‘Hitler was a lazy criminal who slept in until noon’: why most of what we think we know about the rise of the Nazis is wrong • Philipp Ruch argues that viewing the ascent of Hitler’s NSDAP through the prism of the Third Reich has distorted our understanding of fascism’s electoral breakthrough
alf0nz0 | 8 hours ago
His dismissiveness of all other arguments, explanations, or ideas besides his own really tarnish his credibility in my opinion. Consider his responses compared to how this question would be handled on r/askhistorians.
Bad piece, would not recommend.
ivaylo_eth | 7 hours ago
yeah I gave it a read after the other commenters were praising it but it’s very weak and dismissive
just states the promise for violence as the main reason and draws some weak parallel to current times
Key_Gap9168 | 4 hours ago
Lol, thought I was the only one turned off by this. Read it yesterday, and by the time the article got to the arguments he agreed with -- his own -- I was done; closed it and moved on to something else.
External_Tangelo | 4 hours ago
Yeah, I also read it yesterday and thought it was a pretty dumb article.
Set9 | 5 hours ago
Do you know if the whole book is like this? It feels like the article was set up to go in the direction of the last point. I could see that being part of the article, since it's so different, but I'd hope the book would explore more
[OP] Naurgul | 8 hours ago
Care to elaborate on the flaws of his arguments?
ThePlagueofCustom | 7 hours ago
The Nazi electoral outcomes of the 1920’s and 30’s have been the subject of extensive and nuanced analysis and scholarship. He just dismisses the actual academic work to rail against a straw man or, generously, a common place belief, that is in no way reflected in the historical work on the Nazi party’s rise to power.
ThePlagueofCustom | 7 hours ago
For instance, on my bedside a well-regarded pop history work by Richard J Evans, called The Coming of the Third Reich - it devotes 5 pages specifically on “why” the 1930 election outcome happened as it did, including repeating the well-known statistical findings that this guy says everyone ignores when giving explanations.
Look, I despise the modern fascist/fascist-adjacent/right-wing movements as much as anybody and the rise of the Nazis and their seizure of power is clearly a cautionary tale we should all heed, but that doesn’t mean there’s a one-to-one correspondence between them. History/outcomes are always contingent, always specific to a time and place and the unknowable flow of events. You don’t have to say “Look! The AfD are just like the Nazis and should be outlawed.” in order to see that the AfD can lead to bad outcomes/is a party of scapegoating, or subliminal (or overt) violence etc.
Edit - also, not be pedantic but….I wouldn’t say this is a long read either….
HechicerosOrb | 9 hours ago
Wow thank you for sharing, super insightful. Grim, but insightful.
JasonZep | 8 hours ago
This and the book Blitzed really paint a different picture of hitler from the history books.
TheSparrowDarts | 9 hours ago
Very interesting take, terrifying really.