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

George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

gutenberg.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 600 posts

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#301

Post by mbg721 »

pyuser583 wrote: post #288
j3s wrote: post #260

this is tangentially related, but i've always loved reading this critique of orwell & 1984 by asimov: http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm i've always thought it a valid critique, and it makes me think less of orwell's writings

Asimov spends criticizes how Orwell got future technology wrong. But I wonder how the technology “1984” corresponds to the technology in Eastern Block countries circa 1984. HBOs Chernobyl is praised for its accuracy of Soviet life in the 1980d, and it looks a lot like what Orwell describes in 1984. And some of Asimov descriptions of 1980s tech were fads: > His hero finds it difficult in his world of 1984 to get shoel…

1984 didn't have the concept of outsourced manufacturing. (For that matter, I guess the Soviet view of the world didn't either.)

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#302

Post by watwut »

zozbot234 wrote: post #128
fumblebee wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't help but think one of the most appealing aspects of Hitler would've been his ability to deliver passionate speeches. For example, I have no idea what he's saying in this speech [1], but the tone at which he delivers it is undeniably quite mesmerising, especially when compared to the tone of, say, Joe Biden [2]. In a time where radio ruled, it's hard not to think he wouldn't stand out, irregardless of the cont…

Quoted post unavailable.

Hitler was trying to make Germans more violent and aggressive. He wanted them to feel under threat.

Biden is not planning genocide and is not trying to raise level of violence in America.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#303

Post by jhgb »

hef19898 wrote: post #120
thrown_22 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I sometimes wonder if I were not very smart, girlfriendless and a delivery rider if it wouldnt appeal to me too. How do you explain that 45% of votes for Nazis came from Women? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Nazi_Germany#Nazi_fem...

You mean that 55% of pro Nazi votes, and thus a majority, were male? And that the NSDAP had, at least when the election was free, nowhere near a majority, so a vast majority of women actually voted against them? Well, I think because women just didn't like em that much.

At least 80% of German women voted for Henlein and SdP in 1938 long after Hitler had been in power and known for what he was. "Women just didn't like em that much" is pure fantasy.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#304

Post by yomkippur »

jokabrink wrote: post #282
yomkippur wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He might have decided so but the people don't share his cause. They are suffering with the heatwave and will also freeze during winter. Time will tell just how far his cause is going to last (it wont) People in the West are quick to forget that fight against Nazism wasn't unanimous. Many in America supported it. Many in Western Europe supported it. It was only when there was economic interests at stake they jumped in…

But its a lot more than just about the "need to suffer for a foreign country", isn't it? Its about the geopolitical interest of Europe. To be dependent on an autocratic foreign power (in this case gas) shows the problems. For example, if Russia takes over Ukraine, it would make Russia by far the largest exporter of wheat in the world (from 22% to 33%) (second: US 16%) [1]. They would gain additional power in other ma…

Yes but if they piss off Putin arent they already forgone that scenario? It's guaranteed that Russia will target countries that helped Ukraine by weaponizing its captured commodities. So it puzzles me why rest of Europe would do this because NATO and Russia is NOT going to engage in WW3 like so many people have you believe.

Europe will go on its own way while experiencing shortfalls and Russia will go on theirs. They both suffer but in different ways. Europe's middle class will pay the price for this war. Russia's entire population pays the price. The United States benefit massively here 1) destroying an old enemy 2) several new customers to buy their energy and food supplies from.

I think whats clear is BRICS emerging as its own sustainable barter economy of sorts (its sure as hell not going to be able to push its reserve currency beyond its own borders) with some onramp/offramp to precious metals that becomes impossible to track when melted down and cleared in second/third tier merchants.

Nobody wins from this multi-polar world order, its really bad for the global economy and the middle class suddenly finds itself unable to afford the lifestyle that they enjoyed not too long ago. (ex. PS5 is prohibitvely expensive, think back to PS1, PS2 how affordable and liquid the supply was).

This is the new norm, get ready for even more expensive stuff you took for granted. Eventually it will cause a deflation as boomers wallets dry up as their pension is in limbo. The biggest losers will be the MZ generation.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#305

Post by watwut »

mbg721 wrote: post #181
nabla9 wrote: post #174

> clumsy writing of Mein Kampf, Mein Kampf is clumsy but offers real insights into propaganda. He really thought about it. He clearly understands the value of propaganda in the war: "propaganda demands the most skilled brains that can be found." When Hitler talks mass psychology and propaganda, he says something very insightful even if it's inconvenient to hear for some. He calls masses feminine. When he talks to his…

Was Hitler particularly good at that, or did he just have a desperate audience? The usual downfall that people point to with autocratic governments is that their leaders think they're in touch with their citizens but are really a million miles away.

By all accounts, he was good at it. Nazi party was not the only rough party fighting for dominance over audience. There were multiple of them. When Hitler joined, they were rather small party. Hitler as a speaker was drawing crowds, but he was not the only guy trying to get attention. They got large under his leadership.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#306

Post by mbg721 »

bliteben wrote: post #295
j3s wrote: post #260

this is tangentially related, but i've always loved reading this critique of orwell & 1984 by asimov: http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm i've always thought it a valid critique, and it makes me think less of orwell's writings

this is great, but I smirked at this line >Tyrannies have worked very well without computers (consider the Nazis) and the most computerised nations in today's world are also the least tyrannical. Which is very not true as punch cards (hollerith machines) were very important to the Nazis, and the second part is in the eye of the beholder, perhaps no relationship actually exists there.

Yeah, that's clearly wrong. The Nazis were about as far away from Luddites as you can get. The whole point of the post-WWII recoil at the horror of Nazi-ism was the realization that a culturally-advanced high-tech progressive society was capable of using all of that advancement as a lever to do the same barbaric and horrible things humans had done before, only much more efficiently.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#307

Post by schuyler2d »

j3s wrote: post #260

this is tangentially related, but i've always loved reading this critique of orwell & 1984 by asimov: http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm i've always thought it a valid critique, and it makes me think less of orwell's writings

I enjoyed reading Asimov's review, but I'm surprised that it makes you think less of Orwell rather than understand that they're two polar points in perspectives on writing.

I don't think I've read a character in Asimov that had more than 1 or 2 deviant terms in an otherwise averaged society utility function -- and he's far more interested in what the future 'looks like'

While Orwell engages (similar to Dostoyevsky, et al) the psychological aspects that deviate from an Enlightenment world-view/vision.

It's even more hilarious to read > The great Orwellian contribution to future technology is that the television set is two-way, and that the people who are forced to hear and see the television screen can themselves be heard and seen at all times and are under constant supervision even while sleeping or in the bathroom. Hence, the meaning of the phrase 'Big Brother is watching you'.

> This is an extraordinarily inefficient system of keeping everyone under control.

It sure is inefficient! -- all of our web-browsing and Internet connections would be so much faster and efficient if 80-90% of it wasn't spying on us -- but that hasn't stopped the big tech companies, nor did it stop the Soviet Union, the Nazis, or J Edgar Hoover.

And I don't think those things in Heaven and Earth, Asimov dreamt of in his philosophy.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#308

Post by usrusr »

thrown_22 wrote: post #53
zozbot234 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because patriarchy. To females, being a "loser" was simply the status quo; there were no "winners" to aspire towards.

Imagine erasing such murderous despots as Kathrine the Great and Elizabeth Tudor because of their genitalia.

Those stand-ins for men that didn't have a trace of parallels anywhere lower in the hierarchy.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#310

Post by landryraccoon »

notch656a wrote: post #257
scarier wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Experiences in war vary greatly, and feelings about them are complicated and conflicted. I've met many people who genuinely seemed to enjoy it. This article nails it: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a28718/why-men-lo...

"There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter." --Hemingway

That doesn't sound like fun to me. That sounds more like a nightmarish psychosis.
Post reply on HN