The second paragraph's mention of Jewish Nazis actually is correct, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National.... Almost anyone can become a Nazi. Unfortunately, it turns out that being a Nazi, does not save you from the Nazis.
Who Goes Nazi? (1941)
11–20 of 134 posts
Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)
#12I feel like there is much more of propaganda than insight in this piece. For one, because it looks specifically at Nazi-ism, and collaboration, rather than at fascism from the home front.
Secondly, it reeks of 'The good old boy' and the idea that a good man could never be deceived. It promotes a sense that, if you are simply American enough, you can escape the feverish grip of nationalism or public panic.
Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)
#13The author, Dorothy Thompson, was a key journalist and personality who encouraged the U.S. entry into WW2. The book "Those Angry Days" by Lynne Olson describes the struggle between the interventionists and the isolationists.
Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)
#14What an awful article. The author starts by ascribing a biological basis to a person's likelihood to be a Nazi. In that respect, she's no better than them.
National-socialism was a collectivist ideology. It was grouping people according to a hierarchy of "races", in other words judging individuals according to their ancestry. It was fundamentally horrible not because of its form of collectivism, but because it was both collectivistic and totalitarian.
Human action is driven by ideas and personal choices, not by collective biological origins or urges, nor by "feeding", nor by "physical training."
If you want a deeper, intellectual, practical understanding of what made Nazi Germany possible read "The Ominous Parallels" (1982) [1] or an extract titled "The Cause of Hitler's Germany" [2].
Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)
#15What an awful article. The author starts by ascribing a biological basis to a person's likelihood to be a Nazi. In that respect, she's no better than them. National-socialism was a collectivist ideology. It was grouping people according to a hierarchy of "races", in other words judging individuals according to their ancestry. It was fundamentally horrible not because of its form of collectivism, but because it was bo…
It literally starts by saying it’s not a racial thing.
Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)
#16I feel like there is much more of propaganda than insight in this piece. For one, because it looks specifically at Nazi-ism, and collaboration, rather than at fascism from the home front. Secondly, it reeks of 'The good old boy' and the idea that a good man could never be deceived. It promotes a sense that, if you are simply American enough, you can escape the feverish grip of nationalism or public panic.
I didn't get that from the article at all.
I think this sentence in the last section of the article is the central point:
> Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi.
That Nazism is a product of cruelty, unhappiness, and insecurity.
Fascism is about dominance. About being a part of the group to which the other is subordinate. Which is something that appeals to people who are deeply bitter, delight in suffering (of their own or others), or lack a sense of self-identity.
Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)
#17What an awful article. The author starts by ascribing a biological basis to a person's likelihood to be a Nazi. In that respect, she's no better than them. National-socialism was a collectivist ideology. It was grouping people according to a hierarchy of "races", in other words judging individuals according to their ancestry. It was fundamentally horrible not because of its form of collectivism, but because it was bo…
It literally starts by saying it’s not a racial thing.
Fourth paragraph: "Sometimes I think there are direct biological factors at work—a type of education, feeding, and physical training which has produced a new kind of human being with an imbalance in his nature."
She's ascribing an inclination to Nazism to feeding and physical training. There is no charitable interpretation.
Added [I'm blocked from responding]:
Near the end: "L is the strongest natural-born Nazi in this room... He has the brains of Neanderthal man, but he has an infallible instinct for power."
She constantly ascribes adherence or willingness to adhere to Nazism to a biological cause -- being born, one's feeding, a physical training, Neanderthal man, or instinct.
This is not how to understand Nazism, or its causes; nor is it how to fight it.
Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)
#18What an awful article. The author starts by ascribing a biological basis to a person's likelihood to be a Nazi. In that respect, she's no better than them. National-socialism was a collectivist ideology. It was grouping people according to a hierarchy of "races", in other words judging individuals according to their ancestry. It was fundamentally horrible not because of its form of collectivism, but because it was bo…
It literally starts by saying it’s not a racial thing.
First paragraph: "I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, ..." [emphasis added]
Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)
#19I feel like there is much more of propaganda than insight in this piece. For one, because it looks specifically at Nazi-ism, and collaboration, rather than at fascism from the home front. Secondly, it reeks of 'The good old boy' and the idea that a good man could never be deceived. It promotes a sense that, if you are simply American enough, you can escape the feverish grip of nationalism or public panic.
I didn't get that from the article at all. I think this sentence in the last section of the article is the central point: > Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi. That Nazism is a product of cruelty, unhappiness, and insecurity. Fascism is about dominance. About being a part of the group to which the other is subordinate. Which is something that appeals to people who are deeply bitter, delight i…
Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never... become school shooters, or terrorists, etc. At some level, people want to be winning at life: if they are, they're invested in the current system. If they aren't, they may seek change (or at least immerse themselves in some subculture).
Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)
#20One thing thats missing in her musings here, because not invited to such party is - the Avantgarde- it would go Nazi. The womanizing, crippled advertiser, the for bohemian painter dreaming of greatness- the writer of the eternal Novel, the weak and Outsiders, they will spin on the tip of a needle to be the first not to be the first to be put to the wall.