4 ms·

> "Hitler, uncharacteristically, cut short the speech he was making to go and plan the invasion of France. Had he continued speaking, he would have been blown t

> "Hitler, uncharacteristically, cut short the speech he was making to go and plan the invasion of France. Had he continued speaking, he would have been blown to pieces in November 1939. That would have surely have been a very good thing because, in the period between that event and the June 1944 bomb plot, two-and-a-half million German soldiers died." Ah yes, the group of people who were famously killed en masse because of Hitler between 1939 and 1944... German soldiers.

GordonS 5y ago
I mean, 2.5m dead German soldiers is horrendous of course... but yeah, I have to agree... it's a very odd choice of phrase to make here?!
rospaya 5y ago
Everybody kills Hitler on their first (time) trip. https://archive.briankoberlein.com/2015/11/09/everybody-kills-hitler-on-their-first-trip/index.html https://archive.briankoberlein.com/2015/11/09/everybody-kill...
- k12sosse 5y ago
  And then you're left with and even bigger jerk that rose in the ranks in his absence! MechaHitler
  - pinewurst 5y ago
    see “Making History” by Stephen Fry
    - ttctciyf 5y ago
      but see also: Alfred Bester, The Men Who Murdered Mohammed.
sdoering 5y ago
WTF. I agree with sister comment from GordonS. But also need to say, that the numbers are off. WW II cost significantly less than 6 million German soldiers' lifes. The author states that 7 million German soldiers died. But yeah. Stating the death of German soldiers as the most important outcome from WW II is imho at least problematic. It shows a lack of empathy and historic sensitivity.
- Radim 5y ago
  > Stating the death of German soldiers as the most important outcome from WW II Who stated that? The quote explicitly relates to Elser, whose motive in Hitler's assassination was to save Germany's workers and common people from war. So mentioning the losses of German "cannon fodder" seems appropriate. Common Germans are what Elser cared about (and failed to save). I see no evil motive or lack of empathy on author's part.
- jhgb 5y ago
  > Stating the death of German soldiers as the most important outcome from WW II is imho at least problematic Who is stating that? I don't see it there.
neilv 5y ago
That's a very troubling quote, so I went to the article, hoping it wasn't as bad as it sounded. But it seemed bad in the article, too. The lead-up alludes to what I suspect was the author's intent, in that way of putting it (i.e., saying the effect relative to some goals of the assassin), but that's really not communicated as clearly as it must be. I can understand that a writer might miss this communication failure, when in tunnel vision on some narrow point they were trying to make. But I'd hope a professional editor would've caught it. Perhaps there's an understated standard proofreading markup notation like "WTF?!" with a firmly-pressed circle around it. Then the writer would realize their communication mistake, and feel awful about it, but also relived it was caught before publication. Ideally, that never would've made it to publication without editing. But a small consolation is that at least we readers can learn from the mistake, and be less likely to make that mistake ourselves.

GordonS 5y ago

I mean, 2.5m dead German soldiers is horrendous of course... but yeah, I have to agree... it's a very odd choice of phrase to make here?!

rospaya 5y ago

Everybody kills Hitler on their first (time) trip. https://archive.briankoberlein.com/2015/11/09/everybody-kills-hitler-on-their-first-trip/index.html https://archive.briankoberlein.com/2015/11/09/everybody-kill...

k12sosse 5y ago
And then you're left with and even bigger jerk that rose in the ranks in his absence! MechaHitler
- pinewurst 5y ago
  see “Making History” by Stephen Fry
  - ttctciyf 5y ago
    but see also: Alfred Bester, The Men Who Murdered Mohammed.

sdoering 5y ago

WTF. I agree with sister comment from GordonS. But also need to say, that the numbers are off. WW II cost significantly less than 6 million German soldiers' lifes. The author states that 7 million German soldiers died. But yeah. Stating the death of German soldiers as the most important outcome from WW II is imho at least problematic. It shows a lack of empathy and historic sensitivity.

Radim 5y ago
> Stating the death of German soldiers as the most important outcome from WW II Who stated that? The quote explicitly relates to Elser, whose motive in Hitler's assassination was to save Germany's workers and common people from war. So mentioning the losses of German "cannon fodder" seems appropriate. Common Germans are what Elser cared about (and failed to save). I see no evil motive or lack of empathy on author's part.
jhgb 5y ago
> Stating the death of German soldiers as the most important outcome from WW II is imho at least problematic Who is stating that? I don't see it there.

neilv 5y ago

That's a very troubling quote, so I went to the article, hoping it wasn't as bad as it sounded. But it seemed bad in the article, too. The lead-up alludes to what I suspect was the author's intent, in that way of putting it (i.e., saying the effect relative to some goals of the assassin), but that's really not communicated as clearly as it must be. I can understand that a writer might miss this communication failure, when in tunnel vision on some narrow point they were trying to make. But I'd hope a professional editor would've caught it. Perhaps there's an understated standard proofreading markup notation like "WTF?!" with a firmly-pressed circle around it. Then the writer would realize their communication mistake, and feel awful about it, but also relived it was caught before publication. Ideally, that never would've made it to publication without editing. But a small consolation is that at least we readers can learn from the mistake, and be less likely to make that mistake ourselves.