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

481–490 of 600 posts

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#481

Post by braingenious »

nl wrote: post #472

It's interesting that this version is an edited version, and unclear when the changes occurred. The full version[1] includes this: > I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler. Ever since he came to power—till then, like nearly everyone, I had been deceived into thinking that he did not matter—I have reflected that I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him, but…

That is quite an enormous omission! It is kind of unsurprising though, because misinterpreting Orwell is nearly an art form.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#482

Post by nl »

refurb wrote: post #101
busyant wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many modern political problems stem from people needing something to struggle for and other people fighting against it. Reminds me of the lines in Fight Club: "We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war. Our Great Depression is our lives." I'm not sure if that precise quote is in the book, but it's certainly in the movie and it echoes your sentiment and those above.

And the saying “Good times create weak men”. And it’s true. You often see a growing discontent among wealthy societies where everything is taken care of. People need purpose in what they do and “my purpose is to fight for the survival of my country” is a pretty compelling one to many people.

Ironically Orwell warned specifically against this kind of "strength worship"

> The interconnexion between sadism, masochism, success-worship, power-worship, nationalism, and totalitarianism is a huge subject whose edges have barely been scratched, and even to mention it is considered somewhat indelicate. [snip] The truth is, of course, that the countless English intellectuals who kiss the arse of Stalin are not different from the minority who give their allegiance to Hitler or Mussolini, nor from the efficiency experts who preached 'punch', 'drive', 'personality' and 'learn to be a Tiger man' in the nineteen-twenties, nor from that older generation of intellectuals, Carlyle, Creasey and the rest of them, who bowed down before German militarism. All of them are worshipping power and successful cruelty.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#483

Post by stephen_g »

lostlogin wrote: post #356
mikaeluman wrote: post #335

Just have to admit to being impressed by how succinct and clear yet deep this writing was. Easy to read and understand, and certainly gets the point across.

Reading the comments below the article (generally a bad idea) show that a paragraph of the article seems to have been ‘redacted’. Sources are quoted but I don’t see a reason for the change. “I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler. Ever since he came to power - till then, like nearly everyone, I had been deceived into thinking that he did not matter - I have reflected that I wo…

Maybe they thought it looked bad… But it was only 1940 when he wrote the essay, so at that point a lot of Hitler’s crimes would not yet have been known in Britain, and a lot of them were not yet even in full swing. So he’s looking from a very different perspective to us who know about the holocaust and the other shocking things the Nazis did.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#484

Post by ncmncm »

nl wrote: post #470
avodonosov wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had he attempted to conquer Britan before turning to Russia?

His plan certainly was to, and his generals told him it would happen. Operation Sealion (the German invasion of Britain) was planned for September 1940[1]. The German invasion of Russia[2] commenced June 1941. Note that Orwell was writing this in March 1940, before it was clear that Britain would win the Battle of Britain (the airwar that was supposed to destroy the British airforce in preparation for invasion) and G…

Britain did not in fact "win" the Battle of Britain. It ended with a hard-fought draw, where Germany had needed a clear win before invasion.

The hard-fought draw was just hard enough.

By its end, Russia was massing its troops at the border with Germany, by all appearances preparatory to its own invasion. That is why its cities were almost undefended when the German tanks rolled past them, cutting their supply lines.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#485

Post by jhbadger »

krebby wrote: post #459
notRobot wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any recommendations for other writings and analyses by Orwell?

One of my favorites is The Road to Wigan Pier, which investigates living conditions of the British working classes. He fairly deftly draws a line between wages and social reforms in part 1, and why the working class largely don't identify as socialists in part 2. Fantastic read.

Yes, although in The Road to Wigan Pier you really see how socially conservative Orwell was. His complaints about socialists weren't just that many of them were well-off people out of touch with the real problems of the working class (in which he had a point), but also that some of them were vegetarians, some birth-control advocates, some didn't drink alcohol or smoke, and (although Orwell says this indirectly) some of them were gay. Orwell claimed that the working class didn't like these traits, but really, it was Orwell himself who didn't. His imagined working class was basically himself if he had been a factory worker rather than a writer.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#486

Post by BurningFrog »

Ansil849 wrote: post #219
whoopdedo wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer to this is sports. War is competition through violence. When you remove the violence you get peaceful competition. It satisfies the tribal urge to fight things different than you, but also encourages healthy behaviors. Respect for your opponent. Accepting loss. Recognizing your weaknesses and working to improve them.

> The answer to this is sports. War is competition through violence. Absolutely not. Sports is competition through violence, as well. Watch a game of American football, or ice hockey, or basketball for that matter and be able to say otherwise with a straight face. The answer is cooperative, not competitive, activities.

Team sports are the best cooperative activities around, AFAIK.

Primarily within your team.

But also, by both teams playing within the rules, cooperating with the other team in creating a meaningful game.

I know team sports isn't for everyone, but it's a great thing for those suited to it.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#487

Post by ncmncm »

culi wrote: post #438
robocat wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The words “communism” and “socialism” have particularly slippery modern meanings - they depend where you are internationally, in time, and your partisanship. I have read a lot of what he wrote, and I am still unsure what he exactly meant by socialism. I find his essay ‘On Nationalism’ difficult to follow, although very interesting. I love all his writings about his own experiences, because his observations are so exc…

At that time in Europe "socialism" basically just meant "good". It was a stand in for a government where you care about each other. Then there's the more "theoretical" definition of socialism. In the US it might seem bewildering why Orwell considered the anarchists of that war to be the "true socialists" (despite Orwell being a communist, he had a lot of support for them). But the truth is that both anarchism and com…

What Orwell wrote about the Communists in Spain would not lead anyone to place him among them.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#488

Post by LAC-Tech »

jhbadger wrote: post #485
krebby wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my favorites is The Road to Wigan Pier, which investigates living conditions of the British working classes. He fairly deftly draws a line between wages and social reforms in part 1, and why the working class largely don't identify as socialists in part 2. Fantastic read.

Yes, although in The Road to Wigan Pier you really see how socially conservative Orwell was. His complaints about socialists weren't just that many of them were well-off people out of touch with the real problems of the working class (in which he had a point), but also that some of them were vegetarians, some birth-control advocates, some didn't drink alcohol or smoke, and (although Orwell says this indirectly) some…

Isn't the working class almost always more socially conservative than the middle and upper classes? It's certainly true of our time. AFAICT his analysis still rings true.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#489

Post by nl »

ncmncm wrote: post #484
nl wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His plan certainly was to, and his generals told him it would happen. Operation Sealion (the German invasion of Britain) was planned for September 1940[1]. The German invasion of Russia[2] commenced June 1941. Note that Orwell was writing this in March 1940, before it was clear that Britain would win the Battle of Britain (the airwar that was supposed to destroy the British airforce in preparation for invasion) and G…

Britain did not in fact "win" the Battle of Britain. It ended with a hard-fought draw, where Germany had needed a clear win before invasion. The hard-fought draw was just hard enough. By its end, Russia was massing its troops at the border with Germany, by all appearances preparatory to its own invasion. That is why its cities were almost undefended when the German tanks rolled past them, cutting their supply lines.

> Britain did not in fact "win" the Battle of Britain. It ended with a hard-fought draw, where Germany had needed a clear win before invasion.

What a weird take!

In what possible way is the stopping of the enemies goals interpreted as anything except a win?

That's like saying "X tried to invade Y, but Y threw than back. So it was a draw"

> By its end, Russia was massing its troops at the border with Germany, by all appearances preparatory to its own invasion.

It's almost certian that Stalin did not intend to attack Germany in 1941, and no evidence at all that Hitler thought he was planning to attack[1]. The opposing theory is based on Viktor Suvorov's book in the 1980s, but it isn't widely supported.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controv...

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#490

Post by Ralfp »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #480
helloworld11 wrote: post #414

>Probably, in Hitler's own mind, the Russo-German Pact represents no more than an alteration of time-table. The plan laid down in Mein Kampf was to smash Russia first, with the implied intention of smashing England afterwards. Now, as it has turned out, England has got to be dealt with first, because Russia was the more easily bribed of the two. But Russia's turn will come when England is out of the picture—that, no…

This was not a rare view at the time, was it? IIRC a lot of people saw it coming.

It was always matter of when and who will betray the other in Nazi-USSR pact. AFAIR NY Times even mentioned this in their story on the pact from august 1939.
Post reply on HN