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

151–160 of 252 posts

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

#151

Post by Intermernet »

vixen99 wrote: post #124
Intermernet wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you that this argument has little to do with conservatism vs. liberalism, but to state "Conservatism doesn't send people to concentration camps" is ignoring some glaring realities, unless you want to be really selective about the definition of a concentration camp. Is Gitmo a concentration camp? How about Manus Island? Azouli Prison? These "detention centers" are full of people put there by both conserva…

You should detail the logical relationships between theses and people acting on them because -isms don't send anyone anywhere, people do. To say they do without offering a road map is loose thinking.

Yes, just like guns don't kill people, people do. Especially people who believe in -isms.

People justify their actions with -isms and theses and society often accepts those justifications. You can always say the -ism isn't to blame, because the person would have probably found another suitable -ism to justify their actions anyway.

The mistake a lot of people make is assuming that political leaders actually believe in ideologies (-isms), rather than assuming they just manipulate them for their own gain. Most politicians will flip-flop on any stance if their constituents demand it.

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

#152

Post by DominikR »

lutusp wrote: post #135
Bootvis wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But presumably there was a different intent behind Mao's actions. It seems to me that the goal of central planning was prosperity, not death.

Yes, true, but in politics the outcome is all that matters, not the intent. As has often been said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Genocide, as defined by the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, is any of the following acts committed with INTENT to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group:

killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The intent is important, no matter what you might believe. That's why the killings in Srebrenica were recognized as genocide, even though "only" 8000 civilians were killed. It does not matter if 10 million or 10 thousand are killed, the intent is all that matters.

What follows is that the starvation caused by Maos policies were not a genocide, no matter how many people died, simply because the government didn't intend to kill all Chinese systematically. Quite to the contrary, they seriously believed that collectivization would end the starvation that has plagued China for decades.

The same applies to most deaths caused by Stalins regime. In some cases there was genocide going on, but the largest part of the victims of his regime were due to failed economic policies (starvation) and political persecution.

Whereas Hitlers policy was to exterminate ethnical or religious groups he deemed worthless, like the Jews, the Slavs, the Roma and many more. He clearly had the intention to exterminate those groups, he even stated it publicly.

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

#153

Post by jokoon »

I wonder if hitler is studied in political sciences.

Especially his speeches, rhetorics and strategies, and why they worked out how they did.

I hate to feel that hitler is somehow still a little controversial today. I don't really want to watch his speeches or read what he was saying because it's a little depressing and painful to think about, but understanding how he politically convinced people, and the underlying causes.

We're safe from that today, but I'd still like to understand how we protected ourselves from that happening again.

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

#154

Post by hayksaakian »

spikels wrote: post #121
adventured wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putin is almost entirely lacking the cult of personality, the movement, around him that Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Fidel, etc. all had. He wasn't a revolutionary, he's primarily a gangster, and historically those are relatively short-lived and weak political types. Putin has more in common with Capone than Hitler, he leads a cult of money and theft. Even Putin's attempts at nationalistic projection have been remarka…

I thought of Putin too when I first saw this posted a day ago for the reason that Putin has indicated many time that he would like to reestablish the USSR. If he ends up invading Ukraine and other former Soviet states (he already took a test drive through Georgia), we were all forewarned and did nothing to prevent it - much as Hitler's clear statements were ignored. I hope Putin has more foresight as this could be an…

In theory, the break up was good. But for the human beings directly affected, it was a mixed bag.

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

#155

Post by Intermernet »

pdonis wrote: post #112
confluence wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In left-right politics, left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics vs. > Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,…

Ok, so by this definition, Stalin was certainly not left-wing, since he exterminated and enslaved minorities, which you appear to agree is not supportive of social equality. Yet Stalin is used in the same Wikipedia article as an example of left-wing activities. Also, if pacifism is left-wing, then the Obama administration is certainly not left-wing or anything close to it, since he has repeatedly authorized military…

Please note, I'm not arguing your overall point, I agree with it completely. This comment is really just nit-picking over terminology.

I'm pretty sure that Stalin has been post-categorized into the "Left-Wing" camp as he stood for "Socialism".

That one label is about the only thing about Stalin that could be classified as "Left-Wing". There has been an enormous amount of jostling amongst all "Left-Wing" political parties (globally) since then in order to differentiate themselves from Stalin.

"Socialism" is now very different from Stalin's view of it, just as "Liberalism" has now been watered down to mean anyone who isn't on the extreme right.

Arguing left vs right is not the way to view this problem. Seeing through the emotive labels and debates, and analyzing the actual behaviour will show you that personal power is the driving motivator, not any political ideology.

According to Plato "The measure of a man is what he does with power". Most of our world leaders at the moment aren't measuring up.

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

#156

Post by robryan »

chris_j wrote: post #129
robryan wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the Russia of today in relative terms is weaker than WW2 Germany militarily. The US is looking to disengage as much as possible from global conflicts. I think that they would be extremely reluctant to be pulled into a head on war against Russia/ China over a lot of 3rd countries.

Do not forget that, whatever the strength of Russia's conventional forces, Russia also possesses nuclear weapons. For that reason, it would be unthinkable for the West to fight a head on war against Russia.

I don't think that is really a factor, nukes only really come into it if you have an irrational regime that would rather be destroyed themselves than outright lose.

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

#157

Post by _up »

reitzensteinm wrote: post #140
mikeyouse wrote: post #59

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…

The "euthanasia" actually began in September 1939. October was when the law was passed, which was backdated to September 1st. This isn't just to be pedantic, I'm currently reading The Third Reich trilogy by Richard J. Evans, and this is an instance of the Nazi emphasis on appearing as though they had a legal basis for their actions, even well into the dictatorship. It's one of the most bizarre parts of the story to m…

I think is it a lot easier to convince people what they are doing is ok or not so bad, if it is "legalized" by law. NSA also insists that everything they do is covered by the law or at least their secret interpretation.

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

#158

Post by bjourne »

waps wrote: post #116
maaku wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I have (yay protection of free speech!) and it is dreadfully boring. It is amazing though how it pretty much spells out exactly what he would end up doing once he took power, in all the horrid detail, and yet some politicians of the time believed that simple appeasement would work... As someone else here said, the lesson is that crazy people sometimes mean what they say, even when it sounds totally crazy.

But that is true of all such literature. The little Red Book, The Communist manifesto, Mein Kampf, the Quran, all of these books are boring to the point that despite their historical influence, and the massacres ascribed to them, it is a real struggle to get through them. Well, at least most of them are really short.

The Communist Manifesto is a pamphlet and it contains a lot of great quotable passages. The Little Red Book contains contains quotes and proverbs from Mao. The Quran.. you can hardly say that it is boring. Your book comparison is just wrong. If you want to compare Mein Kampf to something, then Josef Stalin wrotes some tomes which are dreadful.

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

#159

Post by yk »

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.

Hindenburg was certainly not a socialist. He was a conservative nationalist, for 1920th values of conservative. That is, he wanted to reestablish monarchy and had the interests of the Prussian Junkers at his heart. In addition he got his job because he was a WWI war hero.

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

#160

Post by prawn »

jokoon wrote: post #153

I wonder if hitler is studied in political sciences. Especially his speeches, rhetorics and strategies, and why they worked out how they did. I hate to feel that hitler is somehow still a little controversial today. I don't really want to watch his speeches or read what he was saying because it's a little depressing and painful to think about, but understanding how he politically convinced people, and the underlying…

I don't think we're safe from politicians exploiting fear and selfishness to push dangerous policy at all.
Post reply on HN