Timothy Snyder makes history alive and usable. He is right in saying that fascism is present in our time and should not be left as hollowed our and irrelevant.

I love it Timothy Snyder acknowledged the German speakers there and thanking them for understanding that this presentation will not be in their first language. How did I not realize that one of the five languages that he's fluent is German? I love him even more now!

I'm listening to this 3 years later and it's maybe even more fascinating in light of what's happened in the meantime: a global pandemic, the Jan 6th attack on Congress (they actually got off the sofa and protested!) as well as the invasion of Ukraine and Putin's instance that he's liberating the country from fascists (a word used in a very different way in Russia).

"If we get out of the habit of appearing in public, it's very hard to protest and to meet new people." THIS.

ALOT of humans should and needs to listen to this man!

I love listening to Mr. Snyder, a brilliant modern day intellectual. Thank you for the interview.

It might seem strange to non-germans why some questioners seemed to criticize the use of the term fascism in this context. Germans are highly sensitive of using terms from their past for the present, and aren't used to it at all. That's why the one guy used a phrase you hear all the time in Germany: "You are relativizing..." It's the thought that the 3rd Reich was so awful and in a category of its own, that when you compare the current to it you are somehow diminishing the horror of the past. Just FYI

Professor Snyder at his best.

Bravo Professor, this is an excellent analysis of our socio-political discourse and language of today. This is so good. You increased my I.Q.

Timothy Snyder Is definitely very important voice in our time right now, this man will be regarded as prophet someday.

Easy to see Mr Snyder's words playing out in our world today.

1:36:29 - even if he didn't just deliver a great talk, Snyder is the MVP for being able to follow that rambling monolog alone 👏

As a language specialist and mediator, this is a wonderful opportunity to take accountability for the words both spoken and in thoughts

It's totally impossible for an honest person to be elected to either Congress or the Senate. Why? Because it costs $12 million to be elected to get a job that pays $175 thousand. So to get a job that pays $175 thousand you need to raise $30,000 every day in the year of an election or $8,000 every day for 4 years. (That's 7 days a week) So you may start out with honest intentions but after being handed $30,000 every day for a year you are comprised.

so glad to be able to listen to this, thank you for sharing

Today is 13/09/2023 and now it’s even more interesting. Thanks Mr. Snyder for your insights.

Always an „Augenöffner“! Bravo and thank you!! 👍👏

I teach at a university in Europe and even there I doubt that five percent of the students could give a reasonably accurate definition of either "fascism" or "socialism". "Fascism" seems more of a general go-to insult to anyone to the right politically of the person using it than an actually well-understood concept at this point, and "socialism" seems to be confused by an awful lot of people with the concept of the "welfare state", which describes most Western European economic systems at this point. (Perhaps someone over there in the US could explain that to, for example, Bernie Sanders, as he seems a bit confused on that one.) The greater point being that these terms, especially the former, are sometimes thrown around too easily, even by academics. Having said that, I can highly recommend Dr. Snyder's book "Bloodlands". It's definitely worth the read, and he has another lecture posted where he talks about it in some detail here on UKposts, which I can also highly recommend.

Snyder majes an excellent point about US usage of the word "democracy" in the discussion. He might have gone on to add how "democratic" and "capitalist" became almost synonymous adjectives from the Cold War onwards.

Bravo! I see why so many are suggesting "On fascism" is the work most needed to be understood at this time.

I started and finished this audio book today. Fucking head rushing and jaw dropping the whole time.

This is one of the most lucid analyses of this issue I've come across. Great talk, thank you for this!

I would add the need for constant vigilance AND education of ordinary people. The enemy of such ideological cul de sac's such as neoliberalism and fascism is education.

GOP SUPREME COURT MADE MONEY EQUAL TO FREE SPEECH !!!

What a weird couple of question-comments there at the end. At least he was able to turn them around in a useful way.

Snyder is a remarkable asset and resource at this time.

What about the American Empire?

one always likes to believe that when one lives in a democracy, fascism is in the past, only happens, if still in existence, some place else, but not where we are, and therefore, it has no place in the western world of today, not in thinking or in speech. Professor Snyder's hits a nerve, and some of us are irritated by his presentation, because our democracies are not as insulated as we are told by our leaders they are.

Timothy Snyder is in effect and importance, the modern manifestation of Thomas Paine.

I loved this presentation very insightful but the only thing I wanted to mention was the genocide in Namibia 🇳🇦

I found this talk very helpful in clarifying the similarities and differences between Fascism and Trumpism. Particularly notable to me is the notion that Fascism is ideological, whereas Trumpism is irresponsible. It would be nice to get to an age where responsibilitiy and striving for a better world is actually the objective of our government.

Awesome

1980 Republican: "Tear down that wall". 2020 Republican: "Build that wall". JFC...

Where does the rich and powerful's 3-decade -old Privatization Movement figure into this?

I agree that we need a different terminology than fascism to describe the politics of today. We need a new terminology. We need factual local news rather than the watered down often foreshortened use of the term fascism. Fascism is a real thing today & being foisted on us in the US very skillfully.

The right man, with the right information, at the right time.

Not only was there never a British nation-state, there hasn't been an English one since the Norman Conquest (if then). The existing United Kingdom and its dependent territories are what remains of the Norman-Angevin-British Empire founded by William the Conqueror in 1066.

His ideas remind me a lot of the Adam Curtis documentaries.

This is an important talk.

What German word did he use at 46:19 thank you.

Mussolini represented certain aspects of fascism as did Hitler; but they weren’t the quintessential definition of fascism; merely certain parts of it. There is more than only one definition of the word; it changes with time, it evolves and adapts.

Some very interesting ideas

Mr Snyder you Connect things that are incredible. We have to believe you, because you say so?

When you lecture to people in a language other than their own, the Q&A section becomes quite messy

Quite interesting, though there are some enormous oddities in this talk. To begin with, French cookbooks don't use the subjunctive for their instructions, they use the INFINITIVE. While the shortcomings of the US education system are no secret, it's very strange that someone who teaches at Yale shouldn't know the difference. Similarly, the argument that "Build that wall" as a slogan does not precisely specify who should build the wall does not make the word "build" anything other than an imperative. Imperatives in themselves - think of the example "TAKE this cup away" or "RUN round that field" - never specify who is to perform the task; that is something which occurs elsewhere in "the speech act". I presume what Snyder is trying to say is that it is an IMPERATIVE WITHOUT AN ADDRESSEE. A contrast would be the Nazi slogan "Deutschland erwache" (Germany, awake), in which an addressee is specified. Perhaps the confusion is produced by the fact that, in English, infinitive and imperative are usually identical in form (they aren't in, for example, German or French). There was briefly a vogue some years ago for historians to wander on to philosophical terrain and attack post-structuralism on all kinds of spurious grounds that bore little or no relation to the actual philosophical problems being addressed by that movement: one particular contribution by Richard Evans, who is a perfectly competent historian, was especially embarrassing. This feels a bit like that. There is a second obvious problem which is the apparently unexamined nature of Snyder's political classifications. The notion, for example, that "There is no alternative" was a "Centrist" slogan seems quite bizarre, at least to this Englishman: in the UK, it was the watchword of the extremist neoliberals led by Margaret Thatcher, a movement further to the right than anything which had been seen in mainstream British politics since the 1930s. Fukuyama's transposition of the notion into the realm of historical philosophizing became very fashionable in the USA a few decades back, but apparently among those who had only vaguely heard of Hegel or understood the nature of his politics. Other problems are failings of historical scholarship, such as the idea that Fascist ideology is uniform on fundamental issues like its conceptions of time. That just isn't true across the major forms of European fascism in the twentieth century. All the variants (Italian, German, French, Belgian, Spanish, Hungarian, Rumanian etc.) draw on different national traditions in that regard. SImilarly, Snyder is clearly wrong about 1930s fascism not having an internationalist dimension. A large number of movements in Europe in that period were imitative of Italian fascism or Nazism (e.g. Bucard's Francistes in France. Mosley's Blackshirts in Britain, the Garda de Fier in Rumania). In general, Snyder is addressing a very fertile area for reflection, but it does require precise concepts that are handled deftly and with the self-reflection which he calls for but, in my opinion, doesn't adequately achieve. I think he would do well to explore Jean Baudrillard's concepts of simulation and the simulacrum: referring to the new right-wing populist authoritarians as "not even fascists" seems oddly like a call for them to up their game and embrace "the real thing".

9:00 I jump up and ask, "before you go on, define what you mean by the left and the right"

interesting, thanks

Every country needs to secure its borders!

Here we go round the mulberry bush... Imp to go round this bush ,let's see if our collective intelligence is intelligent enough.

When I was at University there was a bizarre person who was on the right, and favoured the Confederate cause. The Professor of History was a specialist on Modern Europe and the USA. He set an essay on 'The origins of the American CivilWar' and of course the individual submitted his account of the topic to which the professor wrote the comment that should be used by those that 'weaponise nostalgia.This essay is better than what happened' I enclose also the copies of two letters I wrote [both unpublished] but I am vain enough to believe they were more germane than those that were. One is more immediately relevant to the cause than the other When I attended a translation exercise in which we had to translate from 'French to German' 'German to Italian' and all other combinations including English the instructor made an interesting distinction between 'Freheit' and 'Liberté' He said that it would convey the wrong, a mistaken notion of meaning to translate ' Freiheit' into English as 'Freedom' for what the Germans understood as 'Freiheit 'approximated more closely to the meaning the French understood as Liberté. A Frenchman and a German understood Liberty as distinct from 'license' ,as a democratic recognition of commitments, obligations, responsibilities and convictions ,not their abdication, but a tacit covenant recognising laws and conventions and the thrust of such challenges to the status quo would be the lack reciprocity in the covenant so that equality, justice, were absent where a law bore down excessively on one section of the community. Freedom abrogates those tacit constraints, it is a spectrum condition at one end positing licence at the other implying slavery and subjection and discrimination by one privileged section of society of another such as Feudalism Apartheidt, National Socialism,and if ideologically practised, by what passes for Communism. The essence of the meaning and the social and legal distinctions might not be appreciated in English but it would be crucial in understanding in the other languages. It is not a mere semantic distinction but a distinction where Freedom was a potential tyranny. 'Freedom is not a legitimate slogan because it challenges the very relationships between individuals and between individuals and Society. That is at the root of the concept of Heimat. Although this term has sadly acquired opprobrium because of National Socialism and Southern States of the USA in the 'non conformist churches especially.

I like Snyder bringing up irresponsibility. It should be the case that some people go into a room, make a decision, and if something goes wrong, they are all partially responsible. A shared responsibility. What actually happens, is that everyone claims not to be responsible. A shared irresponsibility. This for example is the case with the EU, where national leaders will publicly reject policy that they in the meeting room agreed to. And it drives many of the problems present to today, in many places, not only the EU.

CAN ANYONE LINK ME TO THIS "KLIMPER" THAT SNYDER TALKS ABOUT ?

During present events: everything is so up to date.... The only thing hat changed, is that the not-even-fascism got a great name "Russcism"

When everyone turned around to see who the guy was who didn’t believe in man made climate change 😂

I enjoyed his talk--- great discussion! I've always wanted to know more about the anatomy of Fascism. I knew very little other than that Mussolini coined the word as rule by the industrial elite.

when are we gonna to hear more public debate on Americans coup in countries including American involvement in China Tiananmen Square protest.

"A terrorist in America looks like me." Lol i glanced at myself in the mirror and shouted, "Damn it SO DO I."

While I do agree with some of Prof. Snyder's focus on Russia, I still think that there were alot of rich and powerful local forces that played the game of creating consent, along with Russia, to result in electing Trump, as well as the Brexit vote. It seems that these forces are also playing a role within the EU to dismantle it, for a reason or another. Ignoring these forces (For example the Kochs and Mercers in the US), while focusing only on the tip of the iceberg (Russia, Facebook and Analytica) provides an incomplete picture. Additionally, the fear of the dominant ethnic group in the US, as well as the UK. of loosing power because of natural growth of minority populations, which is another real issue for the dominant ethno-economic group, is another factor.

In his review of the book "Bloody Lands", A. Weiner noted that being a scientist who is not an expert on Nazi Germany and the USSR, T. Snyder in his book is almost entirely based on the conclusions and arguments of other scientists, but at the same time his own statements question all the literature on this topic that preceded this book of his. According to the reviewer, Snyder's statement regarding the cooperation of Nazi Germany and the USSR and the fact that they supported each other in the territory under consideration by the author, which he called "Bloody Lands", as well as the chronological framework, "are nothing more than unproven assumptions and the fruits of the author's personal agenda, and not historical evidence". According to P. A. Rudling, the scope and goals of the book "Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Prevention" are ambitious. Noting that it is politicized, the reviewer sees it noteworthy that the back cover contains, unusual for books in the field of Eastern European history, the approval of former US national security advisers and the Secretary of State. In general, as P. A. Rudling noted, the direction of the book is aimed at a non-academic audience, and the generalizing statements contained in it mystify the topic and actually distort the state of science. The most politicized is the last chapter, in which, in particular, it is claimed that Russian President Vladimir Putin, in relation to Ukraine, acts as a destroyer of the state with the foreign policy doctrine of ethnic war, that he, just as Stalin entered into an alliance with Hitler in 1939, put himself at the head of populist, fascist and neo-Nazi forces in Europe, in order to destroy the European Union, which is the most peaceful and prosperous order of the beginning of the XXI century, etc

It seems to me he tells about Mr.Lincoln (25 min); Migration from the south to the north? Have he one example? Was WWI started Bulkan states?

the social transmutation of the Age will produce different political phenomena around the planet. We just need to realize our new roles as politico social subjects..

I really struggle to find the words to describe what’s happening. The English language itself struggles.

All / any excuse for mass murder of “The Other” must be condemned & rejected!

Can anyone explain the part about "there are no European nation States - there never were except [somewhere]".

I am enjoying this talk, but I hope he delves into neoliberalism's tie to fascism. It isn't just Russia and the right.

"the fascist moment is the last imperial moment in the world's history " - boy, did the reality come to surprise us or what? Anyway, fascinating lecture. Love the guy.

He seems much less reluctant to refer to Trump as a fascist in this lecture compared to previous videos on this topic. That does not comfort me.

The wall was nearly built by Jan. 20, 2000?

Christ those questions got painful towards the end...

Snyder is conspicuously silent on Israel. That speaks volumes.

when he's talking about trump not having a "big lie" that serves to move to his "higher truth" that would happen with actual fascists. that aged like milk. Because he even called it a "big lie", I'm going to have to give him partial credit for that.

A clear definition of "fascism" as he means it might wipe away some of the mess concerning that word's use here.

Calling America “the homeland”, Reminds me of WWII.

January 6th, 2021 was the Fort Sumter of radical right wing politics.

17:15 *Big data prison house* “There is a sense in which we are all now prisoners of what the algorithms find out irritate us the most.” (I.e. Cambridge Analytica/“Build the wall”)

One thing that Snyder brings up around 130 is something Kotkin brings up in a lecture he gave on Putin and the current Russian situation and that is the issue of Trump's being involved in off-shore money laundering.

EVERY YEAR ONE SHOUD READ AND LISTEN THE COLUMBIA PROFESSOR ON THESE MATTERS ....

I do adore TS, but i have to question his 'land grab' over language.

Edward Norton as Dr. Timothée Snyder His tie gets longer as the taping proceeds!

I like German comment at 1:34. I think you can call putin's regime a "chekist fascism" and that solves the terminological problem pointed out.

Good god some of these questions are just painful lol

Yet we Americans keep on voting for the same people and political Parties So we get the government we deserve

I would like to know what the consensus opinion of historians regarding the political leaning of past fascist states - are they left or right wing in character? Certainly Nazism and Italian fascism used the terminology of “socialism” which is a left characterization. But as Chomsky has argued Nazi’s and communists wanted to co-opt the popular appeal of the word socialism and the US had used the word to demonize the Soviets. Most right wingers I encounter use this terminology to insist that fascism is a left phenomenon, which to me is opposite to how I’ve understood it. Please point me to what the consensus of historians is.

Is build the wall or say it load say it clear everybodies welcome here more destructive to loss of human life for example?

Why do have those ‘intellectuals’ the need to take the opportunity to be on ‘stage’ (as well) not to articulate a question but just to ramble on their ‘opinion’. Their incoherent criticism, blaming Snyder not to deliver solutions now… (???) without having a real question to discuss (Or an alternative). It is like going to a doctor, who is explaining that the symptoms one has might signalize a health stadium in which the patient might be. Those symptoms could indicate cancer/diabetics/etc. The advice is to take it serious and one could reflect ones behavior, to get aware of the consequences… to enable to take/consider some actions which might help to cure the raising or having problems. Of course one could ‘argue’ with a doctor why he uses the words cancer/diabetes, one heard that before and wants another label/name for the illness (cause one doesn’t like the diagnoses/analysis …). If one understands that the symptoms stand for a certain process, then one might change habits: move more, eat different, take/change medication… in order to change/prevent/accept a ‘deadly’ course…

T.I.N.A. (There is no Alternative) was a thatcher slogan in the late 1970s. All this 'Hegelian' talk of end of history, inevitability, Wrong side of history etc this is where the concept of 'Necessary Evils' comes from the idea that "We will look back on this horrific moment and laugh" it all comes from Hegelian views of history which excuse all injustices and violence, as inevitable steps to 'Glory'. And, "Not even Fascism" is call "Fourth way political theory", the Russians would say "I have my Russian 'Truth' and I didn't do all those things I've been caught on camera doing' - it's a tactic for negotiating, it forces you to concede ground and admit to what wrongs you are doing first and then afterwards they will finally admit to their wrong doings. Only after you concede though. "My Truth" or "Our Russian Truth" is like the whole 'Woke' identity politics way of speaking. And in Fourth way Political theory they are open about using 'Post Modernism' to criticize the West.

I love how Timothy Snyder calls Trump a traitor even before he tried to overthrow the U.S. government. (1:10:30)

I'm glad I'm not the only one outraged about the F-35 budget... (1:02:00)

. in the US and elsewhere Religion is also playing a greater roll in putting the masses at a disadvantage by the "respectable" assumption that the existence of "god", "good and evil" cannot be questioned . .

Professor Snyder, can we arrange a televised session with you before the U.S. Congress, please ?

Is anyone else disturbed by the use of the phrases "my truth":, "our truth", and "your truth"; which imply that truth is subjective and there is no such thing as objective reality?

This allows Us to realise that we are civilized and we Are not Insane for what we witnessed . The American Empire . Did Donald trump bring it back ?

In the US, it is fascism ,until unionized enough.

no audience "Q" & A. not today, not tomorrow, not if hell freezes over, not ever.

23:50 here during Russia-Ukraine war

How is social truth arrived at? By permitting open debate and letting people decide for themselves which arguments are more persuasive. By condemning censorship and coercion of speech. Very disappointed to not hear Dr. Synder endorse freedom of speech more strongly and instead engaging in name calling of those he judges "almost fascists." He's much better when he sticks to the facts.

Would really love to hear his opinion post-covid and post insurrection. Because there now seem to be two big lies.

One of the questioners towards the end talks about the need to create new categories to describe the authoritarians of today. No we don't need new categories, I would argue that we need to use our language in a more refined way. For instance, there are, and have been many different kinds of fascism down through the years. Hitler was the single worst example of fascism from the 20th Century but history has vomited up plenty of other examples. Alexander the Great, was he a fascist for example? Language is and always has been and always will be, imprecise. But that does not mean that we need "new categories" to define what we see, hear and perceive. For example, in our internet age where some people spend inordinate amounts of time online, theatricality can take on a whole new role in our lives, particularly online or on TV. Trump for example, is a theatrical fascist to my mind, first and foremost. That makes his brand of authoritarianism peculiar to our age. His theatricality does not necessarily make him more or less dangerous in this time in history, but I believe that not to make that distinction is intellectually lazy and not particularly helpful. Even the appalling and disturbing events of January 6th in Washington are worth talking about in that context. I would argue that it was not a coup attempt, more like a staged for TV event, a political reality show event if you like. Successful coup attempts include leadership, strategy, often weapons and definitely tactics. The group of individuals who showed up to express their "look at me" outrage at the Capitol buildings obviously had no real leadership, no real strategy and no plan of action. Think of the chasm of difference between the expression of their rage and that of the students and others in Tiananmen Square some years ago when tanks, not the Metropolitan police, went sent to remove them. I have lots more to say but as UKposts comments go, this is probably more than enough :)

There was no nation states what is he talking about?

What did he mean there were no nation states? And is he suggesting the current construction of the wall will not ever finish?