Theodore Junker, proudly displaying the American flag side by side with that of Nazi Germany, poses the question, if history is written solely by the victors, then what value does history hold? The account he provides is quite evidently derived from lingering propaganda. He found the twilight of his 87 years the best possible time - once the bulk of his life has already passed - to reveal his beliefs, to expose himself to the venomous attacks that are sure to follow. Of course his contentions that Nazi soldiers, according to him, were heroes, his refutation of the Holocaust, and his laudatio of Hitler are not particularly different from similar views expressed by neo-Nazis.
What is interesting is the symbollic value of those two flags hanging side by side at the heart of his supposed shrine to the truth. Each flag is the embodiment of a truth. In the end, only one won out and wrote the definitive account of what happened. The problem this farmer and former member of the SS broaches - apart from his own biases - is whether "history" is only one side of a story; the victorious account triumphs over the vanquished one. Of course, it is hard to think about this problem without finding oneself on the verge of an abyss. One cannot accept the propaganda inspired account Junker peddles, for it is patently false. But should the stilted account of the victors be accepted without question? True, what Junker wants to spread as Truth is indeed false, hideous, and hateful. But the mythology surrounding the flag on the left, is that not a cause of equally hideous sentiments? When the president of the United States publicly chide - or more appropriately, condemn - Mexican immigrants for not singing the national anthem in English, aren't those sentiments threatening to burst forth? Does it not present the possibility of radical exclusion or "necessary assimilation"? The unity and security of a nation is held proportional to the strength of its symbols, the voracity of its mythology, and the unanimous adherence to ritual and tradition. The nation must be believed to be resolutely righteous, the protector of universal ideals.
While Allied forces are seen as heroes in the eyes of history, there are instances of villainy. The firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo are the most common examples of this. The polarization of good and evil makes it imperative that slaughter be elevated to the level of heroism, rationalized and justified. Of course, some would ask, why question the story? The story is dangerous if it cannot be retold without variance. An unquestioned account fuels the polarization between good and evil; the elevation of the nation-state as the supreme defender of all that is good. Justify and rationalize - is everything permitted?
Junker has both flags up. He sees similarities between the dreams peddled by each. Freedom contra Will? Democracy and the Volk? Manifest Destiny and lebensraum? The destiny each ideology sees for itself involves a belief that history is ultimately of the side of the righteous, on their side. History, as Junker unwittingly demonstrates, is not truth or reality, but simply an instrument of power - possibly the most effective blow inflicted by victors of a struggle. But this specific blow is substantial; it constructs time and space, writes the story that is reality.
What is interesting is the symbollic value of those two flags hanging side by side at the heart of his supposed shrine to the truth. Each flag is the embodiment of a truth. In the end, only one won out and wrote the definitive account of what happened. The problem this farmer and former member of the SS broaches - apart from his own biases - is whether "history" is only one side of a story; the victorious account triumphs over the vanquished one. Of course, it is hard to think about this problem without finding oneself on the verge of an abyss. One cannot accept the propaganda inspired account Junker peddles, for it is patently false. But should the stilted account of the victors be accepted without question? True, what Junker wants to spread as Truth is indeed false, hideous, and hateful. But the mythology surrounding the flag on the left, is that not a cause of equally hideous sentiments? When the president of the United States publicly chide - or more appropriately, condemn - Mexican immigrants for not singing the national anthem in English, aren't those sentiments threatening to burst forth? Does it not present the possibility of radical exclusion or "necessary assimilation"? The unity and security of a nation is held proportional to the strength of its symbols, the voracity of its mythology, and the unanimous adherence to ritual and tradition. The nation must be believed to be resolutely righteous, the protector of universal ideals.
While Allied forces are seen as heroes in the eyes of history, there are instances of villainy. The firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo are the most common examples of this. The polarization of good and evil makes it imperative that slaughter be elevated to the level of heroism, rationalized and justified. Of course, some would ask, why question the story? The story is dangerous if it cannot be retold without variance. An unquestioned account fuels the polarization between good and evil; the elevation of the nation-state as the supreme defender of all that is good. Justify and rationalize - is everything permitted?
Junker has both flags up. He sees similarities between the dreams peddled by each. Freedom contra Will? Democracy and the Volk? Manifest Destiny and lebensraum? The destiny each ideology sees for itself involves a belief that history is ultimately of the side of the righteous, on their side. History, as Junker unwittingly demonstrates, is not truth or reality, but simply an instrument of power - possibly the most effective blow inflicted by victors of a struggle. But this specific blow is substantial; it constructs time and space, writes the story that is reality.
