Hacker News Reader

Comment by vgurgov | Hacker News Reader

I dont know the author and why its here on HN, but its easy to make obvious statements that most of TV shows are oversimplified BS. I'd be interested to read his vision of true WWII history though. I think the truth is that its was complex combination of various forces. None of them were evil/good or black/white, simply because it was a story about huge masses of ppl , who are hmmm.. more complex than good elves and bad orcs. Perhaps its hard to see from US but here in Europe its still a big deal that should be touched with respect as so many ppl died and so many lives changed during that period.. RIP

View on HN

I think that the author's point was something else. People expect fiction to be consistent, believable and predictable and yet they take their own history for granted.

You'll hear people complain that the show X jumped the shark because of the character A or plot device B. Yet a lot of those same people don't question much of what they "know" about World War II. And a lot of those who do question it, just give up and say "Oh, well, it's history. We'll never really know, will we?"

That's what I got out of it too. "Believable" or "realistic" often translates to "conventional" or "predictable." Fiction authors tend to toe the line between them very carefully; yet some of the most respected literature around tends to be based on a ridiculous or fantastic premise. Examples: Moby Dick, the Odyssey, Don Quixote, the Metamorphosis.

Part of that is that fiction generally gives a very immediate, close-up view of events, whereas you get history as a biased summary of a vast amount of indirect reports.

well i can only agree with you. to me lessons here are quite obvious: 1) history channel is not a right pick if you want to learn some history. 2) if you take any complex story and try to make popcorn story out of it - you most likely end-up making something inconsistent/unbelievable for some curious minds(like HN readers)

I believe you have misunderstood the article. What he was saying was that how incredible the story of the Second World War is (and while he didn't say that, I think it's safe to extrapolate and say that the whole history of the human race is generally incredibly interesting) and using that as a reference he has shown that perhaps there's nothing wrong with a bit of "unrealistic" plot in fictional stories.

I don't know about your definition of evil - but to me parts of the Nazi and Soviet leaderships were as close to pure evil as has ever existed.

And to lots of people in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq, the Israeli and American leaderships are as close to pure evil as has ever existed.

"Evil" is a concept useful for propaganda and little else.

Often, those who say this haven't been on the receiving end of much evil.

Also, please name a government that hasn't done anything evil. There's none! Governments are dangerous things.

Usually, those who are most enthusiastic about dividing things into "good" and "evil" are themselves extremely evil by common standards. Case in point: the Nazis, to whom the Jews were evil incarnate, and they themselves the valiant defenders of the Aryan race.

Calling an action "evil" does not explain it or help prevent it - it's usually a way to express revulsion and avoid further thinking.

Calling specific people "evil" again does not explain their actions or give insights how to make them not-evil or prevent others from becoming like them. In fact, all such explanations and insights are usually strongly rejected by those who'd rather express the strongest possible revulsion for them.

Finally, calling groups of people "evil" is almost always a method to dehumanize them and justify killing them, while suspending critical thought in those you want to do the killing.

"Usually, those who are most enthusiastic about dividing things into "good" and "evil" are themselves extremely evil by common standards."

True, but it isn't always about dividing things... Sometimes there's just no other word to describe certain actions or groups of people. Mentioned elsewhere in the thread were the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, Mao -- what is one to say about those? "Oh, it's just a matter of perspective?" I think not.

Calling an action "evil" does not explain it or help prevent it - it's usually a way to express revulsion and avoid further thinking

Okay, let me put it this way: What government hasn't done something that would cause revulsion in a bystander? None!

So you'll be OK with some country right now doing Holocaust over some minority, or will you protest that?

If you'll protest, why? And why you don't protest againist all the governments that do this all evil things?

Many things are relative, but not all. Making it seem relative is just comfy, but comfort is less important than truth.

I'll agree that every country in WWII wasn't innocent, that Jews right now are overplaying the Holocaust card, that many countries politis, unfortunately including mine, makes victims of itself, which is indignifing and stupid thing to do. But telling me Holocaust wasn't evil makes me think you wouldn't mean it repeating, and that makes me hate you a little :) (ok, I really don't believe you wouldn't mean - I think you just play the devil advocate there).

So you'll be OK with some country right now doing Holocaust over some minority, or will you protest that?

That's definitely not okay.

If you'll protest, why? And why you don't protest against all the governments that do this all evil things?

Hell, I only have 112 useful waking hours a week. If I tried to protest over every egregious thing perpetrated by a government, that would be a full time occupation. Heck, just keeping track of those things would be.

But telling me Holocaust wasn't evil makes me think you wouldn't mean it repeating, and that makes me hate you a little

AHEM! If you read the parent comments, you'll find that I am advocating the applicability of the term evil!

Your comment is so full of putting words into other's mouths, grasping for straws, and unwarranted leaps, I don't know where to begin.

Ok, I'm sorry. I've overreacted to this post and somehow mixed in my mind who is replying to whom (by not reading all posts in between, my fault, should teach me to think before posting).

I've interpreted your statement that all countries did sth wrong as statement that Nazi Germany, USSR were no worse than other countries, and their deeds were nothing more evil than deeds of other countries.

Should have deleted my comment, but that way it will remind me to read whole thread before replying.

Well said - I guess I was using "evil" as a personal shorthand for my own beliefs about certain political regimes. Certainly using a label of "evil" as a shortcut to avoid any further analysis is something to be avoided.

As for governments, their danger lies in their size and authoritarian power structures, which lets people on top give orders without taking responsibility for how those orders are implemented.

Non-government organizations of similar size are just as good at perpetrating evil, when they get the chance. Fortunately, few private companies are allowed to participate in wars.

And for the innocents on the receiving end of some horror that is an understandable sentiment.

However, for what separates the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century from today's situations is the degree to which the unimaginable suffering of individuals was known about and dictated by those in power rather than being a tragic side-effect of other misguided policies.

    "Evil" is a concept useful for propaganda and little else.

Really? Can you read _Lord of the Flies_ and conclude that what the boys are doing isn't evil, because all ethics are relative?

It's not about ehtics being relative, it's about "evil" being a label that's used to condemn (often falsely) and discourage discussion.

Seeing WWII completely in terms of how valiant US soldiers defeated the evil Nazis is a great way to avoid noticing tendencies in the US that the Nazis would feel right at home with.

    It's not about ehtics being relative

That's the message from the post I responded to, and that's what I'm responding to. You contradicted arethuza, and basically implied that arethuza'a ideas about pure evil were invalid. They're not.

It's easy to become so consumed with something that you throw the baby out with the bathwater, which you did above in claiming that evil had little use apart from propaganda.

That's false. Evil is an idea that stands on its own, and is important in our thinking.

News Flash. The Lord of the Flies is fiction.

Evil is a very useful way to understand fiction because the "reality" it exists in is made-up and fits the description. In the real world evil is much more ambiguous, and is mostly a tool for helping convince people that one side is awful and the other must therefore be right. The fact that people are wired to react that way makes it very useful for propaganda.

I thought so, but after having heard the podcasts from Hardcore history, it is quite clear that the Nazis aren't nearly as evil as many of the previous regimes, they just have far, far more advanced tech and an industrial society capable of mass production.

Oh cmon, it has definitely been long enough to poke fun at now. The last people who fought in it are dying as we speak.

The important thing is we should never forget the dead and forget Europe's folly of WW1 and WW2. Its our generation's responsibility to work together in Europe so it doesn't happen again.

We've already forgotten.

I'm witnessing the rise of fascism around me as I write this, it comes in the guise of 'freedom', just like last time. So it is already happening again, indeed, while the last who fought to put down the previous monstrosity are still alive.

We'll see where it leads, I'm not so pessimistic as to think that it will be as bad as last time but there is a small chance that in the next elections the Netherlands will have it's first ultra-right wing nationalist regime.

People really do forget, and while I'm all for poking fun at stuff it would be good if the lessons of history stayed learned.

It is our all generations' responsibility to work together in the whole world to prevent such atrocities happening again.

Shame we're not doing great. Just look at Rwanda. A genocide in the mid 1990s

The Second Congo War was the deadliest conflict since World War 2 and lasted until 2003.

Okay there is no way to say this that is nice, but:

It is Africa, and as much as it sucks for the people there, it has always been so and will properly be so long after we are gone.

There is nothing special about Africans that will make them "properly[sic?] be so long after we are gone". The same tendency for long wars is everywhere. The history of Europe in the 19th century and earlier was almost a series of continuous wars. The main difference is that the cost of war is now too high for advanced countries. Even WWI wasn't enough. People recognize it and made the League of Nations, which still wasn't enough so the lesson had to be repeated with bigger losses.

I'm fairly sure that the author meant to write "probably" instead of "properly".

And no, there is nothing special about Africans, but a lot that is "special" about Africa. The rampant disease. The widespread corruption. The poverty resulting from those. The political boundaries that are a remnant of European map making rather than any sort of internal logic. These have contributed to generations of misery, and there is no immediate prospect of this changing.

The difference between Africans and Europeans is that Europeans didn't have more advanced civilization constantly prodding and poking them (and drooling for their resources), and that is what makes Africa prone to constant warfare.

The best thing for Africa imho currently would be a big fence around it, and a label on the gate reading "Do not open before year 3000 AD. Sincerely, the people of 2000 AD."

And seal the fence with the Wikkit gate?

True there is nothing special about the Africans that makes them more likely to make wars. It is just that the meddling that we have done the last couple of centuries, combined with the culture has left them with little alternative.

Don't forget Bosnia and Darfur.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com