
Who Goes Nazi? (1941) - Recoveringhobo
https://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/
======
skrap
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
'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.

~~~
motohagiography
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...](https://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Census-Identification-Control-
Politics/dp/1592132596))

One of the interesting parts was adding "unused," fields to the Hollerith
punch cards for "future use," much like we use extensibility fields in data
models today. The book says many of the people recruited to administer it were
promoted from the ranks of the disaffected, often far above their level to
ensure their loyalty. It was a technique used by the NSDAP, Stalin, and Mao,
where they put country "peasant" types in administrative roles over towns and
cities to exploit rural resentment of city dwellers.

As a result, you can "steelman" the sentiments behind many conservative
arguments by summarizing them as questioning the wisdom of handing reins of
unimaginably powerful institutions and technologies to people who identify as
victims with an implied entitlement to revenge, and who are not bound by the
ethical frameworks of the deposed - the ones assumed when those techs and
institutions were built. It at least provides a logic beyond evil and hatred.

Regardless of whether it's accurate in the context, it's a heuristic for
reasoning about the motives and quality of an argument.

~~~
watwut
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.

~~~
e12e
If you mean designed and built, that's a rather harsh judgement of eg IBM -
well beyond "war profiteer". Perhaps _supplied_ for that purpose though.

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/mar/29/humanities.hig...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/mar/29/humanities.highereducation)

Somewhat chilling to contemplate what purpose the current "Watson" could be
put to, though:

"When the Nazis invaded Poland (...) IBM New York established a special new
subsidiary called Watson Business Machines," after its then- president, Thomas
Watson."

"Hello, Watson - is our genocide still on track?"

------
rospaya
The 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.

~~~
atomi
I 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.

------
Kattywumpus
There 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.

------
dang
Discussed 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
It's amazing reading comments that sound like they are about Trump, but are
actually written about Obama.

~~~
nl
There’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)

------
jstewartmobile
If 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_Spe...](https://archive.org/stream/Inside_the_Third_Reich_Albert_Speer/Inside_the_Third_Reich_Albert_Speer_djvu.txt)

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

~~~
hh3k0
"[…] 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)

~~~
qohen
_See e.g. Emil Maurice, he was a Jew_

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

~~~
watwut
Yeah, 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.

~~~
artificial
Which was oddly less strict than in the American South where one drop of Black
blood was enough to make you not White. As far as determining blood mixing in
the Reich the Mischling Test was used and if you had 3 grandparents who were
Jewish that made you Jewish.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-
drop_rule](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule)
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling_Test](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling_Test)

I totally was reading this thread last night and didn’t refresh before
posting, I didn’t see the post below.

------
d_e_solomon
I 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?

------
throwawayasap
Who 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
Now that you recognize it, you can escape being part of that machinery. It
will require you to nurture your conscience, though.

------
0xBA5ED
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".

~~~
javajosh
To 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
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.

------
officemonkey
The 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.

------
eldude
I 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/022...](https://www.amazon.com/They-Thought-Were-Free-
Germans/dp/0226511928)

------
coldtea
It'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.

------
neonate
An incognito window works for this one, and the first page is viewable at
[https://outline.com/36bqXA](https://outline.com/36bqXA).

------
jhwang5
Great read. The central concepts apply to modern day subculture movements.

------
cmurf
_It’s an amusing game. Try it at the next big party you go to._

~~~
dang
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
cmurf
It 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
I agree that mitigates it somewhat, but the comment was still unsubstantive,
no? It added no information.

~~~
cmurf
Not 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-
curr...](https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/542499/marshall-curry-nazi-
rally-madison-square-garden-1939/)

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.

~~~
dang
When we say "substantive" in HN comments, we mean adding relevant information.

------
OtterCoder
I 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
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 in suffering (of their own or others), or lack a sense of
self-identity.

~~~
candiodari
> 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, or has that as an ambition, in either popularity or money,
would "go nazi". That is very different from actively persecuting people, and
that should be clearly understood.

I feel like dropping another 10 points on this site, so may I just make the
point. Someone who was born a man (or woman) of some privilege (not
necessarily much, but some) and does not really seek to advance, someone who
gets his life pre-planned for them, and follows the plan. "Dad was a doctor,
and I will be too". Those are the people that do not go Nazi, that, no matter
what, will never join.

In other words : 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".

The Bay Area ... would be a hotbed of Nazism in America. No doubt about it.
Nazism has everything that SF wants : loads of young people. Support from
universities and "follows science" (read the newspapers from the time). It
sings the praises of the poor, gives a clear reason for the poor getting
repressed (rich jewish bankers), Nazism hates the status-quo and wants to
change it at all costs (even though most people don't nearly realize just how
big those costs were going to get. Please keep that thoroughly in mind before
judging people).

~~~
cmurf
Charlottesville. A rich Republican president says 'Some Very Fine People on
Both Sides' about people who self described themselves as Nazis and chanted
Nazi slogans. Yes many other Republicans distanced themselves, but
nevertheless he has not poisoned the well too much for them, because he's
still useful otherwise.

Birtherism to me is Nazism. It is his original sin entering the political
scene, and the party did not do anywhere near enough to repudiate it. The
passivity was tacit acceptance of it. That's not a bastion.

------
mkempe
What 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
It literally starts by saying it’s not a racial thing.

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

~~~
chaostheory
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 its entirety, it's pretty clear from both
her misuse of the words 'born' and 'biological factors' that Dorothy Thompson,
unlike Nazis, is refering environmental factors and not genetic ones. Misuse
of those words are the only flaws I see in what's otherwise a good article
that feels sadly still relevant today.

~~~
mkempe
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").

~~~
chaostheory
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.

