History’s Fool: The long century of Ernst Jünger | Hacker News Reader

History’s Fool: The long century of Ernst Jünger

harpers.org

42 pointsapollinaire17 comments

A rather good article, even though it dwells a little too long on WW1, and not enough on the psychedelic sci-fi of his later years. My favorite is Eumeswil,with Heliopolis a close second.

But the part about first war explains the path Junger turned to later.

The English translation of his famous book “Storms of Steel” doesn’t carry the same weight as the original German title “In Stahlgewittern”. (German compound words are the best).

Thinking about it it made me realize what a stark contrast that title is compared to “All Quiet on the Western Front” (by Erich Maria Remarque). And both authors talk about the same WW I.

I found it fascinating to read those two books back-to-back. Really explained a lot to me about the mindset of people at the time. Importantly, he was an officer, while Remarque describes the experience of a "small man".

And more importantly: He (Ernst Jünger) was regarding to his biography a special kind of personality, even before his time in WWI he joined the french foreign legion as a means "to see Africa". So, lets just say he had a bit more life experience than Remarque at the beginning of the war.

Usually translation has the title in singular, no?

I felt several times that I remembered lines from this piece as I was reading it but after finishing it I looked at the url and saw that it has only recently been published

There was another Jünger piece[0] on HN a few months ago. It was written by Jessi Jezewska Stevens who wrote the foreword to the new edition of "On the Marble Cliffs" discussed in today's article. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34024219

Sometimes it pays off to be a fool and ignore the politics and the realities of the world you live in.

Especially when you think the Nazis were not radical enough and despise democracy. Then you are surely better of ignoring all politics.

“I hate democracy as I do the plague"

"He disapproved of the Nazis not because they were radical but because they were not radical enough"

(Even though that is a debatable conclusion from the article)

I read this in a different key.

>Especially when you think the Nazis were not radical enough and despise democracy.

More likely he didn't trust democracy and by being radical he thought about taking the power instead of using the democracy and its institutions like elections, like the nazis were doing at that time.

He despised the nazis for killing jews and mistreating russian war prisoners. His son was sent in a suicidal mission and died because he said Germany should lose the war.

He clearly disliked the bourgeoisie and capital owners and he envisioned a different world, more like in ancient Sparta where avery many should be a hero - like he tried to be in WWI. That's why the article made references to Iliad.

He clearly sees more order in the natural world than in the world in which he lived. He wanted to see the same kind of order and reasoning in the world surrounding him, but the world surrounding him was much more absurd.

At first he was trying to change the world in a quite donquijotesque manner. Realising he can't change the world and there aren't many people with his vision and wanting to rally in that mission, he stepped out and observed the world from his refuge with the clinical interest of an enthomologist.

Later, he derived pleasure from building imaginary worlds.

"More likely he didn't trust democracy"

Since there was a direct quote from him, I think it is more acurate to say, he actually despised democracy.

Maybe he changed some of his views later. I have only read "In Stahlgewittern" so far. I want to read more at some point, he is definitely an interesting character, but not necessarily a nice one.

> more like in ancient Sparta where avery many should be a hero

You can't have a Sparta without the helots.

>More likely he didn't trust democracy

Democracy during Junger's time was not a sure thing. For many, compared to what the Soviets were espousing, it seemed ideologically inferior and its flaws, at the time, were painful. Until the flaws in the Soviet model manifested in ugly ways, many countries in Europe were leaning towards their own models based on the Soviets. It was a near thing and had the Soviets not proved to be such dicks, Europe certainly could have gone the other way. "Aftershocks" by Gunitsky has a very nice chapter on this subject.

"Until the flaws in the Soviet model manifested in ugly ways"

Hm, I know that for a long time western intellectuals were looking with dreamy eyes towards russia, but for those really looking, the ugly side was showing very quickly. With the crushing of the Kronstadt rebellion etc.

But I am not aware of any european countries leaning towards the soviet model in any way.

Democracy is mob rule. Democracy is one of the worst political systems ever conceived of. The men that built the USA knew this and did all they could to protect against it. Unfortunately it did not last and here we are: people with no vested interest in the system making decisions.

" people with no vested interest in the system making decisions."

Opposed to the people with vested interest in the system, like the german emperor and russian tsar. Who made a big war for the benefit of everyone. Kings think in history grandeur, just like ordinary politicians. They just have more unchecked power, you should maybe try out north korea, I think they are the closest to being anti democratic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com