Fire and Blood: The Third Reich
We’re
traveling from Westeros to Nazi Germany in this unusual—and, to us,
urgent—episode of the Boiled Leather Audio Hour. Why are we venturing so
far afield from our usual topics of discussion and debate? Because
we’ve always believed that A Song of Ice and Fire, like life itself, is
best viewed through an unsparing ethical and historical lens. Lately,
however, that lens has been clouded. In recent weeks, numerous
right-wing politicians—most notably Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson and his supporters
in the United States—have distorted and repurposed the rise of Adolf
Hitler and the roots of the Holocaust to suit their preexisting
positions. Astonishingly, in the day since this podcast was recorded, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
followed suit. We believe this to be an act of tremendous disrespect
for the dead, one that also does a grave disservice to the living. Given
our personal and professional interests in this pivotal epoch in
history, which have shaped our interaction with ASoIaF in ways large and
small, we decided to explore the era’s real lessons as best we could.
What
role did privately held weaponry and paramilitary organizations
actually play both in the Nazi Party’s ascent to power and the
resistance against it? How should we view Europe’s failure to act in the
face of Hitler’s belligerence, and Germany’s failure to capitulate in
the face of certain defeat? What parallels can be drawn between the
forces that fueled the war Hitler ignited and those at play in Westeros
and Essos? What makes World War II different enough from other conflicts
for the likes of Vietnam-era conscientious objector George R.R. Martin
to say it was worth fighting? Is there such a thing as a “good war” at
all? In this experiment of an episode, we try to answer those questions.
Two notes before we proceed:
1) We are deeply indebted to the work of the historians Ian Kershaw and Richard J. Evans, particularly Kershaw’s two-volume Hitler biography and Evans’s Third Reich trilogy.
2)
On a much lighter note, this episode (hopefully—with iTunes, god only
knows) marks the debut of our brand new logo, created by Sean’s partner,
Julia Gfrörer. We are in her debt.
Additional links:
Stefan’s blog.
My god, i am no longer going to ever listen to another one of these podcasts after hearing this. In the information age there is no excuse to having such inaccurate information and morally apprehensive views. Steffen should be ashamed of himself for actually being a German and knowing so little of what actually happened in WW2. You guys should have stuck with ASOIAF topics, not try to tie it in with your absurd theories against America's 2nd amendment which makes it even worse. Do some research before you spout off what you were taught in grade school about history.
ReplyDeleteI would be very interested indeed to know what grave mistakes we make, but unfortunately there are no concrete accusations or facts in your ramblings.
DeleteI doubt that anybody will miss another conspiracy theorist that has no other arguments than "your school knowledge is wrong". Bye.
ReplyDelete"Do some research before you spout off what you were taught in grade school about history. "
ReplyDeleteThis is good advice, Unk, I think you should take it.
Very thought-provoking podcast, guys, thank you.
I don't think people should be imprisoned for denial of anything to do with history.
ReplyDeleteI have question. You mention your aversion for Blackfish's refusal to surrender when the battle is lost. You invoke the comparison of Germany's decision to fight to the end at the end of World War 2 when the battle is lost. But isn't there a more apt analogy from the same time period.
ReplyDeleteI am thinking, as I am sure many other readers are, that Blackfish is analogous to Charles de Gaulle, Jean Moulin and others of the French Resistance, who did continue to fight and resist even when the battle is lost. After all, the regime that Blackfish is asked to surrender can't be said to be right morally with the Freys being the classic collaborators and puppets installed by their overlords.
So how would Blackfish's actions be measured against this different analogy?
The big difference is that the French Resistance lived on the prospect of an Allied invasion. I wouldn't argue with you if there was a northern army around that could relieve Riverrun if it held out, but there is exactly zero hope for this. This is the Führerbunker, Berlin 1945, not Paris 1943.
DeleteI was thinking of Paris 1940 (rather than 43), when De Gaulle, a general without portfolio defied his superior officers and leaders and stated that he would continue to fight.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it does not fit totally but I think it fits that better than it does the Fuhrerbunker, which the books offers a superior allusion with Aerys Wildfire Plot to "burn the capital" to spite the enemy, which Blackfish clearly does not do. Blackfish is obviously the injured party here who refuses to surrender to the corrupt Freys who are unable to establish order without use of hostages and outside force, i.e. collaborators. So I feel that the picture there is closer to the French Resistance. Add the fact that the Brotherhood are involved and they are obviously closer to the general image of the French and European Resistance and Partistan movements as well.
Likewise you also have parallels to the resistance in Spain against Franco which never got relief from the Allies obviously. So there are cases where people did fight when the battle was lost and are considered heroic.
The Blackfish doesn't know about the BwB, and even if he did, it would still offer no rationale for holding out since they can't help him with that.
Delete