Live data from Hacker News

Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

harpers.org

71–80 of 134 posts

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#71
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You need to fully read the article before you make a really strong accusation like that. "I think young D over there is the only born Nazi in the room. Young D is the spoiled only son of a doting mother. He has never been crossed in his life. He spends his time at the game of seeing what he can get away with. He is constantly arrested for speeding and his mother pays the fines." If you actually read the article in it…

It's interesting that you assume, incorrectly, that I did not read the article in its entirety.

So the explanation for the true meaning of her article is that she somehow "misused" the words born and biological throughout her arguments? and that what fundamentally causes someone to become a Nazi is their environment?

Whether your interpretation of her arguments is correct or not, I hold that individuals who promote national-socialism (i.e. Nazism) are entirely responsible for choosing evil ideas (not helpless pawns of their childhood feeding, physical training, or as you assert "environmental factors").

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#72
post #52
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fightin…

Then? There are loads of sympathizers now. Nazism is having a resurgence.

I don't disagree with you.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#73
I believe this ignores the component of social cohesion. In rapidly changing and uncertain times, the lure of steadfast resolve and order can be psychologically powerful to many types of people. Fascist ideologies of all types promise this. And if the atrocities of the state are out-of-sight out-of-mind for the majority of folks, sadly, many find them easy to ignore as long as _their_ world is "in order".

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#74
post #57
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then? There are loads of sympathizers now. Nazism is having a resurgence.

Few white people are calling for genocide. And referring to anything less than that as Nazism is just a sleight of hand meant to disparage.

Hitler himself didn't make public calls for genocide, so that seems quite a high barrier.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#75
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…

> 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…

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

It doesn't have to follow from the first part (I can imagine several things it could precede from), but it is entirely credible that bitterness/resentfulness might go hand-in-hand with a desire to dominate. If you've been told long enough that you've gotten the short end of the stick, if you feel you've been looked down on, not given enough respect, or even if you're doing quite well for yourself, but of course you've earned it, and there are all kinds of hangers-on and disgusting and lazy people who are still somehow getting a piece of your labors... it's quite plausible that you'd love nothing more than either (a) to be in a position of dominance over your oppressors (real or imagined) or (b) watch someone else who is in such a position really give it to 'em good.

> 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".

Presumably engineers in that professional class as well.

Amazing that nazi Germany was able to do as much as it did without the help of doctors and engineers and other respectable and conscientious members with a place society. Almost recommends nazism as a philosophy if they were able to basically conquer Europe primarily with the poor, young, faux-science disrupters and others who had no stake in the status quo.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#76
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ig…

Actually, there is not a single mention of genes or "genetic" in that article. What are you referring to? Your interpretation of the word "born" is bizarre. She is repeatedly describing someone's Nazism to be directly caused by biological breeding and processes (such as feeding, physical training, or Neanderthal brains).

Hang on, what are you actually arguing for? I thought blaming politics on genetics was what you were upset about in the first place.

Are you actually saying it's immoral to say that the circumstances of a person's upbringing can affect their adult behavior? Because that goes way beyond just misinterpreting the article.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#77
post #54
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 was also a LOT of "just doing things" so to speak.. I didn't get that from Kershaw, but in pretty much all I read about the Nazis it's mentioned somewhere, and it does match the anecdotes of survivors I read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Willikens > Ian Kershaw has argued that a speech made by Willikens in 1934, in particular his use of the phrase "working towards the Fuehrer", was important in laying t…

I can't edit the above comment, I made some typos and really bungled at least one sentence, which I would replace with:

> Maybe it's "typical" for people to pretend they have that right when they're being obedient to a pathological bigger structure

As for Sebastion Haffner and " Defying Hitler: A Memoir", here is a quick and bad translation of some of the parts I was thinking of -- but the whole book is super much worth reading, get the translation, don't hold my choice of words and sucking at punctuation against him.

About the time after 1926 Haffner wrote:

> There was freedom, quiet, order, well meaning liberality everywhere, good pay, good food and a little public boredom. Everybody was handed back to their private life and most cordially invited to create their life after their taste and become happy in their own way. But now something strange occured - and here I believe to point out one of the most fundamental political events of our time that was mentioned in no newspaper: this invitiation was mostly not followed. Nobody wanted to. It became evident that a whole generation in Germany had no use for the gift of a private life. Roughly 20 years of young and very young Germans had been used to getting the meaning of their life, all cause for deeper emotions, for love and hate, cheers and mourning, but also all sensations and thrills from the public sphere - even though it came together with poverty, hunger, death, confusion and danger. Now that this delivery stopped they were rather helpless, impoverished, robbed, disappointed and bored. To live from one's own, how one can make a small, private life big, beautiful and rewarding, how one enjoys it and where it becomes interesting, that they had never learned. Therefore they didn't experience the dissolution of the public tension as a gift, but as a robbery. They started to get bored, got stupid ideas, became bitter - and finally greedily awaited the first disruption, the first blowback or incident, to liquidate the peace times and begin new collective adventures.

> To be precise - and the matter deserves precision, because in my view it forms the key for the whole word historical epoch in which we live - : Not everybody, not every single one from the younger German generation reacted that way. There were those, who in this time, a bit awkward and belated, learned to live so to speak, who found a taste for their own life, who successfully got rid of the booze of war and revolution games and began to become personalities. In fact back then, completely invisible and unnoticed, the monstrous gulf was prepared which today separates the German people into Nazis and non-Nazis.

[..]

> The older generation had become insecure and shy in their ideals and ideas; one looked with a desired to retire onto "the youth", brownnosed it and expect miracles from it. This youth itself didn't know anything but public noise, sensations, anarchy, and the dangerous temptation of irresponsible number games.

[..]

> "Houben runs 100 meters in 10.6 seconds", that elicited exactly the same emotions as "20000 Russians captured", and "Peltzer wins English Word Championship in record time" was equal to events that never had occured during the war, like "Paris taken" or "England pleads for peace". I dreamed day and night of being like Peltzer and Houben. I didn't miss a sports event. I trained 3 times a week, I stopped smoking and instead exercised before going to bed. And I felt the full joy to be in harmony with thousands, ten thousands, actually with everybody. There was nobody of my age, no matter how unknown to me, no matter how uneducated, no matter how unsympathetic, with whom I couldn't talk for hours the first time we met - about sports, of course. Everybody had the same numbers in their head. Everybody thought, without saying it and as a matter of course,, that this was nearly as nice as it had been during the war. It was the same big game again. We understood each other without communication. The food of our minds was numbers, and our should trembled in anticipation: would Peltzer be able to beat Nurmi, too? Would Körnig reach 10.3 seconds?

[..]

> The weird things is, that the politicians from left to right couldn't laud this apparent mass stupefaction that came in fits enough. On top of partaking in that old vice of our generation again, the drug of the cold numbers game, unburdened by reality, this time we did it under the concentrated attention and unequivocal applause of our educators. The "nationalists", stupid and plump as ever, said we had with an healthy instinct found a replacement for the missing military draft. As if anyobody had cared about the physical training! The "left", overly clever and therefore in result nearly even dumber as the "nationalists" (like always), thought it a great invention that from now on the war like instincts would be "vented" on the peaceful field of running and exercises, and saw the world peace secure. They didn't notice that the "German champions" without exception worse black-white-red ribbons though the national colors then were black-red-gold. It didn't occur to them that the temptation of the war game, the old notion of the big, suspenseful competition of nations, just was practice and kept alive - not "warlike instincts" that were "vented". They didn't see the connection and not the relapse.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#78
This is all well and good, but to recast this to 2018, you need to factor in the people who can't recognize fascistic tendencies unless they come with a swastika on their sleeve.

You see it in both the obsession to label anything and anyone a nazi or nazi-adjacent, as well as to turn a blind eye to the real abusive power wielded in the name of anti-fascism.

The ends do not justify the means, and you don't get to paint your team's actions as merely "consequences" like it's some sort of divine and just punishment. You can't cast yourself as a powerless observer when you're actively applying leverage in collusion with institutions.

Consistent rules, actual accountability and real responsibility need to apply to everyone if this is to get better.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#79
post #24
post #11

The second paragraph's mention of Jewish Nazis actually is correct, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National... . Almost anyone can become a Nazi. Unfortunately, it turns out that being a Nazi, does not save you from the Nazis.

"[…] it turns out that being a Nazi, does not save you from the Nazis." That depended on your level of devotion, I suppose. See e.g. Emil Maurice, he was a Jew and a founding member of the Schutzstaffel (SS member #2). "Hitler compelled Himmler to make an exception for Maurice and his brothers, who were informally declared 'Honorary Aryans' and allowed to stay in the SS." More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Maur…

See e.g. Emil Maurice, he was a Jew

One of his great-grandfathers was Jewish; he was not.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#80
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, there is not a single mention of genes or "genetic" in that article. What are you referring to? Your interpretation of the word "born" is bizarre. She is repeatedly describing someone's Nazism to be directly caused by biological breeding and processes (such as feeding, physical training, or Neanderthal brains).

Hang on, what are you actually arguing for? I thought blaming politics on genetics was what you were upset about in the first place. Are you actually saying it's immoral to say that the circumstances of a person's upbringing can affect their adult behavior? Because that goes way beyond just misinterpreting the article.

You wrote: "She says repeatedly that Nazism is not genetic."

I'm asking you to provide evidence for that claim.

Post reply on HN