Dostojevskij-Nazi?

[Bernt]

If Dostojevskij had lived under WW2, and puttet in a situation were he had to chose between Nazi germany and the capitalistic countrys ( US and UK), is it possible that he could have choosed Germany?
You see, im doing project were im compearing Dostojevskij and a norweagen autor, Knut Hamsun, probably the most famous norweagen autor ever. Anyway, he bacame a nationalist, and was marked as a traitor after the war.
My question is, could he have choosed the nazi alternative over the other one, like Knut Hamsun did? If yes or if no, why?

Please answer quickly:)

Excuse my english

[Mogwai]

Dostoevsky was a true Christian.  If he had witnessed what the Nazis were doing to human beings (genocide), I highly doubt he would have taken their side.  If he did side with the Nazis, it would go against everything he claimed to believe about God, Christ, and humanity in general.  Just my opinion...

[Bernt]

I know he was a christian, but if had to chose between the more romantic nazisme and the capitalistic countries I think he would have chosen the nazis.
because i dont think he liked the industrialization and he was very nationalistic and diddent think much about jews and other minorities. but thanks for your answer thoug:) i see it aint much activity on the forum.. its sad cus its an interesting idea!
are you giving up?

[Mogwai]

I disagree.  I've read in several places where Dostoevsky stated that socialism is the ultimate form of athiesm. He used the reasoning that socialism depends on the goodness of men - which is an equation for failure.

With that said, it's pretty clear Dostoevsky didn't like socialism.  And...NAZI stands for "National Socialist" party.  Again, I don't think ol' Fyodor would go near what the Nazis believed.

[Bernt]

I really disagree with you when you say that National Socialisme and communisme are about the same, they are extremely different. in norway for example there was a lot of people who became nationalists just because they wantet to fight the communists. And the autor i mentioned earlier, Knut Hamsun ( look him up) did exactly that. He hated the US and capitalisme and Soviet and communisme. he was, like Dostojevskij against progress and found an alternative to all this in the Nazis.
Dostojevskij was one of Hamsun’s biggest ideals and I they in some ways were pretty much alike.
1.   They were both very nationalistic.
2.   They were both romantics; they were against progress and believed in the old values and culture of the people.
3.   They diddent think much of the minorities.

And all this things are what national socialisme was really about, I think.

The big difference is Dostojevskij’s religious beliefs, which don’t fit very well with National Socialisme. But is it enough? If he had to chose between communisme, Capitalisme and National Socialisme?
And which one is the most religious?
I don’t think Dostojevskij would have liked the capitalistic consumer society we are living in today were religion and culture are    playing an increasingly minor role.

Don’t take me wrong. I’m not a nazi, I’m just writing a task;)
And once again, excuse my English☺

[Slovenly Old Man]

This thread makes me think of Martin Heidegger... he felt a disgust with modern, industrial societies and was swayed by the promise of the Nazi party.  Of course, the Nazi party turned out to be just as modern and industrial as the other nations of that time... and a bit more unethical to say the least.  Here's an excerpt from Heidegger's 'Introduction to Metaphysics,' which can help us see how he was led in this direction; that of supporting the Nazis.

"This Europe, in it's unholy blindness always on the point of cutting it's own throat, lies today in the great pincers with Russia on one side and America on the other.  Russia and America, seen meta-physically, are both the same: the same hopeless frenzy of unchained technology and the rootless organization of the common man.  When the farthest corner of the globe has been conquered technologically and can be exploited economically; when any incident you like, in any place you like, at any time you like, becomes accessible as fast as you like; when you can simultaneously "experience" an assassination attempt against a king in France and a symphony concert in Tokyo; when time is nothing but speed, instantaneity, simultaneity, and time as history has vanished from all Dasein of all peoples; when a boxer counts as the great man of a people; when the tallies of millions at mass meetings are a triumph; then, yes then, there still looms like a specter over all this uproar the question: what for? -- where to? -- and what then?"

This sort of reasoning can help us understand why some might have been persuaded to follow the Nazi party.

By the way, this book, which is called 'Introduction To Metaphysics' is not really an introduction to the philosophical discipline of metaphysics.  Rather, it is an introduction into Heidegger's Fundamental Ontology.... it's a fascinating read, which starts out by examining the question: "Why are there beings at all, instead of nothing?"

[Bernt]

I find this very interesting.
I will discuss this matter in my task, so I would love if more people gave their opinion!:)

[Mogwai]

I really disagree with you when you say that National Socialisme and communisme are about the same, they are extremely different.

Bernt, please point out where I compared socialism with communism.  I never used the "c" word.