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

George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

gutenberg.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 600 posts

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#61

Post by sillysaurusx »

josh_fyi wrote: post #56
sillysaurusx wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you mind explaining more what you mean? I’m half Jewish, so I feel confused because I didn’t get any antisemitic vibes from it at all. But I wasn’t raised in Jewish culture so I am still trying to learn about these aspects. It sounded like maybe you’re saying that since hitler’s focus was to eradicate my ancestors, Orwell should have at least mentioned that. But I don’t understand why it’s related to Orwell’s p…

Not antisemitic, just that it ignores Jews, who were Hitler's bête noire. There is a tendency to ignore the fact that Jews were a special target and say "Hitler did bad things to people." (The USSR was especially bad in this.) Kind of like "All Lives Matter" -- a fine slogan, but sometimes (not always) it holds a willful ignorance of specific suffering.

But why do we need to be mentioned simply to be mentioned? I don’t understand why it was a bad thing that Orwell didn’t mention Jews in this essay. The essay was about hitler’s appeal as a leader, not his specific goals.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#62

Post by the_only_law »

EUROCARE wrote: post #58
superb-owl wrote: post #9

> Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings don’t only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice This fact has been the downfall of every utopian ideology, and ignoring creates a vacuum that fascist regimes readily fill. I wonder what…

Why can't people struggle and self-sacrifice for utopia?

I mean they can, they'll probably just fail.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#63

Post by Barrera »

> But Hitler could not have succeeded against his many rivals if it had not been for the attraction of his own personality, which one can feel even in the clumsy writing of Mein Kampf, and which is no doubt overwhelming when one hears his speeches … The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him.

A commenter here (and one on the original article) has noted that the part being elided appears to be the following:

> I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler. Ever since he came to power—till then, like nearly everyone, I had been deceived into thinking that he did not matter—I have reflected that I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him, but that I could feel no personal animosity.

The full review is, apparently, here:

https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks16/1600051h.html

That this is the only elision seems very strange. The passage is crucial to understanding how Hitler was able to do what he did. Orwell is expressing his admiration for Hitler's deep understanding of human nature while at the same time despising its application. It's a lesson too hard-won and too relevant today to be brushed aside.

Still, I can't help but think that Orwell, who gave us the Ministry of Truth and its capacity for historical engineering at scale, would be highly amused.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#64

Post by rr808 »

soperj wrote: post #44

Quoted post unavailable.

The main difference is that the British Empire was to exploit resources, trade and people. Hitler's expansion main goal is to completely replace the local population with Germans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum.

Interestingly the wiki article mentions why it is a good idea: During the First World War, the Allied naval blockade of the Central Powers caused food shortages in Germany and resources from Germany colonies in Africa were unable to slip past the blockade; this caused support to rise during the war for a Lebensraum that would expand Germany eastward into Russia to gain control of their resources to prevent such a situation from occurring in the future

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#65

Post by alex_sf »

zozbot234 wrote: post #39
tomkat0789 wrote: post #30

I think he highlights some fundamentally toxic aspects of human nature with this bit: “The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won’t do.” The engineer in me wishes we could substitute the soldiers with construction workers or something, but I can’t deny enjoying war games growing up. These da…

Kids just don't know any better. I would imagine that those who actually spent some of their childhood in a war zone would have a very different perspective. What's toxic is when grownups end up glorifying war or thinking of it as a solution to hard problems.

I don't think this counts as Godwin's law given the context, but:

What exactly is your solution to the sort of naked aggression by Hitler in WW2? Is war not a solution to that problem?

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#67

Post by pydry »

zozbot234 wrote: post #15
pydry wrote: post #12

Quoted post unavailable.

A big part of early 20th-c. sociology was specifically concerned with their equivalent of "elite overproduction". The problem as they saw it was not so much "losers" in anything like an objective sense, but aspiring elites who viewed themselves as oppressed losers out of a misguided sense of entitlement.

"Elite overproduction" is the elites' own term for too many disaffected college graduates packing boxes at amazon (or equivalent).

Put enough of them to work there and many will radicalize and unionize. Having an education and little investment in the existing social order makes them a dangerous political wildcard.

I doubt the Economist is fretting about incels shooting up shopping malls when they use this term. Theyre probably more worried about a wave of Gabriel Borics taking the reins of power across the world and screwing over investors.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#69

Post by thrown_22 »

pydry wrote: post #12

Quoted post unavailable.

>I sometimes wonder if I were not very smart, girlfriendless and a delivery rider if it wouldnt appeal to me too.

How do you explain that 45% of votes for Nazis came from Women?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Nazi_Germany#Nazi_fem...

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#70

Post by rgbrenner »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #4

The top comment points out that a part is redacted, removing "I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler. Ever since he came to power - till then, like nearly everyone, I had been deceived into thinking that he did not matter - I have reflected that I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him, but that I could feel no personal animosity.". This Gutenberg version…

Note, this review is from March 1940. At that point in time, WWII was 6 months old. Germany and the Soviet Union annexed land from their neighbors, and in response a number of countries declared war.

I suspect he would have even stronger feelings a few months later when the Air Battle of Britain begins... or when the mass murder of jews in concentration camps is discovered in June 1942.

Post reply on HN