Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

harpers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 134 posts

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#31

Post by MereInterest »

mkempe wrote: post #26
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First paragraph: "I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, ..." [emphasis added] > 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." It's obvious that she's talking about upbringing rather than genetics, despite the word choice. You're being way too…

There is no charitable interpretation possible for "born Nazis."

The distinction made, throughout the article and all the descriptions it gives, is between those who would be a Nazi were it profitable to do so, and those who would be a Nazi wholeheartedly. The former are Nazis by circumstance, while the latter are those termed as "born Nazis". It does not refer to one's birth or heritage, but the enthusiasm with which one would join a despicable movement.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#32

Post by PhasmaFelis »

mkempe wrote: post #26
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First paragraph: "I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, ..." [emphasis added] > 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." It's obvious that she's talking about upbringing rather than genetics, despite the word choice. You're being way too…

There is no charitable interpretation possible for "born Nazis."

She says repeatedly that Nazism is not genetic but is potentially rooted in the earliest upbringing. When she talks about "young D," "the only born Nazi in the room," she says a lot about his upbringing and nothing whatsoever about his heritage. That's what "born" means to Dorothy Thompson.

The word "born" is clearly an awkward choice--perhaps it worked better in the idiom of 1941--but you're not doing any good by ignoring context and stubbornly insisting on a literal dictionary reading.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#33

Post by PhasmaFelis »

chillacy wrote: post #19
cowpig wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I think the article addresses that, too, with Mr. C: "...he is subtle and cruel. He would rise high in a Nazi regime. It would need men just like him—intellectual and ruthless. But Mr. C is not a born Nazi. He is the product of a democracy hypocritically preaching social equality and practicing a carelessly brutal snobbery. He is a sensitive, gifted man who has been humiliated into nihilism."

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#34

Post by Avshalom »

skrap wrote: post #22

I get what the author is getting at. Not sure I agree. Many years ago, I read "Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland", which analyzes interviews with the actual men performing the slaughter of innocents at the end of the war. The conclusion that book drew was different than this article, and makes more sense to me — that it's not "mean people 'go nazi'", but ordinary people who '…

While I definitely agree that removing responsibility likely allows/causes people to participate in horrible things it should also be remembered that "at the end of the war" they knew they were on the losing side and probably looking to minimize their own role in that side.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#35

Post by nl »

skrap wrote: post #22

I get what the author is getting at. Not sure I agree. Many years ago, I read "Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland", which analyzes interviews with the actual men performing the slaughter of innocents at the end of the war. The conclusion that book drew was different than this article, and makes more sense to me — that it's not "mean people 'go nazi'", but ordinary people who '…

I agree with this 100%. I started writing a comment about how the author emphasised all the bad traits of the Nazis-to-be and that’s not really how it worked.

I seem to remember something about how lots of “un-American communists” were pretty staunch anti-Nazis.

But OTOH this was 1941, and there were still plenty of Nazi sympathisers in the US. The battle of ideas was still live then, and I guess Harpers were fighting it.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#36

Post by nl »

ars wrote: post #21
dang wrote: post #9

Discussed in 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11053415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11155824 Dorothy Thompson was one of if not the most famous American journalist of the 1930s and 40s. She's largely forgotten now, but is sure to be rediscovered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Thompson

It's amazing reading comments that sound like they are about Trump, but are actually written about Obama.

There’s only one comment in those about Obama, and that’s turning a thread about Trump into one about Obama. (No one seriously thinks of Obama as being the “strongman” archetype)

OTOH, there is the typical anti-Semitic “Nazis were just a response to Commununists, and it was the Jews fault” comment. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11156462

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#37

Post by [deleted] »

Avshalom wrote: post #34
skrap wrote: post #22

I get what the author is getting at. Not sure I agree. Many years ago, I read "Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland", which analyzes interviews with the actual men performing the slaughter of innocents at the end of the war. The conclusion that book drew was different than this article, and makes more sense to me — that it's not "mean people 'go nazi'", but ordinary people who '…

While I definitely agree that removing responsibility likely allows/causes people to participate in horrible things it should also be remembered that "at the end of the war" they knew they were on the losing side and probably looking to minimize their own role in that side.

[deleted]

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#38

Post by candiodari »

cowpig wrote: post #16
OtterCoder wrote: post #12

I 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…

> Fascism is about dominance. About being a part of the group to which the other is subordinate.

This is utterly correct.

> 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.

This is absurd, and does not follow from the first part.

Here's the truth (and you do get this from the article) : anyone who rises a lot in the world, or has that as an ambition, in either popularity or money, would "go nazi". That is very different from actively persecuting people, and that should be clearly understood.

I feel like dropping another 10 points on this site, so may I just make the point. Someone who was born a man (or woman) of some privilege (not necessarily much, but some) and does not really seek to advance, someone who gets his life pre-planned for them, and follows the plan. "Dad was a doctor, and I will be too". Those are the people that do not go Nazi, that, no matter what, will never join.

In other words : rich republicans would be the bastion against Nazism. They would be the people that, no matter what efforts are done, cannot be converted. Doctor families. Lawyer "dynasties".

The Bay Area ... would be a hotbed of Nazism in America. No doubt about it. Nazism has everything that SF wants : loads of young people. Support from universities and "follows science" (read the newspapers from the time). It sings the praises of the poor, gives a clear reason for the poor getting repressed (rich jewish bankers), Nazism hates the status-quo and wants to change it at all costs (even though most people don't nearly realize just how big those costs were going to get. Please keep that thoroughly in mind before judging people).

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#39

Post by IntronExon »

frozenport wrote: post #29
skrap wrote: post #22

I get what the author is getting at. Not sure I agree. Many years ago, I read "Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland", which analyzes interviews with the actual men performing the slaughter of innocents at the end of the war. The conclusion that book drew was different than this article, and makes more sense to me — that it's not "mean people 'go nazi'", but ordinary people who '…

Perhaps a more apt title would be "Who goes Nazi first?"

Or “who inspires/leads the Nazi?” Confusing the rank and file with an obersturmbannfuhrer or someone like Mengele is a mistake.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#40

Post by rospaya »

The Nazis in the article remind me of the political class in Croatia, where I live.

Once socialist one party rule collapsed, the whole ruling class divided itself into political parties and participated in the whole political spectrum, like nothing happened. Some of them became ardent anti-communists, despite being active parts of the old regime.

After ten years of center-right rule, some even switched sides and former nationalists (and before that communists) rebranded themselves as Christian democrats, Europeans, clean shaven centrists.

Some people are simply made for all regimes. They're the Nazis the author talks about.

Post reply on HN