Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Historian Who Fled the Nazis and Still Wants Us to Read Hitler

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 46 posts

Re: A Historian Who Fled the Nazis and Still Wants Us to Read Hitler

#11

Post by rpgmaker »

madaxe_again wrote: post #2

I read Mein Kampf a few times as a kid. It's worthwhile - I ended up seeing hitler as a tragic, broken figure, tormented by his demons, skewed by his misplaced rage at the Weimar Republic, which lead to a path of destruction for millions. Until you understand that anyone can be Hitler, you don't understand.

That is the main message of Judgement at Nuremberg. I was afraid that it was going to be an American exceptionalism-filled movie but it's actually very good and relatively fair to its subject. As fair as you can be to Nazi Germany architects, anyway.

Re: A Historian Who Fled the Nazis and Still Wants Us to Read Hitler

#12

Post by bsder »

madaxe_again wrote: post #10
imh wrote: post #6

> In his introduction to the “Second Book,” which was finally published officially in 2003, Weinberg wrote, “Germany and the rest of the world have not yet come close to coming to terms with Hitler as a person, as leader of a great nation, and as a symbol.” After each of the recent mass shootings, I've been wondering more and more about whether we aren't doing anything about it because it's so easy to just label the…

I'll probably maintain for all my days that there is no good or evil, just acts. Yes, cry "moral relativism!", but morals are social constructs, whether you like it or not - there is no universal law of morality, even if your name is Kant. Hitler thought he was good. Those who followed him thought he was good. In the narrative and perceptive reality of nazi Germany he was good. My grandmother waxes lyrical about the…

> I'll probably maintain for all my days that there is no good or evil, just acts. Yes, cry "moral relativism!", but morals are social constructs, whether you like it or not - there is no universal law of morality, even if your name is Kant.

Actually, "do unto others as you would have done unto you" is a pretty damn near universal law of morality. It doesn't encompass things like when to punish bad actors, but it covers a huge range of situations that we encounter every day.

However, what most people never recognize is that apathy is the mechanism that allows small evils to persist long enough to turn into great evils. Often even a few individuals standing up at the beginning can thwart a rising tide that will be impossible to resist once it gets going.

Re: A Historian Who Fled the Nazis and Still Wants Us to Read Hitler

#13

Post by throwaway344 »

bsder wrote: post #12
madaxe_again wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll probably maintain for all my days that there is no good or evil, just acts. Yes, cry "moral relativism!", but morals are social constructs, whether you like it or not - there is no universal law of morality, even if your name is Kant. Hitler thought he was good. Those who followed him thought he was good. In the narrative and perceptive reality of nazi Germany he was good. My grandmother waxes lyrical about the…

> I'll probably maintain for all my days that there is no good or evil, just acts. Yes, cry "moral relativism!", but morals are social constructs, whether you like it or not - there is no universal law of morality, even if your name is Kant. Actually, "do unto others as you would have done unto you" is a pretty damn near universal law of morality. It doesn't encompass things like when to punish bad actors, but it cov…

If Hitler and his followers had been more apathetic, they wouldn't have displayed the zeal that they did in trying to change the world according to their ideals.

The problem with it is that you don't know whether you are the brave person speaking out against injustice or the lunatic that stands against obvious progress.

Re: A Historian Who Fled the Nazis and Still Wants Us to Read Hitler

#14

Post by bitwize »

imh wrote: post #6

> In his introduction to the “Second Book,” which was finally published officially in 2003, Weinberg wrote, “Germany and the rest of the world have not yet come close to coming to terms with Hitler as a person, as leader of a great nation, and as a symbol.” After each of the recent mass shootings, I've been wondering more and more about whether we aren't doing anything about it because it's so easy to just label the…

It's politically expedient to label the shooters as evil, as if they weren't people. Look at how this has played out in gun politics. The message is that we need "common sense" gun control in order to prevent "crazies" from obtaining guns, as if there were a filter function that could reliably distinguish "crazies" from ordinary folks. When such filter functions inevitably fail, as they always do (crazies start out as ordinary people and they can be crazy for a while before seeking, or being forced into, psychiatric help), that just means we need a better filter function, i.e., more background checks, till no gun changes hands without the feds knowing about it. Once Total Information Awareness is achieved on who has what guns, any number of scenarios can play out. Extraconstitutional gun confiscation is one, but that isn't even the most devious or fun. One scary scenario is the government doing profiling on who is likely to buy what type of weapons or ammo; buy the wrong type and you could be subject to scrutiny by the FBI's precrime operations, set up for stings, etc. Also if a tyrannical overlord wanted to impose dictatorial rule, with complete accurate information on gun and ammunition ownership he would know which areas to consolidate power in first -- the less armed ones -- before closing in on the more armed areas.

Re: A Historian Who Fled the Nazis and Still Wants Us to Read Hitler

#15

Post by madaxe_again »

bsder wrote: post #12
madaxe_again wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll probably maintain for all my days that there is no good or evil, just acts. Yes, cry "moral relativism!", but morals are social constructs, whether you like it or not - there is no universal law of morality, even if your name is Kant. Hitler thought he was good. Those who followed him thought he was good. In the narrative and perceptive reality of nazi Germany he was good. My grandmother waxes lyrical about the…

> I'll probably maintain for all my days that there is no good or evil, just acts. Yes, cry "moral relativism!", but morals are social constructs, whether you like it or not - there is no universal law of morality, even if your name is Kant. Actually, "do unto others as you would have done unto you" is a pretty damn near universal law of morality. It doesn't encompass things like when to punish bad actors, but it cov…

It's a reasonable seeming law, yes, just as the categorical imperative is - but what if your culture says that the more skulls you collect, the better a person you are? It's easy to define a law in isolation from social pressures which defy that law. Take the inquisition - by burning hereticks you saved their souls, and this was therefore good - so do as you would be done by applies, even if it comprises an auto da fé.

With re: apathy - "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing" - sure, but this still relies on a fixed idea of good and evil, and that you can recognise "evil" at its inception. The issue there is that tragic consequences tend to only become apparent in hindsight.

I do personally agree with "do as you would be done by", but you can't apply it as a universal law without the complete homogenisation of global culture - and even then folks will develop their own ideas of what constitutes good and evil.

Ultimately, it's all about societal consensus, which these days (since bernays in particular) is media led.

Re: A Historian Who Fled the Nazis and Still Wants Us to Read Hitler

#16

Post by Houshalter »

madaxe_again wrote: post #10
imh wrote: post #6

> In his introduction to the “Second Book,” which was finally published officially in 2003, Weinberg wrote, “Germany and the rest of the world have not yet come close to coming to terms with Hitler as a person, as leader of a great nation, and as a symbol.” After each of the recent mass shootings, I've been wondering more and more about whether we aren't doing anything about it because it's so easy to just label the…

I'll probably maintain for all my days that there is no good or evil, just acts. Yes, cry "moral relativism!", but morals are social constructs, whether you like it or not - there is no universal law of morality, even if your name is Kant. Hitler thought he was good. Those who followed him thought he was good. In the narrative and perceptive reality of nazi Germany he was good. My grandmother waxes lyrical about the…

The Nazis weren't evil, but they were wrong. The whole "Jewish conspiracy" thing was bullshit. As was many of their beliefs. You could have Nazi values, and still disagree with the Nazis on a completely factual basis.

Re: A Historian Who Fled the Nazis and Still Wants Us to Read Hitler

#17

Post by jimrandomh »

Houshalter wrote: post #16
madaxe_again wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll probably maintain for all my days that there is no good or evil, just acts. Yes, cry "moral relativism!", but morals are social constructs, whether you like it or not - there is no universal law of morality, even if your name is Kant. Hitler thought he was good. Those who followed him thought he was good. In the narrative and perceptive reality of nazi Germany he was good. My grandmother waxes lyrical about the…

The Nazis weren't evil, but they were wrong. The whole "Jewish conspiracy" thing was bullshit. As was many of their beliefs. You could have Nazi values, and still disagree with the Nazis on a completely factual basis.

On the contrary, they absolutely were evil. It just turns out that evil doesn't look quite like we would have thought--hence the importance of studying history from primary sources, to know what evil actually looks like, to be able to recognize and oppose it today.

Re: A Historian Who Fled the Nazis and Still Wants Us to Read Hitler

#18

Post by madaxe_again »

Houshalter wrote: post #16
madaxe_again wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll probably maintain for all my days that there is no good or evil, just acts. Yes, cry "moral relativism!", but morals are social constructs, whether you like it or not - there is no universal law of morality, even if your name is Kant. Hitler thought he was good. Those who followed him thought he was good. In the narrative and perceptive reality of nazi Germany he was good. My grandmother waxes lyrical about the…

The Nazis weren't evil, but they were wrong. The whole "Jewish conspiracy" thing was bullshit. As was many of their beliefs. You could have Nazi values, and still disagree with the Nazis on a completely factual basis.

Yes it was - but it didn't start with them. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was published in 1903 in Russia, kicked off that particular idea - and the nazis just ran with what popular thought already held.

Also, true - going back to my grandmother, she's a raving anti-Semite, but has a Jewish daughter in law - and (now deceased) husband. The cognitive dissonance required is incredible, but common. She'll rant over the dinner table about "the Jews" who are ruining the world - always followed up with a "not you, dear".

Re: A Historian Who Fled the Nazis and Still Wants Us to Read Hitler

#19

Post by vkou »

bitwize wrote: post #14
imh wrote: post #6

> In his introduction to the “Second Book,” which was finally published officially in 2003, Weinberg wrote, “Germany and the rest of the world have not yet come close to coming to terms with Hitler as a person, as leader of a great nation, and as a symbol.” After each of the recent mass shootings, I've been wondering more and more about whether we aren't doing anything about it because it's so easy to just label the…

It's politically expedient to label the shooters as evil, as if they weren't people. Look at how this has played out in gun politics. The message is that we need "common sense" gun control in order to prevent "crazies" from obtaining guns, as if there were a filter function that could reliably distinguish "crazies" from ordinary folks. When such filter functions inevitably fail, as they always do (crazies start out a…

Said overlord should probably avoid tinfoil hat territory.

You don't need complete accurate information to do any of that - just go to your local Wal-Mart, and count the number of pickups with gun racks.

Or check the local gun store's tax returns.

Re: A Historian Who Fled the Nazis and Still Wants Us to Read Hitler

#20

Post by vezzy-fnord »

afarrell wrote: post #3
madaxe_again wrote: post #2

I read Mein Kampf a few times as a kid. It's worthwhile - I ended up seeing hitler as a tragic, broken figure, tormented by his demons, skewed by his misplaced rage at the Weimar Republic, which lead to a path of destruction for millions. Until you understand that anyone can be Hitler, you don't understand.

I started reading Mein Kampf in 8th grade, but I just found the speaker so whiney and irritating that I lost patience before WWI. I should perhaps go back to it sometime.

Interestingly, Mussolini also hated the book.
Post reply on HN