5 ms·

Have read about 2/3rds about it now and came back to upvote. My first impression is there are some really interesting observations in there like this: > At th

Have read about 2/3rds about it now and came back to upvote. My first impression is there are some really interesting observations in there like this: > At the end of the war, Hitler said, ‘Well the Germans lost, that just shows the Russians are stronger. So be it. That’s the verdict of nature.’ I don’t think a nationalist would say that.

hugh4 11y ago
> At the end of the war, Hitler said, ‘Well the Germans lost, that just shows the Russians are stronger. So be it. That’s the verdict of nature.’ I don’t think a nationalist would say that. No, but a fatalist would. And failure makes fatalists of us all. When we succeed, it's because we're brilliant and terrific. When we fail, it's fate. Few people in history have ever failed quite as spectacularly as Hitler did by the end of the war, so it's not surprising that he was, by this stage, an angry fatalist.
- htns 11y ago
  Well, the German army did decide to march into Russia without bringing any winter equipment with them...
pazimzadeh 11y ago
I thought that was interesting too, but it looks like that statement is contradicted later: >‘Well if the Soviet Union didn’t collapse, it’s because of Jews beyond the Soviet Union in the rest of the world. The rest of the conspiracy around the world is supporting them and propping them up, and therefore we have to expand our war against the Jews.’
mgalka 11y ago
Agree. He makes a very strong case. The only part I have a hard to accepting is this: >"He presents himself precisely as a German nationalist who is going to get the German economy going, who is going to bring Germans inside the borders of Germany. That’s how he presents himself, but that is a lie." He was able to inspire so many people to do such crazy things. I just have a hard time seeing how he could tell a story that convincing if it was really a lie.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Hitler himself coined the term for how you accomplish such a feat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
- venomsnake 11y ago
  You saw Steve Jobs do it couple of times. Different goals, same tricks. Not hard at all.
qubex 11y ago
It seems to me that Snyder is imposing an ex-post unity and coherence of thought upon a broken, irrational man, and somehow succeeding in joining up the dots into some accidental semblance of linearity. I'm by no means convinced that the eventual outcome was ’compatible’ with the initial mindset. Hitler in 1938 had no real reason to create an accommodation for what eventually came to pass in 1945 simply because (for him) it was probably almost impossible to anticipate; asymmetrically Hitler in 1945, faced with disaster, tried to shoehorn-in an interpretation of events that was as minimally discontinuous from his prior statements as possible.
- trocodine 11y ago
  /r/iamverysmart
- pron 11y ago
  I don't think Snyder means Hitler had a tactical plan and an exact route of achieving a specific goal. He means that Hitler had a certain vision, and many of his actions can be understood as being influenced by that vision. Even if Snyder claims a more calculated approach on Hitler's part, I think his basic interpretation of the vision is enlightening enough even if you don't buy the theory of the calculated mind.
  - emp_zealoth 11y ago
    To me, Hitler threw WW2 - after overwhelming initial victories he, against the advice from generals, changed goals from strategic to vanity - London Blitz, Stalingrad - took away Third Reich's lead and turned into militarily pointless endeavours. While the bombings had some doctrines/ideas (even if flawed - The Bomber Will Always Get Through), stopping th steamroll of Red Army in the middle of nowhere, with looming winter was just suicidal. If Moscow fell, CCCP could have folded - the evacuated industry would not have a strong transport system to enable it, and, the Wehrmacht wouldn't freeze to death in the fields. It's hard to retroactively explain it as a vision. It was megalomania.
    - pron 11y ago

hugh4 11y ago

> At the end of the war, Hitler said, ‘Well the Germans lost, that just shows the Russians are stronger. So be it. That’s the verdict of nature.’ I don’t think a nationalist would say that. No, but a fatalist would. And failure makes fatalists of us all. When we succeed, it's because we're brilliant and terrific. When we fail, it's fate. Few people in history have ever failed quite as spectacularly as Hitler did by the end of the war, so it's not surprising that he was, by this stage, an angry fatalist.

htns 11y ago
Well, the German army did decide to march into Russia without bringing any winter equipment with them...

pazimzadeh 11y ago

I thought that was interesting too, but it looks like that statement is contradicted later: >‘Well if the Soviet Union didn’t collapse, it’s because of Jews beyond the Soviet Union in the rest of the world. The rest of the conspiracy around the world is supporting them and propping them up, and therefore we have to expand our war against the Jews.’

mgalka 11y ago

Agree. He makes a very strong case. The only part I have a hard to accepting is this: >"He presents himself precisely as a German nationalist who is going to get the German economy going, who is going to bring Germans inside the borders of Germany. That’s how he presents himself, but that is a lie." He was able to inspire so many people to do such crazy things. I just have a hard time seeing how he could tell a story that convincing if it was really a lie.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Hitler himself coined the term for how you accomplish such a feat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
venomsnake 11y ago
You saw Steve Jobs do it couple of times. Different goals, same tricks. Not hard at all.

qubex 11y ago

It seems to me that Snyder is imposing an ex-post unity and coherence of thought upon a broken, irrational man, and somehow succeeding in joining up the dots into some accidental semblance of linearity. I'm by no means convinced that the eventual outcome was ’compatible’ with the initial mindset. Hitler in 1938 had no real reason to create an accommodation for what eventually came to pass in 1945 simply because (for him) it was probably almost impossible to anticipate; asymmetrically Hitler in 1945, faced with disaster, tried to shoehorn-in an interpretation of events that was as minimally discontinuous from his prior statements as possible.

trocodine 11y ago
/r/iamverysmart
pron 11y ago
I don't think Snyder means Hitler had a tactical plan and an exact route of achieving a specific goal. He means that Hitler had a certain vision, and many of his actions can be understood as being influenced by that vision. Even if Snyder claims a more calculated approach on Hitler's part, I think his basic interpretation of the vision is enlightening enough even if you don't buy the theory of the calculated mind.
- emp_zealoth 11y ago
  To me, Hitler threw WW2 - after overwhelming initial victories he, against the advice from generals, changed goals from strategic to vanity - London Blitz, Stalingrad - took away Third Reich's lead and turned into militarily pointless endeavours. While the bombings had some doctrines/ideas (even if flawed - The Bomber Will Always Get Through), stopping th steamroll of Red Army in the middle of nowhere, with looming winter was just suicidal. If Moscow fell, CCCP could have folded - the evacuated industry would not have a strong transport system to enable it, and, the Wehrmacht wouldn't freeze to death in the fields. It's hard to retroactively explain it as a vision. It was megalomania.
  - pron 11y ago