11 ms·
Who Goes Nazi? (1941)
- said 9y agoI wish the people who wrote and shared pieces like this would apply the same scrutiny to communists.
- curuinor 9y agoIn 1941, the Communists were our allies against Fascism.
- megaman22 9y agoOnly as of October of 1941, at best. If you read many contemporary accounts, Red peril is nearly as significant as Nazi, and isolationist sentiments were strong until the German declaration of war. It's forgotten that the worst excesses of Nazism were concealed for years, and kicked into high gear in the wake of Barbarossa. Also how widespread and mainstream anti-Semitism and belief in eugenics were in the inter-war period.
- jay_kyburz 9y agoIt't not really about Nazism though is it. I only read the first page and it seems to just a big list of positive and negative character traits. The well-balanced and happy folks would never go Nazi, the folks with flaws would.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dang 9y agoPlease keep generic ideological tangents off HN. I realize that's hard to do with an article like this, but that actually makes it more important. Generic ideological tangents guarantee predictable flamewars, so they are the black holes we most need to eschew. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- neonate 9y agoAn incognito window works for this one, and the first page is viewable at https://outline.com/36bqXA https://outline.com/36bqXA.
- dang 9y agoDiscussed in 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11053415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11053415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11155824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11155824 Dorothy Thompson was one of if not the most famous American journalist of the 1930s and 40s. She's largely forgotten now, but is sure to be rediscovered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Thompson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Thompson
- ars 9y agoIt's amazing reading comments that sound like they are about Trump, but are actually written about Obama.
- nl 9y agoThere’s only one comment in those about Obama, and that’s turning a thread about Trump into one about Obama. (No one seriously thinks of Obama as being the “strongman” archetype) OTOH, there is the typical anti-Semitic “Nazis were just a response to Commununists, and it was the Jews fault” comment. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11156462 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11156462
- bjourne 9y agoThe second paragraph's mention of Jewish Nazis actually is correct, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews 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.
- hh3k0 9y ago"[…] 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_Maurice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Maurice
- nl 9y agoIt's worth noting that only a letter from Hitler himself saved him. It's easy to imagine how many Jews had similar views but didn't have Hitler's personal protection and ended up dead.
- qohen 9y agoSee e.g. Emil Maurice, he was a Jew One of his great-grandfathers was Jewish; he was not.
- watwut 9y agoYeah, these are less puzzling when you realize that nazi defined Jewishness by blood and thus many assimilated people who considered themselves Germans and believed same things as other Germans got catch in net too.
- jgtrosh 9y agoThe Mischling test checked for one grandparent of Jewish confession. Even Nazis would not consider him the same way they did their victims.
- OtterCoder 9y agoI 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.
- cowpig 9y agoI 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 in suffering (of their own or others), or lack a sense of self-identity.
- chillacy 9y agoKind, 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).
- wavefunction 9y ago'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 many unexpected events occur. And I don't think this situation requires anyone else to lose. Now I would admit that I might not be and likely am not representative of everyone in our society but isn't that more of an attitude towards expectations than some sort of static rule? I might have the expectation that I should have a Ferrari and an attractive and doting partner, or a happy perfect family, but there is no reason my expectations justify hurting others. I think if we look closer at social dysfunction in general we would see that the people lashing out have either unrealistic expectations or have someone been marginalized even beyond what we all might agree about as a baseline of expectations: that we have the opportunity to take part in society without being treated shabbily for no reason, that we are appreciated at some level by someone, and that we can be vulnerable and rely on others without being neglected or ostracized. There will always be people who are naturally dysfunctional due to mental health issues but I have to think most of the worst problems society faces could be greatly reduced if we cared about each other more.
- officemonkey 9y agoThe author, Dorothy Thompson, was a key journalist and personality who encouraged the U.S. entry into WW2. The book "Those Angry Days" by Lynne Olson describes the struggle between the interventionists and the isolationists.
- mkempe 9y agoWhat an awful article. The author starts by ascribing a biological basis to a person's likelihood to be a Nazi. In that respect, she's no better than them. National-socialism was a collectivist ideology. It was grouping people according to a hierarchy of "races", in other words judging individuals according to their ancestry. It was fundamentally horrible not because of its form of collectivism, but because it was both collectivistic and totalitarian. Human action is driven by ideas and personal choices, not by collective biological origins or urges, nor by "feeding", nor by "physical training." If you want a deeper, intellectual, practical understanding of what made Nazi Germany possible read "The Ominous Parallels" (1982) [1] or an extract titled "The Cause of Hitler's Germany" [2]. [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00Y30U3XM https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00Y30U3XM [2] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00INIYHQO https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00INIYHQO
- empath75 9y agoIt literally starts by saying it’s not a racial thing.
- mkempe 9y agoFourth 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 this room... He has the brains of Neanderthal man, but he has an infallible instinct for power." She constantly ascribes adherence or willingness to adhere to Nazism to a biological cause -- being born, one's feeding, a physical training, Neanderthal man, or instinct. This is not how to understand Nazism, or its causes; nor is it how to fight it.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago> 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 literal.
- Parcissons 9y agoOne thing thats missing in her musings here, because not invited to such party is - the Avantgarde- it would go Nazi. The womanizing, crippled advertiser, the for bohemian painter dreaming of greatness- the writer of the eternal Novel, the weak and Outsiders, they will spin on the tip of a needle to be the first not to be the first to be put to the wall.
- skrap 9y agoI 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 'go nazi', given a system which relieves them of responsibility for their actions. "Just following orders" was the typical & honest answer, if I recall. The men didn't feel they bore a moral duty to disobey, because these things just had to be done, or so they were told. So, if I can riff a bit on the article's themes... maybe mean people will hand you the gun, but anyone will pull the trigger, if they're told to do so.
- fisherjeff 9y agoSounds a lot like Arendt’s “little Eichmanns” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Eichmanns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Eichmanns
- frozenport 9y agoPerhaps a more apt title would be "Who goes Nazi first?"
- IntronExon 9y agoOr “who inspires/leads the Nazi?” Confusing the rank and file with an obersturmbannfuhrer or someone like Mengele is a mistake.
- Avshalom 9y agoWhile 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.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- rospaya 9y agoThe Nazis in the article remind me of the political class in Croatia, where I live. Once socialist one party rule collapsed, the whole ruling class divided itself into political parties and participated in the whole political spectrum, like nothing happened. Some of them became ardent anti-communists, despite being active parts of the old regime. After ten years of center-right rule, some even switched sides and former nationalists (and before that communists) rebranded themselves as Christian democrats, Europeans, clean shaven centrists. Some people are simply made for all regimes. They're the Nazis the author talks about.
- _opc6 9y agoI think it's that people tend to just go with their group. And when good people don't rise to oppose evil it snowballs into tragedy.
- SuperHitler 9y ago"Some people are simply made for all regimes. They're the Nazis the author talks about." I think most of people are simply made for regimes. It's giving them comfort. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- d_e_solomon 9y agoI 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?
- eldude 9y agoI highly recommend the excellent “They Thought They Were Free” For perspective on what it feels like to become a nazi. https://www.amazon.com/They-Thought-Were-Free-Germans/dp/0226511928 https://www.amazon.com/They-Thought-Were-Free-Germans/dp/022...
- throwawayasap 9y agoWho becomes a cog in the surveillance capitalistic machinery? Me, it turns out. Is it because I am unhappy and insecurity? Yeah maybe I suppose. It's not that I'm seeking revenge or domination. More that I just don't have enough fucks to give left over to care about anyone else. Staying alive takes full concentration.
- sverige 9y agoNow that you recognize it, you can escape being part of that machinery. It will require you to nurture your conscience, though.
- jhwang5 9y agoGreat read. The central concepts apply to modern day subculture movements.
- 0xBA5ED 9y agoI 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".
- javajosh 9y agoTo add to this: it is incredibly difficult to risk yourself and your family to protect strangers, no matter what the numbers are. That's why the act of defying the Nazis in WW2 was particularly heroic: the alternative was to just go along, and be safe and comfortable. Heroism in warfare counts for less, since the alternative is often just a different kind of death.
- jochung 9y agoThis 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.
- cmurf 9y agoIt’s an amusing game. Try it at the next big party you go to.
- dang 9y agoCould you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- cmurf 9y agoIt is a quote from the article, hence why it is italics. How is this unsubstantive? It's the last lines of the article, it practically answers the title question. It's satire and a polemic.
- dang 9y agoI agree that mitigates it somewhat, but the comment was still unsubstantive, no? It added no information.
- cmurf 9y agoNot even slightly. The definition of substantive: having a firm basis in reality and therefore important Quotes, citations, showing one's work are all inherently substantive. To take something seriously as Nazism in the context of a game like a puzzle to be solved, it's brilliant and absurd, and literary cleverness, and worth repeating as is. And this wedge fits within the timing of the article, itself wedged between rampant Nazism in the U.S. but before the U.S. had entered WWII. I doubt this activity could be called a game during or after the war, no matter the satirical hints. https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/542499/marshall-curry-nazi-rally-madison-square-garden-1939/ https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/542499/marshall-curr... Adding no information? That's the vast majority of comments on HN including my own, which don't get either an up or down. But fine, you can say it did not enrich the conversation.
- 9y ago
- Kattywumpus 9y agoThere is something ugly about this piece, about the idea that you can see into someone's soul and just know that they'd be a Nazi if they could. To be honest, the tone of it reminds me of the stereotypical pre-Anschluss German who privately scrutinizes the faces of party guests for hints of Jewish or Roma heritage, and flatters himself for his keen eye in discerning their inferiority. For what it's worth, when the article’s author Dorothy Thompson was in her twenties, she was a fiery activist for women's suffrage, which was deeply intertwined with the temperance movement of that era. (Many temperance groups shared the same leadership as women's suffrage groups, and both shared a core idea that women were inherently less coarse and crude than men and that the burden fell on women to transform the debased, violent world men had created.) Thompson toured New York state giving barnburner speeches promoting women's suffrage, and promoting temperance figures as well, like Dr. Anna Howard Shaw, a popular keynote speaker for the New York Woman Suffrage Party and prominent member of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. The W.C.T.U. is the political organization most responsible for bringing us the 18th Amendment prohibiting the production, sale, and transport of alcoholic beverages in the United States. The Volstead Act passed to enforce Prohibition ultimately resulted in the deaths of thousands of U.S. citizens who were gunned down in the crossfire of speakeasy raids, or who drank liquor poisoned deliberately by the Feds. Not quite Nazism, but government agents murderously enforcing philosophies of moral purity are perhaps not so far away, either. All this was going on in 1919; Thompson moved to Europe in 1920, the year Prohibition came into effect, leaving behind the violence and chaos she'd helped bring to power. It's doubtful she wanted things to turn out quite the way they did. She meant to support only the good people and the good idea of women's suffrage, yet somehow some bad people and bad ideas came along for the ride. Indeed, some of the good people with the good ideas were also the bad people with bad ideas. There might be a better moral in this than the notion that Nazis are a separate breed of people we can know by second sight.
- jstewartmobile 9y agoIf anyone has ever read Speer's memoirs, the striking thing is just how ordinary all of the Nazi big-baddies were. He'll be recounting some story of Bormann or Goering, and you'll be thinking to yourself, "That's just like Joe in HR!" or "Matt does that all the time!" Take the ordinary schmuck in middle-management, give him absolute power, then BAM--nazi. https://archive.org/stream/Inside_the_Third_Reich_Albert_Speer/Inside_the_Third_Reich_Albert_Speer_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/Inside_the_Third_Reich_Albert_Spe...
- coldtea 9y agoIt's a spot on essay on the kind of the original Nazi movement (and others since), but not applicable to the modern Trump situation. First, because the Nazi analogy is far-fetched -- from the Wall, to the travel ban, to throwing out immigrants, and on to war, he is continuing more or less the same policies as Obama. Who didn't do that great on institutional racism either (remember "black lives matter"? The hurt that caused this and the killer cop business had continued as usual under his watch. Same for things like surveillance, hawkish attacks in foreign policy, etc. Heck, even Obamacare was "inspired" from Mitt Romney -- and nothing like e.g. British or Canadian healthcare). But even more so, because while the Nazi party was THE establishment, Trump is a small anomaly, with most of the establishment figures (all "good society" and the prestigious press) against him. You can't build a career on being for Trump today (you'll regret very soon), whereas you could for being pro Nazi in the thirties. And many of the author's analogies are based on those aspects.