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…
George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)
81–90 of 252 posts
Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unrelated to the matter but since you work at genius, can you talk to the geniuses (sic) who thought that hijacking text highlight was a good idea? A lot of us speed readers use text highlight to read along. It is easier on the eyes and the brain. So please don't hijack it.
For technical reasons: we want to allow users to annotate arbitrary segments of text, so what better (or other) way is there than adding an annotate button to highlighted text? For philosophical reasons: genius is about annotating text, and as a result, about close reading. We'd rather optimize for a close read than a speed read.
Moreover you actually break selection pretty badly along with it. There are other ways to annotate than to pop crap up every time a user highlights text.
I'm in no mood of solving UX problems for a website that has gotten me so disgusted within seconds of opening it. And no, this is not an exaggeration. Imagine if, while reading the newspaper, every few seconds some really annoying guy moved it out of the way and yelled "DID YOU SEE THE SPORTS SECTION?" or similar crap you don't care about. This is the most direct analogy I can find to explain the situation to someone who doesn't highlight-read.
Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)
#83From 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…
It's amazing to me that, in all likelihood, had Hitler decided to call it quits earlier, the world would have sat back and allowed him to keep some of his conquests (eg Denmark, Norway or Belgium). Today it would be unthinkable to allow a large nation to invade Belgium with no counter international military response.
Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)
#84Earlier 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.
Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
The notion that the people are there for you to give them something to hope for is somewhat totalitarian by itself.
It's also the basis of all advertising, marketing, and PR. I think Orwell was wrong, but not for the obvious reasons. As an observation, it's impossible to argue with the suggestion that humans need more than comfort. Humans have been creating crusades, pogroms, holy wars, riots, race riots, and revolutions since almost forever. But I don't think he understood what made Nazi fascism so extreme - which is the way it t…
Maybe not in the traditional form (with religious meaning), but in a new, nationalistic form. The pretence of a higher purpose of the NS system was in my opinion, that the nation will succeed in its god given plan to succeed. You can hear it shining threw in many of Hitlers speeches.
No, when you understand "purpose" in a strict religious way, it did not have such pretence. But when you have an open mind to something that is more common than religion, it definitively had.
There are also many things that are clearly directed into a cult or replacement-religion. Also Hitler uses many religious phrases and imitations. Many see this as a clear sign for a cult.
Also the fact, that for example the wife of Goebbels killed her children, speaks clearly that many people (many killed themselves either) lost all hope and life purpose, because the NS system was (for them) something like the salvation for the German nation.
>The entire German political system became a suicide and death cult, and swallowed itself whole.
Now you say it yourself and contradict yourself by saying that it became a cult. It was a kind of cult and thus had the pretence of a higher purpose. (of course, if you always define "purpose" as going to heaven, you are right -- but in my opinion there are different levels or kinds of purpose).
That is right. But this was possible, because with the dead of the system, many of the involved people also lost hope for Germany as a whole. I don't want to excuse, what they did (some of them slaughtered their own people and behaved like real monsters), but in some cases it might become a little more understandable.
I also don't want to show this cult in a shiny light. It was really a death cult (and that from the start) -- but because of a different reason: The system was based on the notion, that the German nation will rise -- and the condition for that was, that others had to fall. It was a kind of social-darwinism (hope, got that word right). This whole notion: I will rise, and others have to fall (for that) is anti-christian and a total abuse of Darwins findings. It is a cult, based on the death of others. What happened was, that this death fired back on the Germans.
Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)
#86This 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…
Doesn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta...
Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'd have been better off identifying him as a Christian Democrat although that lacks something. He was one of the last of the Junkers Prussian caste to rule, and that really doesn't compare to much outside Germany and then only before WWII.
Of what came after, I'd say the CDU is closest to what von Hindenburg stood for, although it's still a stretch.
Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)
#88Earlier 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.
Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I always thought he was against totalitarianism What he writes, does not imply that he is pro-totalitarianism. He only says, that the concept to give people something to hope for, to fight for, to give their life for a "higher meaning" is a more sound psychological concept as "hey, have a good time ... and just live for the next gadget"
The notion that the people are there for you to give them something to hope for is somewhat totalitarian by itself.
Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)
#90This 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…
Modern American conservatism, especially lately, is almost exclusively the boring and literal type of conservatism--the type that talks about traditional values and the merits of the status quo and says "no" to all these new liberal initiatives, ranging from gay marriage to Obamacare. It doesn't have the desire to overthrow the existing order of things, nor the ideological fervor to know what to do if it did.