![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Nazis and the English
Feb. 27th, 2026 05:47 amI've been listening to a fascinating discussion on the relationship between Germany and England during the years leading up to World War II on Apostolic Majesty's YouTube channel:
I'm generally not especially interested in World War II. I think it's inevitable for any thinking person to be somewhat interested in that war which I think, more than any other, continues to be a touchstone in any exploration of modern morality and human nature. It's a crucial point in any discussion of what defines society in any of the countries that were involved and an essential topic for discussions of modern human behaviour. So I think, for anyone with serious interest in humanity and society, some interest in World War II is necessary and inevitable. But beyond that, I'd much rather read about the 17th century.
The Apostolic Majesty YouTube discussion freshened my perspective and now I feel like I see the Nazis slightly differently. The idea that they saw the British as exceptionally cold and ruthless is new to me, or if I heard it before, I'd forgotten it. I'm fascinated by the fact that this seems to have been a quality that was at turns envied and deplored, or used as fodder in anti-British propaganda. I found myself thinking of the cliche in American films of British actors being cast in villainous roles and wondered how deep and widespread this idea of the "cold and ruthless" Brit goes. I suppose it's a reputation tied to British imperialism and perhaps the Nazi perspective on the British was not so dissimilar to the Japanese envying the colonialism of western powers. How often does envy lurk behind hate?
Another part of the discussion that interested me was the idea that exhibitions of brutality by the Nazis were not only sadistic or done with the intention of racial extermination but also with the intention to demonstrate the warrior nature of the Third Reich, to show their power in being above the morality that might prohibit such acts. It's an idea obviously connected to the kind of motive that informed Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment and similarly calls into question the reality of attempts to transcend morality in this matter. A reaction against something must inevitably be defined by it. Harbouring the conception of a ruthless other may inevitably lead to this conception becoming a mirror. In this way, the one holding this perception may carve the path of their own downfall or moral degradation. Somehow I'm reminded of Macbeth. There is something of the existential doom inherent in free will here.
I'm generally not especially interested in World War II. I think it's inevitable for any thinking person to be somewhat interested in that war which I think, more than any other, continues to be a touchstone in any exploration of modern morality and human nature. It's a crucial point in any discussion of what defines society in any of the countries that were involved and an essential topic for discussions of modern human behaviour. So I think, for anyone with serious interest in humanity and society, some interest in World War II is necessary and inevitable. But beyond that, I'd much rather read about the 17th century.
The Apostolic Majesty YouTube discussion freshened my perspective and now I feel like I see the Nazis slightly differently. The idea that they saw the British as exceptionally cold and ruthless is new to me, or if I heard it before, I'd forgotten it. I'm fascinated by the fact that this seems to have been a quality that was at turns envied and deplored, or used as fodder in anti-British propaganda. I found myself thinking of the cliche in American films of British actors being cast in villainous roles and wondered how deep and widespread this idea of the "cold and ruthless" Brit goes. I suppose it's a reputation tied to British imperialism and perhaps the Nazi perspective on the British was not so dissimilar to the Japanese envying the colonialism of western powers. How often does envy lurk behind hate?
Another part of the discussion that interested me was the idea that exhibitions of brutality by the Nazis were not only sadistic or done with the intention of racial extermination but also with the intention to demonstrate the warrior nature of the Third Reich, to show their power in being above the morality that might prohibit such acts. It's an idea obviously connected to the kind of motive that informed Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment and similarly calls into question the reality of attempts to transcend morality in this matter. A reaction against something must inevitably be defined by it. Harbouring the conception of a ruthless other may inevitably lead to this conception becoming a mirror. In this way, the one holding this perception may carve the path of their own downfall or moral degradation. Somehow I'm reminded of Macbeth. There is something of the existential doom inherent in free will here.
