Live data from Hacker News

Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

harpers.org

41–50 of 134 posts

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#41
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 '…

There is this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#42
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.

This sounds like basic opportunism... fits well in line with OPs comment.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#44
post #16

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, for the people who shape it as such, will be pushed forward by some of the kinds of people the article mentions. However, Germany was and is and always will be peopled by mostly reasonable, kind, stout folks, because most people everywhere are reasonable, kind, and stout.

Even the cream of a country can be goaded and led and pushed into fascism, as the tide sweeps across a frightened or depressed people. The soldiers of Germany had to be shown the horrors and crimes of their superiors in gory detail, and still they had to be marshaled by strict speech laws to prevent the resurrection of a horror that largely benefitted the masses.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#45
post #25
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First paragraph: "I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, ..." [emphasis added]

To the downvoters -- if you ascribe, or condone someone ascribing, someone's ideas and character to their birth or ancestry you are objectively no better than racists and Nazis.

"born Nazi" does not imply that ancestry or ethnicity plays into it. It's merely saying that the personality that one is born with does. i.e. there is some quality of personality that we are born with.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#46
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> 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…

How are education, feeding or physical training biological factors? That sentence is very confusing to me.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

'winning' implies that there has to be someone 'losing' and I don't feel like that represents my view of my life though I do feel very satisfied. I am very glad that I was able to purchase a modest house that I can work on and modify. I'm happy with designing and implementing solutions to the technical problems my job entails. I'm happy that I have the opportunity to save so that I have a financial cushion should man…

What did you anchor these modest goals upon? Chances are they were based on your perception of how people around you are doing. If you lived in the Paleolithic, perhaps winning would have been having a decent cave, and enough game to feed your family. In another world, perhaps you'd require only one or two modest robot butlers, not a fleet like many others have. Dumb analogies, I know. The point is that, most people's goals are derived from what seems achievable based on perceptions of how everybody else is doing at "the game" we call capitalism. As soon as you start doing that, there are winners and losers by definition.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'winning' implies that there has to be someone 'losing' and I don't feel like that represents my view of my life though I do feel very satisfied. I am very glad that I was able to purchase a modest house that I can work on and modify. I'm happy with designing and implementing solutions to the technical problems my job entails. I'm happy that I have the opportunity to save so that I have a financial cushion should man…

What did you anchor these modest goals upon? Chances are they were based on your perception of how people around you are doing. If you lived in the Paleolithic, perhaps winning would have been having a decent cave, and enough game to feed your family. In another world, perhaps you'd require only one or two modest robot butlers, not a fleet like many others have. Dumb analogies, I know. The point is that, most people'…

The winners and losers in your description seems more a ranking, rather than causal. In most games, a winner causes there to be a loser. What about GP's stated goals and achievements would cause someone else to lose at the game of life?

I have friends who would consider me a "loser" by rankings (no house, no wife, no kids; I rent, have a fiancee, and, well, no kids). But their achievements have not caused me to be in this state. It's just facts of how life has played out, and differing priorities.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#49
I posted this article several years ago. In my mind, the interesting question isn't who goes Nazi; but rather, would I go Nazi and what circumstances would I go Nazi?

Its easy to assume that you are the good guy in the movie. Twist the plot a bit, and do you become the bad guy?

Post reply on HN