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

George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

docs.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 252 posts

Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

#51

Post by CamperBob2 »

adamnemecek wrote: post #18
conistonwater wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds completely wrong to me (my opinion). It's a very utilitarian view of people where, as Orwell describes it here, you get to define some "great" goal, and convince people to fight for it, getting them to sacrifice things of their own in the process. It's all very subservient, manipulative, and a bit inhuman. Given how prosperous and successful such societies have turned out to be in the past (they all failed)…

I mean you don't have to go too far to find similar themes in say the US. The whole "War on Terror" sure has a very similar feel to it. Not as extreme as in Fascist countries but the general components are still there.

Exactly. And as with Mein Kampf, anyone who read the People for the New American Century's manifesto should have been able to guess what was coming.

Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

#52

Post by anigbrowl »

mtdewcmu wrote: post #40
PythonicAlpha wrote: post #9

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana Somebody asked, why this document is so high up-voted. I would say, we can't up-vote it enough, when we have the chance to learn from history and especially from the dark sides of history and from people like George Orwell. Chance is very big, that a new era of darkness could fall on humanity, if we don't stop it at the right time (and no…

I actually don't foresee another Hitler rising, because the first Hitler ruined it for all future Hitlers. I think what was most damning was the manner in which Germany lost the war. If I thought it was mainly Hitler's values and racism, I would not feel as safe. Hitler bet big on war and he lost in spectacular fashion. I think he forever associated that style of leadership with catastrophe.

People told themselves the same thing about Napoleon, though. And they told themselves the same thing about WW1 - it was 'the war to end all wars,' and everyone was so thoroughly sick of it afterwards (not least Hitler, who was gassed), that somply having the audacity to march an army around was treated as a a strategic victory.

For some time governments that were opposed to Hitler congratulated themselves on resolving international territorial disputes without all the messy fighting and dying. Hitler's troops were clearly superior to those of the countries he was invading (in terms of number and equipment) so the outcome was obvious and the actual business of conflict seen as archaic, other than maybe a few token shots to satisfy military honor. Even when Germany and Britain finally declared war on Hitler, there was no actual fighting at first - this period is referred to by historians as 'the Phoney War', and at the time it was humorously called 'Sitzkrieg' (a pun on the Blitzkrieg, or 'lightning war' style of Hitler's conquests up to that point). It was imagined that when Britain and France had their forces in place, they could be sized up against the German forces, and a simple economic calculation would quickly bring Hitler to the negotiating table.

To the astonishment of most of the allies (though not Winston churchill, who had dourly foreseen exactly this outcome) Hitler responded to the deployment of forces with an all-out attack, ignoring treaties and invading the Low Countries (Belgium, NL, Luxembourg) almost incidentally in order to encircle the British and the French, dealing a crushing blow. France in particular wildly overestimated the robustness of its own defences, which were essentially a giant fortified wall (the Maginot Line). Since the Germans had been manning their version (the Siegfried Line) without doing anything very much, the French convinced themselves that they had forced a stalemate and that sooner or later a diplomatic solution would emerge.

Obviously, I'm simplifying a great deal here.

Now of course, people might have responded to Hitler much earlier if they had taken all his Jew-baiting and so on at face value, and realized that when he talked about exterminating large groups of people he meant exactly that, as opposed to just conquering and looting in the traditional fashion. But I can easily imagine contemporary parallels.

Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

#53

Post by iak8god »

_delirium wrote: post #35
iak8god wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He was a communist for a long time, then got disenchanted because of Stalin (he wrote 1984 in this period). This is wrong. It's hard to succinctly characterize Orwell's political views[1], but it's simply incorrect that he was "a communist" for any length of time. An uncharitable reading of your comment might be simply that you think democratic socialism and communism are the same thing, in which case it might be v…

I don't think in the context of Spain, at least, the various versions of libertarian socialism saw themselves as that clearly distinguished. POUM had people who described themselves as "communist", "socialist", and "anarchist", some of whom were the same people. They specifically dissociated themselves from the Soviet Union (and more specifically from Stalin), but were largely supportive of some kind of non-authorita…

> I don't think in the context of Spain, at least, the various versions of libertarian socialism saw themselves as that clearly distinguished.

I don't disagree. Reading in 'Homage' about the wide variety of affiliations and beliefs is really eye-opening, which is one reason I recommended it in my response to the (now deleted) comment above.

However, it's just completely wrong from 2014 and with a view of the entire 20th century and of Orwell's entire life to state that he "was a communist for a long time," which is what I was responding to. I hope the author of that comment takes my recommendation. Orwell writes with such integrity and clarity and without even a hint of the tribalism that plagues political discussions.

Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

#54

Post by ArkyBeagle »

lisper wrote: post #28

This sent chills down my spine: "He [Hitler] had crushed the German labor movement and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both left and right concurred ... that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism. Plus ca change...

It's easy to forget just how many Socialisms there were. The "Ein Volk!" were the "socia" in National Socialism, reusing the Goethe-und-Wagner nationalism from the Bismarck era. It's collectivist to the core and regarded the individual as very nearly nothing. Just because it's massively illiberal does not mean it was not a Socialism.

And technically Conservatism is also quite Liberal, coming as it had from Burke. It's just been abused to identify illiberal things.

What surprised me is that Orwell did not directly identify the sadomaschistic core of Naziism. Perhaps that came later, but given "Burmese Days" and how well known the ...libertine nature of Wiemar was, why I'd a thought...

Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

#55

Post by anigbrowl »

confluence wrote: post #43
lisper wrote: post #28

This sent chills down my spine: "He [Hitler] had crushed the German labor movement and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both left and right concurred ... that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism. Plus ca change...

... plus c'est la même chose. The funny thing is that many conservatives think National Socialism was "socialism", when in fact it was just their very own hard right conservatism. Tea Party and Republican candidates are where the Hitlers of the future will probably arise from. > Down with immigration! Up with capital! Be a real American! Welcome to the past. Edit: I see the fascists have discovered my comment. Down v…

I'm continually astonished at the ultraconservative meme that Hitler was left-wing (which seems to originate with a book called 'Liberal Fascism' by Jonah Goldberg, although it has doubtless been floating around for much longer). Point out that one of the very first things that Hitler did on attaining power was have all the trade unionists arrested, and you might as well be talking to the air.

Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

#56

Post by tga_d »

mtdewcmu wrote: post #40
PythonicAlpha wrote: post #9

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana Somebody asked, why this document is so high up-voted. I would say, we can't up-vote it enough, when we have the chance to learn from history and especially from the dark sides of history and from people like George Orwell. Chance is very big, that a new era of darkness could fall on humanity, if we don't stop it at the right time (and no…

I actually don't foresee another Hitler rising, because the first Hitler ruined it for all future Hitlers. I think what was most damning was the manner in which Germany lost the war. If I thought it was mainly Hitler's values and racism, I would not feel as safe. Hitler bet big on war and he lost in spectacular fashion. I think he forever associated that style of leadership with catastrophe.

Just like every other empire that ever failed stopped all other empires from ever forming again? As Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the like fall further into historical curiosities, things like Putinism and whatever you call what goes on in North Korea seem like viable answers distinct from those that came before it. And indeed, in many ways they are different, but especially in the case of the former, I think they clearly show that cult-of-personality authoritarian style of leadership will always be a problem.

Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

#57

Post by ArkyBeagle »

mikeyouse wrote: post #50
lisper wrote: post #28

This sent chills down my spine: "He [Hitler] had crushed the German labor movement and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both left and right concurred ... that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism. Plus ca change...

From a bit further as well; > How was it that he was able to put this monstrous vision across? It is easy to say that at one stage of his career he was financed by the heavy industrialists, who saw in him the man who would smash the Socialists and Communists.

It's easy to forget how profound the power vacuum was in Weimar Germany. The roughly Christian Socialists ( congruent with the Fabians in England, although that's not the term of art ) were a relatively stable influence in Germany. Von Hindenburg was roughly of that skein. The Communists were deadly violent and Stalin was a significant external threat.

Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

#58

Post by judk »

anigbrowl wrote: post #55
confluence wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... plus c'est la même chose. The funny thing is that many conservatives think National Socialism was "socialism", when in fact it was just their very own hard right conservatism. Tea Party and Republican candidates are where the Hitlers of the future will probably arise from. > Down with immigration! Up with capital! Be a real American! Welcome to the past. Edit: I see the fascists have discovered my comment. Down v…

I'm continually astonished at the ultraconservative meme that Hitler was left-wing (which seems to originate with a book called 'Liberal Fascism' by Jonah Goldberg, although it has doubtless been floating around for much longer). Point out that one of the very first things that Hitler did on attaining power was have all the trade unionists arrested, and you might as well be talking to the air.

It's almost as though "left" and "right" are meaningless terms that are just use to split the people into two camps for battle against each other.

Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

#59

Post by mikeyouse »

From a timing perspective, this was published in March, 1940. Some other noteworthy events with their dates:

* Germany invades Poland (September, 1939)

* Britain, France, Canada, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany (September, 1939)

* Soviets invade Poland, which is later split (October, 1939)

* Nazis begin euthanasia of ill and disabled in Germany (October, 1939)

* Soviets attack Finland (November, 1939)

So by the time Orwell published his review, it was clear Germany and the Soviets were mobilizing for war, but it was entirely unclear what would happen next.

In the next six months, Germany would invade Denmark, Norway, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands while beginning their blitz on Great Britain. The Soviets would take Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Mussolini would meet Hitler in Munich, declare war on France and Britain and Italian forces would take Greece and enter Egypt. The Tripartite Pact would be signed by Germany, Italy, and Japan to formalize their alliance.

It's amazing to me how fast things moved during that time.

Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

#60

Post by michaelsbradley »

In 1937, Pope Pius XI published a kind of "review" of the ideas in Mein Kampf and the actions of the Nazi Party. Mit Brennender Sorge ("With Burning Anxiety") remains the only papal encyclical ever principally published in a language other than Latin. That is, the official edition was published in German and other translations were derived from the German rather than a Latin original. Apparently, the Pope's harsh critique enraged Hitler.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/docume...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_brennender_Sorge

Post reply on HN