فیلسوفان هیتلر

by Yvonne Sherratt, حسین کاظمی‌یزدی (Translator)

فيلسوفان هيتلر گروهی از فيلسوفان‌اند كه قبل، بعد و در خلال هولوكاست دور هيتلر بوده‌اند. اين گروه شامل تاثيرگذاران و همدستان ثبت نشده نيز می‌شود؛ هم‌چنين ما در مورد دانشگاهيان يهودی و مخالفان هيتلر هم بحث می‌كنيم. اين گروه از متفكران به سنت متعارفی تعلق دارند كه از هزارتوی فرهنگ آلمانی سر برآورده است. از كانت گرفته تا نيچه، از آلفرد بويلمر تا مارتين هايدگر، از هانا آرنت تا والتر بنيامين، همه‌ی اين فيلسوفان در مورد ايده‌های مشتركی بحث كرده‌اند. زندگی بسياری از آن‌ها با هم ارتباط داشته است: آن‌ها دانشجو، معلم، هم‌دانشگاهی، دوست و حتی عاشق يكديگر بوده‌اند؛

Genres: Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Politics, Germany, World War II, Holocaust

324 pages, Hardcover

First published November 13, 2012

Reviews

[Jon Nakapalau · Rating 5 out of 5]

The unleveled philosophical foundation that a madman built his ideology upon: the danger of interpretation and symbolic appropriation has never been more fully examined in reference to Nazism. So much has been written on what 'formed' Hitler's belief system; this book goes very deep into trying to understand this complicated process.

[Mahdi · Rating 2 out of 5]

اول از همه بگم که حقیقتا در تعداد ستاره ای که باید به این کتاب داد، در حیرتم

یک کلام: کتاب بدی است؛ یا بهتر بگویم: کتاب خوبی نیست. یک روایت کاملا جانبدارانه و توهین آمیز نسبت به هر کس و یا هر چیزی که منتقد کوچکترین اقدامات یهودی ها باشد. وقتی از هایدگر صحبت می شود، حتی قیافه و رفتار او نیز کریه و زشت توصیف می شود و وقتی از آدورنو و آرنت نام به میان می آید، ناگهان همه چیز حتی محل تولد و رشد آنها هم درخشان نامیده می شود

اما این کتاب، خوب هم هست؛ چون حقایق و کدهای خوبی برای اهالی تحقیق فراهم می کند. اینکه اساسا مکتب فرانکفورت یک مکتب آمریکایی و نه آلمانی است و ریشه های نگاه سخت برخی اندیشمندان به مسائل عمومی از کجا ناشی می شود

کتاب را برای عموم توصیه نمی کنم؛ چون هم غنای کافی ندارد و هم خسته کننده است اما اگر اهل پژوهش در حوزه تاریخ سیاست و اجتماع هستید، تورقش خالی از لطف نیست

[Setayesh Dashti · Rating 3 out of 5]

مهم‌ترین ایراد کتاب همانطور که بارها در مرورهای انگلیسی ذکر شده، این است که بیش‌‌ازحد خاله‌زنکیست و کمتر از حدّ‌ انتظار به اندیشه پرداخته. منی که خواننده‌ی جدّی فلسفه نیستم، شاید آنقدری از این مقدار تاریخی بودن و زندگینامه‌ای بودن احساس فوت وقت نکنم ولی یأس مخاطب جدّی فلسفه برایم قابل تصوّر است. تقریبا در اکثر موارد لبّ اندیشه‌ی فیلسوفِ بحث‌شده و ارتباط آن با ایدئولوژی نازیسم ناگفته می‌ماند و تنها به تاریخی از ارتباطات و معاشرت‌ها اکتفا می‌شود. به‌خصوص درمورد فیلسوفانی مانند هایدگر و اشمیت و آدورنو کمتر چیزی مربوط به تاریخ فلسفه و فکر دست آدم را می‌گیرد؛ هرچه دستگیر می‌شود تاریخ ارتباط‌هاست.
من تا حدّی با دانستن این نکته خواندن کتاب را شروع کردم چون بیشتر از تاریخ فکر و اندیشه، ترسیم فضای آکادمی در آلمان نازی برایم جالب می‌نمود و تقریبا هم آنچه می‌خواستم به دست آوردم و بنابراین خواندن کتاب برایم لذّت‌بخش بود و مفید. امّا باز هم نپرداختن به اندیشه و به جایش پرداختن به رنگ سنگفرش مونیخ یا پرچین‌های زمین بازی یا توصیف ساختمان محلّ تولد فلان فیلسوف بسیار آزارم داد.
و متأسّفانه کتاب اشتباهات ویرایشی گل‌درشتی هم دارد که به‌نظرم می‌رسید کتابی که در چنین مؤسّسه‌ای چاپ شود باید کمتر از این دست اشتباهات داشته باشد.

[Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

I like helpful books. These are books that are generally easy to read, but that put things in perspective, solve a problem, or introduce you to difficult subjects or new vistas. This book, Hitler's Philosophers, does a little of all of that.

The beginning of the book is the story of how philosophers in Europe (before Hitler) contributed to the Nazi problem. It appears that several of the leading European philosophers, philosophers like Kant, Hegel, and Nietzsche, were anti-Semitic in their remarks. They helped give Hitler a foundation for his anti-Semitic views.

Not only that, but German philosophers contemporary to Hitler's rise to power also gave assistance to the Nazis. One of the chief philosophers in this regard was the acclaimed Martin Heidegger. Heidegger idealized the simple country people of his native Bavaria, but he also gave credibility to Hitler's regime by cooperating with the removal of Jewish-German philosophers from academia. He even betrayed his own mentor, Edmund Husserl, who was a Jew.

But the book isn't just about those who cooperated with Hitler, it's also about those who resisted. Some of the more prominent names are – Walter Benjamin, Theodor Adorno, and Hannah Arendt. The stories behind each of these philosophers are tragic and poignant. Inexplicably, it seems that fate hounded them to the end. Even after the war was over and Hitler's regime was defeated, these Jewish-German philosophers were never welcomed back to Germany; in fact, Germany never systematically tried to reinstate the Jewish-German philosophers it had drummed out of academia and so viciously persecuted.

The book is an easy introduction to an era of European scholarship, it's flaws and failure – from a human perspective. It also raises questions about European philosophy's current status and future.

Note: It should also be noted though that anti-Semitism has had a long history in Europe. It probably dates back to medieval times, when the church held sway in Europe. I'm reading Fatal Discord: Erasmus, Luther, and the Fight for the Western Mind, by Michael Massing and it relates how the anti-Semitism of the Reformation/Renaissance era affected these two very notable Christian men. In fact, Luther, in his tract, On the Jews and Their Lies, put forward a program of actions against the Jews, including burning schools and synagogues, destroying their homes, prohibiting usury, and forcing them into lives of hard labor. Philosophers contemporary with Hitler were certainly not the first to engage in anti-Semitism. Nevertheless, one would expect philosophy to be enlightened and somehow ahead of its times. To the extent that philosophers contemporary with Hitler did not oppose anti-Semitism shows that they were, unfortunately, a product of their times not the visionary leaders we would hope that they might be. - [04-25-20]

A better book than this one to read about antecedents to Hitler is the book, Luther’s Jews: A Journey into Anti-Semitism, by Thomas Kaufmann. He writes about Luther’s anti-Semitism, mostly later in his life. Luther’s tract, On the Jews and Their Lies, which was not popular in Luther’s time, was later acclaimed by the Nazis. - [01-28-2024]

[Mohammadreza · Rating 1 out of 5]

نیمی از کتاب حاویِ آراء و افکار فیلسوفان و جامعه شناسانی از قرن هجدهم تا شکل گیری حزب نازی آلمان و همچنین چگونگیِ ارتباطِ این افکار است که البته به طور کاملا سطحی بررسی شده و در بیشتر موارد توضیحات کافی و قانع کننده ای وجود ندارد. کتاب نقاط ضعف فراوانی دارد و مهمترین آن هم روایت مغرضانه و کین توزانه است. شاید بهتر بود که کتاب با پایانِ این بررسیِ سطحیِ افکار و اندیشه های متاثر بر هیتلر و حزب نازی در همان نیمه ی خود به اتمام می رسید. پس از چند فصلِ مرتبط با بررسی کم عمقِ اندیشه های متاثر , کتاب واردِ بررسی زندگی افرادی همچون والتر بنیامین, تئودور آدورنو , هانا آرنت و ... می شود و به کسالت بار ترین شیوه ممکن پیش می رود. سبکِ روایی و توصیفاتِ بی اهمیت از مثلا طبیعت یا ساختمان ها , دودکشِ فلان خانه و امثالِ اینجور چیزهای بی اهمیت , خواننده جدی ای که به دنبالِ فهمِ اندیشه های مرتبط با عنوان" فیلسوفان هیتلر" آمده را به واپس می راند. از اینجا به بعد کتاب مدام درجا می زند و به تکراری مرگ آور می افتد و می فرساید و خود با این فرسایشِ مخاطب , فرسوده می شود. چهل صفحه ی باقی مانده را رها کردم چرا که حقیقتا کتاب چیز دیگری برای ارائه ندارد.

[Roger · Rating 1 out of 5]

Hmmmm. This book was not at all what I was hoping it might be. I perhaps should have been warned by the following lines in the introduction "The book is written as a docudrama, bringing to life the historical era and personal dramas of the people involved. It is a work of non-fiction, carefully researched, based upon archival material, letters, photographs, paintings, verbal reports and descriptions, which have all been meticulously referenced. However, it is written in a narrative style, which aims to transport the reader to the vivid and dangerous world of 1930s Germany." Hmmmm.

While there is no doubt that 1930s Germany was vivid and dangerous, I'm not sure a book about Philosophy in Germany during that time is best served by being written as a "docudrama". No matter how meticulously referenced a work, the reader struggles to take it seriously when it contains lines such as the following - "It was a hot, humid July day in Stadelheim Prison, Munich, 1943. The drizzle that had started to fall earlier that day increased to a light rain. The caretaker cursed - warm, wet weather made his job even more irksome." It doesn't help that the endnote that covers this passage states "The details of the caretaker are my (i.e. the author's) own reconstruction."

While this kind of writing might almost have been forgivable if the work delved in detail into the thinking and milieu of the philosophers and philosophy of Hitlerite Germany, what we are given are a series of chapters, which in true "docudrama" tradition dwell on the lives and scandals of a select few individuals, with precious little effort given over to explaining their philosophical theories.

We are also given quite a bit of what I would consider unnecessary background to Hitler and Nazi Germany - I would have thought that someone coming to a work with the title Hitler's Philosophers would already have a handle on the basics of the history of that place and time.

What we do get in the book are two sections - the first being a potted history of Hitler's intellectual formation, with a chapter on German philosophy of the 19th century, mostly to do with Kant and Schopenhauer, a chapter on minor collaborators, and a chapter each on Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger. Section two, "Hitler's opponents" gives us the following chapters - Tragedy: Walter Benjamin, Exile: Theodor Adorno, The Jewess: Hannah Arendt, The Martyr: Kurt Huber, and The Nuremberg Trials and beyond.

The book is strangely polemical in tone - the "baddies" are irretrievably bad, and the "goodies" seem to be unable to do wrong. Whilst there is no doubt that Hitler himself was irretrievably evil, I'm not sure why Sherratt feels that she has to ridicule his claims that he read Schopenhauer in the trenches. It seems probable that he did, and there is no doubt that he was an effective and brave soldier. In fact his experiences in the trenches in World War I would seem to me to be absolutely critical in the formation of his philosophy, and yet Sherratt doesn't linger on them.

The chapter on Heidegger does not focus, except in a very general way, on his philosophy. It focuses instead on his affair with Arendt, his spurning of Husserl after the Nazis came to power, and his famous rectors speech given in 1933 at Freiburg University. While all of this is interesting in a way, I would have preferred a chapter that went into detail about his thought, and about how it aided Nazism, and how Nazism filtered into his work.

Likewise with the chapters on the victims, we get very little focus on their thoughts and interactions with Nazi ideology, and more on their close calls with the Gestapo, attempts to flee Germany, and in Benjamin's and Huber's cases, their tragic deaths.

The most interesting chapter was the Nuremberg Trials and beyond - the gradual (or not so gradual in some cases) rehabilitation of those academics that served under Nazi rule, and the (mostly) continuing exclusion of the exiled Jewish cohort could be a book of its own - touched on here, and worth further reading.

Overall, a disappointing book especially as it seems that Sherratt is an expert on philosophy, having written a couple of previous books. In this case she's erred too much on the side of "docudrama".

Check out my other reviews at http://aviewoverthebell.blogspot.com.au/

[Sator · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is one of the worst books I have ever read. It is written like a trashy novel with a cheap narrative passing for serious scholarship. It is pure pulp fiction in the guise of history. The only review worth reading of this piece of rubbish is the one written by the great Cambridge historian, Sir Richard J. Evans:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk...

The review is short and impatient. I almost wish that Evans had written more. However, he alludes to studies he has published. But I wish Evans had been given the opportunity to write a more thorough demolition of the nonsense spouted by Sherratt.

It is astonishing that this book was actually written by an 'academic'. Even more appalling is that the author uses it as the basis of her lectures as a senior lecturer at Bristol University. It has about as much historical validity as a Nazi UFO conspiracy book alleging that Hitler escaped the bunker by being taken up to a UFO made in collaboration with the aliens, being kept in suspended animation awaiting the impending Nazi UFO invasion of the world.

The problem is that she is encroaching on the subject of the history of the Dritte Reich, and the origins of its political ideas. She exhibits virtually no background knowledge of the massive historiography of the era such as the different theoretical approaches to the origins of the Final Solution. She begs the question from the beginning as to how she can justify taking an extreme intentionalist approach to the origins of the Final Solutions, seemingly just presuming that this can be a priori taken as fact. In fact, she probably does not even know what the intentionalist vs structuralist debate entails.

Historians who are well versed in the scholarly study of this era will scoff and treat this rubbish with the utter disdain it deserves, but it is sad that she being allowed to teach this nonsense to unwitting students as though her pathetic fantasies were fact.

I have written a more thorough review of this book elsewhere:

http://thinkclassical.blogspot.com/20...

[Peter Herrmann · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought it well researched. Opened my eyes (esp. Part 2 and the Epilogue) to the mindless revisionism of popular media. Until reading this book I only knew (or thought that I did) that Heidegger, Arendt and many others were in some ways 'great thinkers.' But their complicity with evil (even Arendt, by trying to resuscitate Heidegger's career) was jolting to me. A painter, or doctor, or musician or scientist or plumber can do great work and yet have abhorrent moral philosophy; but I refuse to accept that a moral philosopher whose published ideas are immoral and repugnant - or, in case not immoral, but who lacks the courage to live in accord with how he/she tells others to live - can be great. (Is indeed the antithesis of great). At any rate, Sherratt is not arguing this point, but has illuminated it for me. She also opens - and closes - the book with another moral dilemma, which is very thought-provoking: Can medical advances be used if derived from the sufferings of others? [I would add - but not exactly part of her question - the sufferings of animals]).

Apropos, I recently read 'Skin in the Game'(Nassim Nicholas Taleb) where he drives home that intellectuals' opinions are worthless without their skin in the game; esp. so for so-called philosophers. So, I doubt that I'd waste time reading most of the philosophers Sherratt has covered (based on both her revelations about them and on Taleb's dictum).

[Mohammad Ali Shamekhi]

صرفا بخش هایدگرشو خوندم. کتاب فلسفی نیست . هایدگر رو مثل هر آدم دیگه ای از دید یک مورخ بررسی کرده. اما این دید به نظر من ضروریه. اینجا است که آدم می فهمه برای ایده آل ها تا کجا می شود رفت...

[Mohamadreza imani · Rating 3 out of 5]

من متن‌های موضع دار رو دوست دارم. کسی که سعی می‌کنه خیلی بی‌طرف روایت کنه در واقع هیچ چیز رو نمیتونه روایت کنه. ولی کسی که درباره یه جریانی موضع داره می‌تونه تمام جوانب له و یا علیه‌ش رو روی کاغذ بیاره.
این کتاب هم از اون متن‌های موضع‌دار بود. نویسنده با هر چیز که بوی فاشیسم بده سرناسازگاری داره؛ تا حدی که یه جاهایی این ناسازگاری باعث غیر منطقی شدنش میشه.
.
بخش اول درباره خود هیتلره. من درباره هیتلر جایی نخونده بودم و برام مفید بود. اینکه هیتلر منابع فکری داشته و ایدئولوژیش رو از کیا الهام گرفته.
بخش دوم به ریشه‌های یهود ستیزی در ایدئالیسم آلمانی میپردازه البته به نحو غیر فلسفی. عالی بود واقعا.
بخش سوم همون بخش فیلسوفان هیتلره که به طور مشخص میشن اشمیت و هایدگر. نویسنده هرچی از دهنش در میان بهشون میگه.
بخش چهارم درباره مخالفان هیتلره که از سه تاشون نام می‌بره یعنی بنیامین، آدورنو و آرنت.
.
بدنه اصلی کتاب همان بود که رفت. اما دقت کنید به هیچ وجه کتاب فلسفی نیست، شاید بشه بیشتر اسمش رو جریان‌شناسی گذاشت با اینکه فقراتی از فلاسفه هم توش نقل میشه.

.
کتاب یه موخره داره که به نظر من موقع نوشتنش نویسنده داشته از فرط حسادت چشمامش از حدقه می‌زده بیرون و دقیقا همینجاست که از فرط موضع دار بودن بی‌منطق میشه.
تو این بخش غر میزنه که چرا آرای کسانی مثل فرگه، اشمیت و هایدگر، با اینکه از اصلی‌ترین فلاسفه نژادپرست بودن، در حال حاضر جزو متون اصلی دانشگاهیه و به تناوب دربارشون کتاب و مقاله چاپ میشه ولی اندیشمندانی مثل فرانکفورتی‌ها جزو حاشیه آکادمی محسوب میشن و یکسری از دشمنان نازیسم مثل هوبر هم بالکل حذف شدند.
.
علی ای حال خوندنش خوبه ولی به تنهایی نه چون باعث میشه یک طرفه داستان رو بشنوید. به منابع دیگه هم رجوع کنید.

[Elly Tarahimofrad · Rating 4 out of 5]

داستان این کتاب در دهه ۱۹۳۰ برلین شروع شده زمانی که هیتلر قدرت را در دست گرفت خودش را «فیلسوف پیشوا» (Philosopher Führer) نامید. او خودش را پیرو اندیشه‌های امانوئل کانت و فردریش نیچه می‌دانست. اما آنچه مسلم است اینکه آگاهی هیتلر از میراث فلسفی آلمان نصفه و نیمه و ناقص بود. او به یهودی‌ستیزی کانت اشاره می‌کرد که مدعی شده بود «یهودیان حق زیست مستقل را ندارند.» امانوئل کانت کسی بود که روزگاری نوشته بود مذهب یهود در واقع اصلا دین نیست. شرات می‌نویسد که بزرگ‌ترین متفکر عصر روشنگری (کانت) پایه‌گذار یک مبنای مشروع در فرهنگ اروپا می‌شود؛ مبنایی که براساس آن یهودیان به شکل بالقوه مجرم هستند. همچنین شرات توضیح می‌دهد چگونه ولتر، روشنفکر و فیلسوف بزرگ دیگر، نظریه پیش از آدمیت خود را ترویج می‌دهد؛ اساس این نظریه این است که یهودیان از بقایای گونه‌ای از انسان هستند. فیلسوف محبوب دیگر هیتلر، نیچه بود، نگرش نیچه نسبت به یهودیان متناقض بود اما هیتلر به آنچه دوست داشت، ارجاع می‌کرد. او از لابه‌لای حرف‌های نیچه به اندیشه لزوم کشتار برای «خیر جمعی» بسیار معتقد بود. چنانچه ایوان شرات در کتاب خود اشاره می‌کند منبع مورد علاقه دیکتاتور برای تکیه‌گاه‌های فلسفی، اندیشه اصلاح نژادی در داروینیسم اجتماعی ارنست هکل و هیوستون چمبرلین، یک انگلیسی عجیب و غریب که تابعیت آلمانی گرفته بود، بودند. هیچ‌یک از اینها فلاسفه معتبری نبودند. فلسفه هگل می‌آموخت که انسان‌ها را باید براساس قوانین تکامل مدیریت کرد و فقط باید به نژادهای شایسته حق بقا داد. هیتلر از این آموزه به این نتیجه رسیده بود که نژاد آریایی توانسته شایستگی‌اش را مقابل سیاه‌ها و جهودها نشان دهد.

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’m glad that Yale Press published this. When I first saw this book I knew I had to read it for two reasons: As someone who enjoys intellectual history, this book will no doubt touch on the ideas and philosophy that influenced Hitler (or to be more charitable, it would point out the ideological capitals Hitler used to persuade people to his policies). Secondly, we see an increase in the last fifteen years of historical works addressing the question of how did a mad man managed to lead a civilized people towards barbaric policies with the focus of the complicity of various institution, from the Pope, the church, scientists, social sciences and the universities. In the same vein, this works show the intersection of philosophy/philosophers with Hitler/Nazism. The book definitely fulfilled the initial reasons for why I wanted to read the book.
The author divided the book into two parts. The first section focused on Hitler and philosophy, and on the philosophers who collaborated with the Nazi’s ideological vision. The second section concentrated on German philosophers that the Nazi opposed. It is a big endeavor the author pursued since each section of the book can easily be the focus of a book-length treatment.
Chapter one was a mini-ideological biography of Hitler and what philosophers he liked and who and what influenced him. I appreciated the chapter’s focus of the early years of Hitler before political opportunism seasoned his rhetoric and when he was passionately frank about what he believed during the lowest point of his life in a German prison. The author worked through materials not only from Hitler’s writing and speech (he tend to brag about his intellectual prowess) but also sources from early supporters and friends. I think chapter one definitely establishes the Nietzsche influence in Hitler’s worldview. Chapter one also indirectly contributes to the debate of whether Hitler was a Christian or not, and what degree he was a Christian if he was one. If one understands Hitler’s philosophy its very hard-pressed to see how his atheistic Nietzschean beliefs is compatible with Christian theism.
Chapter two looked at the historic philosophers and philosophies that Hitler invoked in his ideology. For those familiar with philosophy the main idea of these philosophers are nothing new. What is interesting and new to many is the thread of anti-Semitism among these philosophers, some of them who are important canons of Western philosophy. The author is nuance in describing how these philosophers are not “Nazis” and many of these philosophers would probably be surprised with how someone like Hitler would invoke their name and thoughts. I do think that these philosophers do project a trajectory that Hitler later borrowed and build his own philosophy upon.
Chapters three through five focused on the collaborators with Hitler’s Germany, with chapter three being specifically about the Nazi figures who controlled academia and German philosophy while chapter four and five look at the specific example of philosopher of jurisprudence Carl Schmitt and existentialist Martin Heidegger respectively. Most interesting of this section is the author’s argument that Heidegger was more than an opportunists but one who embraced Hitler’s Nazi’s ideology wholeheartedly. I think the author presented an excellent case.
Chapters six through nine focuses on philosophers the Nazis opposed. We read of the tragic story of the Jewish philosopher Walter Benjamin who committed suicide when he was unable to flee from the Nazis and the exile of Theodor Adorno. The best known of the philosophers in this section is Hannah Arendt, a Jewish woman who managed to escape from the Nazis. In juxtaposition to Arendt is the story of Kurt Huber who as a philosopher spoke out against Nazi beliefs in the classroom and involved with the White Rose resistance movement that led to his execution. Here is a heroic philosophical martyr who dared to oppose the Nazis. The author laments of how Huber is little known today because of his resistance to the Nazis.

What I learned
This book re-affirmed to me the maxim that ideas have consequences. Though it is a bit tangent from the book, there is no political systems that are philosophically neutral: there is some kind of worldview driving one’s political theory and at minimum we can say some philosophers will be willing mercenaries for political agendas in order to advance their academic careers, their school of thoughts, etc (Kuhn’s theory of the structure for scientific revolution is applicable in evaluating social sciences and the humanities as well).
From this book I learned of the composer Richard Wagner and his influence upon Nietzsche. From there the book also show how Nietzsche’s idea shape other influential members of the Nazi party.
Perhaps the most surprising thing I learned was Heidegger’s adulterous affair with Hannah Arendt. In one of history’s incredibly ironic moments, we see this famous philosopher whom the Nazis earned great intellectual credibility with him on their side, being caught up with a Jewish woman. One sees how personal affair can shape one’s philosophy in the instance of Hannah Arendt beliefs in the war and after.

What I want to look up more on
I love looking through the endnotes and the bibliography of the book for it provides a treasure trove of references for further studies. It is a wonderful way to acquaint oneself with the primary sources and scholarly secondary sources.
This book also made me realize I need to study more of certain philosophers. Martin Heidegger is someone that I want to look up more beyond the few selected readings from my days in undergraduate. I have always heard the name Schopenhauer but don’t really know what he believes.

Drawback
I wished the book would have adopted Chicago style format since it was rather annoying for me as someone who reads all the endnotes to turn from the page I’m reading to the end notes and then again to the bibliography. I don’t find this kind of format being conducive to readers’ attention to the sources (why give citation anyways when your format discourage its use?).

Conclusion
Excellent work. I wholeheartedly recommend it and I think those acquainted with philosophy would get the most out of it.

[Yupa · Rating 2 out of 5]

Libro che è un po' una delusione. Speravo in un'analisi approfondita dei rapporti tra il nazismo e il pensiero dei filosofi vissuti in quel periodo in Germania, e invece mi sono ritrovato con una cronistoria delle vite degli stessi, su come hanno reagito al regime di Hitler, chi è scappato, chi l'ha sostenuto, chi ha provato a opporsi. Qualcosa di teorico c'è nei capitoli su Charl Schmitt e Heidegger, ma è poco e per il resto, soprattutto riguardo a chi fu perseguitato (Benjamin, Adorno, ecc.), il libro si limita a narrarne le vite senza aggiungere nulla di significativo. Soprattutto lo fa in maniera troppo romanzata: va bene rendere il libro appetibile anche al lettore più generico, ma a volte sembra che l'autrice ci metta del suo per rendere liriche determinate sequenze, determinate ambientazioni, anche quando ci sono ovvî dubbî che lei potesse essere presente sul posto per descriverle così nel dettaglio.
È solo verso la fine del libro che spunta fuori, quasi insospettabile, un quesito che avrebbe meritato ben maggior spazio: cosa fare nel presente del pensiero di quegli intellettuali che non si opposero o persino appoggiarono il regime hitleriano, pensiero che a tutt'oggi è ancora celebrato (esemplare il caso di Heidegger)? L'autrice non risponde a questa domanda, ma sembra di capire quale sia la sua posizione in tutte le pagine in cui si scandalizza perché la denazificazione del dopoguerra non sia andata abbastanza a fondo negli ambienti universitarî.
Ora, io direi che va fatta una distinzione. Prendiamo il caso di Frege, riportato sempre nel libro: Frege è il fondatore della logica per come oggi la conosciamo ma, seppur visse prima della Germania nazista, era anche antiliberale, razzista e antisemita. Insomma, un buon precursore del nazismo. Dovremmo per questo rinunciare a tutti i suoi eccezionali contributi teorici? Io dico di no, nello stesso modo in cui, se Hitler dicesse che 2+2=4, questo non renderebbe falsa o riprovevole la matematica. Pensare che determinati contributi scientifici di una persona vengano in qualche modo contaminati da determinate idee della persona stessa è una forma di pensiero magico, superstizioso, oscurantista, ed è già singolarmente vicino proprio al modo di pensare nazista, quello che condannava Einstein perché ritenuto rappresentante di una presunta "scienza ebraica".
Penso però che sia diverso il caso di pensatori come Heidegger. Heidegger non parlava delle regole della logica formale, astratte, disincarnate e universali. Heidegger parlava del senso della Storia, del posto dell'essere umano nel Mondo, delle vicende e del destino del sistema culturale di cui facciamo parte, identificato come "occidentale". Il pensiero di Heidegger, insomma, ha e avrebbe avuto qualcosa da dire anche sul nazismo, che è stato storia umana come tutte le storie umane. Giusto quindi affrontare Heidegger anche da questo punto di vista e scavare per individuare se in esso vi furono tendenze che lo avvicinarono all'ideologia hitleriana. E secondo me la risposta è in parte positiva, perché la fortissima avversione di Heidegger alla modernità o la sua concezione misticheggiante di un Essere perduto, obliato, sono fortemente vicine alla visione del Mondo tipiche dei regimi autoritarî, quelli che parlano di un passato perduto da recuperare e che deprecano ogni innovazione sociale come disumanizzante. Questo però non significa che i libri di Heidegger vadano espulsi a forza dai curriculum universitarî, cosa che oggi, con l'imperante cultura della cancellazione, sarebbe sin troppo facile fare. Anzi, i libri di Heidegger vanno proprio per questo affrontati, letti, discussi, contrastati con lo studio e le idee. Fare il contrario sarebbe, anche in questo caso, già avvicinarsi al modus operandi nazista, quello che, con ansito purificatore, i libri li bruciava nelle piazze.

[Luke · Rating 2 out of 5]

1.5/5

[Adorno] couldn't believe that the German people would give any long-term backing to this Führer who seemed to him to be 'a mixture of King Kong and a suburban hairdresser.'

What I expected to get out of this book is what I'm hoping to gain from Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition, but as this particular tome of Sherrat's has been hanging around for longer and looks a lot more sensational, it went first. You see, I live in a country where everyone calls the slightest hint of humanization of 'socialism' and the slightest hint of fascism not 'technically' fascism, and it's those polite and oh so civil liberals that are going to pave the way to the events that this work recounts. So, it's in my best interest to immerse myself my wholly gentile self in the kind of reading that will allow me to point out the warning signs, cause guess what, forcing yourself to read things that preach the extermination of you and your people is really bad for you. I'm not exactly immune to Hitler's particular kind of threat, being queer and insane and all, but this work at least showcases how anti-Judaism/antisemitism was the most likely focal point, if there is one, to the massacre. What I was reading for, then, was the sort of tracing of Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and so many monoliths of 'Western' ideology down to the now, analyzing their good but also their ill in terms of what filtered through the Nazi handbook and normalizes itself today. What I found instead was bafflingly bad writing with with unclear focus and the barest hint of academic rigor that only managed to sustain itself through the extensive (and not always necessary) quotations from (most) of the writers of the historical period, which went some way in explaining the poor average rating but didn't make me any happier about it.

The man[, Heidegger,] who had not flinched at the idea of mass slaughter in the name of the German Volk collapsed under emotional strain when his own academic status was in jeopardy.

This writing is far more fitting, especially with the whole 'novelization' treatment where the author fanficced their way into history and back, for one of those poorly cobbled together pieces of historical fiction than an academic treatise put forth by one of those former slave owner filled Ivy League institutions. There was just enough research done to flesh out a few names and references (Adorno, White Rose, Arendt, Kant, etc) for me to not sink this all the way down, but come on. A hardcover book going for nearly $30 online without shipping costs factored in (I got mine for $2, as I usually do with these sorts of things) shouldn't have a hard time competing with the Wikipedia articles written on the same material, and this, where every hard factoid seemed to have a floaty creative writing exercise-style paragraph synthesized from photos of people and locations hanging off of it, was eye-rolling way too many times for comfort. I got some good factoids about post WWII German academia and Sartre, along with some other topics that I fully intend to pursue, but this work didn't transcend at all the conventional picture that USians have of Germany in history, which begins in 1941 and ends in 1945. It's a shame cause history's not exactly the most popular genre of reading material out there, and while this is clear cut enough prose style work as someone's gateway drug, the fact that the writing is often the kind of basic stuff my high school students would churn out that I couldn't even improve without completely rewriting could be enough to turn someone off of nonfiction entirely. Couple it with the author pulling an Aktion-T4 normalization in calling one of the Nazis a 'psychopath' and being otherwise obtusely 'Nazi's are bad/others are good' in tone, and it kind of makes me glad I didn't manage to get into PhD level US academia if this is the kind of thing it spits out.

'Das war ein Vorspeil nur, dort wo man Bücker verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen — 'Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end burn human beings.'
-Heinrich Heine

Some good bits embedded in this, but my lord the ratio of it to the rest is abysmal. The warning signs were there in the form of the average rating and the practically pristine condition of this library discard, but sometimes (oftentimes) the public determination of quality is absolute trash, y'know? Anyway, now that it's gone and done, the progress I made tracing the antisemitism of the entire 'Western' enterprise wasn't as much as I would have liked, but there were some gaps filled in regarding the before and after of Germany in the 20th century that will serve as a springboard for further ventures. All in all, is it too much to ask to have a document seriously and analytically consider a 2000+ year old bigotry (counting the Romans' own propaganda) in a well written manner without devolving into sensationalist tropes and some of the same old ideology of hate that it was supposed to be cautiously prospecting? The course of the 20th c. did its best to make such impossible, but if a non-professor like me can see how the whole 'sneaking conspiracy' component of antisemitism so perfectly mirrors the ableist fearmongering surrounding 'sociopaths' and the like, someone can go out and show how Operation Paperclip colored 'Western' ethics as well as built 'Western' rockets to the moon. Not trying to be cruel or anything, but if you're going to tear down the curtain of the man behind it, actually stop to think whether you're doing more harm than good, else it's likely to end up being a complete laughingstock.

For those who were 'unfortunate enough to live during times of peace', perusal of the lives of the great heroes was urged.

The conditions for it — and I mean all of them...are at least as present here [America] as in Germany, however, and the barbaric semi-civilization of this country will spawn forms no less terrible than those in Germany...
-Thomas Adorno

The whole 'barbaric semi-civilization' bit has its issues, but one has to admit Adorno has a point.

[Ramtin · Rating 3 out of 5]

مشکل اخلاقی ای را به خاطر آوردم که در یک سخنرانی پزشکی پیش روی ما دانشجویان پزشکی قرار گرفته بود:
آیا باید از اطلاعات پزشکی ای که نازی ها از تجاربشان با یهودیان به دست آورده اند، استفاده کنیم؟حتی اگر این کار باعث نجات جان بسیاری از افراد شود؟

[Alex · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ein interessantes Buch, welches in literarisch ansprechender Form die philosophischen Charaktere rund um den Nationalismus beleuchtet. Das Buch ist in zwei Teile aufgeteilt. Der erste Teil beschäftigt sich mit Hitlers philosophischen Versuchen selbst, den historischen Stichwortgebern, die von ihm und seinen Ideologen verfremdet wurden sowie Carl Schmitt und Martin Heidegger als philosophische Adjutanten im dritten Reich. Der Zweite beschreibt die Schicksale der Regimegegner (Walter Benjamin, Theodor W. Adorno, Hannah Ahrendt, Kurt Huber) sowie einem abschließenden Kapitel, welches sich den Geschehnissen nach Ende des Krieges widmete.

Sherratt arbeitet oft sehr anekdotisch, gestaltet die Kapitel literarisch sehr angenehm lesbar. Philosophische Tiefe fehlt jedoch, daher nur 3 Sterne.

[Pedy · Rating 4 out of 5]

مهمترین قسمت کتاب برای من فصل آخر بود. جایی که دیدیم فیسلوفانی که در دوران نازیها آسیب فراوان دیدند نه تنها بعد از دادگاههای نورنبرگ قدر ندیدند بلکه کم کم به دست فراموشی سپرده شدند. جایی که هایدگر و اشمیت با مجازات روبرو نشدند و اندیشه هایشان روز به روز بیشتر تبلیغ میشد. جایی که دیگر نام نشان چندانی از کورت هوبرباقی نماند

[Nathaniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an overview of the relationship between Nazism and German philosophy, and covers first how Hitler was able to cherry-pick ideas from all of the great philosophical luminaries of the past (Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, etc.) and be credible due to the traditional strain of antisemitism lurking in traditional German philosophy. The Nazis' subsequent takeover of the universities and purge of Jews and intellectuals is also documented, before delving into in-depth profiles of various philosophers who were affected by this action. Most notably this includes Martin Heidegger, arguably Hitler's greatest intellectual collaborator, but also a variety of the Nazis' victims including Walter Benjamin, Theodor Adorno, and Hannah Arendt. The book also covers what happened to German philosophy after Nuremberg, which was basically that the majority of collaborators were allowed to keep their jobs and remained as anti-Semitic as ever, and the philosophy of those who were forced out by the Nazis in the 1930's was pretty much buried until very recently. Heidegger, meanwhile, went on to become one of the biggest stars of the postwar philosophical world despite his central role in the Nazi era, and this element of his background has been downplayed as much as possible by an entire generation of philosophy professors.
Overall, though Sherratt tries too hard to be "literary" in places and the work jumps around a lot and isn't more than an overview of anything (it actually seems a lot like a dissertation), it still covers the subject adequately. Possibly worth reading if you're interested in the subject, but don't expect anything earth-shattering.

[Roger Morris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Part 1 deals with the way Hitler and other purveyors of Nazi ideology solicited historical German and other European philosophical thought for the Nazi cause. It also describes (and names names) how contemporary German philosophers, academics and university scholars were complicit in the Nazification of German universities for reasons of ideological agreeance with Nazi policies and/or personal gain by taking up university academic professorships left vacant by expelled Jewish academics. It describes the slow creep of antisemitism in Germany prior to Hitler and the Nazi Party, and that Hitler was neither original or unique in his targeting of Jews as an alleged destructive force in Germany and Europe at large.

Part 2 discusses some of the thinkers and philosophers in Nazi Germany who fell foul of the regime because they were Jewish or had Jewish ties. Germany Jewish thinkers such as Walter Benjamin, Theodore Adorno, Hannah Arendt and Kurtz Huber who were killed, bullied, ostracised or exiled as a result of their Jewish heritage.

Part 3 discussed the wash up of the Nuremberg Trials and de-Nazification process in the immediate post WW2 Germany and the legacy of the Third Reich in academia and universities throughout Germany and Europe. Martin Heidegger, Gottlob Frege and Carl Schmitt are singled out by the author as Nazi collaborators who somehow managed to wiggle out of the Nazi associations to become famous in their fields. At the same time, Jewish/German thinkers remained marginalised and ignored, according to the author, in post war times and to this day.

[Gonfer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Il libro può deludere i più: non dà risposte, non entra troppo nel dettaglio, si perde spesso in dettagli secondari frivoli ed è scritto con uno stile inusuale per l'argomento trattato (spesso mi sembrava di leggere un thriller o un libro drammatico), questi ultimi due chiaramente degli artifizi per rendere la lettura coinvolgente e piena di suspense. Nonostante ciò, è uno dei pochi libri, concedermi il termine, "mainstream", a sottolineare come dopo la fine della seconda guerra mondiale la storia sia ancora una volta stata ingiusta. Secondo il mio parere il libro, oltre ad essere un ottimo punto di partenza per chiunque voglia approfondire il pensiero e la vita di alcuni degli intellettuali più rilevanti del secolo scorso (basti pensare al rapporto Harendt - Heidegger), mette in luce come dopo il 1945 il mondo accademico tedesco e mondiale siano stati tanto indulgenti nei confronti degli intellettuali che hanno chiaramente sostenuto il regime nazista quanto indifferenti nei confronti di ebrei o oppositori, che spesso non sono riusciti a recuperare neanche i loro ruoli, al contrario dei primi che anzi hanno via via goduto di un prestigio rinnovato. Il principale obiettivo del libro è sottolineare questa ingiustizia. Ovviamente sono presenti anche gli interrogativi sulla complicità della filosofia nell'avallare la follia nazista, sulla prevalenza tutt'oggi del retaggio di quella filosofia, sull'eventuale presenza di germi antisemiti e via dicendo ma sono quesiti poco sviluppati e lasciati un po' qua e là a se stessi.

[Vanessa Ferrin · Rating 5 out of 5]

what HAP-PENS when a woman of well-intent at good place in life (presumably) is enCOURAGEd to PONDER lives and loves (Hannah Arendt and Matin Heidegger, Theodore Adorno and his passions and social life, Walter Benjamin and spiritual endeavors..) and psychology of Hitler's supporters, victims, enemies and collaborators?...This is one HELL of a book...Sherratt lives and BREATHES this stuff...apparently a life mission to learn, humanize, share with others, decode, tell whole world how these lived, and loved and why they did what they did--who they WERE..research and anticipation and BEAUTY (poetic!) in writing, exHAUSTive resources for spiritual seeker make this book not just history but living, breathing examples of how people were and how you can be and WHY they were and chronicled AMAZING life stories...revives and carries flame of little known traditions to some in literary thought--makes valiant effort to revive lost and vilified Jewish philosophical traditions...chapters on Kurt Huber's life and interactions with Sophie Scholl and The White Rose society and Hans Scholl are so aLIVE....book to read to make your day worth it if it is filled with chores and monotony..or book to keep flame aLIVE if you ever have day where you are in danger of perpetuating racial, social stereotypes..not anti-german book but one that reignites LOVE for mother's homeland and philosophers and ancestors....:)

[Ian Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've given this four stars because i did find it a compelling read. When i was half way through I was tempted to give it only three, because it skates a bit lightly over the philosophy and engages in some ad hominem argument. Heidegger was a Nazi, therefore his philosophy can't be any good. I actually find that there is a lot in Heidegger that really resonates with me, and I don't want to jettison it all because Heidegger was a seriously flawed man. People who enjoy Wagner's music have a similar struggle. Also the style of writing, while pacey and engaging can also be a bit irritating. Sherratt must have felt compelled to include some descriptive scene setting, but these paragraphs sit rather awkwardly. I found myself asking 'how does she know it was windy on the day, or that the seagulls were crying...?'
The second half of the book which traces the lives of the martyrs and fugitives from Nazi Germany, like Benjamin, Adorno, Arendt and Huber contained a lot that was new to me... hence four stars overall.

[Liam · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Hitler, as Ernst Hanfstaengl put it, 'was not so much a distiller of genius as a bartender of genius. He took all the ingredients the German [tradition] offered him and mixed them through his private alchemy into a cocktail they wanted to drink.'" (27)

"Heidegger loved nature. ... Away from the urban bustle, he became sensitized to the delicate sounds of nature, the mist clearing, the wind rising gently in the trees, and the native birds. Peasants in their folksy knickerbockers and waistcoats, wearing thick knee-high woolen socks, completed the picture that he cherished." (110)

"The nineteenth century had witnessed the blossoming of Romanticism as a reaction against increasing industrialization. Benjamin turned those sensibilities that were usually directed against modern civilization towards it instead. He felt aspects of the Romantic in what human hands were creating. Man the maker was not Benjamin's enemy; he was not the destroyer of a meaningful world." (145)

[Error Theorist · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book was well written and informative. The author made sure not to jump to conclusions when discussing Heidegger, who was probably an opportunist. Most likely, he saw the possibility of Germany becoming an 'authentic' nation, and Nazism was a vehicle to actualize that goal. Heidegger probably wasn't a vicious antisemite like many other Nazi philosophers (he had an affair with Hannah Arendt - a Jewish woman). However, what Heidegger did to Husserl was slimy and revealing.

Frege took a short but vitriolic beating at the end of the chapter on the collaborators. While it may be true that Frege was a Nazi sympathizer, he also encouraged Wittgenstein (a Jew) to escape Europe in the 1920's. Some of Frege's students were also Jewish, and they valued their experience with Frege. So, Frege's antisemitism isn't a black and white issue.

[Sanjana Rajagopal · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book made me so emotional. I actually wish it had gone into more detail, specifically on Heidegger and Arendt, but I think for a survey of philosophy in the War years, it did very well.
The ending particularly stood out to me--I've been deeply troubled by the idea that we still celebrate thinkers like Heidegger, and yet many marginalized philosophers are never heard or ushered into Western Canon. Sad state of affairs, and one that must change. Reading this did inspire me to always be moral in my own quest to be a philosophy professor though. Teachers are the architects of the future and it is imperative that they set a standard for their students--not only academically, but morally. Their students revere them, look up to them, are influenced by them. They have to be careful in their actions and must stand for what is right.

[Dana · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found the book both compelling and confusing. I simply don't absorb deep philosophical discussions, but am always wondering how mass genocide could have happened in recent Europe. The author outlines with one Philosopher's example how 18th century Immanuel Kant was irritated by "everything that was primitive and irrational"..."and one ancient religion became his special target- Judiasm."p.39. More than a century later Hitler would use the same target and justify his actions on the teachings of Kant and other German philosohers.

[A.P. Dannenfeldt · Rating 3 out of 5]

This would have been better with relatively more exposition & depth on the ideas and currents of thought that were taken up by the regime or were created in reaction to it, and relatively less biographical detail on the individual philosophers themselves. My interest in the regime’s use of agrarian romanticism, declinism, and discerning to what extent Enlightenment values undergirded or acted at cross-purposes to Nazi utopian aspirations went largely unsatisfied.

[Karen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Two take-aways from this book:
1) Although it's a trope that history (and syllabi) are written by the winners, it's sobering to see how many academic careers and lives were absolutely destroyed in the course of just a few chapters. No justice or reparations...simple, total annihilation.

2) Heiddeger was a real jerk.

[Derek · Rating 2 out of 5]

An interesting premise, but lacking true depth into how Hitler was influenced by the actual philosophies of various philosophers. It's a decent starting place, but one that could have been better.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book but needs a new title. Heidegger...Hitler's little slut.