New book argues common views of Hitler and Nazi rise are wrong
Really glad to see your enthusiasm, but, we got this, man. - Actual Historians of the Third Reich www.theguardian.com/world/2026/o...
Do I have any expertise in this area? No. Will I let that stop me from claiming brilliance? Also, No. Wow! This is great! Let's publish it! - Penguin
When we were kids, we wondered how the Nazis were ever given power. Now we know.
We’ve known this at least since Speer.
Wasn't he sleeping in on June 6th 1944 and no one wanted to wake him?
Why did Germans vote for Hitler? They liked a bit of violence. 🤔
"It’s hard to admit this from a modern perspective, but historical fascism’s lust for violence didn’t make it repulsive but extremely attractive to a lot of German voters." www.theguardian.com/world/2026/o...
Fascism is simply crime and treating it as politics - treating fascist activists and politicians as legitimate actors rather than dangerous criminals - not only makes one an accomplice to their crimes but surrenders the field to them.
*looks at Danny Tommo's Blackshorts * Doesn't seem difficult to believe at all
pairs nicely with this interview, about why the nazis won the 1930 election "[Hitler]... had talked about one thing: executing his political opponents... In the run-up to the 1930 vote, it didn’t talk about social policy, it didn’t talk about building the autobahn. It just had murder plots."
author is not a historian and his thesis here is a personal responsibility morality play that flies in the face of all the actual scholarship (kershaw, Evans)- that he’s framing it as the one explanation already shows he is approaching history in a fundamentally broken way
Putting a pin in this one because I prolly will read the book.