My Dinner With Adolf
Even monsters can be charming, notes Larry David. And here's proof.
In The New York Times today, Larry David (Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm) recalls his dinner with Adolf Hitler.
Cue needle-scratching-on-record sound effect. Or maybe Moe Szyslak delivering his classic “whaaa…?”
Fortunately, Patrick Healy, the Times deputy opinion editor also has a piece explaining Larry David’s piece.
It seems some people may think Larry David actually had dinner with Adolf Hitler, even though for Larry and Adolf to have had dinner together in 1943 Larry would have to be, what, 135 years old today? Seems implausible to me. One would think a New York Times reader would pick up on that clue and deduce that this piece of writing by Larry David, comedian, is satire. But one can’t be too careful. Satire has never fared well on newspaper pages, as too many journalists to count can tell you.
So Healy ploddingly explains the meaning of what Larry David has written.
Times Opinion has a high bar for satire — our mission is geared toward idea-driven, fact-based arguments — and we have a really, really high bar for commenting on today’s world by invoking Hitler. As a general rule, we seek to avoid Nazi references unless that is the literal subject matter; callbacks to history can be offensive, imprecise or in terrible taste when you are leveraging genocidal dictators to make a point.
Yes, it’s all very sensitive. We get it. But you haven’t quite crushed all the fun yet, Patrick. Please continue.
I also understood Larry’s intent in writing this piece. We had spoken about American politics and how some on the left and in the center think it’s important to talk and engage with President Trump. Like many people, Larry listened to Bill Maher talk about his recent dinner with Trump; Bill, a comedian Larry respects, said in a monologue on his Max show that he found the president to be “gracious and measured” compared with the man who attacks him on Truth Social. Larry’s piece is not equating Trump with Hitler. It is about seeing someone for who they really are and not losing sight of that.
Ok, that crushed it dead. And squeezed it into jelly. Well done, Patrick. No one can accuse The New York Times of having a playful spirit on your watch, dammit.
Anyway, now that Patrick has so helpfully explained everything, if you want to read about Larry David’s dinner with Hitler — which is a satirical device, you must remember, not an actual event that literally happened, and is in no way intended to equate, morally or otherwise, Trump with Hitler — you can read it free here.
Since leaden explanation is the order of the day, let me state that my purpose in writing this note is to add that while Larry David’s choice of satirical figures is outrageous, what he describes actually happened.
And more than once. Really.
Well, no — to be painfully literal — Hitler didn’t have a delightful dinner with a Jewish comedian.
But before the war Hitler did meet with lots of foreign dignitaries. Many were wary. This was the guy who ranted at giant rallies, after all. He had steamrolled the constitution and controlled all branches of government. He had disappeared many of his political enemies and created a camp where people could be sent without due process to be held at his pleasure, beyond judicial review. He was building up his military rapidly. He talked a lot about war. This guy was scary.
But then the dignitaries spent time with Mr. Hitler and discovered he wasn’t so scary! Some came away convinced he was a fine fellow. Genocidal maniac? Heavens, no!
So the point Larry David is making — thanks again for explaining, Patrick — is real. And important. It’s not just Bill Maher. Smart, sophisticated people very often assume horrible people must behave horribly all the time. So when they personally encounter someone who is a fine fellow, they think, “this can’t be a horrible person.”
Seems like a perfectly logical deduction.
But that assumption is all wrong. Horrible people can be delightful. Even charming. You can look them in the eyes, get a feel for their soul — as George W. Bush said about Vladimir Putin — and feel quite sure that this stone-cold killer is a fine fellow.
One of the most infamous examples of someone getting Hitler wrong was Canadian prime minister William Lyon Mackenzie King.
King met Hitler in 1937. In a little more than two years, Canadian soldiers would be fighting and dying to stop Hitler.
So what did King make of Mr. Hitler in 1937? The key reason King’s meeting is infamous is his diary.
So I’ll shut up now and leave you with a few passages King wrote.
When we reached old Hindenburg Palace, we were greeted by a guard of honour. The entire building is like an old palace, and the attendants were attired in court dress. We were shown in what had been Hindenburg’s office, and shown the death mask which reposes on his desk and his portrait on the wall.
Later we were conducted upstairs, preceded formally by attendants. We had been previously met by members of the Foreign Office and Hitler’s staff. When I was formally shown into the room in which Herr Hitler received me, he was facing the door as I went in; was wearing evening dress; came forward and shook hands; quietly and pleasantly said he was pleased to see me in Germany, and pointed to a seat which had a chair to its back, to the right of which Herr Hitler seated himself. …. The interview lasted until after two; one and a quarter hours altogether.
As we were about to be seated, I placed a de luxe copy of Rogers’ biography on the table, and opened it at the pictures of the cottage where I was born, and of Woodside, of Berlin. I told Herr Hitler that I had brought this book with me to show him where I was born, and the associations which I had with Berlin, Germany, through Berlin, Canada. That I would like him to know that I had spent the early part of my life in Berlin, and had later represented the county of Waterloo in Parliament with its different towns which I named over. I said I thought I understood the German people very well. I mentioned that I had also been registered at the municipality of Berlin 37 years ago, and had lived with Anton Weber at the other side of the Tiergarten. While I was speaking, Hitler looked at the book in a very friendly way, and smiling at me as he turned over its pages and looked at its inscription. He thanked me for it, and then waited for me to proceed with conversation.
As you have now deduced, King was an incredibly boring man.
But not in his private life. He was nuts in private. He hosted seances to talk to his dead mother.
But at work, so boring.
I spoke then of what I had seen of the constructive work of his regime, and said that I hoped that that work might continue. That nothing would be permitted to destroy that work. That it was bound to be followed in other countries to the great advantage of mankind. Hitler spoke very modestly in reference to it, saying that Germany did not claim any proprietorship in what had been undertaken. They had accepted ideas regardless of the source from which they came, and sought to apply them if they were right.
Wow, Hitler! So modest!
[I told him that] I was a man who hated expenditures for military purposes; that the Liberal Government in Canada all shared my views in that particular; that I had the largest majority a Prime Minister had had in Canada.
Some things never change. (That’s an in-joke for my fellow Canadians.)
[Hitler said] All our difficulties grew out of the enmity of the Treaty of Versailles, being held to the terms of that Treaty indefinitely made it necessary for us to do what we had done. He spoke of the advance into the Ruhr [Hitler re-militarized it] as being a part of that assertion of Germany’s position to save perpetual subjugation. He went on to say, however, that now most of the Treaty of Versailles was out of the way, moves of the kind would not be necessary any further. He went on to say so far as war is concerned, you need have no fear of war, at the instance of Germany. We have no desire for war; our people don’t want war, and we don’t want war. Remember that I, myself, have been through a war, and all the members of the Government. We know what a terrible thing war is, and not one of us want to see another war….
That’s a relief! What a good chap.
As I got up to go, Hitler reached over and took in his hands a red square box with a gold eagle on its cover, and taking it in his two hands, offered it to me, asked me to accept it in appreciation of my visit of Germany. At the same time, he said he had much enjoyed the talk we had had together, and thanked me for the visit. When I opened the cover of the box, I saw it was a beautifully silver mounted picture of himself, personally inscribed. I let him see that I was most appreciative of it, shook him by the hand, and thanked him warmly for it, saying that I greatly appreciated all that it expressed of his friendship, and would always deeply value this gift. He went to give it to someone else to carry but I told him I would prefer to carry it myself. He then drew back a few steps to shake hands and to say good-bye in a more or less formal way. I then said that I would like to speak once more of the constructive side of his work, and what he was seeking to do for the greater good of those in humble walks of life; that I was strongly in accord with it, and thought it would work; by which he would be remembered; to let nothing destroy that work. I wished him well in his efforts to help mankind.
It’s a mystery why Hitler wasn’t awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.
I then thanked him again for having given me the privilege of so long an interview. He smiled very pleasantly and indeed has a sort of appealing and affectionate look in his eyes. My sizing up of the man as I sat and talked with him was that he is really one who truly loves his fellowmen, and his country, and would make any sacrifice for their good. That he feels himself to be a deliverer of his people from tyranny.
To understand Hitler, one has to remember his limited opportunities in his early life, his imprisonment, et cetera. It is truly marvelous what he has attained unto himself through his self education…. His face is much more prepossessing than his pictures would give the impression of. It is not that of a fiery, over-strained nature, but of a calm, passive man, deeply and thoughtfully in earnest.
Now let me channel my inner Times editor and explain slowly and carefully: The preceding is not satire. It is what the prime minister of Canada actually wrote after meeting Adolf Hitler.
And it is a warning: Even monsters can be charming.
In fact Mackenzie King consulted his dead mother as to whether and when to declare war on Germany in 1939. She said yes and gave him the exact timeline. So he declared war in Parliament at exactly 10 minutes to 2:00pm b/c the hands of the clock represented the crucified Christ 3 days after Great Britain to commemorate His rising from the dead!😳 He headed Canada and the Liberal Party from roughly 1922 to 1949 with one break during the worst years of the Great Depression. He was batshit crazy! -a student of Canadian History who read through and survived all his diaries. The longest entry in the diaries describes the death of his dog, Pat, and was written as Canadians were slaughtered At Dieppe in 1942. There was little reference to that debacle.
Not to mention that one of the hallmarks of sociopaths is that they can be extremely charming, and use that charm facade to get whatever it is they want.