Hacker News Reader

Comment by ses1984 | Hacker News Reader

ses1984

“They were the ones promising to act”

Something about this doesn’t sit right with me. I’m not a historian but something tells me not everyone else was a-ok with atrocities that existed before nazis.

Also, again I’m not a historian, but I believe their promise to act was also tied up in blaming others and hate.

“At least they got things done” is very often the seed around which a belief in fascism crystallizes. They don’t deserve any recognition for what they promised or what they accomplished.

This is a thread about my definition of a high trust society.

So far the only argument in support of nazi germany being high trust is that they got shit done.

I don’t see how anyone could argue that imprisoning your own population in forced labor camps based on rumor is something that can happen in a high trust society.

There is no trust in such a society, only fear.

Arguing about this any more is making me feel sick.

View on HN

My only claim was that things were far from perfect (profoundly broken) before Nazis came to power. They made many terrible things, but they also fixed some of the issues they promised to fix. That's why they were able to grab power.

You can read more about the Weimar Republic. If it weren't so fundamentally broken, Nazis would never come to power. Stating this is not Nazi apologia but a warning of what happens if governments and the ruling class ignore the will of their own people and actively work against it for a long time.

The original context of this thread is the validity of china’s data in this trust survey. Interjecting with positive example of nazi germany is not even correct. There’s no way anyone can argue in good faith that nazi germany was high trust.

The nazis don’t need you to come to their defense.

Nazism is basically ignoring the will of their own people and actively working against them.

Can you please point out where I said Nazi regime was high trust? Its trust level was even lower than of its predecessor.

> Its trust level was even lower than of its predecessor.

Yes? How does that preclude Germany still having absolutely high trust (by global standards), even if it was lower than the even higher levels before?

You didn’t but in the context of the comments immediately above yours,

>Eg Nazi Germany still benefited from a high-ish level of social trust, despite numerous atrocities.

>What's the benefit of social trust when a society can commit such atrocities?

Then you come in with

> It's not like atrocities started with Nazis

Your comment pretty much directly says the nazis weren’t that bad and in context looks like you’re agreeing with previous poster they are high trust.

Ok, let me clarify.

Nazis were one of the worst regimes we had in Europe, but the German regime before them was also bad. Bad enough that many saw Nazis as a viable alternative. In desperate times, people make desperate choices.

This is more or less a historical consensus, which I pointed out. If we want to prevent a Nazi-like regime from coming to power again, we need to avoid mistakes made by the Weimar Republic. Unfortunately, I see a global trend of governments making the same mistakes again, and I fear it will end in the same way.

I don't think Nazi society was high-trust. But I also don't think Nazis destroyed trust, because it already eroded before them.

> Unfortunately, I see a global trend of governments making the same mistakes again

What are those?

Ignoring the wishes of the majority. Forcing own ideology upon everyone. Neglecting the well-being of the productively working people.

You are letting voters off too easily here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com