What do you think?
Rate this book
The Hour of Decision: Germany and World-Historical Evolution
In The Hour of Decision , Oswald Spengler portrays a brutally critical image of modern Western civilization. According to Spengler, the West is destined for decay and heading towards its demise, poisoned by excessive rationalism, a lack of functioning hierarchies, and widespread alienation. Spengler's observations are rooted in Germany during the interwar period, a time characterized by political unrest and economic chaos. It was clear to Spengler that the world, following the imminent international showdown, would hardly be recognizable. He regarded our era as the most fateful and serious in human history, a phase in which the destiny of peoples and nations would be determined. The Hour of Decision ("Jahre der Entscheidung") quickly became a commercial success when it was published in Germany in 1933. However, it was later banned because Spengler criticized Nazi politics in various ways, including a rejection of their racial-biological foundations.
216 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1933
19 people are currently reading
767 people want to read
About the author
Oswald Spengler
90 books624 followersOswald Spengler was born in 1880 in Blankenburg (then in the Duchy of Brunswick, German Empire) at the foot of the Harz mountains, the eldest of four children, and the only boy. His family was conservative German of the petite bourgeoisie. His father, originally a mining technician, who came from a long line of mineworkers, was a post office bureaucrat. His childhood home was emotionally reserved, and the young Spengler turned to books and the great cultural personalities for succor. He had imperfect health, and suffered throughout his life from migraine headaches and from an anxiety complex.
At the age of ten, his family moved to the university city of Halle. Here Spengler received a classical education at the local Gymnasium (academically oriented secondary school), studying Greek, Latin, mathematics and natural sciences. Here, too, he developed his affinity for the arts—especially poetry, drama, and music—and came under the influence of the ideas of Goethe and Nietzsche. He even experimented with a few artistic creations, some of which still survive.
After his father's death in 1901 Spengler attended several universities (Munich, Berlin, and Halle) as a private scholar, taking courses in a wide range of subjects: history, philosophy, mathematics, natural science, literature, the classics, music, and fine arts. His private studies were undirected. In 1903, he failed his doctoral thesis on Heraclitus because of insufficient references, which effectively ended his chances of an academic career. In 1904 he received his Ph.D., and in 1905 suffered a nervous breakdown.
Scholars[which?] remark that his life seemed rather uneventful. He briefly served as a teacher in Saarbrücken and then in Düsseldorf. From 1908 to 1911 he worked at a grammar school (Realgymnasium) in Hamburg, where he taught science, German history, and mathematics.
In 1911, following his mother's death, he moved to Munich, where he would live until his death in 1936. He lived as a cloistered scholar, supported by his modest inheritance. Spengler survived on very limited means and was marked by loneliness. He owned no books, and took jobs as a tutor or wrote for magazines to earn additional income.
He began work on the first volume of Decline of the West intending at first to focus on Germany within Europe, but the Agadir Crisis affected him deeply, and he widened the scope of his study. Spengler was inspired by Otto Seeck's work The Decline of Antiquity in naming his own effort. The book was completed in 1914, but publishing was delayed by World War I. Due to a congenital heart problem, he was not called up for military service. During the war, however, his inheritance was largely useless because it was invested overseas; thus Spengler lived in genuine poverty for this period.
At the age of ten, his family moved to the university city of Halle. Here Spengler received a classical education at the local Gymnasium (academically oriented secondary school), studying Greek, Latin, mathematics and natural sciences. Here, too, he developed his affinity for the arts—especially poetry, drama, and music—and came under the influence of the ideas of Goethe and Nietzsche. He even experimented with a few artistic creations, some of which still survive.
After his father's death in 1901 Spengler attended several universities (Munich, Berlin, and Halle) as a private scholar, taking courses in a wide range of subjects: history, philosophy, mathematics, natural science, literature, the classics, music, and fine arts. His private studies were undirected. In 1903, he failed his doctoral thesis on Heraclitus because of insufficient references, which effectively ended his chances of an academic career. In 1904 he received his Ph.D., and in 1905 suffered a nervous breakdown.
Scholars[which?] remark that his life seemed rather uneventful. He briefly served as a teacher in Saarbrücken and then in Düsseldorf. From 1908 to 1911 he worked at a grammar school (Realgymnasium) in Hamburg, where he taught science, German history, and mathematics.
In 1911, following his mother's death, he moved to Munich, where he would live until his death in 1936. He lived as a cloistered scholar, supported by his modest inheritance. Spengler survived on very limited means and was marked by loneliness. He owned no books, and took jobs as a tutor or wrote for magazines to earn additional income.
He began work on the first volume of Decline of the West intending at first to focus on Germany within Europe, but the Agadir Crisis affected him deeply, and he widened the scope of his study. Spengler was inspired by Otto Seeck's work The Decline of Antiquity in naming his own effort. The book was completed in 1914, but publishing was delayed by World War I. Due to a congenital heart problem, he was not called up for military service. During the war, however, his inheritance was largely useless because it was invested overseas; thus Spengler lived in genuine poverty for this period.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 18 reviews
August 15, 2024
Archaische Wutrede allein im dunklen Wald – oder Spengler als populistischer Nietzsche gegen den Rest der Welt
Nach Der Untergang des Abendlandes, Oswald Spenglers historisch-literarischer Durchbruch, beschließt Jahre der Entscheidung Spenglers Gesamtwerk. Der Text erschien 1933, kurz nach der Machtergreifung der Nationalsozialisten in der Weimarer Republik. Es sollte „Deutschland in Gefahr“ heißen, aber Spengler änderte den Titel, um die Schrift nicht unumwunden gegen die aufstrebenden Nationalsozialisten zu münzen. Er wählt lieber indirektere Wege:
Die Föderalisten möchten das ohnehin kleine Land wieder in ein Bündel von Zwergstaaten ehemaligen Gepräges verwandeln und damit fremden Mächten Gelegenheit geben, den einen gegen den andern auszuspielen. Und die Nationalsozialisten glauben ohne und gegen die Welt fertig zu werden und ihre Luftschlösser bauen zu können, ohne eine mindestens schweigende aber sehr fühlbare Gegenwirkung von außen her.
Spengler argumentiert, wie schon in seinem Hauptwerk, dezidiert elitistisch und aristokratisch. Als politisches Pamphlet lässt es sich als Cäsarismus einstufen: die Vision von einzelnen Tatsachenmenschen, die die Weltgeschicke mit ihrem Eroberungsdrang gestalten.
Alle wirklich großen Führer in der Geschichte gehen nach rechts, mögen sie aus noch so großer Tiefe emporgekommen sein: daran erkennt man den geborenen Herrn und Herrscher. Das gilt von Cromwell und Mirabeau wie von Napoleon. Je reifer die Zeit wird, desto aussichtsvoller ist dieser Weg.
Spengler argumentiert individualistisch-physisch, d.h. er sieht einzigartige Menschen in der Geschichte am Werke, einzigartige Kulturen, einzigartige Konstellationen, die glücken oder nicht. Von einer paritären, egalitären Glaubensgemeinschaft will er nichts wissen. Er redet der Hierarchie das Wort, die einen einzelnen und besonderen huldigt, der „Rasse“ und „Form“ besitzt. Herkömmlicher Rassismus verachtet er förmlich:
Aber wenn hier von Rasse die Rede ist, so ist das nicht in dem Sinne gemeint, wie er heute unter Antisemiten in Europa und Amerika Mode ist, darwinistisch, materialistisch nämlich. Rassereinheit ist ein groteskes Wort angesichts der Tatsache, daß seit Jahrtausenden alle Stämme und Arten sich gemischt haben, und daß gerade kriegerische, also gesunde, zukunftsreiche Geschlechter von jeher gern einen Fremden sich eingegliedert haben, wenn er »von Rasse« war, gleichviel zu welcher Rasse er gehörte.
Politisch bleibt damit Oswald Spengler ein enfant terrible. Er sitzt zwischen allen Stühlen. Seine Schrift bezweckt nichts anderes, als zu motivieren, als die wenigen aus den Schneckenhäusern zu locken, um mit der Gestaltung der Weltlage zu beginnen. Leider verbleibt es bei dieser „Motivationsschrift“ – sie liest sich wie ein Flugblatt, wie ein Pamphlet, eine Art cäsarisch-gestimmtes Stammtischgespräch, das schimpft, zetert, aber mit Wucht hinaus, auf die weite See und die Welt erobern will. Leider verbleibt es beim Bierdunst und Biergeruch allenthalben, und die schwülstigen, begrifflosen Ausbrüche, die sich wieder und wieder wiederholen, unterminieren die Wirkung bis zur Komik. Zu unbelegt, zu kartenmischerisch, zu tarotkartenartig und spiritisch gestimmt, um interessante, begriffslogische Verknüpfungen zu erzeugen.
Von Geld, Parteipolitik, von bürokratischen Funktionalismen, systemlogischen Redundanzen, von zirkulären Finanzströmen, Welthandel, Retardationen und Gewinnschöpfungsstrategien, kurzum von der Komplexität, der Technologie, der sich verselbständigenden Interaktionsstrukturen der Moderne überhaupt will er nichts wissen. Schade. Als Interjektion nur teilweise erhellend, lesbar durch aufgeblühte Archaismen und Simplifikationen hindurch.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Details – ab hier Spoilergefahr (zur Erinnerung für mich):
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Stichworte. Für Spengler stellt jedwede demokratische Form der Selbstverwaltung ein Missverständnis dar. Nur einzelne Charaktere gestalten Nationen. In diesem Sinne unterscheidet er nicht zwischen der Sowjetunion und der USA. Niedergang Englands. Selbstauslöschung der Kolonialmächte, Verlust der Seehoheit. Technologietransfer auf Milizen und Söldner des Südens, die so die Technologie kennenlernen, mit denen sie den Norden (als Vertreter des Südens) bekämpfen. Selbstzerfleischung der Industrieländer, lachender Dritter der Rest der Welt, die sich rächen. Selbstauslöschung im Bolschewismus jedweder Art, parteipolitisch, christlich, journalistisch. Dekadenz prangert er an. Das Verschwinden von Handarbeit. Die Lust am Wagemut. Er bedauert, dass Bismarck kaum Zeit hatte, gemeinsam mit Moltke, eine neue Generation zu schmieden. Chance Deutschlands dennoch durch seine Jugend. Noch nicht veraltet wie England und Frankreich. Für Spengler bleibt der Mensch ein Raubtier. Spengler getreuer Nachfolger Heraklits:
Krieg ist aller Dinge Vater, aller Dinge König. Die einen erweist er als Götter, die andern als Menschen, - die einen läßt er Sklaven werden, die anderen Freie.
Nach Der Untergang des Abendlandes, Oswald Spenglers historisch-literarischer Durchbruch, beschließt Jahre der Entscheidung Spenglers Gesamtwerk. Der Text erschien 1933, kurz nach der Machtergreifung der Nationalsozialisten in der Weimarer Republik. Es sollte „Deutschland in Gefahr“ heißen, aber Spengler änderte den Titel, um die Schrift nicht unumwunden gegen die aufstrebenden Nationalsozialisten zu münzen. Er wählt lieber indirektere Wege:
Die Föderalisten möchten das ohnehin kleine Land wieder in ein Bündel von Zwergstaaten ehemaligen Gepräges verwandeln und damit fremden Mächten Gelegenheit geben, den einen gegen den andern auszuspielen. Und die Nationalsozialisten glauben ohne und gegen die Welt fertig zu werden und ihre Luftschlösser bauen zu können, ohne eine mindestens schweigende aber sehr fühlbare Gegenwirkung von außen her.
Spengler argumentiert, wie schon in seinem Hauptwerk, dezidiert elitistisch und aristokratisch. Als politisches Pamphlet lässt es sich als Cäsarismus einstufen: die Vision von einzelnen Tatsachenmenschen, die die Weltgeschicke mit ihrem Eroberungsdrang gestalten.
Alle wirklich großen Führer in der Geschichte gehen nach rechts, mögen sie aus noch so großer Tiefe emporgekommen sein: daran erkennt man den geborenen Herrn und Herrscher. Das gilt von Cromwell und Mirabeau wie von Napoleon. Je reifer die Zeit wird, desto aussichtsvoller ist dieser Weg.
Spengler argumentiert individualistisch-physisch, d.h. er sieht einzigartige Menschen in der Geschichte am Werke, einzigartige Kulturen, einzigartige Konstellationen, die glücken oder nicht. Von einer paritären, egalitären Glaubensgemeinschaft will er nichts wissen. Er redet der Hierarchie das Wort, die einen einzelnen und besonderen huldigt, der „Rasse“ und „Form“ besitzt. Herkömmlicher Rassismus verachtet er förmlich:
Aber wenn hier von Rasse die Rede ist, so ist das nicht in dem Sinne gemeint, wie er heute unter Antisemiten in Europa und Amerika Mode ist, darwinistisch, materialistisch nämlich. Rassereinheit ist ein groteskes Wort angesichts der Tatsache, daß seit Jahrtausenden alle Stämme und Arten sich gemischt haben, und daß gerade kriegerische, also gesunde, zukunftsreiche Geschlechter von jeher gern einen Fremden sich eingegliedert haben, wenn er »von Rasse« war, gleichviel zu welcher Rasse er gehörte.
Politisch bleibt damit Oswald Spengler ein enfant terrible. Er sitzt zwischen allen Stühlen. Seine Schrift bezweckt nichts anderes, als zu motivieren, als die wenigen aus den Schneckenhäusern zu locken, um mit der Gestaltung der Weltlage zu beginnen. Leider verbleibt es bei dieser „Motivationsschrift“ – sie liest sich wie ein Flugblatt, wie ein Pamphlet, eine Art cäsarisch-gestimmtes Stammtischgespräch, das schimpft, zetert, aber mit Wucht hinaus, auf die weite See und die Welt erobern will. Leider verbleibt es beim Bierdunst und Biergeruch allenthalben, und die schwülstigen, begrifflosen Ausbrüche, die sich wieder und wieder wiederholen, unterminieren die Wirkung bis zur Komik. Zu unbelegt, zu kartenmischerisch, zu tarotkartenartig und spiritisch gestimmt, um interessante, begriffslogische Verknüpfungen zu erzeugen.
Von Geld, Parteipolitik, von bürokratischen Funktionalismen, systemlogischen Redundanzen, von zirkulären Finanzströmen, Welthandel, Retardationen und Gewinnschöpfungsstrategien, kurzum von der Komplexität, der Technologie, der sich verselbständigenden Interaktionsstrukturen der Moderne überhaupt will er nichts wissen. Schade. Als Interjektion nur teilweise erhellend, lesbar durch aufgeblühte Archaismen und Simplifikationen hindurch.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Details – ab hier Spoilergefahr (zur Erinnerung für mich):
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Stichworte. Für Spengler stellt jedwede demokratische Form der Selbstverwaltung ein Missverständnis dar. Nur einzelne Charaktere gestalten Nationen. In diesem Sinne unterscheidet er nicht zwischen der Sowjetunion und der USA. Niedergang Englands. Selbstauslöschung der Kolonialmächte, Verlust der Seehoheit. Technologietransfer auf Milizen und Söldner des Südens, die so die Technologie kennenlernen, mit denen sie den Norden (als Vertreter des Südens) bekämpfen. Selbstzerfleischung der Industrieländer, lachender Dritter der Rest der Welt, die sich rächen. Selbstauslöschung im Bolschewismus jedweder Art, parteipolitisch, christlich, journalistisch. Dekadenz prangert er an. Das Verschwinden von Handarbeit. Die Lust am Wagemut. Er bedauert, dass Bismarck kaum Zeit hatte, gemeinsam mit Moltke, eine neue Generation zu schmieden. Chance Deutschlands dennoch durch seine Jugend. Noch nicht veraltet wie England und Frankreich. Für Spengler bleibt der Mensch ein Raubtier. Spengler getreuer Nachfolger Heraklits:
Krieg ist aller Dinge Vater, aller Dinge König. Die einen erweist er als Götter, die andern als Menschen, - die einen läßt er Sklaven werden, die anderen Freie.
June 25, 2016
Spengler great as always. So much depth and insights.
September 27, 2014
Banned by the Nazi party, a short furthering of ideas contained in Decline of the West placed in prophetic context of a world about to erupt in war. History is not sentimental and man is a creature of prey. Prescient pessimism at its best.
January 10, 2015
Eine Bewertung, die beileibe nicht mein Zustimmung mit den Inhalten widerspiegelt, sondern einzig und allein die Tatsache, dass die aufmerksame Lektüre dieses Buches hilft, einerseits einen Blick für epochenübergreifende Geschichte zu bekommen und andererseits auch dazu beiträgt, eine eigene Meinung zum Thema Nationalismus, "germanischem" Charakter und die Rolle Deutschlands und heute auch Europa in der weltpolitischen Entwicklung zu bekommen.
May 27, 2011
I confess I am a bit mystified by the high reviews from other readers. It's not the often distasteful nature of what Spengler says, but the lack of coherent, consistent, and original thinking that made this book a bit of a chore for me.
One highlight, however, is that here is a Spengler book I can actually understand (for the most part).
The book blurb talks of how this book influenced Nazism and Hitler in particular. Unfortunately, there is good reason for this link. Spengler talks a lot about race, racial vigor, blood, and so on in ways that are most definitely unnerving, considering that he wrote in 1933. So, some of it is distasteful, some of it is frightening, and some his talk about race is downright absurd. But he is too smart to dismiss this book outright.
This link between Spengler and the Nazi's may not be fully and completely justified. At one point Spengler writes, 'Those who talk too much about race no longer have it in them. what is needed is not a pure race, but a strong one, which has a nation within it.' One might think here that Spengler would probably accuse the Nazi's of 'protesting too much' about race in general. At least I hope so.
If we unpack this quote I think one can get to his main point. Spengler likes things to be definite. He likes specific cultural achievements and style (i.e. the Gothic). He likes particular people to make their mark on history (i.e. Bismarck). He likes rights particularly defined, at one point praising Burke for talking about his 'rights as an Englishman,' as opposed to vague, uncontexualized, 'human rights.' He saw the Weimar Republic as eroding all the best that 'Prussianism' had to offer Germany. It's easy not to like the Weimar Republic, but I do hate the word, "Prussianism."
This is why he did not like democracy. He brings out the old saw that it essentially is mob rule and will create a blase and meaningless culture.
Is there anything here worth considering?
- He has a decent analysis of W.W. I as the wrong war to fight at that time. The real enemy was Russia, and any war fought with such opposites as Russia and France was bound not to be decisive.
- He makes thought provoking comparisons between Russia and the U.S. Both, he argues, have despotism in their future. And his links between democracy and despotism are worth considering. The size, and scope of the country (note again his preference for measurable, definite things) will naturally pull us in that direction. Of course Jefferson disagreed, and thought the size of the country would prevent it from being centralized. We shall see, and I certainly hope that Spengler is wrong on this one.
One highlight, however, is that here is a Spengler book I can actually understand (for the most part).
The book blurb talks of how this book influenced Nazism and Hitler in particular. Unfortunately, there is good reason for this link. Spengler talks a lot about race, racial vigor, blood, and so on in ways that are most definitely unnerving, considering that he wrote in 1933. So, some of it is distasteful, some of it is frightening, and some his talk about race is downright absurd. But he is too smart to dismiss this book outright.
This link between Spengler and the Nazi's may not be fully and completely justified. At one point Spengler writes, 'Those who talk too much about race no longer have it in them. what is needed is not a pure race, but a strong one, which has a nation within it.' One might think here that Spengler would probably accuse the Nazi's of 'protesting too much' about race in general. At least I hope so.
If we unpack this quote I think one can get to his main point. Spengler likes things to be definite. He likes specific cultural achievements and style (i.e. the Gothic). He likes particular people to make their mark on history (i.e. Bismarck). He likes rights particularly defined, at one point praising Burke for talking about his 'rights as an Englishman,' as opposed to vague, uncontexualized, 'human rights.' He saw the Weimar Republic as eroding all the best that 'Prussianism' had to offer Germany. It's easy not to like the Weimar Republic, but I do hate the word, "Prussianism."
This is why he did not like democracy. He brings out the old saw that it essentially is mob rule and will create a blase and meaningless culture.
Is there anything here worth considering?
- He has a decent analysis of W.W. I as the wrong war to fight at that time. The real enemy was Russia, and any war fought with such opposites as Russia and France was bound not to be decisive.
- He makes thought provoking comparisons between Russia and the U.S. Both, he argues, have despotism in their future. And his links between democracy and despotism are worth considering. The size, and scope of the country (note again his preference for measurable, definite things) will naturally pull us in that direction. Of course Jefferson disagreed, and thought the size of the country would prevent it from being centralized. We shall see, and I certainly hope that Spengler is wrong on this one.
April 8, 2021
4.5 stars. Spengler is an immensely powerful author.
June 20, 2023
Oswald Spengler's "The Hour of Decision: Germany and the World-Historical Evolution" presents a captivating exploration of Germany's role in the unfolding of world history. Spengler delves into the complex interplay between civilizations, cultures, and nations, arguing for the unique position of Germany within the broader historical context. This review aims to provide an academic evaluation of Spengler's arguments, discussing the book's strengths, weaknesses, and its significance within the fields of historiography, philosophy, and cultural studies.
"The Hour of Decision" by Oswald Spengler delves into the historical, cultural, and geopolitical forces that shaped Germany's trajectory within the broader scope of world history. Spengler proposes a cyclical view of civilizations, emphasizing the distinct characteristics and destinies of nations. He explores Germany's cultural and intellectual heritage, its relationship with other civilizations, and its potential role as a catalyst for future world-historical transformations.
Spengler's work stands out for its sweeping vision and interdisciplinary approach. Drawing upon historical narratives, cultural analysis, and philosophical insights, he constructs a complex tapestry of historical dynamics. By weaving together diverse sources of evidence, Spengler challenges conventional interpretations of history and invites readers to reconsider the deterministic notions of progress and linear development.
One of the notable strengths of "The Hour of Decision" lies in Spengler's ability to synthesize vast amounts of historical and cultural information. He provides a comprehensive examination of Germany's cultural and intellectual contributions, uncovering the deep-rooted connections between German thought and the broader currents of world history. Spengler's analysis enriches our understanding of the complexities and nuances of German civilization, fostering critical reflections on its unique place within the tapestry of human development.
Moreover, Spengler's interdisciplinary approach allows for a multi-faceted exploration of Germany's historical trajectory. By integrating cultural, intellectual, and geopolitical dimensions, he unveils the interplay between material conditions, ideas, and the spirit of a nation. This holistic perspective enhances the depth and breadth of the book, offering readers a nuanced understanding of the factors that shape historical destinies.
While "The Hour of Decision" offers a thought-provoking analysis, it is not without its limitations. Some critics argue that Spengler's work may reflect a particular ideological bias, potentially overlooking alternative interpretations or downplaying counterarguments. A more balanced engagement with opposing viewpoints and a greater acknowledgment of the complexities of historical causality would strengthen the book's analytical rigor.
Additionally, Spengler's writing style can be dense and philosophical, making it challenging for some readers to engage with his arguments. A more accessible presentation of ideas and clearer connections between concepts could enhance the book's accessibility and broaden its potential readership.
"The Hour of Decision" holds significant importance within the fields of historiography, philosophy, and cultural studies as a seminal work that challenges traditional conceptions of historical progress and linear development. Spengler's analysis prompts readers to critically reflect on the complexity of historical forces, the role of civilizations, and the possibilities for societal transformation. The book's contribution lies in its ability to foster discussions on the intertwined nature of cultures, nations, and the world-historical evolution.
GPT
"The Hour of Decision" by Oswald Spengler delves into the historical, cultural, and geopolitical forces that shaped Germany's trajectory within the broader scope of world history. Spengler proposes a cyclical view of civilizations, emphasizing the distinct characteristics and destinies of nations. He explores Germany's cultural and intellectual heritage, its relationship with other civilizations, and its potential role as a catalyst for future world-historical transformations.
Spengler's work stands out for its sweeping vision and interdisciplinary approach. Drawing upon historical narratives, cultural analysis, and philosophical insights, he constructs a complex tapestry of historical dynamics. By weaving together diverse sources of evidence, Spengler challenges conventional interpretations of history and invites readers to reconsider the deterministic notions of progress and linear development.
One of the notable strengths of "The Hour of Decision" lies in Spengler's ability to synthesize vast amounts of historical and cultural information. He provides a comprehensive examination of Germany's cultural and intellectual contributions, uncovering the deep-rooted connections between German thought and the broader currents of world history. Spengler's analysis enriches our understanding of the complexities and nuances of German civilization, fostering critical reflections on its unique place within the tapestry of human development.
Moreover, Spengler's interdisciplinary approach allows for a multi-faceted exploration of Germany's historical trajectory. By integrating cultural, intellectual, and geopolitical dimensions, he unveils the interplay between material conditions, ideas, and the spirit of a nation. This holistic perspective enhances the depth and breadth of the book, offering readers a nuanced understanding of the factors that shape historical destinies.
While "The Hour of Decision" offers a thought-provoking analysis, it is not without its limitations. Some critics argue that Spengler's work may reflect a particular ideological bias, potentially overlooking alternative interpretations or downplaying counterarguments. A more balanced engagement with opposing viewpoints and a greater acknowledgment of the complexities of historical causality would strengthen the book's analytical rigor.
Additionally, Spengler's writing style can be dense and philosophical, making it challenging for some readers to engage with his arguments. A more accessible presentation of ideas and clearer connections between concepts could enhance the book's accessibility and broaden its potential readership.
"The Hour of Decision" holds significant importance within the fields of historiography, philosophy, and cultural studies as a seminal work that challenges traditional conceptions of historical progress and linear development. Spengler's analysis prompts readers to critically reflect on the complexity of historical forces, the role of civilizations, and the possibilities for societal transformation. The book's contribution lies in its ability to foster discussions on the intertwined nature of cultures, nations, and the world-historical evolution.
GPT
October 9, 2017
A wild ride through some of Spengler's most uncomfortable writing. Atkinson's translation read a bit clunky at times, but it's also possible that Spengler himself had, in his enthusiasm to respond to the events of the 1930s, unwittingly cast off much of the elegance that made "Decline of the West" so lovely to read. Worth it just for the anecdote about Russian mothers in the final essay!
July 22, 2021
Joka haluaa vain miellyttävää elämää, ei ansaitse olla olemassa.
Spenglerin 1933 kirjoitettu teos on aikalaisanalyysiä. Spengler käsittelee 1. maailmansodan syitä. Hänelle Saksan geopoliittinen asema keskellä Eurooppaa teki konfliktista ennen pitkää väistämättömän. Taloudelliset ja 1800- ja 1900-lukujen taitteen ulkopoliittiset pohdiskelut jäivät vieraiksi, mutta käytännön kautta avautuvat yhteiskuntateoreettiset pohdinnat olivat erittäin antoisia. Tyyli on loistavaa kuten aina.
Spenglerin tarkkanäköisyys globalismin suhteen on kiehtovaa. Hän näki länsimaalaisen työläisen ahdingon jo tuolloin. Länsimaisen työläisen korkea elintaso perustui länsimaiden teollisuusmonopoliin, mutta kun palloistumisen myötä tekniikka ja sitä myöten teollisuus ovat muuttaneet halvemman työvoiman maihin, länsimaiselle työläiselle ei jää muuta mahdollisuutta kuin ryhtyä luopumaan omista saavutetuista eduistaan, jotta pysyisi "kilpailukykyisenä" maailmanmarkkinoilla.
Spengler tyrmää kaikki olemassaolevat poliittiset aatteet liberalismista kommunismiin ja fasismiin. Ainoa mahdollisuus on "preussilainen sosialismi", jonkinlainen autoritäärinen kollektivismi, jota johtaisivat "rodukkaat" saksalaiset (Spenglerin rotukäsitys ei ole biologinen vaan epämääräisen mystis-henkinen). Kuitenkaan Spengler ei ole mikään utopisti eikä usko "tuhatvuotiseen valtakuntaan" vaan ennemmin ikuiseen kamppailuun, bismarckilaisittain politiikkaan mahdollisuuksien taiteena. Kerrassaan omalaatuinen ajattelija, mahdotonta lokeroida, ellei sitten konservatiivi-vallankumoukselliseksi, jonkinlaiseksi toisinajattelevaksi laitafasistiksi.
Se joka yöllä laulaa metsässä, tekee sen pelosta.
Spenglerin 1933 kirjoitettu teos on aikalaisanalyysiä. Spengler käsittelee 1. maailmansodan syitä. Hänelle Saksan geopoliittinen asema keskellä Eurooppaa teki konfliktista ennen pitkää väistämättömän. Taloudelliset ja 1800- ja 1900-lukujen taitteen ulkopoliittiset pohdiskelut jäivät vieraiksi, mutta käytännön kautta avautuvat yhteiskuntateoreettiset pohdinnat olivat erittäin antoisia. Tyyli on loistavaa kuten aina.
Spenglerin tarkkanäköisyys globalismin suhteen on kiehtovaa. Hän näki länsimaalaisen työläisen ahdingon jo tuolloin. Länsimaisen työläisen korkea elintaso perustui länsimaiden teollisuusmonopoliin, mutta kun palloistumisen myötä tekniikka ja sitä myöten teollisuus ovat muuttaneet halvemman työvoiman maihin, länsimaiselle työläiselle ei jää muuta mahdollisuutta kuin ryhtyä luopumaan omista saavutetuista eduistaan, jotta pysyisi "kilpailukykyisenä" maailmanmarkkinoilla.
Spengler tyrmää kaikki olemassaolevat poliittiset aatteet liberalismista kommunismiin ja fasismiin. Ainoa mahdollisuus on "preussilainen sosialismi", jonkinlainen autoritäärinen kollektivismi, jota johtaisivat "rodukkaat" saksalaiset (Spenglerin rotukäsitys ei ole biologinen vaan epämääräisen mystis-henkinen). Kuitenkaan Spengler ei ole mikään utopisti eikä usko "tuhatvuotiseen valtakuntaan" vaan ennemmin ikuiseen kamppailuun, bismarckilaisittain politiikkaan mahdollisuuksien taiteena. Kerrassaan omalaatuinen ajattelija, mahdotonta lokeroida, ellei sitten konservatiivi-vallankumoukselliseksi, jonkinlaiseksi toisinajattelevaksi laitafasistiksi.
Se joka yöllä laulaa metsässä, tekee sen pelosta.
August 22, 2024
Excellent book, even better than Decline of the West in many ways. Particularly in the political aspects, I find this book to excel beyond the standard right-wing text. His discussions on race are particularly poignant today, in a world where Spengler's discussion of race could hardly be had. One notable aspect of Spenglerian thought I noticed was his dismissal of biological racism. I see this as nearly entirely a result of his Nietzschean influence. Indeed, Spengler was a Nietzschean through and through, despite the liberal characterization of Nietzsche by contemporary academics. Despite his being suppressed for decades, Spengler is now gaining popularity. Sure, you may not find any of his books in a Barnes & Noble (Nietzsche is the closest to a proper right-wing figure you'll find there), but people are talking. This coincides well with the right-wing Nietzschean movement, largely pioneered by Richard Spencer and Bronze Age Pervert (both of which I have major critiques), which is now inspiring sensitive young men to get into philosophy. In any case, Spengler's racialism is apparent, even despite his rejection of the biological component. Many warnings have sadly come to pass, and people must study Spengler and Nietzsche in order to both diagnose our problems and to fix them. So yeah, good book.
November 17, 2023
A roaring, impotent screed of ruthless idiocy counterbalanced by steel-eyed intellectual rigor and a legitimately interesting argument, unfortunately spelled out completely backwards.
July 25, 2025
Wonderful
January 21, 2024
Probably Spengler's worst book. He weaves together profound incite with crooked, fallacious analysis. I've read before how this was an abortive piece, but I was surprised by how this was so. You can see it in shockingly prescient thought mixed with bunk and hollow geopolitical analysis. The prolonged discourse on wages and revolutionaries, though not without strength, is oft self-contradictory and scattered. Here, Spengler will presuppose some of the very same economic principles he critiques.
His understanding of the "worker," simultaneously am abstract facade and a symbol he nonetheless uses, is asinine. As are his fluid notions of financier and factory owner, and his contempt of masses and love of strong blood. Who is the noble aristocrat? And where is the boundary of a man of breeding and a formless herd? Reading this book, it seems these abstract aristocratic ideal becomes a phantom which never existed. At once, he lionizes and idolizes an ideal meritocracy, the factory owner as a man of merit, who could just as well rise from the man working the machine, and yet cuts down such an archetype described in a different word and circumstance. It's blunt and rounded, lacking in nuance and facts, and he makes mistakes he would just as well ascribe to a Marxian framework. Daft oversimplifications. Inappropriate binaries.
As to economics, Spengler is weak in this piece, and insulated from many realities of people and his own countrymen of the time. However, this does not apply to his peering vision in other books and essays. I see this as a product of an exhausted philosopher, old as the civilization he belongs. And this tracks with the state of his health and life at the time. Some powerful things still shine through. It's a shame that so many luminary observations are stuck in this particular book of his. Even in his wonky understanding of economic evolutions, there's prescient stuff.
One can see the obvious two-faced nature of the Hour of Decision in Spengler's geopolitical analysis. Shockingly accurate in one stream, so oblivious and false in another (which we can see with the benefit of hindsight). Of course, Spengler always had the hideous trait of intellectual self-loathing: a distaste for the kind of man he was, in favor of an ideal he wasn't, the fact-man. In other words, ideas don't matter, yet ideas are what he proffers, and on analysis, ideas are so fundamental to Culture. This was, is, and always will be Spengler's weakness. Blood is not the only organ, and yet he speaks of it so.
Recommended only for the devoted Spenglerian, and read with some skepticism. If you're interested in his work as a surveyor, try his three great works instead: Decline of the West (Vol. 1 and 2), and Man and Technics. Those are the superior form of Spengler's vision.
His understanding of the "worker," simultaneously am abstract facade and a symbol he nonetheless uses, is asinine. As are his fluid notions of financier and factory owner, and his contempt of masses and love of strong blood. Who is the noble aristocrat? And where is the boundary of a man of breeding and a formless herd? Reading this book, it seems these abstract aristocratic ideal becomes a phantom which never existed. At once, he lionizes and idolizes an ideal meritocracy, the factory owner as a man of merit, who could just as well rise from the man working the machine, and yet cuts down such an archetype described in a different word and circumstance. It's blunt and rounded, lacking in nuance and facts, and he makes mistakes he would just as well ascribe to a Marxian framework. Daft oversimplifications. Inappropriate binaries.
As to economics, Spengler is weak in this piece, and insulated from many realities of people and his own countrymen of the time. However, this does not apply to his peering vision in other books and essays. I see this as a product of an exhausted philosopher, old as the civilization he belongs. And this tracks with the state of his health and life at the time. Some powerful things still shine through. It's a shame that so many luminary observations are stuck in this particular book of his. Even in his wonky understanding of economic evolutions, there's prescient stuff.
One can see the obvious two-faced nature of the Hour of Decision in Spengler's geopolitical analysis. Shockingly accurate in one stream, so oblivious and false in another (which we can see with the benefit of hindsight). Of course, Spengler always had the hideous trait of intellectual self-loathing: a distaste for the kind of man he was, in favor of an ideal he wasn't, the fact-man. In other words, ideas don't matter, yet ideas are what he proffers, and on analysis, ideas are so fundamental to Culture. This was, is, and always will be Spengler's weakness. Blood is not the only organ, and yet he speaks of it so.
Recommended only for the devoted Spenglerian, and read with some skepticism. If you're interested in his work as a surveyor, try his three great works instead: Decline of the West (Vol. 1 and 2), and Man and Technics. Those are the superior form of Spengler's vision.
April 19, 2017
This is a serious anti- liberal, anti- bolshevist, anti- socialist diatribe. I liked the read because its something new to me from a recent and interesting era where people were clearly thinking differently than we do now. Fascinating! I was shocked when I first opened the book and two of the chapters were called The White World Revolution and The Coloured World Revolution. I showed the chapter titles to a black friend on the way home and he said, "man I need to read more books like that". I told him yeah older books sometimes got the real juicy stuff. I like to read books specific to an era.
February 25, 2012
und ich denke diese schöne Ausgabe ist auch meine-ich muss es ausssuchen. Es ist lange her seit ich dem Buch las aber ich kann mich erinnern wie deutlich er warnte vor den Fehler der NS Bewegung, mdas Ausland und die Auslandspolitik ernst zu nehmen. War die Machtergreifung nicht wie ein Feier mit gefährlichem Alkohol? Er warnte und sah was kommen würde, nämlich die Rache der Reste der Welt. Deutschland meinte Experte in Sache innere Politik zu sein udn hat gerade eine Revolution vollbracht aber in vollem Unwissen und sogar Gleichgultigkeit der Reste der Welt gegenüber. Ich muß das Buch wieder lesen zu sehen ob ich meine immer, daß das Buch seinen her verliehenen Punkte verdient und ja es ist aktuel wie eh und je, weil die Kinder des Westens interessieren sich zu wenig für die Entwicklung der nicht europaischen Welt. Tatsächlich ist diese Kritik keineswegs ausreichend-ich muss das Buch nochmal lesen-soviele Bücher zu lesen und zu lesen wieder und so wenig Zeit.
Eins ist auf jeden Fall mir sehr sicher. Oswald Spengler hat besseres verdient als derart rausgeklammert und hinweggesehen zu werden wie heute der Fall ist. Wie Stoddart, sah er genau, daß nach dem zweiten grossen Krieg, nie "neue Völker" nicht-weissen Völker, sich erheben würden und das Abendalndes würde nicht politisch dagegen unternehmen.
Eins ist auf jeden Fall mir sehr sicher. Oswald Spengler hat besseres verdient als derart rausgeklammert und hinweggesehen zu werden wie heute der Fall ist. Wie Stoddart, sah er genau, daß nach dem zweiten grossen Krieg, nie "neue Völker" nicht-weissen Völker, sich erheben würden und das Abendalndes würde nicht politisch dagegen unternehmen.
January 5, 2016
"A kto odwrócić chce losów dzieje
Musi sam kończyć, co niebo zasieje" Schiller
Trzeba przyznać, że bardzo dobre studium Spenglera wydane w momencie wygranej wyborów w 1933 r. może razić język tej publikacji, gdy czytamy o "żółtych ludzikach", ale nadal czyta to się dobrze. Szczegolnie interesujące są fragmenty opisu Imperium Brytyjskiego, które już się chwieje, i Francji, która już właściwie została pochowana. Pełne niemieckiej buty, ale czasem także racji. Oczywiście każdego lewicowca o palpitacje serca przyprawią opisy losu robotniczego i ciągłego odwoływania się, iż nie można złego słowa o klasie posiadającej mówić. Krytykuje Spengler zarówno bolszewizm, jak faszyzm ze swoją autrakiczną utopią.
Musi sam kończyć, co niebo zasieje" Schiller
Trzeba przyznać, że bardzo dobre studium Spenglera wydane w momencie wygranej wyborów w 1933 r. może razić język tej publikacji, gdy czytamy o "żółtych ludzikach", ale nadal czyta to się dobrze. Szczegolnie interesujące są fragmenty opisu Imperium Brytyjskiego, które już się chwieje, i Francji, która już właściwie została pochowana. Pełne niemieckiej buty, ale czasem także racji. Oczywiście każdego lewicowca o palpitacje serca przyprawią opisy losu robotniczego i ciągłego odwoływania się, iż nie można złego słowa o klasie posiadającej mówić. Krytykuje Spengler zarówno bolszewizm, jak faszyzm ze swoją autrakiczną utopią.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 18 reviews