3 ms·

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 in

by 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
    Well, even if we accept Snyder's interpretation of Hitler's vision, I don't think it's right to expect every action to be a result of solely that vision. Even if we did, nobody said Hitler's strategy was ideal in achieving his vision. A visionary can be a bad strategist. My takeaway is that Hitler's vision may not have been one of German nationalism but of racial anarchy. Fascism is often associated with the desire to return to an imagined "golden age". But Hitler's golden age wasn't one of an imagined pure Germany, but of an imagined reality much further ago in the past, of people fighting like "pure" animals for racial superiority. I think that's a very interesting interpretation.

by qubex 11y ago

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
  Well, even if we accept Snyder's interpretation of Hitler's vision, I don't think it's right to expect every action to be a result of solely that vision. Even if we did, nobody said Hitler's strategy was ideal in achieving his vision. A visionary can be a bad strategist. My takeaway is that Hitler's vision may not have been one of German nationalism but of racial anarchy. Fascism is often associated with the desire to return to an imagined "golden age". But Hitler's golden age wasn't one of an imagined pure Germany, but of an imagined reality much further ago in the past, of people fighting like "pure" animals for racial superiority. I think that's a very interesting interpretation.