Who Goes Nazi? (1941) • Hacker News Board

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#21

Post by Animats » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 7:09 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #13

tcbawo wrote: post #9

This article is especially interesting, given it was written before the the US entered the war and before the full extent of Nazi atrocities was known. I'm reminded of C.S Lewis's speech about the Inner Ring (1944): http://www.mit.edu/~hooman/ideas/the_inner_ring.htm

I wonder what would have happened if Hitler (who apparently didn't give the matter much thought) hadn't declared war on the US? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_agai...

Didn't matter. Pearl Harbor brought the US into the war.

If Hitler hadn't attacked Russia, things could have been very different. Hitler thought Russia would be a fast, easy conquest. It wasn't, and Germany found itself in a two-front war. It cost the USSR 20 million dead to beat Germany, and cost Germany 5 million dead, 80% of German casualties. Germany was an ally of Russia until 45 minutes before the attack. Much of Russian paranoia comes from this.

If Germany had consolidated its gains on the continent of Europe without trying to expand beyond that, we might today have a Greater Germany covering much of what's now the European Union. Britain would be on the outside, in the position Taiwan is now with respect to China. Russia would be the big power next door, just as it is to China now. Germany could have cut a peace deal with the US and Britain in that situation.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#22

Post by eudox » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 7:12 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #4

I love the idea of reading articles from this time period on this topic. This article though, with Mr A/B/C/... was bit much to handle though. Just felt much too speculative.

I thought the fictional/thought-experiment setting was a very good device for this kind of article.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#23

Post by eli » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 7:13 PM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #14

cstross wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how feminism annexed academia ... why Occupy failed but why BLM could grow exponentially No axes to grind here, hmm? (Hint: there's a huge difference between civil rights movements -- those demanding equal respect -- and the fulminations of the privileged who think life's a zero-sum game and anyone else making up ground means that they're losing out. Alas, you don't seem to get it.)

Typically it's the critiques of liberalism and capitalism that treat life as zero-sum. The capitalist defense of inequality is that the world isn't zero-sum. Because people can do extraordinarily well for themselves by creating value for others, they do, and we are all better off. The 60s civil rights movement was a classically liberal movement. They were demanding equal treatment under the law. "Civil rights" moveme…

> "Civil rights" movements today are usually asking for special treatment.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this opinion.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#24

Post by keithpeter » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 7:18 PM UTC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Peierls

When I was a postgrad at Birmingham University, around 1982/3 ish we had a talk by Peierls. He discussed his feelings about Heisenberg joining the Nazi party (you had to join the Party to continue to be a University lecturer in the late 1930s - that was when Einsten resolved to leave Berlin).

My recollection (reaching back 30+ years here folks) is that Peierls did not blame Heisenberg- it was how it was. Peierls recollected Heisenberg talking about 'white waistcoats' and people leaving who didn't have to leave, thus reducing the number of overseas jobs available to people who did have to leave (i.e. German Jewish academics).

What I'm thinking here is; How do you see the end of the wedge when it is very thin?

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#25

Post by pinewurst » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 7:27 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #12

I was surprised by the relatively clear description of a psychopath as being ideal Nazi material. I'm not sure if it was a widely known concept at the time or if they were just going by instinct.

Mr C?

"He is the product of a democracy hypocritically preaching social equality and practicing a carelessly brutal snobbery. He is a sensitive, gifted man who has been humiliated into nihilism."

I didn't read him as psychopath so much as someone nursing serious grudges about his perceived exclusion from the top rank of society. Enough that he'd delight in "setting things right" even Nazi style.

That was, for me, the most interesting character insight.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#26

Post by Animats » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 7:28 PM UTC

It's been a while since the last big, successful, popular, dictatorial, charismatic movement like Nazism. Putin comes closest, but he came to power as an insider, with Yeltsin supporting him. ISIS is religion-based, (even though it was designed by a former Iraqi colonel who wasn't very religious [1]) and those work differently. There are warlords in sub-Saharan Africa, but they're usually not popular leaders. Remember, Hitler was elected Chancellor; he didn't lead a revolution.

Yes, Trump makes somewhat Nazi-like noises. Not sure what to think about that.

[1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-saddams-former...

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#27

Post by arrrg » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 7:30 PM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #17

tdeck wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would the resource be in the case of BLM?

The myth is easier to identify: that there's campaign of murder by police officers targeting blacks. It's part of the broader myth that minorities in the US are being kept down by the powers that be. When you see it as just part of the broader identity politics movement, it's easier to identify the resources: moral vindication and reassigned blame for their troubles, handouts from other people's pockets, and discrimi…

You can apply this to literally every political belief someone fights for. As such the explanatory power of your theory seems to be quite poor.

If something is a political belief you do not share it is easy to call it a myth. If something is a political policy you think is wrongheaded or unfair you can always claim that someone benefits unfairly from that policy.

As such your theory really doesn’t tell you anything, or at least anything interesting. It’s just worthless. A nice story, nothing more.

The actual interesting thing happens when you engage with the content of political beliefs and policies.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#28

Post by DenisM » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 7:30 PM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #15

seiji wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

seize some resources, invent a necessarily preposterous myth, then in exchange for demonstrating belief in the myth, re-distribute the resources arbitrarily among a minority of people who are easily replaceable and know it. Startups? how these assholes seize power. It's through charismatic promises of future rewards Startups.

Yes, but the difference is that a business's success requires continual voluntary mutually-beneficial exchanges (aka sales). And before they make a profit, they're only risking money that's theirs to risk. None of these things are true about politics, which is fundamentally about control of coercive power.

You both have good points. Seiji point though is very unusual and affects us all directly, as such it deserves setious consideration.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#29

Post by firasd » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 7:32 PM UTC

I found this interesting and prescient: "Hitler's Program", by Leon Trotsky (1934). “Hitler has been widely regarded as a demagogue, a hysterical person, and a comedian… It takes more than hysteria to seize power, and method there must be in the Nazi madness.” https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/xx/hitler.htm

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#30

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 7:34 PM UTC

cstross wrote: post #8

batz wrote: post #5

The essence of any totalitarian strategy is to seize some resources, invent a necessarily preposterous myth, then in exchange for demonstrating belief in the myth, re-distribute the resources arbitrarily among a minority of people who are easily replaceable and know it. The secret is to then reward people from the majority for denouncing and replacing members of the minority for not being zealous enough, so that they…

how feminism annexed academia ... why Occupy failed but why BLM could grow exponentially No axes to grind here, hmm? (Hint: there's a huge difference between civil rights movements -- those demanding equal respect -- and the fulminations of the privileged who think life's a zero-sum game and anyone else making up ground means that they're losing out. Alas, you don't seem to get it.)

[deleted]