George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

Post by yrgulation » Mon, Jul 18, 2022, 2:57 PM UTC

usrn wrote: post #495

yrgulation wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder what sort of strange centrist form of government might be able to strike a balance between our need for comfort and our need for adventure. Any government that will satisfy my need of adventure and struggle in colonising the solar system and exploiting the endless amounts of resources it has and harnessing the virtually unlimited energy of our star will have my vote. But people prefer tribal adventures and…

You will never destroy ethnic identity in humans because once you manage it for one or two races, one of the many remaining will just over run them. It's not just a waste of energy to try, it's actively harmful and often causes reactionary movements like this when people realize what the end of it is.

Post by advisedwang » Mon, Jul 18, 2022, 3:41 PM UTC

soperj wrote: post #512

advisedwang wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Orwell wasn't exactly pro-british-empire either [1]. But he British empire's vision was of economic exploitation (at the parallel of a gun) not of racial replacement. [1] https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

When economic exploitation didn't work (the americas) they killed off the populace and replaced it with workers they could exploit (africans). What is that other than racial replacement?

Post by imtringued » Mon, Jul 18, 2022, 6:27 PM UTC

superb-owl wrote: post #9

> Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings don’t only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice This fact has been the downfall of every utopian ideology, and ignoring creates a vacuum that fascist regimes readily fill. I wonder what…

Post by helloworld11 » Mon, Jul 18, 2022, 6:35 PM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #498

nl wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a…

England was beaten bloody. Germany lost, in total, well under a month's later production of warplanes, remarkably few per sortie. Its capacity to wage war was wholly undiminished. Germany could have continued as long as they cared to, but England was much closer to its limit than is widely recognized. Much of the history of the war has had to be rewritten since Soviet records became available in the '90s. That has no…

Post by imtringued » Mon, Jul 18, 2022, 6:46 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #535

ProjectArcturis wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the Nazi appeal was largely a response to the absolutely crazy things that had happened to Germany between 1914 and 1933. Losing a world war, and all the death and humiliation and privation that entails (The winter of 1916 was known as the Turnip Winter, because of food shortages, and that was barely halfway through the war!). Hyperinflation, where an egg might cost a billion marks. Then a Depression! And all th…

Two third of the population was unemployed, and as orewell write here "the situation in Germany, with its seven million unemployed, was obviously favourable for demagogues". Starving, economical depression and without any hope in sight. Then within a couple of years half or more of those previous unemployed got a job from the government and the government refused to do any more reparations and redirecting those fund…