Not only is this an amazing lesson, but you can also see that Dr. Snyder really cares about teaching and students , feeling the need to explain the background briefly to a student who came in late 20 minutes.
I was halfway through this when the thought occurred to me that here was someone telling a thoughtful, well crafted interpretation of historical events. It seemed educational. By the end of the lecture, it hit me this wasn’t about the past at all; it was a prescient declaration of current and future dangers. ‘Here’s what happened, and it may be upon us once again.’ Not in Ethiopia, not in Somalia, HERE.
Sublime lecture by the wonderful Dr. Snyder. Mutatis mutandis the destruction of the state, suspending the rule of law, and the moral and legal vacuum this creates creat tremendous opportunity for SS mischief equally. With local difference this also applies to the smaller occupied countries in Western Europe like DK, NL and B. Most Jews in DK and B survived but most from the NL were murdered.
I live in France and have met people who hid and saved Jews. Dr Snyder gives short shrift to those who have a moral compass and continue to be guided by it even in catastrophic times. I will forever admire those who put themselves and their families at risk to do the right thing. Such people do exist --and they are not a footnote to history. Diplomats have powers that enable them to be particularly useful and humanitarian--but most of them did not exercise them. Those who acted consciously deserve our respect and honor too.
They definitely do, and this lecture does not dismiss them, it just explains, to put it short, how most of these cases of salvation happened in places like France of Danemark who had they states and institutions preserved, while other places were so crushed that it was too dark for anyone to feel empathy anymore
A talk on the Holocaust and they didn't have bagels.... How dare you... All kidding aside, fantastic lecture. Thank you for this, it fills in a lot of questions I didn't even know I had.
US created the world's first and only human zoo in NY, in the late 19th century. It went all over the world collecting human "samples" esp from Africa and Asia, but mainly from Africa. As you can see they were all coloured people. In the "zoo" they were subjected to verbal and physical harassment and torture. The white population were enthralled and thousands flocked daily to watch the debacle of blacks and browns being subjected to harassment and abuse. Darwins's theory of evolution was used as the justification for this expression of white supremacy. There were books written to praise Darwin for his theories and the existence of these zoos, and these books were read by Hitler, who was so impressed, it became the provocation for his policy of dealing with the Jews. Only a handful of Americans saw the tragedy that was unfolding. They were mainly blacks and christians. Their constant and brave objections in the face of white supremist violence, was a great credit to them. Finally their objections and protests found support and the zoos soon disappeared. But the mindset has not. For the past 70 years, US has killed 25 million innocent people in illegal wars, created millions of refugees and spent huge sums of money to sabotage and usurp democratic governments all over the world. There is more. But this will suffice for the moment. Democractic ideals and traditions in America? Utter BS.
At the end I thought similarly to some former comments. How can one man contain and deliver such an incredible body of information that makes absolute sense. And ... how could I ever pass on even a small outline of his presentation!
16:29 Today there is the problem that people no longer eat according to the time, in the morning, at noon and in the evening. Meat and nice clothes only on Sundays. This wise also prevented no war! Only permanent abundance of everything lets us get out alive!
In some situations the State was preserved but German police were allowed to co-opt the police. Namely, the Netherlands. There were widespread protests regarding German's brutality against Dutch Jews in occupied Netherlands, but they were suppressed and persecution of the Jews continued. Therefore, the Netherlands are a big exception to Snyder's argument that sovereign states protected Jewish citizens. A very high percentage of the Dutch Jews were deported to concentration camps.
Miklosh Horti guarded Jews in Hungary until 1944, when the Germans occupied Hungary. Hitler kidnapped Horti's son and put him in Auschwitz. Despite this, Horti did not deliver the Jews to Hitler
Marco, are you saying that officially the Dutch Government itself did nothing to protect their Jewish citizens? Many Dutch people bravely protected Jews, sheltering them in their homes and forming networks of escape routes. I have been told by a Dutch friend that during WW1, The Netherlands, like Switzerland, remained neutral and so avoided involvement in WW1, They planned to do the same again if war in Europe was threatening. So, unlike Switzerland, their defence force was weak and was unprepared for the German invasion and hence suffered a terrible occupation. Hitler was one of those who follow no rules at all when at war. The trouble with evil is that it is so, SO evil, naive good folks just can't even believe it or take in that evil thing when it is happening right before their eyes. The audacity of evil surpassess all boundaries, and can surprise us all. This is why it must be stopped immediately, and not tolerared. The challenge is having the discernment to recognise its evil nature when it begins, parading as an angel touting 'noble' ideals. "Be innocent as doves, but cunning as serpents" said Jesus Christ. In other words, practise no evil, but at the same time be skilled at recognising and resisting it.
Marco Ribeiro, See my comment below. ( I don't know how to tag posts with names, sorry.) Also, it would be informative to look at the time-frame...was Netherlands one of the first countries to be invaded? They may not have been prepared, whereas Hungary in 1944 had seen the example of what the Nazis were doing and so could take action to protect the Jews. Was that the year of the 'hunger winter' in Netherlands?
@@elsacooper1769 My argument has to do with Snyder's thesis. According to Snyder's thesis, the presence of a strong state in the Netherlands should have provided protection for the Dutch Jews. But it did not. It represents a "black swan" for Snyder's thesis (it only takes one black swan to prove all swans are not white). Yes, lots of people in the Netherlands provided shelter for Jews and resisted the Nazis, and there were the widespread protests against anti-Semitic Nazi policies, which I mentioned. The protests were suppressed.and the policies continued. Those facts are important, of course, but aren't germane to the issue that I'm raising.
@@elsacooper1769 Surviving Jewish of the Holocaust do not want to hear anything about their rabbis. About the cursed rabbis and their insulting writing and slurs about Jesus Christ.
@ Walter Bazella . It may have been deactivated. I have been attempting now, to no avail. I have seen this occur in other contexts - purposefully or not...
One of the most concise, clear, comprehensive, and enlightening lectures on the causes of the Holocaust. Much of Dr. Synder's presentation is interweaving many overlooked events, ideologies, policies, and cultural factors in the early 20th century. The messages he presents are especially relevant today.
@@mikequinlivan8842 If you want elaboration, look for disregard for the rule of law; look for a demonizing/dehumanization of ethnic, political, or religious groups; look for economic policies that tend toward subjugation rather than the elevation of living standards; look for hate speech propagated in the form of blaming; look for the things Mr Snyder outlined so articulately in this lecture.
It is this kind of thinking that really lays behind Adolf Hitler's philosophy of evolution and life on Earth combined with the reality of Andrew Berwick, the Norwegian far-right domestic terrorist known primarily for the Norway attacks of 22 July 2011, who killed 69 participants of a Workers' Youth League summer camp, in a mass shooting on the island of Utøya. that brought me to the notion of "ethical insanity". I know this concept is not accepted by the psychoanalytical or historical academic communities, after all how do you locate ethical insanity in either the brain or derangment? But ethical insanity exists. And we dare not say the word SATAN, do we?
The Germans took over Hungary in early 1944 because they feared it would negotiate a separate peace with the Soviets (which they did); the Holocaust there happened in the months after the takeover.
El cónsul de España en Budapest salvó a miles de judíos, me extraña que el profesor no lo mencione. Se llamaba Ángel Sanz Briz y está reconocido com Justo entre las Naciones por Israel.
Karl Marx and Thomas Malthus also theorised about scarcity of resources. It's was quite a theme in economics - possibly it it still is. It is also common knowledge that the surface of the earth is finite. Some of the more outlandish versions of this attributed to Hitler come from a book by Hermann Rauschning that has since been discredited, as the private conversations it contains never took place.
This is an extremely good lecture. Everyone should watch it - for its insight and its warning. It's an object lesson on the catastrophic consequences of the toxic concepts promulgated by Hitler and the Nazis. The working out of deranged world views and their horrible results. We are seeing the same thing happening right now with deranged Russian concepts regarding Ukraine.
The difference between the Baltic states and Poland is that the very idea of 'Poland' of a Polish ethnicity or nationality was to disappear. The Baltics are incorporated into the USSR, but Stalin and the Russians didn't deny that Latvians or Estonians existed as such. They just claimed that the Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanians were willing "fraternal communists' and want to join the world proletarian revolution. The Poles were slated to simply vanish as a concept from history.
We’re trying, but conservative hysteria. They don’t get they’re playing the part of the Nazis in this instance. Facts feel a lot like attacks when you’re wrong.
@@picometer472 Here is one fact that Professor Snyder stated: The Germans were most effective in their goal to murder all the Jews of Europe when the state had collapsed, as in Poland, and in the parts of German-occupied Soviet Union.
One question, when he says the Polish police in 1938 were busy stopping pogroms, begs the question of why there were pogroms in 1938....? were there pogroms in Hungary in 1938?
I think the remark about Polish police stopping pogroms was taken a bit too literally. I think he meant that when there was a Polish state law and order there was much less incentive to execute a pogrom. After the Polish state crumbled ordinary poles knew that if you didn't take loot from jews' old homes, someone else will.
There have been pogroms for thousands of years. But there was a famous one in the polish area around 1918 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lw%C3%B3w_pogrom_(1918)
@@AaronHeld several hundred for sure, except for a couple of riots in the first century. Historically it was more of a Nineteenth and Twentieth century phenomenon.
The radical politics of Nazi Germany did have some amount of influence over the right wing politics occuring in other nations (think Britain's brown shirts) and so there were polish citizens who engaged in group antisemitic violence (pogrom). As Dr. Snyder points out, it is illegal to murder your neighbor. So the police, unlike the German police, worked actively to prevent this violence from affecting polish jews. Not because they had big hearts, but because lawlessness and wanton murder of normal people in your country is really really bad for everyone.
My mother told how when she went to school the day after the Kristallnacht, two of her classmates were gone, never to be seen again. Of course she was a convinced Nazi. She thought it was a necessary - and hence good - thing.
another question, if hungary switched its jewish policy in 43 when its clear the German are going to lose, then why does she deport them to auschwitz in 44, or is it just that the hungarian police assist the germans in the deportation? have heard awful stories about the hungarian police at that point.
When the Nazis came to power, the Hungarians built an alliance with Nazi Germany. Following Germany’s occupation of Austria and then Czechoslovakia, Hungary regained territorial gains which they had lost after the First World War. This combined with a rise in sympathy for fascism and Nazi ideas in Hungary, encouraged the country to join the Axis Alliance in November 1940. In line with the Nazis policies towards Jews, in 1941 the Hungarian government deported approximately 20,000 non-Hungarian Jews to Ukraine, where they were murdered by the Einsatzgruppen . However, until 1944, the Hungarian government refused to deport Hungarian Jews, despite the range of brutal antisemitic laws they enacted. When it became clear that the Nazis would not emerge from the war victorious, the Hungarian government attempted to pull out of the alliance with Germany, and sought an armistice with the Allies. In response, in March 1944, Germany invaded and occupied Hungary. The Nazis set up a new government loyal to Germany. Occupation Miklós Horthy did not resign under the German occupation of Hungary, but instead helped to appoint a new government who were more submissive to the Nazis demands. Adolf Eichmann was deployed to Hungary on the 19 March 1944 to carry out the extermination of its Jewish population. Eichmann aimed to deport more than 800,000 people to the camps in the east. Despite the likelihood of defeat in the war by this stage, genocide was still a priority for the Nazis. Arriving with just a few German staff, Eichmann was reliant on the collaboration of the Hungarian authorities to achieve this aim. The Hungarian authorities cooperated enthusiastically with Eichmann’s plans. In little over two months, over 200 camps and ghettos were created and filled with the Jewish population. 437,402 Hungarian Jews were deported in 56 days between May and July 1944, primarily to Auschwitz, where almost all of them were murdered. Although the Hungarian authorities did not actively deport Hungarian Jews until the occupation of Hungary in 1944, harsh antisemitic policies were in place. Between 1920 and 1944, over 300 antisemitic laws were passed. From 1938, the persecution of Jews increased as Hungary strengthened its ties with Nazi Germany. The law known as the First Jewish Law was passed on 29 May 1938. This law limited the number of Jews in many professions and companies to a maximum of 20%. In 1939, a law forced all Jewish men of military age to join the Hungarian Labour Service . On 5 May 1939, the Second Jewish Law passed. This law defined Jews as a race rather than a religion: any person with two or more grandparents was regarded as a Jew. The law also banned Jews from working for the government and further restricted their employment in other areas. On 8 August 1941, the Hungarian government passed the Third Jewish Law. This law prohibited marriages between Jews and non-Jews. Following the Nazi occupation in 1944, the persecution of the Jews turned actively murderous. Almost immediately, Jews had to wear a Star of David on their clothes and their movement was restricted. Telephones and radios were confiscated, and Jewish property and businesses were seized. During April, the Jews of Hungary were forced into ghettos, where they were soon deported to extermination camps in the east. Hungary was liberated by the Soviet army during April 1945. By this time, approximately 568,000 Hungarian Jews had perished during the Holocaust.
Hitler's worldview could be summed up in one simple sentence, "World power or ruination." This one sentence encapsulates his whole concept of struggle.
I think Prof. Snyder discounts the possibility that Hitler didn't necessarily believe everything he said himself (for example dismissing the U.S. in speeches as a weak racially-mixed nation while saying the opposite in private). In this case the idea that the Soviets were weak was not just an abstract proposition but had concrete supports insofar as they performed poorly against the Finns, Stalin had decimated his own military leadership during the purges, and the extent of Soviet industrialization had been hidden from the West (the British thought the Germans would defeat Stalin even faster than the Germans did, but didn't have an overdeveloped idea of Soviet "Judeo-Bolshevism). Also he is arguing that Hitler's war against other nations was in fact secondary to his war against Judaism, however Hitler was a pan-German nationalist (which would lend itself to jingoism) as seen in his volunteering for the German rather than Austro-Hungarian army in 1914 before he was an anti-Semite (which only developed after 1918).
Steven Kotkin who regularly attends Bilderberg meetings and works at the Hoover Institute, has plenty of video lectures series on Stalin and how bad Stalin was.
I think you're giving Hitler far too much credit. His mentality grew out of that 19th century morass of pseudointellectual folderol which gave rise to all manner of baseless dogma, ranging from pseudoscience to all manner of quasi-religious cults. There was a pervasive hatred and suspicion in those days of things bourgeois: your average WWI German soldier was an illiterate farm boy, many of whom equated Jews with the bourgeoisie. Hitler's views smacked of small-town ignorance and belligerance, and were more beer-parlour drunken ranting than educated discourse. As his secretary later said of him, he had the mentalty of a baker.
At the same time much of this "folderol" (eugenics, neo-Malthusianism, social Darwinism, phrenology, etc.) was considered intellectually respectable at the time.
The Nuremberg trials were ex post facto in general, but the parties in charge agreed that the crimes had been so horrific that legal-philosophical considerations like that should be ignored.
I would love to hear Snyder’s analysis of Netanyahu’s government’s attempts to destroy Israeli institutions, using primarily Mizrahi Jews as helpers (rather than Ashkenazi). Also, what does he think of the pogrom the Jewish settlers perpetrated in the Palestinian town of Hawara, burning houses and attacking the Palestinian villagers and clubbing their dogs to death in front of the children?
@@lowell418 it’s a valid question. I think for Dr. Snyder to answer, it would need to be broader. As a dumb midwesterner who is not Jewish, I think that Netanyahu is playing with fire by engaging with Meir Kahane adherents. From a broader political aspect, I am not qualified to say. 🤷♂️
Autarky refers to a nation that operates in a state of self-reliance. Nations that follow a policy of autarky are characterized by self-sufficiency and limited trade with global partners
The Idea of "The Superman" the "Heroic rebel" or even "The World's greatest Sinner" The outsider or sees the world as being too small to contain him the 'Romantic' figure surrounded by "Superfluous men" and "Lesser Men", The rule breaker among conformists and buttoned down sterile bureaucrats. These ideas go way back, Romantic literature is chock-full of such characters. Especially late 18th to 19th century German writers, poets, playwrights and it influences philosophy, especially Laconophiles who believe that the Poets are the highest of all as a form of expression as those who would move people and influence people and tell the right myths and stories through the mechanisms of Symbolism, Allegory, Metaphor, Parables and Fables which are seen as the best way of communicating age-old wisdom that can not be caged or properly expressed through any rational way of communicating. It's ingenious as a form of culture and entertainment, but as soon as it starts to seep into a Nation's imagination to such an extent, and it only seems to appeal, this way, to fanatics that are hateful and full of feelings of their own inadequacies, and that's when it begins to influence Political, Social and even economic thought.
In style of your lines there are atrocities did by Hungarian police in occupied Vojvodina region in 1942 and they didn't such atrocities in Hungary .Or Romanians in Ukraine and they didn't in Romania .
31:54 although very few Jews lived in Germany the connection was far from ‘loose’; the Jews were massively over represented in key positions such as media ownership
I can tell the answer. The Germans did it in thier own patch of non state in what was Poland because it would have been much more difficult to warp the existing German State institutions in to a form where it could be legal. In the stateless zones in the east, there were no laws to break, no laws to make. Poland became one huge concentration camp.
He says that most German Jews (from among the ones who did not leave Germany prior to 1939?) survived. Is that true? What does the 97% figure refer to? Relative to the 6 million? If so, that is not that significant considering there were relatively few Jews in Germany in 1939 (about half had already left).
German Jews who had served in the WW1 German army were spared, but lived a marginalized existence. Blacks who had served in the Kaiser's colonial army were also spared, but they also faced daily racism. Hungarian Jews who had served in the WW1 Austrian imperial army were also spared from the Holocaust.
Hitler considered lebensraum as standard of living as well as conquest. This is why he would not allow Gobbels or Speer to put the German economy on a total war footing until 1943. Hitler was just a 100 or so years late. America was his model because we succeeded, and we could do it because the world view of the "West" at that time was all about the '"white man's burden" to bring civilization to the primitives at gun point! Unfortunately for Hitler, world opinion had changed just enough to consider things like the "trail of tears" and forced expulsion/extermination to be wrong.
This man has layman’s level of knowledge of history, even lower when it comes to WWII. Typical shallow western view of what Third Reich was from 1937-1946 and the role of European Union North America in a war against USSR and Jewish people. Charlemagne French SS division was last ones defending Berlin after Hitler was dead.
Part 1: Mr Snyder here is proposing a very heterodox view of the N**I’s. So we might say the traditional image, I guess constructed during the Cold War view the N**I system as a totalitarianism an extreme legal and instituional project to make the State penetrating every aspect of people’s lives and their spaces their academies, media, schools, communities, work, recreation, and homes and even minds. In this way it could be placed into the same general category of hegemony and totalitarianism with Soviet Communism after the War. To support his view Snyder takes the example of the Camp in German law as a space or place of absence from the law, a kind of “black hole” “within” the law. In his interpretation then the N**I’s rather than wanting to create a totalising centralised State and ubiquitous law, were actually engaged in the opposite project to remove the State by destroying the law. So Mr Snyder proposes they were really engaged in a project to make the camp ubiquitous as the entire territory becomes a place of absence from the State and the law. He sees them then engaged in a project of to bring about Anarchy. That is the Anarchy that sees law, natural law, natural legal right, as in opposition to nature as laws of survival of the fittest. I imagine this would then have to effect of now placing the N**I program into the same category as Neo liberal Capitalism like Nozik’s Anarchism and minimal State. I’m not sure whether this is correct I have not ready Mein Kamp, but the “survival of the fittest” view of nature is not the only one the N**I’s had. They also had aspects of traditionalism, a return to a Folk life in harmony with nature. A somewhat German Idealist Romantic vision of the synthesis of reason and nature in say Hegel as now interpreted as an Aristotelian rather than as a disenchanted bautocratic rationalism. Certainly Heidegger had something like this view. It would also then place the N**I’s as wanting to get the State out of the way of our lives, not for free market capitalism but a kind of communitarianism and so now consistent with may be Spinoza naturalism pantheism imminence and even materialism. In this sense the project with the State is to erase the Sovereign by cutting it/them off from possible knowledge and action and so, power. The Sovereign becomes radically outside the world of nature and so really comes to cease to exist by degree. That is by making the law chaotic it ceases to have its normative effect. Where the people are not in accord with the law, then really there is no law or only law in name not in external meaning and realty an ideal not real law. Wittgenstein said rule and habit (cusom) are cousins. Davidson we cannot climb out of our own skin. Me: we cannot climb outside our own skeleton. According to Mr Snyder then, the N**I had material reason for the capture of foreign territory i.e. food, but also these States in the East were modelled on being as legal order, and so they were seen as “other” because they had legal systems and were primarily States. The conquests of them involved not so much taking them over under a German State but rather just getting rid of their laws and the State and making them anomic territories like a German Camp. I imagine the German State only exists as a means to get rid of other States and law and then to allow it to wither away after. Like Wittgenstein’s ladder to climb up and a tool to throw away later.
Part 2: Mr Snyder’s discussion of the Camp a “black hole” in the law has some affinity to Giorgio Agamben in “Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life” (1998). Particulary chapter 7 “The Camp as the Nomos of the Modern”. Here Agamben also is heterodox to common understandings as he shows that the N***I Dictatorship, contrary to common belief, was not a product of the declaration of the “State of Emergency”. That had happened during the Weimar Republic under Prussian Law 1871 (I guess Bismarck’s unification. And visited many times by US President U. S. Grant beginning), “Schutzhaft” and employed through Article 48 of the construction in 1919, and ended in 1923. According to Agamben the N**I’s did not declare a state of emergency and the suspension of Rights as such rather it was done as limiting freedoms for protection (Care?). From this Agamben claims then the Camp is the State of Exception (in terms from Carl Schmitt) not the whole territory. That putting this though Snyder’s view that would mean I think, that the state of exception did not have to meet the Schmittian paradox of an Authority/Sovereignty doing a speech act that suspends the very laws that legitimise and grant that sovereignty/authority. My way of putting it from J.L. Austin is it would appear as infelicitous speech act a performative self-contradiction. The other way of putting it with the theology is as a distinction between law as convention and meta law (Right) as reflective of convention or common law. The latter view of constitutional change paradox was taken up by by Peter Suber in terms of Russell’s set theory paradox. It is interesting to note that this later approach to the problem was taken up by Austrian German and Polish philosophers of science and logic from the early 1920’s the Vienna Circle, Logical Positivists. Indeed it was legal positivism that Schmitt was attacking here that is “presupposes” a normal order and cannot establish it. Schmitt in “The Concept of the Political” addresses these problems though a survey of various terms of dialectics of the State. Not only are positive liberal law and Right not the ground or even the opposed concept of the state, but also belonging or custom are not grounds or even the opposed concept to the State. Famously he argues away from these sorts of dialectics and argues that the question and concept of the Political is before the State and this makes the friend/enemy political distinction in a territory prior to the State to law right norms morality habit and custom. Thus in a way “dissolves” the many different dialectics of his contemporary political philosophy era and notoriously makes the political conflict prior and I imagine ubiquitous. I have not read his books on Hobbes but Schmitt reminds me that Hobbes saw the Civil War and Thirty Years War as internecine internal and external struggle wherein, foreign and domestic become dislocated and intertwined, and political struggle determine all institutional projects and processes. This manifests as a conflict between different institutions of the State that increasingly are used and viewed as organs of political purpose not a higher law of judgement outside and independent of the political.
Part 3: :This then as seen as process in itself, rather than tactics to establish a totalising law and state would possibly coherence with Mr Snyder’s view of the N**I project to destroy the law to allow for create the absence space for the creation of an Anarchy territory where concepts of friend/enemy is the political version of concepts for the naturalism of survival of the fittest. This reading also sets the N**I project as anti nomic anarchic and anti State as opposed to Revolutionary communism that seek a ubiquitous totalised State. It is clear Schmitt is thinking and contrasting and opposing Marxism and Revolutionary Soviet Communism here.
Part 4: One thing here is that when we think of the relation between law and nature, we take it that the source of the law is derivable from facts of nature as science that is retroactivity justified though reflection and revision, and that the application of the law its content is given in a an appeal outside of the law to nature as described by the latest sciences. We expect to evaluate laws on the basis of things like harm and projected risk of harm for its content. Even if the laws are stable the interpretive content belongs to science is thus ever changing in meaning. The laws can stay the same but as the science changes or as they say progresses and increases the meaning of and scope of the law changes and increases. A law of risk and harm now may well be the same as it was 50 years ago but the science of harm as risk as expanding will means what was deemed safe and within he law back then would now be deemed as against the law. Thus as the law is not anachronistically applied backwards it seems legitimate to use an expanded and more fine tuned and “detailed” understanding of harm to that law. This means what we consider the “Space of Law” and the “space of nature” are not really heterogenic disjunctive unrelated spaces. The project of expanding the sciences as more infinitely and fine detailed smaller harms and risks, as well as cultural changes in the notions of what quality constitutes harm, has the effect of retro active law appearing legitimate and has the effects that people no longer know what the law demands or will come to retroactively demand in the future. It is both chaotic and ubiquitous over what possible spaces of action it might deem to come to be a risk of including in its scope. On the other view though it is not anomic, but rather that in not functioning to control it has the effect of control though fear of the unknown, unknown meaning of the law. In the end it loses it recognition as legitimate, but the risk is not in part but then as a whole.
Part 5: It is understood now by some, as mearly a political tool used by opposing parties for tactical and strategic advantage. When we place this along with the ever expansion “progress” of science we can see that science is increasingly taking over the law, both in terms of expanding its content and as a explanation of the function of the law as say self interest. That is the law its self is viewed as captured within a scientific conception of humans as behavioural and social science as self interest and bias describes them (e.g. Posner). Now this means that the normative question of legal legitimacy has come to be taken over entirely in both form and content by science. One could say then on Mr Snyder’s understanding of N**Iism as anarchy and the Hobbesian view of man that this is just he project the liberal and social justice west is on. What appears as the increasing state and law is actuality the subsumption of the state and law under expansive scientific institutions, and anonymous scientists. Science and scientist effectively change the law without having the trouble of it going through a legislator. Rather it geos though an academy and used to make reports and policy no one understands or reads. If the space of the law and the human being become entirely captured within the space of science is this really equivalent to unelected dictatorship of scientists and the manifest image of the human becomes only the scientific image and this is before the law. In this the model of society to come is not the prison camp state, but the laboratory and hospital state. It seems at one a scientifically ordered state but also anarchic in that it is contingent entirely on the ever changing expanding constructions of science which is itself deemed to be outside of its own descriptions and representations. The scientists are meant to disappear from the work they do, become anonymous and exculpated from responsibility. They are pictured as oddy transcendent and immune to the social and psychological descriptions explanations and reductions they propose to capture the whole of nature within. They and their laboratories are a kind of black hole in the laws and science they represent, the world in. When we as the last Social scientists or discourse pragmatist linguists look at there own discourse in accord with their Criteria, and if this is a tautology since the criteria are devised with regard to their alone norms then is this no legitimate dominion over us no right of standard. It is exceptional since they are outside of the scientific reduction and absolutely supernaturally immune.
Part 6: The sciences as an ever changing and expanding to the infinitely small and large system of nature could be seen in its take over of law and politics and policy as a system moving to anarchy for traditional concepts: Peoples are behavioural caused responses not causal agents and so have only legitimacy of speech under the rules of science and anomic probibilty projections through Baysain risk and protection and so on, otherwise they are illegitimate to be causally explained away to be anonymous twitching of de personalised un recognised bare bodies bare life. Not taken seriously as person in themselves with dignity autonomy and agency. casual agents subsumed under scientific representation.
I wonder if there are any other examples of a people rendered stateless after being inhabitants of a land for generations, finding themselves now dispossessed of their lands and houses, without any authority to appeal to, effective non-persons, and those lands and houses being allowed to be possessed by others who then adopt attitudes of extreme bias against the dispossessed group to provide moral cover for their profoundly immoral acts, and who then under no circumstances want those driven away to return? I'm racking my brain, but I can't come up with anything. It would be even more interesting if the lands they had been dispossessed of had already once had the state destroyed by an occupying power, which then found itself under attack in order for the new occupiers to further destroy any recognition of the legitimacy of appeals to some kind of right to return.
The Tartars and Mongols and Armenians. Dozens of African nations divided to reign by the British and now increasingly controles not byt European imperial wannabes but by a warlike Muslim elite who wins election.
This guy is such a fanatical consumerist! Always ritualistically grabbing his cold coffee, and never drinking it...but the point is just to have a coffee cup in your hand.! Power flexing by the urban coffee classes...
Not only is this an amazing lesson, but you can also see that Dr. Snyder really cares about teaching and students , feeling the need to explain the background briefly to a student who came in late 20 minutes.
I was halfway through this when the thought occurred to me that here was someone telling a thoughtful, well crafted interpretation of historical events. It seemed educational. By the end of the lecture, it hit me this wasn’t about the past at all; it was a prescient declaration of current and future dangers. ‘Here’s what happened, and it may be upon us once again.’ Not in Ethiopia, not in Somalia, HERE.
Sublime lecture by the wonderful Dr. Snyder. Mutatis mutandis the destruction of the state, suspending the rule of law, and the moral and legal vacuum this creates creat tremendous opportunity for SS mischief equally. With local difference this also applies to the smaller occupied countries in Western Europe like DK, NL and B. Most Jews in DK and B survived but most from the NL were murdered.
This is what historians can do for humanity
Your DEFINITLY NOT A NATO bot. And Fuck those whiners in East Palestine and Hawaii - Americans NEED TO GIVE ALL THEIR RESOURCES TO RAYTHEON.
I live in France and have met people who hid and saved Jews. Dr Snyder gives short shrift to those who have a moral compass and continue to be guided by it even in catastrophic times. I will forever admire those who put themselves and their families at risk to do the right thing. Such people do exist --and they are not a footnote to history. Diplomats have powers that enable them to be particularly useful and humanitarian--but most of them did not exercise them. Those who acted consciously deserve our respect and honor too.
They definitely do, and this lecture does not dismiss them, it just explains, to put it short, how most of these cases of salvation happened in places like France of Danemark who had they states and institutions preserved, while other places were so crushed that it was too dark for anyone to feel empathy anymore
Humanity simply has a dark side especially during bleak economic times.
IMO it takes courage to parse the progression of Holocaust, while remaining somewhat dispassionate. Thanks for all your research.
Extremely sharp and to the point analysis, thank you Ptof. Snyder!
Can't believe I came all this way to youtube and streamed this video and they couldn't even give me a continental breakfast...
It's a two way street. Maybe you were being incontinent? ;-) just kidding I don't get it...
A talk on the Holocaust and they didn't have bagels....
How dare you...
All kidding aside, fantastic lecture. Thank you for this, it fills in a lot of questions I didn't even know I had.
A year later and it’s still fantastic. The correct response to no bagels is...Oy Vey!
Amazing content for further thought about the beauty and value of living under the rule of law with democratic ideals and traditions.
US created the world's first and only human zoo in NY, in the late 19th century. It went all over the world collecting human "samples" esp from Africa and Asia, but mainly from Africa. As you can see they were all coloured people. In the "zoo" they were subjected to verbal and physical harassment and torture. The white population were enthralled and thousands flocked daily to watch the debacle of blacks and browns being subjected to harassment and abuse. Darwins's theory of evolution was used as the justification for this expression of white supremacy. There were books written to praise Darwin for his theories and the existence of these zoos, and these books were read by Hitler, who was so impressed, it became the provocation for his policy of dealing with the Jews. Only a handful of Americans saw the tragedy that was unfolding. They were mainly blacks and christians. Their constant and brave objections in the face of white supremist violence, was a great credit to them. Finally their objections and protests found support and the zoos soon disappeared. But the mindset has not. For the past 70 years, US has killed 25 million innocent people in illegal wars, created millions of refugees and spent huge sums of money to sabotage and usurp democratic governments all over the world. There is more. But this will suffice for the moment. Democractic ideals and traditions in America? Utter BS.
yes. it's a shame that so many that work in gov't in the US think that the law of the land, the US Constitution, does not apply to them.
Best lecture on the Holocaust I have ever heard. Thank you
Please consider looking at how the Armenian Holocaust was a blueprint for the Jewish Holocaust 23 years later.
At the end I thought similarly to some former comments. How can one man contain and deliver such an incredible body of information that makes absolute sense. And ... how could I ever pass on even a small outline of his presentation!
Perhaps one of the best presentations on the Holocaust as far as why and how it happened that I have seen.
Man I’m so happy I took the time to listen to this. It really makes sense out of it even though it was a horror
When it starts making sense, you have been indoctrinated.
Doc Snyder is my initial go-to source for suggestions of secondary further reading/study. He's excellent. Thanks, Doc Snyder!❤❤❤❤❤
I don't think I've ever seen a lecturer with a more encyclopedic grasp of his material than Dr. Snyder. Most ideas per minute all-time.
Chomsky?
@@simonwatson9730 , okay, Chomsky absolutely.
Kotkin is way more unbiased and accurate
@@DrWhirlyGirl , Kotkin is great, no doubt.
I guess we' ve been waiting a long time for this great history lesson!
Incentives, incentives! Good man, good talk.
What, no bagels?!
Absolutely superb. A high-powered lens bringing many details into sharp focus.
Thought provoking as always.
Incredible lecture!
16:29
Today there is the problem that people no longer eat according to the time, in the morning, at noon and in the evening. Meat and nice clothes only on Sundays. This wise also prevented no war! Only permanent abundance of everything lets us get out alive!
what an amazing summary.....and insights...
1st time in human history that countries don't worry about feeding their people.
Dr. Snyder ❤ thank you!
Great lesson! ❤
Thank you Prof. Snyder.
This is a great lecture.
My family escaped nazi Germany to Israel.
Technology...not just who has the best tanks in the 20th century, but who has the best A.I. in the 21st century...
Or who has the best disease-resistant seeds (thanks Monsanto?)
In some situations the State was preserved but German police were allowed to co-opt the police. Namely, the Netherlands. There were widespread protests regarding German's brutality against Dutch Jews in occupied Netherlands, but they were suppressed and persecution of the Jews continued. Therefore, the Netherlands are a big exception to Snyder's argument that sovereign states protected Jewish citizens. A very high percentage of the Dutch Jews were deported to concentration camps.
Miklosh Horti guarded Jews in Hungary until 1944, when the Germans occupied Hungary. Hitler kidnapped Horti's son and put him in Auschwitz. Despite this, Horti did not deliver the Jews to Hitler
Marco, are you saying that officially the Dutch Government itself did nothing to protect their Jewish citizens? Many Dutch people bravely protected Jews, sheltering them in their homes and forming networks of escape routes.
I have been told by a Dutch friend that during WW1, The Netherlands, like Switzerland, remained neutral and so avoided involvement in WW1, They planned to do the same again if war in Europe was threatening. So, unlike Switzerland, their defence force was weak and was unprepared for the German invasion and hence suffered a terrible occupation. Hitler was one of those who follow no rules at all when at war.
The trouble with evil is that it is so, SO evil, naive good folks just can't even believe it or take in that evil thing when it is happening right before their eyes. The audacity of evil surpassess all boundaries, and can surprise us all. This is why it must be stopped immediately, and not tolerared. The challenge is having the discernment to recognise its evil nature when it begins, parading as an angel touting 'noble' ideals.
"Be innocent as doves, but cunning as serpents" said Jesus Christ. In other words, practise no evil, but at the same time be skilled at recognising and resisting it.
Marco Ribeiro, See my comment below. ( I don't know how to tag posts with names, sorry.) Also, it would be informative to look at the time-frame...was Netherlands one of the first countries to be invaded? They may not have been prepared, whereas Hungary in 1944 had seen the example of what the Nazis were doing and so could take action to protect the Jews. Was that the year of the 'hunger winter' in Netherlands?
@@elsacooper1769 My argument has to do with Snyder's thesis. According to Snyder's thesis, the presence of a strong state in the Netherlands should have provided protection for the Dutch Jews. But it did not. It represents a "black swan" for Snyder's thesis (it only takes one black swan to prove all swans are not white). Yes, lots of people in the Netherlands provided shelter for Jews and resisted the Nazis, and there were the widespread protests against anti-Semitic Nazi policies, which I mentioned. The protests were suppressed.and the policies continued. Those facts are important, of course, but aren't germane to the issue that I'm raising.
@@elsacooper1769 Surviving Jewish of the Holocaust do not want to hear anything about their rabbis. About the cursed rabbis and their insulting writing and slurs about Jesus Christ.
Hard to believe this only has 50 ups.
It's only been up for a month, and academic lectures are not the thing that draws the most views, with Taylor Swift, Kim Kardashian and all... :)
537 when I watched it (4/23). It's short clips that get the most views & upvotes.
@ Walter Bazella . It may have been deactivated. I have been attempting now, to no avail. I have seen this occur in other contexts - purposefully or not...
Never underestimate the brain of the hoi-polloi.
Very educative lecture.
One of the most concise, clear, comprehensive, and enlightening lectures on the causes of the Holocaust. Much of Dr. Synder's presentation is interweaving many overlooked events, ideologies, policies, and cultural factors in the early 20th century. The messages he presents are especially relevant today.
I see the same evil in the U.S. right now, 2023.
How do? Not disputing. Just would like further elaboration
@@mikequinlivan8842 If you want elaboration, look for disregard for the rule of law; look for a demonizing/dehumanization of ethnic, political, or religious groups; look for economic policies that tend toward subjugation rather than the elevation of living standards; look for hate speech propagated in the form of blaming; look for the things Mr Snyder outlined so articulately in this lecture.
@@mikequinlivan8842 Jan 6 kids in solitary... XBI raiding American homes in the night. Whites shot and killed and no one cares.
@@gaminawulfsdottir3253 well well
Well stated!
@@gaminawulfsdottir3253 true
This is what lectures ought to be.
It is this kind of thinking that really lays behind Adolf Hitler's philosophy of evolution and life on Earth combined with the reality of Andrew Berwick, the Norwegian far-right domestic terrorist known primarily for the Norway attacks of 22 July 2011, who killed 69 participants of a Workers' Youth League summer camp, in a mass shooting on the island of Utøya. that brought me to the notion of "ethical insanity". I know this concept is not accepted by the psychoanalytical or historical academic communities, after all how do you locate ethical insanity in either the brain or derangment? But ethical insanity exists. And we dare not say the word SATAN, do we?
Hungary is the exception. The Hungarian State was never destroyed yet Eichmann got it done in 44'
The Germans took over Hungary in early 1944 because they feared it would negotiate a separate peace with the Soviets (which they did); the Holocaust there happened in the months after the takeover.
El cónsul de España en Budapest salvó a miles de judíos, me extraña que el profesor no lo mencione. Se llamaba Ángel Sanz Briz y está reconocido com Justo entre las Naciones por Israel.
There are thousends of people who helped Jews, many of them risked their lives. Should Snider mention them all?
Because he didn't have time to mention everybody/everything.
He's a great speaker. But does he ever take a sip of that coffee that he keeps picking up and putting down? 🙂
Karl Marx and Thomas Malthus also theorised about scarcity of resources. It's was quite a theme in economics - possibly it it still is. It is also common knowledge that the surface of the earth is finite. Some of the more outlandish versions of this attributed to Hitler come from a book by Hermann Rauschning that has since been discredited, as the private conversations it contains never took place.
Interesting how this relates to my own background... if it hadn't been for the pogroms my relatives never would have left Latvia, Lithuania and Poland
This is an extremely good lecture. Everyone should watch it - for its insight and its warning. It's an object lesson on the catastrophic consequences of the toxic concepts promulgated by Hitler and the Nazis. The working out of deranged world views and their horrible results. We are seeing the same thing happening right now with deranged Russian concepts regarding Ukraine.
The difference between the Baltic states and Poland is that the very idea of 'Poland' of a Polish ethnicity or nationality was to disappear. The Baltics are incorporated into the USSR, but Stalin and the Russians didn't deny that Latvians or Estonians existed as such. They just claimed that the Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanians were willing "fraternal communists' and want to join the world proletarian revolution. The Poles were slated to simply vanish as a concept from history.
Brilliant and interesting analysis. Thank you. The global warming thing surprised me in the middle.
Terrific.
absolutely objective teaching. not a shade of judgement. Why can't our national dialog be at this level?
"Just the facts, Ma'm"
--- Jack Webb
We’re trying, but conservative hysteria. They don’t get they’re playing the part of the Nazis in this instance.
Facts feel a lot like attacks when you’re wrong.
@@christopherviscuso1882 What comes before Truth is anger.
Seriously?
@@christopherviscuso1882 Name one fact he stated.
@@picometer472 Here is one fact that Professor Snyder stated: The Germans were most effective in their goal to murder all the Jews of Europe when the state had collapsed, as in Poland, and in the parts of German-occupied Soviet Union.
One question, when he says the Polish police in 1938 were busy stopping pogroms, begs the question of why there were pogroms in 1938....? were there pogroms in Hungary in 1938?
I think the remark about Polish police stopping pogroms was taken a bit too literally. I think he meant that when there was a Polish state law and order there was much less incentive to execute a pogrom. After the Polish state crumbled ordinary poles knew that if you didn't take loot from jews' old homes, someone else will.
There have been pogroms for thousands of years. But there was a famous one in the polish area around 1918 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lw%C3%B3w_pogrom_(1918)
@@AaronHeld several hundred for sure, except for a couple of riots in the first century. Historically it was more of a Nineteenth and Twentieth century phenomenon.
The radical politics of Nazi Germany did have some amount of influence over the right wing politics occuring in other nations (think Britain's brown shirts) and so there were polish citizens who engaged in group antisemitic violence (pogrom). As Dr. Snyder points out, it is illegal to murder your neighbor. So the police, unlike the German police, worked actively to prevent this violence from affecting polish jews. Not because they had big hearts, but because lawlessness and wanton murder of normal people in your country is really really bad for everyone.
Snyder’s narcotic behavior with that cup is very strange ‘🥛
And your concentration on his "cup behavior" is even stranger!!
I also can't stop seeing the cup, does he ever actually have a drink?
Does he EVER take a sip of the coffee??
My mother told how when she went to school the day after the Kristallnacht, two of her classmates were gone, never to be seen again. Of course she was a convinced Nazi. She thought it was a necessary - and hence good - thing.
Ma'am, did she say why she was convinced that this was a good thing?
@@catherineskis The same reason you believe the things you believe.
wow. thanks
another question, if hungary switched its jewish policy in 43 when its clear the German are going to lose, then why does she deport them to auschwitz in 44, or is it just that the hungarian police assist the germans in the deportation? have heard awful stories about the hungarian police at that point.
When the Nazis came to power, the Hungarians built an alliance with Nazi Germany. Following Germany’s occupation of Austria and then Czechoslovakia, Hungary regained territorial gains which they had lost after the First World War. This combined with a rise in sympathy for fascism and Nazi ideas in Hungary, encouraged the country to join the Axis Alliance in November 1940.
In line with the Nazis policies towards Jews, in 1941 the Hungarian government deported approximately 20,000 non-Hungarian Jews to Ukraine, where they were murdered by the Einsatzgruppen .
However, until 1944, the Hungarian government refused to deport Hungarian Jews, despite the range of brutal antisemitic laws they enacted.
When it became clear that the Nazis would not emerge from the war victorious, the Hungarian government attempted to pull out of the alliance with Germany, and sought an armistice with the Allies.
In response, in March 1944, Germany invaded and occupied Hungary. The Nazis set up a new government loyal to Germany.
Occupation
Miklós Horthy did not resign under the German occupation of Hungary, but instead helped to appoint a new government who were more submissive to the Nazis demands.
Adolf Eichmann was deployed to Hungary on the 19 March 1944 to carry out the extermination of its Jewish population. Eichmann aimed to deport more than 800,000 people to the camps in the east. Despite the likelihood of defeat in the war by this stage, genocide was still a priority for the Nazis. Arriving with just a few German staff, Eichmann was reliant on the collaboration of the Hungarian authorities to achieve this aim. The Hungarian authorities cooperated enthusiastically with Eichmann’s plans.
In little over two months, over 200 camps and ghettos were created and filled with the Jewish population.
437,402 Hungarian Jews were deported in 56 days between May and July 1944, primarily to Auschwitz, where almost all of them were murdered.
Although the Hungarian authorities did not actively deport Hungarian Jews until the occupation of Hungary in 1944, harsh antisemitic policies were in place. Between 1920 and 1944, over 300 antisemitic laws were passed.
From 1938, the persecution of Jews increased as Hungary strengthened its ties with Nazi Germany. The law known as the First Jewish Law was passed on 29 May 1938. This law limited the number of Jews in many professions and companies to a maximum of 20%.
In 1939, a law forced all Jewish men of military age to join the Hungarian Labour Service .
On 5 May 1939, the Second Jewish Law passed. This law defined Jews as a race rather than a religion: any person with two or more grandparents was regarded as a Jew. The law also banned Jews from working for the government and further restricted their employment in other areas.
On 8 August 1941, the Hungarian government passed the Third Jewish Law. This law prohibited marriages between Jews and non-Jews.
Following the Nazi occupation in 1944, the persecution of the Jews turned actively murderous. Almost immediately, Jews had to wear a Star of David on their clothes and their movement was restricted. Telephones and radios were confiscated, and Jewish property and businesses were seized. During April, the Jews of Hungary were forced into ghettos, where they were soon deported to extermination camps in the east.
Hungary was liberated by the Soviet army during April 1945. By this time, approximately 568,000 Hungarian Jews had perished during the Holocaust.
30:25 a stateless zone just like Guantanamo? Coincidence? Highly doubtful
Starving the attendees! Wow!
Hitler's worldview could be summed up in one simple sentence, "World power or ruination." This one sentence encapsulates his whole concept of struggle.
Nonsense and a nonsense lectute.
Hitler never expressed any desire for world power
Why it doesn't happen everyday is a better question.
I would like to have known how Hungry fitted in to this
Well, the caterer was caught in traffic, there were no bagels…so…my guess is it ‘fitted in’ quite significantly. 😉
I think Prof. Snyder discounts the possibility that Hitler didn't necessarily believe everything he said himself (for example dismissing the U.S. in speeches as a weak racially-mixed nation while saying the opposite in private). In this case the idea that the Soviets were weak was not just an abstract proposition but had concrete supports insofar as they performed poorly against the Finns, Stalin had decimated his own military leadership during the purges, and the extent of Soviet industrialization had been hidden from the West (the British thought the Germans would defeat Stalin even faster than the Germans did, but didn't have an overdeveloped idea of Soviet "Judeo-Bolshevism).
Also he is arguing that Hitler's war against other nations was in fact secondary to his war against Judaism, however Hitler was a pan-German nationalist (which would lend itself to jingoism) as seen in his volunteering for the German rather than Austro-Hungarian army in 1914 before he was an anti-Semite (which only developed after 1918).
Stalin made Hitler look like a boy scout yet there is no Stalin Channel.
That's not true.
@@rcrinsea Joseph Stalin had the blood of millions on his hands before Hitler became Chancellor in 1933
Steven Kotkin who regularly attends Bilderberg meetings and works at the Hoover Institute, has plenty of video lectures series on Stalin and how bad Stalin was.
I think you're giving Hitler far too much credit. His mentality grew out of that 19th century morass of pseudointellectual folderol which gave rise to all manner of baseless dogma, ranging from pseudoscience to all manner of quasi-religious cults. There was a pervasive hatred and suspicion in those days of things bourgeois: your average WWI German soldier was an illiterate farm boy, many of whom equated Jews with the bourgeoisie. Hitler's views smacked of small-town ignorance and belligerance, and were more beer-parlour drunken ranting than educated discourse. As his secretary later said of him, he had the mentalty of a baker.
Here here
@@RT-tn3pu It's hear hear
At the same time much of this "folderol" (eugenics, neo-Malthusianism, social Darwinism, phrenology, etc.) was considered intellectually respectable at the time.
This is a problem with the postwar trials as well. Who's laws were the Einsatzgruppen breaking? Polish?, German? American?
The Nuremberg trials were ex post facto in general, but the parties in charge agreed that the crimes had been so horrific that legal-philosophical considerations like that should be ignored.
Wish he would put that cup down or drink from it.
I would love to hear Snyder’s analysis of Netanyahu’s government’s attempts to destroy Israeli institutions, using primarily Mizrahi Jews as helpers (rather than Ashkenazi). Also, what does he think of the pogrom the Jewish settlers perpetrated in the Palestinian town of Hawara, burning houses and attacking the Palestinian villagers and clubbing their dogs to death in front of the children?
From the way you formulate questions it looks like you have an agenda, have a poisoned mind and full of hate. Get help
Time to lay off the Kool-Aid.
Nope. It’s s valid question.
@@lowell418 it’s a valid question. I think for Dr. Snyder to answer, it would need to be broader. As a dumb midwesterner who is not Jewish, I think that Netanyahu is playing with fire by engaging with Meir Kahane adherents. From a broader political aspect, I am not qualified to say. 🤷♂️
Spreading Jew hate on comments a lecture on Jew hate. Also used the same technique as Hitler: spread lies about Jews.
This is amazing. And brings together strands that appear to be disparate. But are not to a man with an attitude problem. So interesting mr snyder
Autarky refers to a nation that operates in a state of self-reliance. Nations that follow a policy of autarky are characterized by self-sufficiency and limited trade with global partners
Oh, I was wondering about that
Brilliant
The Idea of "The Superman" the "Heroic rebel" or even "The World's greatest Sinner" The outsider or sees the world as being too small to contain him the 'Romantic' figure surrounded by "Superfluous men" and "Lesser Men", The rule breaker among conformists and buttoned down sterile bureaucrats. These ideas go way back, Romantic literature is chock-full of such characters. Especially late 18th to 19th century German writers, poets, playwrights and it influences philosophy, especially Laconophiles who believe that the Poets are the highest of all as a form of expression as those who would move people and influence people and tell the right myths and stories through the mechanisms of Symbolism, Allegory, Metaphor, Parables and Fables which are seen as the best way of communicating age-old wisdom that can not be caged or properly expressed through any rational way of communicating. It's ingenious as a form of culture and entertainment, but as soon as it starts to seep into a Nation's imagination to such an extent, and it only seems to appeal, this way, to fanatics that are hateful and full of feelings of their own inadequacies, and that's when it begins to influence Political, Social and even economic thought.
Garcia Barbara Miller Michelle Gonzalez Robert
Yup.
In style of your lines there are atrocities did by Hungarian police in occupied Vojvodina region in 1942 and they didn't such atrocities in Hungary .Or Romanians in Ukraine and they didn't in Romania .
1:25 - The common statistics are 17-20 million civilians
keeping the formula abstract
31:54 although very few Jews lived in Germany the connection was far from ‘loose’; the Jews were massively over represented in key positions such as media ownership
Isn’t he marvelous?
I can tell the answer. The Germans did it in thier own patch of non state in what was Poland because it would have been much more difficult to warp the existing German State institutions in to a form where it could be legal. In the stateless zones in the east, there were no laws to break, no laws to make. Poland became one huge concentration camp.
Google Havara Agreement
Young James Anderson Christopher Williams Betty
So informative
It was super easy, barely an inconvenience.
I wonder if Timothy is still an asset? Probably.
If you want to see how it happened, turn on Fox News
Davis Maria Walker Donna Young Carol
He got some facts wrong, I think. Its not that most of german jews survived, most german jews that STAYED were murdered. Everyone else fled.
Good point. German Jews had a few years head start to try to leave.
He says that most German Jews (from among the ones who did not leave Germany prior to 1939?) survived. Is that true? What does the 97% figure refer to? Relative to the 6 million? If so, that is not that significant considering there were relatively few Jews in Germany in 1939 (about half had already left).
The jews that were in holland were also the ones that have been taken away
German Jews who had served in the WW1 German army were spared, but lived a marginalized existence.
Blacks who had served in the Kaiser's colonial army were also spared, but they also faced daily racism.
Hungarian Jews who had served in the WW1 Austrian imperial army were also spared from the Holocaust.
Hitler considered lebensraum as standard of living as well as conquest. This is why he would not allow Gobbels or Speer to put the German economy on a total war footing until 1943. Hitler was just a 100 or so years late. America was his model because we succeeded, and we could do it because the world view of the "West" at that time was all about the '"white man's burden" to bring civilization to the primitives at gun point! Unfortunately for Hitler, world opinion had changed just enough to consider things like the "trail of tears" and forced expulsion/extermination to be wrong.
Beautiful exposition of Hitlers world view! None better. We consider the food issue as "solved". Thus we don't need to think about it.
Know that this is his theory’ but it’s only a theory’
Religion is one of the biggest threats to mankind..
Great analysis and eloquent presentation. There are many insightful similarities with the way putin and his rushists think
Oh Canada!
52:29 "Almost no history of antisemitism in Estonia." Well...well well I wonder where Alfred Rosenberg got his ideas from?
Rosenberg was an ethnic German who got his Ph.D. in Moscow, maybe from non-Estonian sources.
weather
Best explanation of Hitler’s goals and plan to achieve them I have ever heard. Madagascar? Amazing!
Tim shouldn't hold a coffee cup, it makes it look like he's not focused, and his audience isn't respected.
This man has layman’s level of knowledge of history, even lower when it comes to WWII. Typical shallow western view of what Third Reich was from 1937-1946 and the role of European Union North America in a war against USSR and Jewish people. Charlemagne
French SS division was last ones defending Berlin after Hitler was dead.
Part 1: Mr Snyder here is proposing a very heterodox view of the N**I’s. So we might say the traditional image, I guess constructed during the Cold War view the N**I system as a totalitarianism an extreme legal and instituional project to make the State penetrating every aspect of people’s lives and their spaces their academies, media, schools, communities, work, recreation, and homes and even minds. In this way it could be placed into the same general category of hegemony and totalitarianism with Soviet Communism after the War. To support his view Snyder takes the example of the Camp in German law as a space or place of absence from the law, a kind of “black hole” “within” the law. In his interpretation then the N**I’s rather than wanting to create a totalising centralised State and ubiquitous law, were actually engaged in the opposite project to remove the State by destroying the law. So Mr Snyder proposes they were really engaged in a project to make the camp ubiquitous as the entire territory becomes a place of absence from the State and the law. He sees them then engaged in a project of to bring about Anarchy. That is the Anarchy that sees law, natural law, natural legal right, as in opposition to nature as laws of survival of the fittest. I imagine this would then have to effect of now placing the N**I program into the same category as Neo liberal Capitalism like Nozik’s Anarchism and minimal State. I’m not sure whether this is correct I have not ready Mein Kamp, but the “survival of the fittest” view of nature is not the only one the N**I’s had. They also had aspects of traditionalism, a return to a Folk life in harmony with nature. A somewhat German Idealist Romantic vision of the synthesis of reason and nature in say Hegel as now interpreted as an Aristotelian rather than as a disenchanted bautocratic rationalism. Certainly Heidegger had something like this view. It would also then place the N**I’s as wanting to get the State out of the way of our lives, not for free market capitalism but a kind of communitarianism and so now consistent with may be Spinoza naturalism pantheism imminence and even materialism. In this sense the project with the State is to erase the Sovereign by cutting it/them off from possible knowledge and action and so, power. The Sovereign becomes radically outside the world of nature and so really comes to cease to exist by degree. That is by making the law chaotic it ceases to have its normative effect. Where the people are not in accord with the law, then really there is no law or only law in name not in external meaning and realty an ideal not real law. Wittgenstein said rule and habit (cusom) are cousins. Davidson we cannot climb out of our own skin. Me: we cannot climb outside our own skeleton.
According to Mr Snyder then, the N**I had material reason for the capture of foreign territory i.e. food, but also these States in the East were modelled on being as legal order, and so they were seen as “other” because they had legal systems and were primarily States. The conquests of them involved not so much taking them over under a German State but rather just getting rid of their laws and the State and making them anomic territories like a German Camp. I imagine the German State only exists as a means to get rid of other States and law and then to allow it to wither away after. Like Wittgenstein’s ladder to climb up and a tool to throw away later.
Part 2: Mr Snyder’s discussion of the Camp a “black hole” in the law has some affinity to Giorgio Agamben in “Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life” (1998). Particulary chapter 7 “The Camp as the Nomos of the Modern”. Here Agamben also is heterodox to common understandings as he shows that the N***I Dictatorship, contrary to common belief, was not a product of the declaration of the “State of Emergency”. That had happened during the Weimar Republic under Prussian Law 1871 (I guess Bismarck’s unification. And visited many times by US President U. S. Grant beginning), “Schutzhaft” and employed through Article 48 of the construction in 1919, and ended in 1923. According to Agamben the N**I’s did not declare a state of emergency and the suspension of Rights as such rather it was done as limiting freedoms for protection (Care?). From this Agamben claims then the Camp is the State of Exception (in terms from Carl Schmitt) not the whole territory. That putting this though Snyder’s view that would mean I think, that the state of exception did not have to meet the Schmittian paradox of an Authority/Sovereignty doing a speech act that suspends the very laws that legitimise and grant that sovereignty/authority. My way of putting it from J.L. Austin is it would appear as infelicitous speech act a performative self-contradiction. The other way of putting it with the theology is as a distinction between law as convention and meta law (Right) as reflective of convention or common law. The latter view of constitutional change paradox was taken up by by Peter Suber in terms of Russell’s set theory paradox. It is interesting to note that this later approach to the problem was taken up by Austrian German and Polish philosophers of science and logic from the early 1920’s the Vienna Circle, Logical Positivists. Indeed it was legal positivism that Schmitt was attacking here that is “presupposes” a normal order and cannot establish it. Schmitt in “The Concept of the Political” addresses these problems though a survey of various terms of dialectics of the State. Not only are positive liberal law and Right not the ground or even the opposed concept of the state, but also belonging or custom are not grounds or even the opposed concept to the State. Famously he argues away from these sorts of dialectics and argues that the question and concept of the Political is before the State and this makes the friend/enemy political distinction in a territory prior to the State to law right norms morality habit and custom. Thus in a way “dissolves” the many different dialectics of his contemporary political philosophy era and notoriously makes the political conflict prior and I imagine ubiquitous. I have not read his books on Hobbes but Schmitt reminds me that Hobbes saw the Civil War and Thirty Years War as internecine internal and external struggle wherein, foreign and domestic become dislocated and intertwined, and political struggle determine all institutional projects and processes. This manifests as a conflict between different institutions of the State that increasingly are used and viewed as organs of political purpose not a higher law of judgement outside and independent of the political.
Part 3: :This then as seen as process in itself, rather than tactics to establish a totalising law and state would possibly coherence with Mr Snyder’s view of the N**I project to destroy the law to allow for create the absence space for the creation of an Anarchy territory where concepts of friend/enemy is the political version of concepts for the naturalism of survival of the fittest. This reading also sets the N**I project as anti nomic anarchic and anti State as opposed to Revolutionary communism that seek a ubiquitous totalised State. It is clear Schmitt is thinking and contrasting and opposing Marxism and Revolutionary Soviet Communism here.
Part 4: One thing here is that when we think of the relation between law and nature, we take it that the source of the law is derivable from facts of nature as science that is retroactivity justified though reflection and revision, and that the application of the law its content is given in a an appeal outside of the law to nature as described by the latest sciences. We expect to evaluate laws on the basis of things like harm and projected risk of harm for its content. Even if the laws are stable the interpretive content belongs to science is thus ever changing in meaning. The laws can stay the same but as the science changes or as they say progresses and increases the meaning of and scope of the law changes and increases. A law of risk and harm now may well be the same as it was 50 years ago but the science of harm as risk as expanding will means what was deemed safe and within he law back then would now be deemed as against the law. Thus as the law is not anachronistically applied backwards it seems legitimate to use an expanded and more fine tuned and “detailed” understanding of harm to that law. This means what we consider the “Space of Law” and the “space of nature” are not really heterogenic disjunctive unrelated spaces. The project of expanding the sciences as more infinitely and fine detailed smaller harms and risks, as well as cultural changes in the notions of what quality constitutes harm, has the effect of retro active law appearing legitimate and has the effects that people no longer know what the law demands or will come to retroactively demand in the future. It is both chaotic and ubiquitous over what possible spaces of action it might deem to come to be a risk of including in its scope. On the other view though it is not anomic, but rather that in not functioning to control it has the effect of control though fear of the unknown, unknown meaning of the law. In the end it loses it recognition as legitimate, but the risk is not in part but then as a whole.
Part 5: It is understood now by some, as mearly a political tool used by opposing parties for tactical and strategic advantage. When we place this along with the ever expansion “progress” of science we can see that science is increasingly taking over the law, both in terms of expanding its content and as a explanation of the function of the law as say self interest. That is the law its self is viewed as captured within a scientific conception of humans as behavioural and social science as self interest and bias describes them (e.g. Posner). Now this means that the normative question of legal legitimacy has come to be taken over entirely in both form and content by science. One could say then on Mr Snyder’s understanding of N**Iism as anarchy and the Hobbesian view of man that this is just he project the liberal and social justice west is on. What appears as the increasing state and law is actuality the subsumption of the state and law under expansive scientific institutions, and anonymous scientists. Science and scientist effectively change the law without having the trouble of it going through a legislator. Rather it geos though an academy and used to make reports and policy no one understands or reads. If the space of the law and the human being become entirely captured within the space of science is this really equivalent to unelected dictatorship of scientists and the manifest image of the human becomes only the scientific image and this is before the law. In this the model of society to come is not the prison camp state, but the laboratory and hospital state. It seems at one a scientifically ordered state but also anarchic in that it is contingent entirely on the ever changing expanding constructions of science which is itself deemed to be outside of its own descriptions and representations. The scientists are meant to disappear from the work they do, become anonymous and exculpated from responsibility. They are pictured as oddy transcendent and immune to the social and psychological descriptions explanations and reductions they propose to capture the whole of nature within. They and their laboratories are a kind of black hole in the laws and science they represent, the world in. When we as the last Social scientists or discourse pragmatist linguists look at there own discourse in accord with their Criteria, and if this is a tautology since the criteria are devised with regard to their alone norms then is this no legitimate dominion over us no right of standard. It is exceptional since they are outside of the scientific reduction and absolutely supernaturally immune.
Part 6: The sciences as an ever changing and expanding to the infinitely small and large system of nature could be seen in its take over of law and politics and policy as a system moving to anarchy for traditional concepts: Peoples are behavioural caused responses not causal agents and so have only legitimacy of speech under the rules of science and anomic probibilty projections through Baysain risk and protection and so on, otherwise they are illegitimate to be causally explained away to be anonymous twitching of de personalised un recognised bare bodies bare life. Not taken seriously as person in themselves with dignity autonomy and agency. casual agents subsumed under scientific representation.
44:28
What the f^^^ he is trying to say here that germans didnt kill )ews in Poland . So who did ???? What a manipulation.
Snyder who’s not Jewish is married to a Jew Marci Shore ‘
I wonder if there are any other examples of a people rendered stateless after being inhabitants of a land for generations, finding themselves now dispossessed of their lands and houses, without any authority to appeal to, effective non-persons, and those lands and houses being allowed to be possessed by others who then adopt attitudes of extreme bias against the dispossessed group to provide moral cover for their profoundly immoral acts, and who then under no circumstances want those driven away to return? I'm racking my brain, but I can't come up with anything.
It would be even more interesting if the lands they had been dispossessed of had already once had the state destroyed by an occupying power, which then found itself under attack in order for the new occupiers to further destroy any recognition of the legitimacy of appeals to some kind of right to return.
Native Americans? Australian Aboriginal peoples?
Venezuela....
The Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century,
The Tartars and Mongols and Armenians. Dozens of African nations divided to reign by the British and now increasingly controles not byt European imperial wannabes but by a warlike Muslim elite who wins election.
This guy is such a fanatical consumerist! Always ritualistically grabbing his cold coffee, and never drinking it...but the point is just to have a coffee cup in your hand.! Power flexing by the urban coffee classes...
This is some kind of none verbal communication. He doing this to protect himself from the public. Its complex
Really, that's your take on all of this! Wow, you've had too much psychology!
@@catherineskis Or perhaps too little.