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

71–80 of 252 posts

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

#71

Post by orionblastar »

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...

Correct me if I am wrong, but conservatism doesn't have the social programs that Hitler had. Conservatism doesn't send people to concentration camps and then mass murder them.

I think this thread has reached a Godwin level. Both may be right-wing but:

Hitler supported abortion, gun control, big government, and other things the conservatives claim to be against.

To simply say conservatives = Hitler because both are right-wing is just as wrong as saying liberals = communists or anarchists because all are left-wing.

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

#72

Post by sexmonad »

ekianjo wrote: post #65

The comparison with Naopoleon in the text is inappropriate and anachronistic. Napoleon WAS fighting against destiny. France was then attacked on all fronts by foreign kingdoms who wanted to crush the republic and restore the monarchy. Napoleon was the one to rise to defend the nation against foreign powers. It had nothing to do with Hitler agressing other countries around.for the sole purpose of establishing a larger…

I don't see the parallel as intended to put Napoleon down, but instead to attribute the same force of personality to Hitler. As someone who never met either man (perhaps that's obvious :), I'm not sure the connection works with me.

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

#73

Post by toyg »

ekianjo wrote: post #65

The comparison with Naopoleon in the text is inappropriate and anachronistic. Napoleon WAS fighting against destiny. France was then attacked on all fronts by foreign kingdoms who wanted to crush the republic and restore the monarchy. Napoleon was the one to rise to defend the nation against foreign powers. It had nothing to do with Hitler agressing other countries around.for the sole purpose of establishing a larger…

Read it again: he's saying that both Napoleon and Hitler appealed to a sense of unjust martyrdom the masses experienced, and which is actually a very common element of popular culture. He's only discussing the rhetorical device, not any actual merit of the stance (which, as you say, Napoleon might have had at some point -- certainly not when he invaded Italy though -- not unlike Hitler in Weimar Germany, humiliated and mistreated after WWI).

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

#74

Post by eudox »

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…

>Edit: I see the fascists have discovered my comment. Down vote away. It doesn't change history.

I was about to upvote you when I read this. Please don't be so anally frustrated in the future.

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

#75

Post by toyg »

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #57
mikeyouse wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Von Hindenburg was certainly no moderate socialist of any kind. He was nominated exactly because he was seen as a link to the previous (aristocratic and Bismarckian) past without being too virulently anti-Socialist -- a safe pair of hands, so to speak, but certainly not a "christian socialist" of any sort. In fact, his suspicion and eventual (mis)treatment of the SPD was one of the causes of Hitler's rise to power.

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

#76

Post by [deleted] »

eudox wrote: post #74
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…

>Edit: I see the fascists have discovered my comment. Down vote away. It doesn't change history. I was about to upvote you when I read this. Please don't be so anally frustrated in the future.

[deleted]

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

#77

Post by wdr1 »

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…

You're conflating several concepts with conservatism.

Sure, there are branches of Conservative thoughts that intersect with National Socialism, but the very same thing can be said about social liberalism.

In reality, however, neither side -- left or right -- in America is that close to the ideas of National Socialism.

To suggest otherwise is either genuine ignorance or a weak attempt to score political points.

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

#78

Post by toyg »

orionblastar wrote: post #71
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...

Correct me if I am wrong, but conservatism doesn't have the social programs that Hitler had. Conservatism doesn't send people to concentration camps and then mass murder them. I think this thread has reached a Godwin level. Both may be right-wing but: Hitler supported abortion, gun control, big government, and other things the conservatives claim to be against. To simply say conservatives = Hitler because both are ri…

> I think this thread has reached a Godwin level

Well, it's hard not to mention Nazism in a thread about Mein Kampf... (sorry, I couldn't resist -- I do get what you are saying though).

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

#79

Post by chatmasta »

declan wrote: post #69
Russell91 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stalin's genocide was larger.

>Stalin's genocide was larger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll Mao Zedong is believed to be responsible for 34,300,000–63,784,000 deaths and Joseph Stalin for 23,000,000–60,000,000.

Ok, point taken. But at least I was correct in saying "a caricature" rather than "the caricature." Man, that's a lot of people.

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

#80

Post by toyg »

Htsthbjig wrote: post #42

With what we know today we could see Orwell picture of Germany was incomplete. People did not want struggling at the time. After the Great depression created by the banks bubble and having everything they could produce taken by countries like France as payment for WWI GERMANS WERE ALREADY STRUGGLING. Germans were dying in winter because the coal was sent to France as payment. And this is not like winter in Morocco. I…

Undoubtedly part of the German electorate responded to Hitler in despair, as you say; however, you cannot discount the fascination he inspired in the middle classes by appealing to their sense of glory. He took that element from Mussolini, who developed it in a country that wasn't on the verge of despair as much as stuck in a lull and lacking self-confidence.
Post reply on HN