George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940) • Hacker News Board

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

#241

Post by scott_karana » Mon, Aug 18, 2014, 8:05 AM UTC

lostlogin wrote: post #111

adventured wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There have been some pretty large scale invasions in the last 10-15 years. Those countries that were anti them faced a pretty dark few years in terms of international relations. At least that's how the deadlines were interpreted by me. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War

Do you really consider the Iraq War to be an occupation? Especially one akin to any of the Reich's annexations?...

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

#242

Post by callum85 » Mon, Aug 18, 2014, 11:14 AM UTC

scrollaway wrote: post #49

ehmorris wrote: post #7

If you guys know a lot about the period, I just transcribed it on Genius and I'd appreciate some help annotating it: http://history.genius.com/George-orwell-review-of-mein-kampf... (full disclosure I work at Genius.)

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.

That's the whole point of Genius. I get that you highlight for reading (me too), but it's like asking Wikipedia to ban editing.

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

#243

Post by mtdewcmu » Mon, Aug 18, 2014, 11:38 AM UTC

rangibaby wrote: post #234

mtdewcmu wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting to speculate on what would have happened if Hitler hadn't betrayed Stalin. Hitler had reasons for doing so (I can't remember what they were), and they probably had some validity -- but the Soviets were certainly uneasy allies with the US and Britain, so perhaps the Soviets could have been kept out of the war, at least for a while. If Germany was weakened, though, Stalin might have seen an opportunity…

Hitler's reasons for invading the USSR were batshit insane. He wanted to wipe the Slavs out, and thought he could do it before winter set in. If Germany hadn't broken their agreement with the USSR the Soviets probably would have stayed out of the war - remember that they had just been humiliated by the Finns.

I took another look at the wikipedia entry [1], and it's inconclusive. Hitler had tipped his hand in Mein Kampf by describing war with the Soviets, and the Germans needed the oilfields at Baku, so completely avoiding war might have appeared impossible to Hitler. If one accepts that war was inevitable, then it probably was better sooner than later from the German standpoint: the Soviets began upgrading their tactics in response to Germany's from the first German action in the war, so the Soviets were becoming stronger adversaries. On the other hand, German observers with cooler heads could see that the odds of success were low and the action was foolhardy. But then, why pick on one aspect when the entire war was foolhardy?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

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

#244

Post by mtdewcmu » Mon, Aug 18, 2014, 11:45 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #230

Zuider wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The German philosopher, Hegel had quite the man-crush on Bonaparte. "I saw the Emperor -this soul of the world- go out from the city to survey his reign; it is a truly wonderful sensation to see such an individual, who, concentrating on one point while seated on a horse, stretches over the world and dominates it." Similarly, Hitler saw himself as being the concrete expression of the soul of the German people. He may…

Do you have a source for that quote from Hegel ? I'd like to check the actual german version of it :)

I found some references, including this one[1]:

"As far as the philosophy of history is concerned, what is the first trait of the Hegelian vision of the Napoleonic hero ? A famous passage is often quoted. It is an extract from the letter Hegel addressed from Iena to his friend Niethammer, October 13th, 1806, when he had just finished writing The Phenomenology of Mind : " I saw the Emperor -this soul of the world- go out from the city to survey his reign; it is a truly wonderful sensation to see such an individual, who, concentrating on one point while seated on a horse, stretches over the world and dominates it. " (Correspondance, T. I, p.114)."

"Napoleon soul of the world" makes a pretty good search phrase[2].

[1] http://www.napoleon.org/en/reading_room/articles/files/napol... [2] https://www.google.com/#q=emperor+napoleon+this+soul+of+the+...

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

#245

Post by waps » Mon, Aug 18, 2014, 2:43 PM UTC

the_af wrote: post #239

waps wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your making the point that because they weren't outright communist, they must have been right-wing. I agree that they weren't communists, I disagree with the conclusion you draw from that. Most trusts were nationalized, just nazi style : their management was replaced or forced to obey party rule, mostly by threats. Yes that doesn't technically qualify as nationalization, but for all practical intents it boils down to…

I think your definition of the left-right axis is almost designed to make the Nazis belong in the far left, which is still (thankfully!) a fringe opinion. Populism alone is not left-wing. Your definition of left/right doesn't include aspects of the far right such as anti-labor measures (while calling themselves a "worker's party", the Nazis actually destroyed worker rights, which made them appealing to the industrial…

I appreciate the difference between what people claim they'll do and what they actually do given the chance. However at least in the case of the Nazis I'd like to point out the war. During this time in history, Germany, the Soviets and America destroyed worker's rights. We all know why. Does this indicate how they were aligned ? A little, but there are many other things far more important.

It keeps baffling me how offensive people find the idea that the far left was leaning towards racism and the far right was the more tolerant side of aisle during this period. Things change. Is this really so hard to imagine ? Everyone knows that the Vatican, for example, is very much for equality between races and has actually stood by this stance when politically inconvenient, just like they stand behind their (somewhat lunatic) anti-birth-control stand today. Given that, and the similar attitude of other religions, is it really so hard to believe that when public opinion turns racist (as I'm hoping people are still capable of realizing that it did), populist parties will turn with it, including leftist parties. Conservatives, as the name implies will be more constant, and will resist this change on both sides. Right now they're anti-immigration, because they're more so than the "big" left party, but not by much. That can change in a heartbeat, and if history is any guide, it will.

You know those old movies where you see rich women react to black people as if they were smelly insects ? Those movies are quite realistic and, like today, rich women are rather unlikely to be conservatives. Those people were part of the left. There was a time, not that long ago, when that was the norm, the social and popular thing to do. I bet most black adults can enlighten you to these facts if you're confused.

Everytime some range of immigrants starts lowering pay for a large group of workers, racism becomes popular, for obvious reasons. 1930 in Europe was like 2009, on the Mexican border, for people without a degree, only worse to the point where they actually feared starving to death on a regular basis (especially in Germany, where there were a few regions where there actually was starvation). Is it really so hard to comprehend that under those circumstances, sentiment will turn racist ? Doubly so given that the majority of taxes was going to foreignors ?

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

#246

Post by jahaja » Mon, Aug 18, 2014, 5:21 PM UTC

waps wrote: post #200

jahaja wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the extreme left for you? Stalinism isn't extreme left, it's just an totalitarianism promoted as socialism to gain credit. Just as north korea ain't a democracy even though they call themselves that. What I usually associate with "extreme" or far left is the "autonomous left" or similar where trade unions are certainly a fundamental part of the organisational idea.

This is the "but it was never implemented correctly" argument. To the rest of the world, I assure you that Soviet-style communism definitely qualifies as socialism.

That isn't even a reply is it? I could definitely build a solid case with a lot of historical references to support such an argument. However I'm very doubtful that you could build a solid case that Stalinism is in fact built on the foundations/ideas of Socialism. Just as it's pretty easy to build case that North Korea is not very aligned with democratic principles. This article is from 1940 and is skeptical of Stalinism. There's alot of more, and earlier, examples of such criticism as well.

But the propaganda that Stalinism is actually what socialism stands for was in the interest of both sides of the cold war, and we live with this "repeat-until-its-true" legacy today.

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

#247

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Aug 18, 2014, 6:49 PM UTC

mtdewcmu wrote: post #220

anigbrowl wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 resolvi…

You said it right 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. If people had called Hitler's bluff, things would have gone differently. Do you think the next one…

I agree with all that/ What I mean about another Hitler being possible is that I find it quite easy to imagine that establishe powers will turn a blind eye to disturbing rhetoric if it suits them, much as people shrugged off Vladimir Putin's repeatedly expressed nostalgia for the USSR until very recently (although I don't think Putin is an ideologue in the mold of Hitler, just strategically ambitious).

I do agree that nobody could be as obvious about their ill intentions as Hitler was; mass communication through radio, film newsreels and so on was a fairly new phenomenon when he rose to power and people were not fully aware of how it could support totalitarianism as they are today. But you can get away with a lot in politics by simply making the right noises, sadly.

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

#248

Post by mtdewcmu » Mon, Aug 18, 2014, 11:52 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #247

mtdewcmu wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said it right 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. If people had called Hitler's bluff, things would have gone differently. Do you think the next one…

I agree with all that/ What I mean about another Hitler being possible is that I find it quite easy to imagine that establishe powers will turn a blind eye to disturbing rhetoric if it suits them, much as people shrugged off Vladimir Putin's repeatedly expressed nostalgia for the USSR until very recently (although I don't think Putin is an ideologue in the mold of Hitler, just strategically ambitious). I do agree tha…

Yes. It's instructive to look at the examples of the two major autocrats of the 20th century. Hitler died a lonely death surrounded by ruin. Stalin died in his own bed as an old man. Stalin bided his time and played the patient opportunist. Hitler was feverish for military victory. It's obvious which dictator Putin wants to emulate.

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

#249

Post by the_af » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 2:40 PM UTC

waps wrote: post #245

the_af wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your definition of the left-right axis is almost designed to make the Nazis belong in the far left, which is still (thankfully!) a fringe opinion. Populism alone is not left-wing. Your definition of left/right doesn't include aspects of the far right such as anti-labor measures (while calling themselves a "worker's party", the Nazis actually destroyed worker rights, which made them appealing to the industrial…

I appreciate the difference between what people claim they'll do and what they actually do given the chance. However at least in the case of the Nazis I'd like to point out the war. During this time in history, Germany, the Soviets and America destroyed worker's rights. We all know why. Does this indicate how they were aligned ? A little, but there are many other things far more important. It keeps baffling me how of…

People -- or rather, myself, since I can't speak for everyone -- do not find it offensive as much as nonsensical. The far right was never tolerant, by any definition of far right. Racism is also inherently not a trait of the far left. When we find a leftist government/organization enacting extreme racist policies such as mass imprisonment, deportation or execution, we know there's something deeply wrong with it, and we usually denounce it ("how can they call themselves leftists if they do this!"). But the same policies by a far right government would surprise no-one.

I'm willing to concede many points, for example:

- That some branches of the left can be "conservative" at times, if we define conservative to mean "staying with the satus quo". For example, if the status quo is a leftist society. Also, individual people may be conservative as a general attitude towards life, regardless of political ideologies.

- That some groups historically called leftists were so in name only, or had right-wing traits at the same time.

- That the more extremist left and right wing at times are cosmetically very similar, especially when their discourse is at its most strident.

But the Nazis were far-right, paying only lip service to worker's rights. Most Western entrepreneurs were also anti worker's rights, which is why they initially saw Nazis in a very good light. They were definitely not "more tolerant" than the left.

I do not consider the Vatican or the Church as right-wing organizations, by the way. More like conservatists, which I have already agreed is a more broad classification. There exist sub-groups within the Church which belong to the extreme right, of course.

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

#250

Post by waps » Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 2:22 AM UTC

the_af wrote: post #249

waps wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate the difference between what people claim they'll do and what they actually do given the chance. However at least in the case of the Nazis I'd like to point out the war. During this time in history, Germany, the Soviets and America destroyed worker's rights. We all know why. Does this indicate how they were aligned ? A little, but there are many other things far more important. It keeps baffling me how of…

People -- or rather, myself, since I can't speak for everyone -- do not find it offensive as much as nonsensical. The far right was never tolerant, by any definition of far right. Racism is also inherently not a trait of the far left. When we find a leftist government/organization enacting extreme racist policies such as mass imprisonment, deportation or execution, we know there's something deeply wrong with it, and…

> When we find a leftist government/organization enacting extreme racist policies such as mass imprisonment, deportation or execution, we know there's something deeply wrong with it, and we usually denounce it ("how can they call themselves leftists if they do this!").

Strange. I must have missed that when it came to

1) First and foremost, Che Guevara. Allow me to quote him

"The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese. And the two ancient races have now begun a hard life together, fraught with bickering and squabbles. Discrimination and poverty unite them in the daily fight for survival but their different ways of approaching life separate them completely: The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations."

Clearly being a racist murderous bastard does not preclude any leftist credentials. I would argue that if you checked the newspapers in the 1930's and 1950's-60's-70's you will find that similar reverence existed in the left for Hitler (up till July 1941, guess what happened at that moment), and Stalin, even when it was known that Soviets did the extermination camp thing.

Other examples that come to mind

2) the Soviets (against Jews, homosexuals, tatars, ...)

3) The open racism of Egypts various socialist government parties (religious, sexist and ethnic). Most glaringly, the left's support for the arab spring even when it got taken over by the muslim brotherhood, who is not merely racist, but genocidally so.

More generally, you'll see a lot of examples of this in the middle east.

4) The open racism in China, before (and even during) the latest pro-pseudo-capitalism era. And yes, this was while China was doing the Nepal thing.

Again, not just China, but a lot of Asian countries enjoyed this leftist support.

So forgive me for stating the obvious here : the left has a specific agenda, and is certainly willing to accept open racism in people it reveres, racist policies and even racist genocides to some extent, as long as they advance the cause.

I am more of a European-style leftist (meaning I find the democrats nowhere near the centre of the political spectrum), but I have very few illusions on this. I have been a party member at one time (student days ...) and after a while I was forced to conclude that while, yes, it was far-fetched that these people would ever be given the chance for genocide, but

1) there was a (granted, small) group always talking about it. Mostly about Jews and/or Israel

2) after a while I started to believe them.

3) these people were not just tolerated, but actually had high status. Some were part of the "core" of the party.

4) obviously, most people in the party were very much opposed to actually implementing this. Unlike this loud group however, they were not willing to sacrifice anything for that.