What do you think?
The Peace
Written during the worst years of the Second World War, The Peace is Ernst Jünger's noble attempt to see a way forward for Europe and Western Civilization after decades of civil war and destruction. More than a document of historical interest, it is a statement of principle and hope by one of the great men of 20th century history.
104 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1945
About the author
Ernst Jünger
237 books1,007 followersErnst Jünger was a decorated German soldier and author who became famous for his World War I memoir Storm of Steel. The son of a successful businessman and chemist, Jünger rebelled against an affluent upbringing and sought adventure in the Wandervogel, before running away to briefly serve in the French Foreign Legion, an illegal act. Because he escaped prosecution in Germany due to his father's efforts, Junger was able to enlist on the outbreak of war. A fearless leader who admired bravery above all else, he enthusiastically participated in actions in which his units were sometimes virtually annihilated. During an ill-fated German offensive in 1918 Junger's WW1 career ended with the last and most serious of his many woundings, and he was awarded the Pour le Mérite, a rare decoration for one of his rank.
Junger served in World War II as captain in the German Army. Assigned to an administrative position in Paris, he socialized with prominent artists of the day such as Picasso and Jean Cocteau. His early time in France is described in his diary Gärten und Straßen (1942, Gardens and Streets). He was also in charge of executing younger German soldiers who had deserted. In his book Un Allemand à Paris , the writer Gerhard Heller states that he had been interested in learning how a person reacts to death under such circumstances and had a morbid fascination for the subject.
Jünger appears on the fringes of the Stauffenberg bomb plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler (July 20, 1944). He was clearly an inspiration to anti-Nazi conservatives in the German Army, and while in Paris he was close to the old, mostly Prussian, officers who carried out the assassination attempt against Hitler. He was only peripherally involved in the events however, and in the aftermath suffered only dismissal from the army in the summer of 1944, rather than execution.
In the aftermath of WW2 he was treated with some suspicion as a closet Nazi. By the latter stages of the Cold War his unorthodox writings about the impact of materialism in modern society were widely seen as conservative rather than radical nationalist, and his philosophical works came to be highly regarded in mainstream German circles. Junger ended his extremely long life as a honoured establishment figure, although critics continued to charge him with the glorification of war as a transcending experience.
Junger served in World War II as captain in the German Army. Assigned to an administrative position in Paris, he socialized with prominent artists of the day such as Picasso and Jean Cocteau. His early time in France is described in his diary Gärten und Straßen (1942, Gardens and Streets). He was also in charge of executing younger German soldiers who had deserted. In his book Un Allemand à Paris , the writer Gerhard Heller states that he had been interested in learning how a person reacts to death under such circumstances and had a morbid fascination for the subject.
Jünger appears on the fringes of the Stauffenberg bomb plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler (July 20, 1944). He was clearly an inspiration to anti-Nazi conservatives in the German Army, and while in Paris he was close to the old, mostly Prussian, officers who carried out the assassination attempt against Hitler. He was only peripherally involved in the events however, and in the aftermath suffered only dismissal from the army in the summer of 1944, rather than execution.
In the aftermath of WW2 he was treated with some suspicion as a closet Nazi. By the latter stages of the Cold War his unorthodox writings about the impact of materialism in modern society were widely seen as conservative rather than radical nationalist, and his philosophical works came to be highly regarded in mainstream German circles. Junger ended his extremely long life as a honoured establishment figure, although critics continued to charge him with the glorification of war as a transcending experience.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
October 3, 2017
In this essay, written between 1941 and 1943 in Paris and published in 1947, Jünger lays out his blueprint for a pan-European state. Drawing inspiration from both historical and contemporary empires — among them the Soviet Union and the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne — he envisions a Christian imperium where elements of both the authoritarian and liberal state are reconciled:
"The forms of the authoritarian state apply where men and things can be organized technically. On the other hand, freedom must have control where more organic processes are the rule. It is thus that nature fashions shellfish, with a hard, gleaming embossed shell and a delicate interior in which the pearls are hidden. In this differentiation lies the welfare of states and the happiness of individuals. There should be uniformity of organization in whatever concerns technical matters, industry, commerce, communications, trade, weights and measures, and defense. These departments are like the great roads and railways which run gleaming across an empire and are the same in all its provinces whatever the nature of the country or its people. Man is a child of his time, and as a civilized being can move along them without striking barriers and will everywhere find himself at home. Liberty, on the other hand, dominates in diversity wherever nations and men differ. That applies to their history, their speech and race, to their customs and habits, their art and their religion. Here there cannot be too many colors on the palette. Thus the European constitution must skilfully distinguish the cultural plane from that of material civilization, forming them into picture and frame so as to unite their benefits for the human race. It must create territorial and political unity while preserving historical diversity. That implies at the same time distinguishing between the technical and the organic world. The state as supreme symbol of technical achievement takes the nations in its toils, yet they live in freedom under its protection. Then history will take a hand and give new contents to old forms. Europe can become a fatherland, yet many homelands will remain within its territories." (pp. 60-61)
"The unity of the West, realized for the first time since the empire of Charlemagne, must not be confined to the assimilation of countries, peoples and cults, but must come to life again in the church. The reformation has need of the church' as the church has of reformation. Streams which have flowed in separate channels must be again united." (p. 73)
Jünger's vision is a utopian one. With the benefit of hindsight — keeping in mind the disaster that is the EU and the Grand Remplacement of native peoples in post-war Europe — it is difficult to share Jünger's imperialistic vision, let alone his nihilistic attitude towards "the course of the great evolutionary process, the dominant spirit of the age [which] aims at consolidation". This attitude might come as a surprise considering Jünger's relationship with radical nationalism, but was expressed already in 1932 in his book "Der Arbeiter".
Nevertheless, "The Peace" is a fascinating read (although short and very dense; some points would have benefitted greatly from elaboration), not just in and of itself, but considered as a historical document and a door into the mind of Ernst Jünger at the tail end of WW2.
"The forms of the authoritarian state apply where men and things can be organized technically. On the other hand, freedom must have control where more organic processes are the rule. It is thus that nature fashions shellfish, with a hard, gleaming embossed shell and a delicate interior in which the pearls are hidden. In this differentiation lies the welfare of states and the happiness of individuals. There should be uniformity of organization in whatever concerns technical matters, industry, commerce, communications, trade, weights and measures, and defense. These departments are like the great roads and railways which run gleaming across an empire and are the same in all its provinces whatever the nature of the country or its people. Man is a child of his time, and as a civilized being can move along them without striking barriers and will everywhere find himself at home. Liberty, on the other hand, dominates in diversity wherever nations and men differ. That applies to their history, their speech and race, to their customs and habits, their art and their religion. Here there cannot be too many colors on the palette. Thus the European constitution must skilfully distinguish the cultural plane from that of material civilization, forming them into picture and frame so as to unite their benefits for the human race. It must create territorial and political unity while preserving historical diversity. That implies at the same time distinguishing between the technical and the organic world. The state as supreme symbol of technical achievement takes the nations in its toils, yet they live in freedom under its protection. Then history will take a hand and give new contents to old forms. Europe can become a fatherland, yet many homelands will remain within its territories." (pp. 60-61)
"The unity of the West, realized for the first time since the empire of Charlemagne, must not be confined to the assimilation of countries, peoples and cults, but must come to life again in the church. The reformation has need of the church' as the church has of reformation. Streams which have flowed in separate channels must be again united." (p. 73)
Jünger's vision is a utopian one. With the benefit of hindsight — keeping in mind the disaster that is the EU and the Grand Remplacement of native peoples in post-war Europe — it is difficult to share Jünger's imperialistic vision, let alone his nihilistic attitude towards "the course of the great evolutionary process, the dominant spirit of the age [which] aims at consolidation". This attitude might come as a surprise considering Jünger's relationship with radical nationalism, but was expressed already in 1932 in his book "Der Arbeiter".
Nevertheless, "The Peace" is a fascinating read (although short and very dense; some points would have benefitted greatly from elaboration), not just in and of itself, but considered as a historical document and a door into the mind of Ernst Jünger at the tail end of WW2.
August 15, 2018
Brave, noble writing. I recognize this fiery character, as this youthful, strong and vibrant style and gamut attests for a seasoned fighter's spirit. Immature yet, well-experienced, yet overly bold in assessments. Compared to Junger's writing colouristics in Eumeswil, the latter seems a toned down realistic account of the major fruition of his life's harvests. "The Peace" however is as relevant today as it was in post-war times. Nowadays hatred and injustice are distributed in an act of inverted slavery, a silent, crawling one that vampirizes the world and replaces people's values, virtues, and freedom with surrogates and apparitions.
July 11, 2011
Reviewed: 1/29/2011
Religion or Nihilism?
This book was originally written by Jünger as a 'blueprint' for a post-Nazi settlement if the German Army had succeeded in assassinating Hitler. This essay (it really is quite short), according to the author's foreword, was sketched in 1941 and completed in the summer of 1943. The reason Jünger mentions this is that it shows he was working on this essay before Germany began losing the war. However, this 'alibi', which I doubt, is not essential for him personally; his anti-Nazi novel "Auf den Marmorklippen" ("On Marble Cliffs") had been published in 1939. Also, keep in mind that Jünger, unlike Heidegger and Carl Schmitt, refused to join the Nazi party.
What surprised me when I first read this essay many years ago was the importance that Religion would play, according to our author, in any post-Nazi settlement. We are certainly immediately tipped off that something unusual is afoot by the epigram that Jünger places at the beginning of Part One of this essay:
"The hatred, which is completely conquered
by love, becomes love: and such love is
then stronger than if hatred had not
preceded it"
Spinoza, Ethics, 44th Theorem [or Proposition]
One can be forgiven for being more than a bit surprised that this "God intoxicated man" would appear at the beginning of a book by the author of the novel "Steel Storm" and the essay "Total Mobilization"! But circumstances change, and Jünger, to his credit, changed with them. In Germany and elsewhere, those with Fascist or, if you prefer, 'Konservative Revolutionary' tendencies rarely displayed a Universalist bent. Well, prepare yourself for a shock. On the first page we read that, "It may safely be said that this war has been humanity's first joint effort. The peace that ends it must be the second." For me, it was this 'universalism', so surprising in this author, that also made this book most memorable for me. Now, it must be noted at the outset that this universalism is not the entirely secular modern universalism of a Marx or a Kojève. Jünger makes room for the religious sentiments that they entirely exclude!
Part One ("The Seed") of this essay discusses the present (that is, WWII) and Part Two ("The Fruit") discusses what Jünger hopes will happen after the war is over. (That is, after Hitler is assassinated and WWII comes to an end.) In Part One Jünger denounces totalitarianism and the camps. Those who still think that the extermination camps were an Allied fiction should read what Jünger has to say about them:
"The camps filled, too, where forced labor ceased only with annihilation - thus achieving its deliberate aim. [...]
The secrecy, the shunning of the light, the slaughterings in cellars and evil places and the hasty, unceremonious burial of the victims showed only too clearly that here was no execution of just sentence, but mere outrage and wanton murder.
The number of Golgathas where the disenfranchised were slaughtered is enormous. The crime of which the unfortunates were accused was merely that of existing, the stigma of their birth. They fell because they were sons of their people, of their fathers, of their race, as hostages, as adherents of a disinherited creed, as disseminators of their faith, which laws invented overnight had decreed to be a mortal taint.
[...] they attempted to root out whole peoples, whole races, whole classes, and where leaden tyranny in league with technical efficiency celebrated endless bloody nuptials. (pp. 28-29)"
I do not believe that Jünger anywhere in this essay mentions the Jews by name. But this was to be a document not only for the Allies but also the Germans; and Jünger knew his audience only too well. In the midst of the war Jünger, and all the right-wing anti-Nazi resistance groups, were hoping that an assassination of Hitler could somehow keep Germany from being invaded. If this assassination had happened, the German Army would have had to eventually suppress the Party, and it needed to keep the German Center loyal. In this precise situation an argument over the the status of Jews could only have served the Nazis...
Earlier I had called the 1941-1943 dating of this essay an alibi. Part of my reasoning for that is based on the following passage (starting on page 30) regarding the atrocities of both the Nazis and the Soviets:
"It was the evil spirit of the rabble which there in darkness practiced its grisly arts. Then we saw the feigned indignation of other evil forces which came to the haunts of infamy to exhume the hastily buried victims and expose the wasted corpses, to measure, count and reproduce them as served their ends. They played the accusers only to acquire the right to still baser vengeance which they sated in similar orgies.
Thus one massacre was succeeded by another baser still. (p. 30-31)"
This is, undoubtedly, an allusion to the Eastern Front and the Soviet Union and the atrocities that occurred there. But by the Summer of '43 were the Germans on the run enough to justify writing the above passage? Of course, I could be wrong, but this passage sounds a half-year too early to my ear.
Just as Part One began with an epigram so does Part Two:
"Not in the even course of the bourgeois
world, but in the thunder of the Apocalypse
are religions reborn."
Walter Schubert, Europa und die Seele des Ostens
You see, I told you, Religion again. The first paragraph reads:
"We have seen the victims of this war. To their somber ranks all nations added their contingent. All shared the suffering and therefore the peace must bear fruit for them all. That is, this war must be won by all." (p. 37)
Now, if one is losing a war, the slogan 'there must be no losers' can be quite compelling. The logic of this position was forced on Jünger, and the German Army, by circumstances. But let's see where this leads.
First we are told that just as WWI ended the era of Monarchies, so too WWII will end the era of nation-states. They will be replaced by Empires. ...And this leads to peace - how? Well, Jünger proposes a United Europe! The futility of two world wars has taught its necessity. The only alternative to unity is "hate and retribution", which will now lead to "universal destruction".
Now, Jünger does not envision a Kojèvean Universal World-State. What our author believes is that the "division of the earth into great territories" prepares a planetary order that will end the possibility of global war. (Note that another Konservative Revolutionary cum Fascist, Carl Schmitt, will later call for this 'Great Bloc' solution to Modern World Politics in his "Theory of the Partisan".) As an aside I should mention that years ago I was so surprised by the 'Universalism' in this essay by Jünger that I had wondered if he had, during the Occupation, somehow found his way into one of Kojève's tremendous lectures on Hegel's 1807 'Phenomenology'. But that now seems to me impossible, I believe Jünger arrived in Paris after Kojève stopped giving his lectures.
"The reasons why the formation of great empires must come are spiritual by nature and are based on the principles of the age." (p. 44)
Jünger goes on to argue that it is modern technology that allows these world empires to come into existence, but the current frontiers conspire against this. Now this proposed unification of Europe will not (perhaps this is merely because it cannot) dominate the whole world. "Europe must become a partner in the great Empires which are forming on this planet, and are striving towards their final form. (p. 46)"
Okay. What could, according to our author, prevent this? Another vengeful peace like Versailles. No, this is not merely another 'alibi'. Jünger goes on to denounce the Nazi 'New Europe' for making the very same mistakes that were made at Versailles! This 'New Europe' was "the imperial disguise of a militant national state, but not a league based on the equal rights and duties of all." The coming Empire that our author here conjures must be an Empire that all willingly join. He does, however, believe that France and Germany will be the cornerstone of the European Empire to come. It should be noted that our contemporary European Union has, in fact, not contradicted this last point.
Our author is at pains to argue that the coming peace cannot be based on vengeance; "...neither parties nor nations should sit in judgment on their opponents." For if "partisans make the distinction, then they convert criminals into martyrs and national heroes. (p. 54)" Again, Jünger is here arguing against the Allies imposing another Versailles Treaty. This was a very real fear among Germans. And do note that this was not merely German paranoia; the Morgenthau Plan envisioned turning Germany into a pastoral state sans industry and army. (Although, I do believe that the present essay was composed before the Morgenthau Plan was leaked in September of '44.)
At this point, our author enumerates three questions. The first one appears especially surprising. It "is the question of living space, for there are certain powers which are fighting for space - those that are also called the totalitarian states. The fact that they are on the move is a sign that the division of the earth, as developed historically, requires to be altered. (p. 55)" Two points immediately jump out: first, he tacitly makes an equivalence between Germany and the USSR (the 'totalitarian states') and thus seemingly proposes that land gained by both these powers in the course of this war be allowed to remain with them. The second point is that this meant that certain states (Poland, e.g.) might disappear and some areas (Alsace Lorraine, e.g.) will be annexed by one or the other of these 'totalitarian' powers. I honestly don't see how the UK or the US could possibly have allowed that! "The earth must provide bread far all." Hmmm...
The second question is that of Justice. This is the question of the non-totalitarian powers: "certain other powers claim to be fighting for justice. Undoubtedly, the curtailment of rights which the totalitarian states have imposed upon men is not their internal affair alone. (p. 56)" And now we see, a 'deal' is being proposed, if the totalitarian states are allowed to expand then they, in turn, must democratize or 'liberalize' themselves. So, Jünger is not here proposing a little tête-à-tête between Germany and the USSR, rather he is proposing to end totalitarianism by some shrewd horse-trading: Land for Freedom. While the German Army, to rid themselves of Hitler and his Party, would gladly accept this, there was really no chance that Stalin would have accepted it! "No other peace can last except that made between free people." That is, our author is here maintaining that no alliance is possible with the USSR and that if it does not 'de-totalitarianize' WWIII is around the corner.
We now understand the first two questions. The third question centers on "how a new way of life is to be achieved" (p.56). We are now in our author's 'wheelhouse'. The 'total mobilization' of the War both has (and will) lead to the total mobilization of everyday life. And he sees this as common to all nations. So these three questions are said to answer each other: "To cure the sickness of the land-hungry peoples is to give them the chance of reforming the laws, and thus the element of danger is removed. The forces which are released from making armaments will produce for all. (p. 57)" But, as one might expect from the author of the essays "Total Mobilization" and "The Worker" (this last, "Der Arbeiter, Herrschaft und Gestalt", to the best of my knowledge is still untranslated), the most important element, according to our author, is the Worker and his Mobilization:
"In this respect the nations have come to resemble each other closely and are becoming daily more alike; for the same great rhythm inspires the total mobilization on which they have embarked. This is not merely a question of armaments but of far-reaching transformations. That the products of this labor process are delivered to the fronts is only one aspect of it; the other, invisible but no less effective, is at work within the nations themselves. Thus no nation will be demobilized in the same form as that in which it entered the war. War is the great forger of nations as it is of hearts. (p. 56)"
Jünger expects a great deal from the Worker:
"At the same time the figure of the worker, losing its titanic cast, will reveal new aspects of itself - then it will be seen what relation it bears to tradition, creation, happiness and religion. (p. 57)"
Today, to our postmodern ears these various pronouncements regarding the Worker sound utopian and perhaps even vaguely 'Marxisant'. But that is because we know better. The only altar that the worker ends up worshiping at (especially in the most 'advanced' nations) is that of mere entertainment.
The discussion of precisely how land is to be divided also remains vague. "In this connection there is no point in going into details. (p. 59)" He does not believe that a United Europe is a utopian project, pointing out that "the world knows states where the most diverse nations, races and tongues are united. (p. 59)" He here mentions the USA, USSR, Switzerland and the British Empire. But today the USSR has fallen and Britain has not been an Empire for a long time. While up to the end of the WWII it might have seemed that the direction of history was towards states (or Empires) of ever greater size and diversity, postwar developments have not clearly borne that out.
Our author would like to see both more authority and more liberty:
"There should be uniformity of organization in whatever concerns technical matters, industry, commerce, communications, trade, weights and measures, and defense. (p. 60)"
"Liberty, on the other hand, dominates in diversity - wherever nations and men differ. That applies to their history, their speech and race, to their customs and habits, their art and their religion. Here there cannot be too many colors on the palette. (p. 61)"
But again, if postwar developments are to be believed, diversity tends to tear large collectivities into smaller pieces. Indeed, in this light, one wonders if even the United States itself can survive...
All of the above, according to out author, is tending towards European Union. In the 'cultural plane' liberty will reign, while in the realm of 'material civilization' authority must be served. "Europe can become a fatherland, yet many homelands will remain within its territories. (p. 61)" Law, economics, science and technology will continue on their universalist path but the various cultures and ethnicities will at the same time be sacrosanct. But today we have to ask, after well nigh 50 years of postmodernism, how is this possible when the cultural tends to become the political and therefore tears at the fabric (I mean to say at any possible fabric) of political unity?
But it is not fair to expect answers from a text written so long ago. We have now made our way through a little more than three quarters of our essay. Jünger will conclude the essay with a discussion of the utility of Religion and the danger of nihilism. "The peace must not be founded solely on human reason [...it must] also exist as a holy covenant. (p. 62)" Without religion our author wonders "What do treaties avail"? He then argues that nihilism was strongest in Germany and Russia and that was why "between these two peoples that the war assumed its purest form. (p. 62)" The word 'pure' here must not be understood as praise. The eastern front consisted of two nihilisms (Nazis, Stalinists) at war, and we are left to infer that the infamous horrors that occurred on the eastern front derive from that fact. Jünger pointedly notes that this nihilism first came to power in the USSR and only then in Nazi Germany, as a 'reaction'. The historian Ernst Nolte made this argument famous - or, if you like, infamous - years later.
For the next two pages Jünger waxes poetic on Russia and Germany. We need not be surprised at this. Jünger was sympathetic to the 'National Bolshevism' of Ernst Niekisch and his hope for an alliance with the USSR. With France and Great Britain, Russia and Germany will form the core of our 'New Europe'. From the vantage point of the 1940's, I would think that Great Britain would appear to have been an unlikely participant in this venture. After all, they had fought three wars (Napoleonic, WWI, WWII) to keep Europe from being united. But our author anticipates this and argues that the necessities of the geopolitics of the postwar era will convince them. Yes, that is not impossible.
I have mentioned that the 'Universalism' of Jünger so surprised me in my initial reading that I thought that Kojève might somehow have a hand in it. But, of course, there are two major differences between them. The first is that, like Carl Schmitt, Jünger does not foresee a World State; rather he sees a world dominated by several large empires. Also, for Kojève, there can never be any question of religion in the World State. But for Jünger, "in spite of all tribunals and treaties we will plunge deeper into destruction if the transformation remains purely humanitarian and is not accompanied by a theological one. (p. 63)" With this our author breaks from all forms of secularism, whether of the left or the right.
I bring this all up again because Jünger saw the world, much like Kojève, divided between the Soviet (Communist) and the American (Capitalist) way. But "although America, like Russia, will exert a powerful influence on Europe, neither of these two possibilities will be realized. (p. 66)" Thus Jünger's Europe is to be a 'third way' between both the Soviet and the American way.
During WWI Rosa Luxemburg famously said that the choice facing the world was "Socialism or Barbarism". Now, a generation and a world war later, Jünger indicates in this essay that the choice facing the world is 'Religion or Nihilism'. Now,'Religion or Nihilism' could have never become the rallying cry of the European right that "Socialism or Barbarism" became for the left because of the contempt that much of the German 'Konservative Revolution' had for Christianity. This is a contempt that Jünger apparently did not share.
Now, "technical knowledge should be kept in its place. (p. 67)" How? "That is possible only if men strengthen themselves metaphysically in proportion to the growth of technical science. (p. 67)" The 'new theology' begins here. This theology will be "knowledge of the deepest causes and of the highest law which shaped the world. (p. 67)" It is, according to our author, the danger of nihilism that makes the 'new theology' necessary. And now he reveals the limits of his tolerance of cultural differences:
"Whoever places his trust in man and human wisdom alone cannot speak as judge, nor can he expound as teacher, heal as doctor or serve the state as official. These are modes of life that ends with the hangman in the seats of the mighty. (p. 68)"
So you see, the target of this essay is not merely Nazi and Communist totalitarianism; the target is materialism, the Enlightenment, and secular humanism itself!
"The state therefore acts in its own interests if it not only advances the great doctrines of salvation, but places its trust in those of its citizens who confess to belief in an intelligence transcending man's. To the extent that this comes about we will see nihilism decline, the desert shrink - just as persecution on grounds of faith flourished when nihilism was strongest. (p. 68)"
What Jünger is proposing here is nothing less than the end of liberalism...
Continued in comments...
Religion or Nihilism?
This book was originally written by Jünger as a 'blueprint' for a post-Nazi settlement if the German Army had succeeded in assassinating Hitler. This essay (it really is quite short), according to the author's foreword, was sketched in 1941 and completed in the summer of 1943. The reason Jünger mentions this is that it shows he was working on this essay before Germany began losing the war. However, this 'alibi', which I doubt, is not essential for him personally; his anti-Nazi novel "Auf den Marmorklippen" ("On Marble Cliffs") had been published in 1939. Also, keep in mind that Jünger, unlike Heidegger and Carl Schmitt, refused to join the Nazi party.
What surprised me when I first read this essay many years ago was the importance that Religion would play, according to our author, in any post-Nazi settlement. We are certainly immediately tipped off that something unusual is afoot by the epigram that Jünger places at the beginning of Part One of this essay:
"The hatred, which is completely conquered
by love, becomes love: and such love is
then stronger than if hatred had not
preceded it"
Spinoza, Ethics, 44th Theorem [or Proposition]
One can be forgiven for being more than a bit surprised that this "God intoxicated man" would appear at the beginning of a book by the author of the novel "Steel Storm" and the essay "Total Mobilization"! But circumstances change, and Jünger, to his credit, changed with them. In Germany and elsewhere, those with Fascist or, if you prefer, 'Konservative Revolutionary' tendencies rarely displayed a Universalist bent. Well, prepare yourself for a shock. On the first page we read that, "It may safely be said that this war has been humanity's first joint effort. The peace that ends it must be the second." For me, it was this 'universalism', so surprising in this author, that also made this book most memorable for me. Now, it must be noted at the outset that this universalism is not the entirely secular modern universalism of a Marx or a Kojève. Jünger makes room for the religious sentiments that they entirely exclude!
Part One ("The Seed") of this essay discusses the present (that is, WWII) and Part Two ("The Fruit") discusses what Jünger hopes will happen after the war is over. (That is, after Hitler is assassinated and WWII comes to an end.) In Part One Jünger denounces totalitarianism and the camps. Those who still think that the extermination camps were an Allied fiction should read what Jünger has to say about them:
"The camps filled, too, where forced labor ceased only with annihilation - thus achieving its deliberate aim. [...]
The secrecy, the shunning of the light, the slaughterings in cellars and evil places and the hasty, unceremonious burial of the victims showed only too clearly that here was no execution of just sentence, but mere outrage and wanton murder.
The number of Golgathas where the disenfranchised were slaughtered is enormous. The crime of which the unfortunates were accused was merely that of existing, the stigma of their birth. They fell because they were sons of their people, of their fathers, of their race, as hostages, as adherents of a disinherited creed, as disseminators of their faith, which laws invented overnight had decreed to be a mortal taint.
[...] they attempted to root out whole peoples, whole races, whole classes, and where leaden tyranny in league with technical efficiency celebrated endless bloody nuptials. (pp. 28-29)"
I do not believe that Jünger anywhere in this essay mentions the Jews by name. But this was to be a document not only for the Allies but also the Germans; and Jünger knew his audience only too well. In the midst of the war Jünger, and all the right-wing anti-Nazi resistance groups, were hoping that an assassination of Hitler could somehow keep Germany from being invaded. If this assassination had happened, the German Army would have had to eventually suppress the Party, and it needed to keep the German Center loyal. In this precise situation an argument over the the status of Jews could only have served the Nazis...
Earlier I had called the 1941-1943 dating of this essay an alibi. Part of my reasoning for that is based on the following passage (starting on page 30) regarding the atrocities of both the Nazis and the Soviets:
"It was the evil spirit of the rabble which there in darkness practiced its grisly arts. Then we saw the feigned indignation of other evil forces which came to the haunts of infamy to exhume the hastily buried victims and expose the wasted corpses, to measure, count and reproduce them as served their ends. They played the accusers only to acquire the right to still baser vengeance which they sated in similar orgies.
Thus one massacre was succeeded by another baser still. (p. 30-31)"
This is, undoubtedly, an allusion to the Eastern Front and the Soviet Union and the atrocities that occurred there. But by the Summer of '43 were the Germans on the run enough to justify writing the above passage? Of course, I could be wrong, but this passage sounds a half-year too early to my ear.
Just as Part One began with an epigram so does Part Two:
"Not in the even course of the bourgeois
world, but in the thunder of the Apocalypse
are religions reborn."
Walter Schubert, Europa und die Seele des Ostens
You see, I told you, Religion again. The first paragraph reads:
"We have seen the victims of this war. To their somber ranks all nations added their contingent. All shared the suffering and therefore the peace must bear fruit for them all. That is, this war must be won by all." (p. 37)
Now, if one is losing a war, the slogan 'there must be no losers' can be quite compelling. The logic of this position was forced on Jünger, and the German Army, by circumstances. But let's see where this leads.
First we are told that just as WWI ended the era of Monarchies, so too WWII will end the era of nation-states. They will be replaced by Empires. ...And this leads to peace - how? Well, Jünger proposes a United Europe! The futility of two world wars has taught its necessity. The only alternative to unity is "hate and retribution", which will now lead to "universal destruction".
Now, Jünger does not envision a Kojèvean Universal World-State. What our author believes is that the "division of the earth into great territories" prepares a planetary order that will end the possibility of global war. (Note that another Konservative Revolutionary cum Fascist, Carl Schmitt, will later call for this 'Great Bloc' solution to Modern World Politics in his "Theory of the Partisan".) As an aside I should mention that years ago I was so surprised by the 'Universalism' in this essay by Jünger that I had wondered if he had, during the Occupation, somehow found his way into one of Kojève's tremendous lectures on Hegel's 1807 'Phenomenology'. But that now seems to me impossible, I believe Jünger arrived in Paris after Kojève stopped giving his lectures.
"The reasons why the formation of great empires must come are spiritual by nature and are based on the principles of the age." (p. 44)
Jünger goes on to argue that it is modern technology that allows these world empires to come into existence, but the current frontiers conspire against this. Now this proposed unification of Europe will not (perhaps this is merely because it cannot) dominate the whole world. "Europe must become a partner in the great Empires which are forming on this planet, and are striving towards their final form. (p. 46)"
Okay. What could, according to our author, prevent this? Another vengeful peace like Versailles. No, this is not merely another 'alibi'. Jünger goes on to denounce the Nazi 'New Europe' for making the very same mistakes that were made at Versailles! This 'New Europe' was "the imperial disguise of a militant national state, but not a league based on the equal rights and duties of all." The coming Empire that our author here conjures must be an Empire that all willingly join. He does, however, believe that France and Germany will be the cornerstone of the European Empire to come. It should be noted that our contemporary European Union has, in fact, not contradicted this last point.
Our author is at pains to argue that the coming peace cannot be based on vengeance; "...neither parties nor nations should sit in judgment on their opponents." For if "partisans make the distinction, then they convert criminals into martyrs and national heroes. (p. 54)" Again, Jünger is here arguing against the Allies imposing another Versailles Treaty. This was a very real fear among Germans. And do note that this was not merely German paranoia; the Morgenthau Plan envisioned turning Germany into a pastoral state sans industry and army. (Although, I do believe that the present essay was composed before the Morgenthau Plan was leaked in September of '44.)
At this point, our author enumerates three questions. The first one appears especially surprising. It "is the question of living space, for there are certain powers which are fighting for space - those that are also called the totalitarian states. The fact that they are on the move is a sign that the division of the earth, as developed historically, requires to be altered. (p. 55)" Two points immediately jump out: first, he tacitly makes an equivalence between Germany and the USSR (the 'totalitarian states') and thus seemingly proposes that land gained by both these powers in the course of this war be allowed to remain with them. The second point is that this meant that certain states (Poland, e.g.) might disappear and some areas (Alsace Lorraine, e.g.) will be annexed by one or the other of these 'totalitarian' powers. I honestly don't see how the UK or the US could possibly have allowed that! "The earth must provide bread far all." Hmmm...
The second question is that of Justice. This is the question of the non-totalitarian powers: "certain other powers claim to be fighting for justice. Undoubtedly, the curtailment of rights which the totalitarian states have imposed upon men is not their internal affair alone. (p. 56)" And now we see, a 'deal' is being proposed, if the totalitarian states are allowed to expand then they, in turn, must democratize or 'liberalize' themselves. So, Jünger is not here proposing a little tête-à-tête between Germany and the USSR, rather he is proposing to end totalitarianism by some shrewd horse-trading: Land for Freedom. While the German Army, to rid themselves of Hitler and his Party, would gladly accept this, there was really no chance that Stalin would have accepted it! "No other peace can last except that made between free people." That is, our author is here maintaining that no alliance is possible with the USSR and that if it does not 'de-totalitarianize' WWIII is around the corner.
We now understand the first two questions. The third question centers on "how a new way of life is to be achieved" (p.56). We are now in our author's 'wheelhouse'. The 'total mobilization' of the War both has (and will) lead to the total mobilization of everyday life. And he sees this as common to all nations. So these three questions are said to answer each other: "To cure the sickness of the land-hungry peoples is to give them the chance of reforming the laws, and thus the element of danger is removed. The forces which are released from making armaments will produce for all. (p. 57)" But, as one might expect from the author of the essays "Total Mobilization" and "The Worker" (this last, "Der Arbeiter, Herrschaft und Gestalt", to the best of my knowledge is still untranslated), the most important element, according to our author, is the Worker and his Mobilization:
"In this respect the nations have come to resemble each other closely and are becoming daily more alike; for the same great rhythm inspires the total mobilization on which they have embarked. This is not merely a question of armaments but of far-reaching transformations. That the products of this labor process are delivered to the fronts is only one aspect of it; the other, invisible but no less effective, is at work within the nations themselves. Thus no nation will be demobilized in the same form as that in which it entered the war. War is the great forger of nations as it is of hearts. (p. 56)"
Jünger expects a great deal from the Worker:
"At the same time the figure of the worker, losing its titanic cast, will reveal new aspects of itself - then it will be seen what relation it bears to tradition, creation, happiness and religion. (p. 57)"
Today, to our postmodern ears these various pronouncements regarding the Worker sound utopian and perhaps even vaguely 'Marxisant'. But that is because we know better. The only altar that the worker ends up worshiping at (especially in the most 'advanced' nations) is that of mere entertainment.
The discussion of precisely how land is to be divided also remains vague. "In this connection there is no point in going into details. (p. 59)" He does not believe that a United Europe is a utopian project, pointing out that "the world knows states where the most diverse nations, races and tongues are united. (p. 59)" He here mentions the USA, USSR, Switzerland and the British Empire. But today the USSR has fallen and Britain has not been an Empire for a long time. While up to the end of the WWII it might have seemed that the direction of history was towards states (or Empires) of ever greater size and diversity, postwar developments have not clearly borne that out.
Our author would like to see both more authority and more liberty:
"There should be uniformity of organization in whatever concerns technical matters, industry, commerce, communications, trade, weights and measures, and defense. (p. 60)"
"Liberty, on the other hand, dominates in diversity - wherever nations and men differ. That applies to their history, their speech and race, to their customs and habits, their art and their religion. Here there cannot be too many colors on the palette. (p. 61)"
But again, if postwar developments are to be believed, diversity tends to tear large collectivities into smaller pieces. Indeed, in this light, one wonders if even the United States itself can survive...
All of the above, according to out author, is tending towards European Union. In the 'cultural plane' liberty will reign, while in the realm of 'material civilization' authority must be served. "Europe can become a fatherland, yet many homelands will remain within its territories. (p. 61)" Law, economics, science and technology will continue on their universalist path but the various cultures and ethnicities will at the same time be sacrosanct. But today we have to ask, after well nigh 50 years of postmodernism, how is this possible when the cultural tends to become the political and therefore tears at the fabric (I mean to say at any possible fabric) of political unity?
But it is not fair to expect answers from a text written so long ago. We have now made our way through a little more than three quarters of our essay. Jünger will conclude the essay with a discussion of the utility of Religion and the danger of nihilism. "The peace must not be founded solely on human reason [...it must] also exist as a holy covenant. (p. 62)" Without religion our author wonders "What do treaties avail"? He then argues that nihilism was strongest in Germany and Russia and that was why "between these two peoples that the war assumed its purest form. (p. 62)" The word 'pure' here must not be understood as praise. The eastern front consisted of two nihilisms (Nazis, Stalinists) at war, and we are left to infer that the infamous horrors that occurred on the eastern front derive from that fact. Jünger pointedly notes that this nihilism first came to power in the USSR and only then in Nazi Germany, as a 'reaction'. The historian Ernst Nolte made this argument famous - or, if you like, infamous - years later.
For the next two pages Jünger waxes poetic on Russia and Germany. We need not be surprised at this. Jünger was sympathetic to the 'National Bolshevism' of Ernst Niekisch and his hope for an alliance with the USSR. With France and Great Britain, Russia and Germany will form the core of our 'New Europe'. From the vantage point of the 1940's, I would think that Great Britain would appear to have been an unlikely participant in this venture. After all, they had fought three wars (Napoleonic, WWI, WWII) to keep Europe from being united. But our author anticipates this and argues that the necessities of the geopolitics of the postwar era will convince them. Yes, that is not impossible.
I have mentioned that the 'Universalism' of Jünger so surprised me in my initial reading that I thought that Kojève might somehow have a hand in it. But, of course, there are two major differences between them. The first is that, like Carl Schmitt, Jünger does not foresee a World State; rather he sees a world dominated by several large empires. Also, for Kojève, there can never be any question of religion in the World State. But for Jünger, "in spite of all tribunals and treaties we will plunge deeper into destruction if the transformation remains purely humanitarian and is not accompanied by a theological one. (p. 63)" With this our author breaks from all forms of secularism, whether of the left or the right.
I bring this all up again because Jünger saw the world, much like Kojève, divided between the Soviet (Communist) and the American (Capitalist) way. But "although America, like Russia, will exert a powerful influence on Europe, neither of these two possibilities will be realized. (p. 66)" Thus Jünger's Europe is to be a 'third way' between both the Soviet and the American way.
During WWI Rosa Luxemburg famously said that the choice facing the world was "Socialism or Barbarism". Now, a generation and a world war later, Jünger indicates in this essay that the choice facing the world is 'Religion or Nihilism'. Now,'Religion or Nihilism' could have never become the rallying cry of the European right that "Socialism or Barbarism" became for the left because of the contempt that much of the German 'Konservative Revolution' had for Christianity. This is a contempt that Jünger apparently did not share.
Now, "technical knowledge should be kept in its place. (p. 67)" How? "That is possible only if men strengthen themselves metaphysically in proportion to the growth of technical science. (p. 67)" The 'new theology' begins here. This theology will be "knowledge of the deepest causes and of the highest law which shaped the world. (p. 67)" It is, according to our author, the danger of nihilism that makes the 'new theology' necessary. And now he reveals the limits of his tolerance of cultural differences:
"Whoever places his trust in man and human wisdom alone cannot speak as judge, nor can he expound as teacher, heal as doctor or serve the state as official. These are modes of life that ends with the hangman in the seats of the mighty. (p. 68)"
So you see, the target of this essay is not merely Nazi and Communist totalitarianism; the target is materialism, the Enlightenment, and secular humanism itself!
"The state therefore acts in its own interests if it not only advances the great doctrines of salvation, but places its trust in those of its citizens who confess to belief in an intelligence transcending man's. To the extent that this comes about we will see nihilism decline, the desert shrink - just as persecution on grounds of faith flourished when nihilism was strongest. (p. 68)"
What Jünger is proposing here is nothing less than the end of liberalism...
Continued in comments...
January 14, 2024
Ernst Jünger is hardly to everyone's taste. He is not always to my taste, and I have read, I believe, a grand total of eleven of his books. He is, nevertheless, one of the writers who, once you've encountered him and understand the breadth of his intellect, interests, and 103 year life story, you feel you must keep reading. An intelligence like his -- brilliant, abstruse, cold, mystical, inventive, involuted, inaccessible -- is a rare find, and perhaps this is a good thing. Jünger was somewhat inhuman. The man dubbed "the intellectual Godfather of fascism" saw things differently than almost everyone else, before or since; his philosophy, his "world view" (as the German call it), was unique, and has neither direct antecedents nor any identifiable progency. He was a thing-in-himself.
THE PEACE is both typical and remarkably atypical Jünger. It is typical in that it is written in his trademark style, which I would describe as diamond-like jewels of thought half-obscured by a fog of nebulous, quasi-mystical rhetoric, some of which comes off as mere intellectual gas. There are long passages of Jünger's work which, at least in English translation, sound rather impressive but seem to have no clear or even indistinct meaning (at least to me). It can be very difficult to follow him and to maintain concentration when he begins to ramble in his romatic-pathetic, mystic way, as he inevitably does. On the other hand, there is almost nobody I've read short of perhaps St. Exupery who was so capable of evoking beauty and clear imagery when he wanted to, as these passages reveal:
"The old garb has drawn tight over the movements of the new body."
"The realm of suffering has a strict hierarchy."
"Justice is by nature a light which intensifies the shadows."
"The cradle was nearer the fire than the light."
THE PEACE is startlingly atypical in that it is a book written with an express purpose and for a specific audience, and it is done so in direct conflict with much of his earlier body of thought. Jünger's "Godfather' title was hung on him for a long series of works based on his heroic service as a German footsoldier in WWI, which helped shape and to some extent to legitimize the various fascist movements of the 1920s and 30s. That Jünger was a fiery German nationalist who viewed war as not only the highest of all human endeavours, but a transformative experience for the human race altogether, one which would, in an industrial age, bring humans into alignment with the values of the machines by which they fought each other. He likened such transformed humans to the lenses of cameras, absording and recording events of even the most savage nature without flinching or rendering moral judgments; and he measured men by their capacity to endure pain. THE PEACE, however, was written in 1948, when what was left of Germany was in ruins and under military occupation, and Jünger's aim was to try and convince victorious but jaded Americans that they had not won WW2 unless they helped build a peace which unified Europe and put an end to nationalistic squabbles, social injustice, and militarism.
What impressed me about THE PEACE was how accurate Jünger's assessments tended to be. Like Orwell, he feared that the present peace was just "a peace of exhaustion" which would flare up into an even more destructive European war, and that only the unification if Europe into a bloc which respected inviduality and nationality, celebrated human rights and dignity, and allowed for lowering of national borders, could save the continent from imminent doom. In short, he advocated for what amounts to the present European Union. He also stressed the need for Germany to embrace its guilt and atone for its crimes, but also for its conquerers to understand the lessons of Versailles and recognize that there was no Europe of any kind going forward in which Germany did not figure as a central element -- again, a correct assessment, since without Germany today, the EU could not even exist.
It is true that E.J. placed a great deal of emphasis on Christianity, on religion, as being a central element, to this union, which proved in real life manifestly unnecessary: however, the logic by which he arrived at this conclusion was sound. Treaties and constitutions, even bodies such as the League of Nations, proved worthless in containing the aggressors of the war, and what he wanted in the future was a unification with deeper moral legitimacy than a mere international accord, signed by diplomats. He spends a goodly portion of this pamphlet (essay? epistle? monograph? it is too short to be called a book) on this subject, but the central flaw of THE PEACE is that Jünger himself was not the man to address the American public. His style is too intellectual, too discursive, too full of obscure Classical references, too high-flown and philosophical (specifically metaphysical as I poorly understand the word), to appeal to any but American intelligencia, who are absolutely powerless in this country and always have been. Had Jünger employed the clearer, more lucid and tangible style he used in his original and most famous work, IN THE STORM OF STEEL, he might have found listeners among the diplomatic and military set, but by 1948 he had largely moved beyond or at least away from that modus. THE PEACE, therefore, is rather an interesting footnote in the lengthy history of Jünger's literary efforts, but not much more than that, though he did, remarkably, live to see the formation of the E.U. in 1995, at just around the time of his 100th birthday. One certainly hopes he enjoyed being proven right, almost fifty years later.
THE PEACE is both typical and remarkably atypical Jünger. It is typical in that it is written in his trademark style, which I would describe as diamond-like jewels of thought half-obscured by a fog of nebulous, quasi-mystical rhetoric, some of which comes off as mere intellectual gas. There are long passages of Jünger's work which, at least in English translation, sound rather impressive but seem to have no clear or even indistinct meaning (at least to me). It can be very difficult to follow him and to maintain concentration when he begins to ramble in his romatic-pathetic, mystic way, as he inevitably does. On the other hand, there is almost nobody I've read short of perhaps St. Exupery who was so capable of evoking beauty and clear imagery when he wanted to, as these passages reveal:
"The old garb has drawn tight over the movements of the new body."
"The realm of suffering has a strict hierarchy."
"Justice is by nature a light which intensifies the shadows."
"The cradle was nearer the fire than the light."
THE PEACE is startlingly atypical in that it is a book written with an express purpose and for a specific audience, and it is done so in direct conflict with much of his earlier body of thought. Jünger's "Godfather' title was hung on him for a long series of works based on his heroic service as a German footsoldier in WWI, which helped shape and to some extent to legitimize the various fascist movements of the 1920s and 30s. That Jünger was a fiery German nationalist who viewed war as not only the highest of all human endeavours, but a transformative experience for the human race altogether, one which would, in an industrial age, bring humans into alignment with the values of the machines by which they fought each other. He likened such transformed humans to the lenses of cameras, absording and recording events of even the most savage nature without flinching or rendering moral judgments; and he measured men by their capacity to endure pain. THE PEACE, however, was written in 1948, when what was left of Germany was in ruins and under military occupation, and Jünger's aim was to try and convince victorious but jaded Americans that they had not won WW2 unless they helped build a peace which unified Europe and put an end to nationalistic squabbles, social injustice, and militarism.
What impressed me about THE PEACE was how accurate Jünger's assessments tended to be. Like Orwell, he feared that the present peace was just "a peace of exhaustion" which would flare up into an even more destructive European war, and that only the unification if Europe into a bloc which respected inviduality and nationality, celebrated human rights and dignity, and allowed for lowering of national borders, could save the continent from imminent doom. In short, he advocated for what amounts to the present European Union. He also stressed the need for Germany to embrace its guilt and atone for its crimes, but also for its conquerers to understand the lessons of Versailles and recognize that there was no Europe of any kind going forward in which Germany did not figure as a central element -- again, a correct assessment, since without Germany today, the EU could not even exist.
It is true that E.J. placed a great deal of emphasis on Christianity, on religion, as being a central element, to this union, which proved in real life manifestly unnecessary: however, the logic by which he arrived at this conclusion was sound. Treaties and constitutions, even bodies such as the League of Nations, proved worthless in containing the aggressors of the war, and what he wanted in the future was a unification with deeper moral legitimacy than a mere international accord, signed by diplomats. He spends a goodly portion of this pamphlet (essay? epistle? monograph? it is too short to be called a book) on this subject, but the central flaw of THE PEACE is that Jünger himself was not the man to address the American public. His style is too intellectual, too discursive, too full of obscure Classical references, too high-flown and philosophical (specifically metaphysical as I poorly understand the word), to appeal to any but American intelligencia, who are absolutely powerless in this country and always have been. Had Jünger employed the clearer, more lucid and tangible style he used in his original and most famous work, IN THE STORM OF STEEL, he might have found listeners among the diplomatic and military set, but by 1948 he had largely moved beyond or at least away from that modus. THE PEACE, therefore, is rather an interesting footnote in the lengthy history of Jünger's literary efforts, but not much more than that, though he did, remarkably, live to see the formation of the E.U. in 1995, at just around the time of his 100th birthday. One certainly hopes he enjoyed being proven right, almost fifty years later.
September 16, 2020
In The Peace, Jünger shows the vision of the great leaders who forge nations and empires out of the chaos of war. His contemplations on what war reveals about humanity are as legendary as they are poignant. In this short essay, he sketches out a vision of the future European Union which I'd love to know if he would still subscribe to if he were alive––particularly in light of what the EU has become. European unity was a beautiful dream; perhaps no one dreamed it best than Jünger. And surely, no one else will.
Read
March 30, 2021What a base intellectual he was! In the face of imminent defeat, he repudiates the facade of most of his earlier beliefs (nationalism, warmongerism, collectivism, nihilism, etc.) and then tries to act as a peace love and peace builder among former enemies. Still in his dreams is a Germany, after the war, controlling a unified Europe (as against US & USSR), albeit this time alongside the UK and France. And the surprise part is that it will be the "Christianity" that will give its soul to the whole edifice!
January 10, 2022
Interessante testo, controverso e immaginifico, sulla necessità di una riconciliazione dopo la barbarie della guerra, al cui nichilismo si propone di contrapporre amore e fede.
October 14, 2025
Bloody brilliant!
Aside from the sheer poetic force of Junger's writing, where one can easily be swept by the beauty of his erudition and lose track of the themes under discussion, the ideas and proposals contained in this small pamphlet could just as surely be remedy for today's European malaise. His ideas of a spiritual unity between European peoples, based on Christian theology, as well as his vision of a political system simultaneously "totalitarian" in questions of technology and material life, and "liberal" in questions of culture, history and general national issues, is certainly one which would serve the interest of European man much more closely than the modern materialist socio-economic and political system that exploits and enslaves him.
Yet, one thing Junger "got wrong". He was too hopeful and trustful of the strength of the European spiritual tradition, to be able to withstand the influence from Russia and America. A mere look at Europe today immediately brings to mind the title of Hans Vogel's book, How Europe Became American. Whether this outcome was the inevitable result of the trauma and weakening of Europe as a result of two World Wars, or the consequence of a pervasive and malicious political ideology, is a question that still divides political thought.
Aside from the sheer poetic force of Junger's writing, where one can easily be swept by the beauty of his erudition and lose track of the themes under discussion, the ideas and proposals contained in this small pamphlet could just as surely be remedy for today's European malaise. His ideas of a spiritual unity between European peoples, based on Christian theology, as well as his vision of a political system simultaneously "totalitarian" in questions of technology and material life, and "liberal" in questions of culture, history and general national issues, is certainly one which would serve the interest of European man much more closely than the modern materialist socio-economic and political system that exploits and enslaves him.
Yet, one thing Junger "got wrong". He was too hopeful and trustful of the strength of the European spiritual tradition, to be able to withstand the influence from Russia and America. A mere look at Europe today immediately brings to mind the title of Hans Vogel's book, How Europe Became American. Whether this outcome was the inevitable result of the trauma and weakening of Europe as a result of two World Wars, or the consequence of a pervasive and malicious political ideology, is a question that still divides political thought.
December 19, 2023
I have found it difficult to read as it is very theoretical, and repetitive. It draws a conclusion that has not held the test of the time. In some aspects it has confused me - a Nazi solder writing about the possibility for the peace in the world, while at the same time participating in the war... Perhaps I am missing some contextual information to better appreciate it.
January 19, 2024
Perhaps one of the most important works by Ernst Jünger. Writing here during World War II, probably very secretly, Jünger outlines his surprisingly Christian vision for post-war Europe. If only we had heeded his word.
April 12, 2025
Troublant
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews