insightful. I think his writing fills an archetype (that I detest), but he clearly advances it well.
I've been taken aback at how terrible we teach history. The lockean liberal historicism, if they can have one, is definitely a fear of groups and authority — the counterpart to the romantic Great Man theory. Besides watering down human essence and action, it makes liberal societies unprepared for when these ideals and energy invades their societies because they're a "free" country; there's no issue with it popping up in their country. I feel like that's also adjacent to the misuse, and terrible analysis, of the term "fascism".
Welcome back, Chen.
Thank you. Glad to be back!
Thank you. This is beautiful.
Thanks for this post. Hannah Arendt got it wrong. Eichmann wasn't the banality of evil, he was a fanatic. Nazism was a belief system that people supported and trusted in. Hitler was seem as a messiah of sorts.
Works like "Deutsches Requiem" stand as a compelling testament to Borges' renowned assertion that the brevity of a short story or poem is not only sufficient but often more potent in encapsulating complex ideas than the sprawling canvas of a novel. His mastery lies in his ability to distill profound philosophical and metaphysical concepts into compact, yet deeply resonant, forms. This economy of language challenges conventional notions of narrative form, demonstrating that concision can be a vehicle for deeper exploration.
Thank you so much for writing this article, Chen—it's incredibly relevant to our time, particularly in an era where the art of brevity and precision is more crucial than ever.
Excellent article
I wrote a short inspired by that one entitled Heinrich and the bees. I have yet to sell it
https://open.substack.com/pub/marlowe1/p/job-chapter-30?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=sllf3
Thank you. You reminded me of this wonderful short story.
This is what I have been searching for to peer into the mind of a Nazi. I still cannot understand why or how most or some are born this way to be evil and sadistic to destroy and kill . No conscience at all. And it’s still happening today in Modern times. So many things I want say.
Thank you Chen, I will definitely read Borges story. It had mot realised he wrote this. I look forward to reading more of your works.
So thoroughly impressed. Provided additional insight into Nazi barbarism. I will try to read the short story.
Well done piece. I enjoyed this. I haven't read the story, but it sounds nuanced and complex and something you would never see today. Ditto a novel such as Lolita, by Nabokov, a brilliant novel about a crazed rapist pedophile. We used to be able to enter into the minds of these types of sadistic monsters (who are nonetheless complex human beings) but that time seems long gone. I'm sure we could learn a lot.
I have two links to add. One is to my lengthy essay on Hitler compared to Trump (not the same but some similarities) and the other is a piece about the former neo-Nazi client I had (who became an anti-hate activist) whose two memoirs I edited.
Hitler: https://michaelmohr.substack.com/p/adolf-hitler
Ex Nazi client: https://michaelmohr.substack.com/p/how-a-former-neo-nazi-became-my-esteemed-fd4
Michael Mohr
Sincere American Writing
I was wondering whether you'll be back
Glad you did
Thank you -great essay