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

Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

harpers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 134 posts

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#91

Post by watwut »

motohagiography wrote: post #59
skrap wrote: 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 '…

This dynamic is significant in the culture wars of today. As part of some work in architecture for some public sector projects, I read "The Nazi Census" which was a description of the technologies and techniques of the 1938 german census which was a basis for the NSDAPs brutal bureaucracy. ( https://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Census-Identification-Control-Po... ) One of the interesting parts was adding "unused," fields to t…

What do you mean by "the ones assumed when those techs and institutions were built"? Both Nazi and Communists institutions and techs were built for that exact purpose.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#92

Post by [deleted] »

nl wrote: post #74
im3w1l wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#93

Post by [deleted] »

Jtsummers wrote: post #58
im3w1l wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/ Genocide is a characteristic of one major fascist regime. It is not a characteristic of all of them.

[deleted]

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#94

Post by golangnews »

skrap wrote: 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 '…

I think the point of the article is not ‘mean people go nazi’, it’s that ordinary people who surround you today would go nazi, for multiple reasons - because it is the easier way, because it leads to monetary success, because they’ve always felt slighted, because they are outsiders in the current system.

The banality of evil does not absolve people from responsibility or mean that anyone will pull the trigger. There are numerous examples of people who refused to participate.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#95

Post by golangnews »

im3w1l wrote: post #57
api wrote: 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.

Genocide comes later. First we get polite nazis, and their apologists.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#96

Post by lopmotr »

wavefunction wrote: post #27
chillacy wrote: post #19

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…

By buying a house, you've put upward pressure on house prices in your area, thus making them more expensive for everyone else. Some people would be nudged over the edge from affording it to not affording it.

I think the loss, if it actually exists, is distributed thinly over a lot of people so it's hard to see.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#97

Post by nostrademons »

sverige wrote: post #62
Jtsummers wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/ Genocide is a characteristic of one major fascist regime. It is not a characteristic of all of them.

Genocide is a characteristic of every totalitarian regime, notably including every communist regime, which are almost always excluded from these discussions.

Genocide is a characteristic of a good many democratic and feudal regimes as well, lest we forget the Native Americans, Aborigines, European Wars of Religion, Scottish/Irish/English border skirmishes (continuing into the 20th century), and a several present-day conflicts across the globe.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#98

Post by pjmlp »

api wrote: post #51
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the article addresses that, too, with Mr. C: "...he is subtle and cruel. He would rise high in a Nazi regime. It would need men just like him—intellectual and ruthless. But Mr. C is not a born Nazi. He is the product of a democracy hypocritically preaching social equality and practicing a carelessly brutal snobbery. He is a sensitive, gifted man who has been humiliated into nihilism."

> a democracy hypocritically preaching social equality and practicing a carelessly brutal snobbery Wow. How little things change.

I love to read ancient documents that have survived to our days, all the way back to the first written forms of documentation.

The conclusion taken from almost 4 000 years of written information is that indeed things change very little regarding human politics.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#99

Post by mkempe »

Jtsummers wrote: post #70
sverige wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genocide is a characteristic of every totalitarian regime, notably including every communist regime, which are almost always excluded from these discussions.

Genocide or politicide. But most people don't make the distinction. The regimes don't set out to conduct the genocide, that's not their initial purpose. It's a tool that they use. For fascists and Nazis the genocide and politicide is a consequence of their strong in-group/out-group philosophy. The Nazis didn't take over Germany to kill the Jews, they ostracized, murdered, and eventually committed genocide against the…

Hitler's "Mein Kampf" was published in two volumes, in 1925 and 1926. It very explicitly defined the goal to eliminate Jews from German/Aryan lands. The "Final Solution" program was established in 1942 to implement the objective Hitler had previously set.

Lenin stated before the Bolshevik Revolution his goal to kill members of the bourgeoisie; he and his followers (such as Stalin and Mao) caused the deliberate death of more than 100 million people under their Communist dictatorships.

Pol Pot joined the French Communist Party in Paris during the 1940s, where he adopted genocidal Marxism-Leninism, as presented in the writings of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. I'll let you look up the results of his work.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#100

Post by chaostheory »

mkempe wrote: post #71
chaostheory wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

Ok, if you read the article then you've missed the context. She's pretty clear as to what she's meant by born which I've quoted above i.e born with a silver spoon. She's also made it clear as to what she meant by 'biological factors' which others have already commented on as well as quoted, which is definitely not how people today would interpret it.
Post reply on HN