REVIVAL OF THE MONSTER

The condemnation of Nazism was embodied in the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which also stressed the importance of countering its rehabilitation. The very system of international law came into being as a result of realizing the horrors of Nazism and to prevent their recurrence at any time in human history. It would seem that this issue has thoroughly been studied by scholars and politicians, and we have closed the book on Nazism. But have we really? Have we got to the bottom of this phenomenon, or do we continue to be in thrall to stereotypes, often giving in to the current situation and substituting symbols for facts and nicely packaged fakes for real events?

The emergence of Nazism was largely facilitated (and is still being facilitated) by the deliberate distortion of moral standards as well as historical events and processes. The atrocities and barbarism become the norm of conduct and are "sanctioned" by social institutions, as a result of which people seem to lose the will to act on the basis of their own moral criteria. One of the Nazi propagandists and radio presenter of the Third Reich, Hans Fritzsche, who was acquitted of all three charges during the Nuremberg Trial, later admitted that "perhaps by listening to Hans Fritzsche, Hans Fritzsche himself paralyzed his own will to think independently". In other words, the point of reference is the freedom to make own moral decisions. So, who were those people, whom we call the Nazis and fascists, who tortured, killed, and burnt their victims in ovens and removed children from their mothers? Did they lack moral standards or freedom?

In a recent article carried by The Guardian, it is argued that "Nazism is being turned into banality", trivialized and simplified. Indeed, Hitler is looking at us from the Internet wherever you turn - he is hiding in various memes and pictures of cats resembling the Fuhrer and is actively offered in online gaming. Few would not have seen YouTube videos on the topics of the day with Hitler in the lead role - this refers to a scene from "Downfall", a 2004 German war film. Hitler is revived in "alternate history movies", such as "Inglorious Basterds" (2009) by Quentin Tarantino or "Iron Sky" (2012). There are satirical novels, too, such as "Er Ist Wieder Da" by Timur Vermes (published in English as "Look Who's Back"), in which Hitler wakes up in modern Berlin. The author of the article is focused on the issue of whether it is right to reduce Hitler and other Nazis to caricature villains of sorts - "the embodiment of evil, symbols of atrocities without any right to moral justification". The author writes that "precisely because it is unacceptable for our culture to admire Hitler (despite the best efforts of a small and utterly disregarded group of neo-Nazis and those who deny the Holocaust), he has become a target of ridicule and vulgarization". But to what extent this logic is correct? After all, a caricature character gradually becomes unreal, more and more endowed with the traits of a mentally unhealthy person, which cannot be held responsible for his deeds, but in fact we are talking about responsibility. It is much more difficult to comprehend that the Nazis lived like ordinary people - they went on dates, got married, had children, made friends, showed honour to their parents, laughed and cried…

In her notoriously controversial book, Hannah Arendt, a German-born American philosopher, who at the time worked as a New Yorker correspondent, presented her views on the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann, the former SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer (Lieutenant Colonel) in charge of the Gestapo's Department IV-B-4 that was responsible for the "final solution of the Jewish question". In arguing over the relationship between "radical" and "banal" evil, Arendt was in fact talking about the relationship between morality and freedom. Many years have passed since the trial, even more since the fall of the Third Reich, but questions still remain. Meanwhile, it should be obvious that it is impossible to justify the loss of one's own moral compass and the abandonment of one's own judgment, i.e. the loss of autonomy of the will. Well, we are talking about the Nazi system, but this system consisted of individuals who eventually stood trial in Nuremberg for their crimes.

Crime involves a specific and clear action. It is not an ideology, which may change; the commission of a crime cannot be justified by its motives. That is why we do not condone terrorists who cover their offences with lofty arguments of freedom and brotherhood. If a crime is committed, it does not matter for what reason it has been committed. This should define our attitude towards various "liberation movements/armies/organizations/legions", which collaborated with the Nazis during World War II on the principle "an enemy of my enemy is my friend". At this stage, it is important to ignore the causes and only pay attention to the facts, which can either prove or disprove a crime.

Ironically, facts are often the most vulnerable part of history. Suffice it to mention the "Armenian approach" to the tragic events which took place in the context of World War I. The events of World War II are closer to us in time, and therefore the factual distortion of what had happened in 1939-1945 can be even more painful. Thus, one would think that the crimes of Garegin Ter-Harutyunyan (General Nzhdeh), the founder of the explicitly Nazi ideology of Tseghakron, and Drastamat Kanayan (General Dro), who loyally served the Fuhrer, are well-known and documented. They killed people in Poland and Ukraine, at the North Caucasus Front, in Rostov-on-Don, and in Crimea; their anti-Semitic activities are no secret. Today, however, Nzhdeh is greatly honoured in Yerevan - a metro station and a square were named after him and a namesake medal was established. In the meantime, the Strategic Research Institute of the Ministry of Defence of Armenia bears the name of Dro, while a book about Nzhdeh is quietly on sale in Moscow and a movie about him is going to be shot in Russia…

The above-mentioned Hans Fritzsche also said, already after the Nuremberg trial, it seems, that "you can propagate whatever you like, you can even lie with the help of the truth by just pulling out some facts from the chain of relationships". Unfortunately, his words smack of the harsh truth. What is written in The Guardian is only part of the trouble. On the one hand, we are witnessing the reduction of Nazism to something banal and comic in 70 years after its defeat, and on the other, we see that the emphasis is only made on symbols, while facts are forgotten. For example, the propaganda of the swastika as a symbol of Nazism has been banned in many countries of the world, but can it insure us against the revival of the Nazi ideology? Indeed, negative associations with the swastika appear to be too strong, and people gradually stop paying attention to the fact that the Nazis did not invent the swastika, they brazenly appropriated it. And that this sign is the oldest graphic symbol that can be found in the ancient cults in wide areas from Mesopotamia to Ireland, from Central Asia to the pre-Columbian America. Associations with the "pre-Nazi swastika" were quite peaceful, even positive - agriculture, the solar wheel, directions of light, a change and success of generations. In the end, it is just a symbol. Feel the difference, as they say. Just try and wear a T-shirt with a swastika, and you will be greeted with stones, but it is quite easy to name a square after a criminal responsible for the death of thousands of people... If the symbol of the sun is frequently seen on the sleeves of murderers, it will become a symbol of murder; if a killer has been called a hero many a time, he will turn into a hero in the minds of certain people, whereas the facts will pass into oblivion once again. The Nuremberg Tribunal set as its main objective "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person". The dignity is impossible without freedom, and freedom can only be built on honesty. There is no other way. The history of the Third Reich serves as an example.