u/Raspint

TlDr: Give me an elevator pitch that shows Rowling is a bigot.

I'm not asking you to convince me that Rowling's a bigot. I know she is. But the problem with progressives is if they are asked a simple question they will respond with a wall of text, because life is nuanced and progressives care about reality and nuance. Most people aren't like that.

Pretend I'm your average slobbering person. I don't really 'get' the whole "trans thing." My attitude is basically "It just sounds like a bunch of blue haired girls with daddy issues on twitter, but that's okay. Live your life and such but I don't really buy the whole "women can have penises too" thing, but again live your life, it's not my concern. Just like with gay people, just don't shove it down my throat and we're good."

I imagine most of you would go "Well, you see, first we have to understand that sex is different from gend-" and by that point you've lost them. People are chattel and they're not really capable of this kind of analysis.

For example: When I tell people on the Tim Hortons subreddit that JK has engaged in holocaust denial, but because their understanding of the Holocaust begins and ends with that one time they saw Schinder's List, the idea seems stupid on its face. Because Rowling's never said the Nazis' didn't kill Jews, duh.

If someone asked me: "What makes you say trump or the KKK are racist?" It would take me five seconds to give an example of them saying or doing something violently racist. Now pretend that my understanding of the trans experience is what I said above: What is the obvious, easily digestible, non-negotiable example of Rowling's bigotry, where it is bigotry on the face of it.

Some of you will likely give answers I will argue against, and it is not because you are wrong. It's because what you've said is something my manager/coworkers would not be able to understand as bigoted.

Edit: I've gotten some decent answers here. A thank you to:

u/Silly-Arachnid-6187 "She shared a video of a girl beating another girl in a school bathroom, alleging that the aggressor was trans without any proof or indication that that was the case. The school later received a bomb threat."

I think this works because an average, slobbering person could understand that, if you switched the term 'trans person' with "she accused them of being a Jew without evidence" then they might be able to recognize the inherent unfairness of that treatment.

u/errantthimble: "I’d say, lean right into the core issue with something like *”JK Rowling dishonestly pretends that the transgender controversy is about science, when it’s actually about evolving language use. Saying that a transgender woman is a woman is no more ‘anti-science’ than saying that an adoptive mother is a mother.” &

I personally still think that the issue of "this is an issue of language, not science" is too much for the average person to wrap their minds around, but I think that the example of the adoptive mother being a mother is still one of the best analogies I've heard, and I've not once heard a good argument against that claim.

TlDr: I am very, very lucky that HP was not my thing.

Shout out to everyone who has a conscience and who also has/had a real and legit love for Potter. I know that in our circles (pro-trans/leftist, etc) it is very common to hear the following sentiments:

- Omg get over yourself! It's just a story!

- Harry Potter was never even that good!

- You only liked it because it was popular.

- sigh Some people just can't put their fucking toys away. GROW UP

- You must not be very mature if you still like HP

And before any of you get angry at me, I'm posting in the anti-JK subreddit and I'm obviously against Rowling, and I'm boycotting my fav coffee shop right now because they're doing a collab with her. But I wanted to say that I feel really bad for all the trans people and cis trans allies who are fans and former fans of this IP whom this meant a lot for.

Is HP the greatest piece of literature ever? No. But you know what, it was good enough to make kids (and still does) make kids love reading. Do you have any idea how fucking special that is? Yes even if it had good marketing, the reality is that good marketing and franchising would not, by itself, been able to compel a bunch of shit-minions (children) to stay up late and do something as boring as reading. Marketing can help put a book in your hands, but not salesman is good enough to inspire actual whimsy in a person if that product does not legitimately inspire whimsy.

Is it 'just' as story? Yes But stories matter to us. They are important. Poetry and fiction and art are the very things that make life worth living. And they can affect us deeply. And anyone who has ever supported decolonizing efforts in literature, or preserving the stories of marginalized peoples knows this. Stories don't stop being important on a personal sense just because the author/readers aren't from a marginalized group.

I consider myself so fucking lucky that my thing, the thing from my childhood that is really special to me, has not been tarnished in the way HP and other IPs have. For me they are Godzilla and Star Wars.

I hate it when people go "It's just a story. Get over it." Because I can so easily imagine how it would feel to me if we were in a different timeline and Lucas ended up as bad as Rowling. For me, Return of the Jedi and Godzilla are some of the only experiences I can remember with my Dad who died when I was very young. I cannot put into words how precious these IPs are to me. When I watch Star Wars or Godzilla, it is the closest that I can and will ever get to feeling like I'm spending time with him again.

And I am 100% sure that Harry Potter is exactly that for so many people. And I cannot imagine how difficult and painful this must be to have something that means so much to you tarnished in this way. And it's not even like if I found out Lucas now was super racist or something, because he doesn't own Star Wars. I could keep enjoying it just fine. But for you guys, any sort of payment or engaging with the HP empire is funding a hate movement.

And hell, not paying the bitch isn't even good enough. So many people will argue that you should just stop enjoying, or stop reading your copy of HP, and if you share your love of it - even if that doesn't actually result in money going to Rowling, that will still be seen as an endorsement of anti-trans hatred. And I'm sure that many of you, even when/if you read your dusty old copy of the book that you bought 20 years ago, it still feels icky now, doesn't it?

And I don't wanna hear any bullshit about how

- "Omg you're making this about yourself"

- "Oh you're doing the bare minimum by not giving her money. Have a cookie."

The reality is most people would not give up things they love if it had this kind of political baggage behind it. And further, being a political ally does not mean pretending that your feelings don't exist and are not worth airing.

As a massive Star Wars fan who feels like he's dodged a massive moral bullet, I just wanna give all the anti-Rowling HP fans and former fans props for stepping away from this franchise, and for those of you who still try to enjoy it in ways that don't give her money because I'm sure it's just not the same anymore. This has really got to suck. If you're doing the right thing and not giving her money, then your feelings about how much this sucks are totally cool and legit.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

Battle between the ultimate hydras! Supposing that Ghidorah, as seen in the film Godzilla: King of the Monsters fights Timat from dungeons and dragons.

Setting: As fair a fight as possible. Timat has just been summoned and has laid waste to Baulder's Gate. There is nothing else in the area to challenge her, until Ghidorah flys down from space.

Which of these two hydras comes out on top and who wins?

I was debating whether to post this here or in a history sub, and I settled on here because I thought there would be less of a chance of tankies jumping on this.

Anyway, I'm asking this question from the perspective that the USSR was a brutal totalitarian state that violently curtailed civil rights. And that it perpetuated ethnic cleanings, mass killings, and genocide (though I know the issue of the legality of that term is something that even historians debate). My grandparents lived through the Holodomor, so I am in no way a Soviet or Stalin apologist.

I am also a big Soviet history nerd however, and I consider myself a leftist broadly. So I'm curious to hear about what some of the things were that the USSR did that were actually progressive, or good ideas and I wanted to chat about that with other history nerds here. I've heard Richard Wolff talk about the USSR, and while he says "mistakes were made and we don't have to repeat them" I do think that the language that he uses is not strong enough in condemning its atrocities. But one of the things I find interesting is how when you read Soviet history is when they actually do manage to do really good things, and where progressive socialist ideas do manage to be implemented despite the Union's tendencies toward anti-democratic acts.

The three biggest things I can think of are:

1: Medical care for all: Even though the quality of the care was not as good as the US, the fact they had it way back when is impressive.

2: Equal opportunity for education: Prior to the revolution education would have been something that only the privileged could access. Given that I think education is a God-given right and a tool for liberation, I think this is a full stop good thing.

3: Women's rights: Now this is kinda complicated, because 1) I don't know if this is a Soviet thing, or just a Eastern European thing, given the long history of strong women needing to do "men's" work because the history of the region is just "mass death." My own Ukrainian great grandma defended her daughter from my grandpa hitting her by blinding him in one eye.

2. Despite the advances in women's rights in the workplace, protections for battered women were a joke. You could beat your wife silly and unless she had someone in the family ready to protect her she would get no help from the state.

But despite these things, in the 1950s seeing women working in factories/industry/sciences, and having leadership positions in those fields was seen as an ordinary thing, whereas in the US women were expected to be school teachers or secretaries at best.

You know what I never, ever want to hear ever again? Someone gleefully showing me a podcast/news show/whatever of someone saying the most outlandishly, divorced from reality nonsense, and going all "Oh dude! Isn't this CRAZY? Lmao!" I'm sick of crazy, and I'm sick of insanity.

I think that's how my brother started with Alex Jones. It started out with him laughing his ass off about "TURNING THE FROGS GAY." Fast forward ten years and he's still pro-MAGA and he tells me about how slavery wasn't that bad because "we treated em like family." (And as far as I know no one in our family ever even owned slaves).

Between this and the Rush Limbaugh episodes and just noticed this phenomenon. It just sounds out laughing at something ridiculous, but then you stop considering it ridiculous. I'm sure there is a better way to describe this (and it's probably something sociologists have talked about) where the constant repetition of an idea eventually lowers your mind's epistemic defenses.

There's probably something in there about the relationship between familiarity and threat. As in

1: Unfamiliar things (like ideas) are seen as threats and we are therefore weary of them.

2: These things become more familiar, our natural defenses go down. (I'm sure being a war correspondent Robert can tell you about how you can come to find really threatening things to be not that big of a deal).

3: We start to adopt these things as a joke, and that joke acts as a trojan horse.

4: We eventually start to find the idea, or at least aspects of it, less insane or problematic.

And you know what's messed up? This exact same process can work in what we would call a 'positive' way. Take the most ardent anti-DEI/CRT person, and stick them in a progressive environment where white supremacy is attacked while white people are still treated with dignity, and you'll eventually have this person start to find these 'woke' ideas less threatening.

One of my favourite books is McCarthy's Blood Meridian, which talks about the inhuman violence of the settling of the American South West. And I've never heard of a similar book about the settlement of what would become Canada.

So I wanted to ask historians if the early settlement of Canada featured a lot of the same brutal and inhuman violence that we saw down south. This can be broken down into three questions:

1: Did this same kind of brutal interpersonal violence exist between early Canadian settlers and the Indigenous peoples?

2: If the above answer is 'no,' or 'yes but not as much' then why?

3: Are there any good Canadian versions of Blood Meridian?

Everyone knows that Dracula is the quintessential vampire novel. What are some good novels that deal with ghosts, and what are some good novels that deal with werewolves? And I'd like to know good classic recommendations and more modern ones. So basically I'm asking 4 questions here:

1: What is the quintessential ghost novel?

2: What is a good contemporary ghost novel?

3: What is the quintessential werewolf novel?

4: What is a godo contemporary werewolf novel?

So aside from that one time she stabbed Tara in the head with a turkey fork, I've felt that in the latter seasons of the show Gemma turned into a bit of a joke character. And what's sad about this is that I FUCKING LOVE her into. I'm serious. I love it more than Chucky loves whacking off.

It's been a long time since I watched this show, but I have never ever forgot just how fucking cold and cruelly intelligent this woman could be. When Wendy is at probably her most vulnerable moment, having survived an OD where she almost murdered her own pre-born baby. Not only is she coming down off of an OD, but she's wracked with all kinds of guilt. And then Gemma gives her the most thorough dressing down, promising Wendy her own son won't even go her funeral or ever know her. And then hands her a fucking hollowed out bible full of heroin and tells her to 'Turn to Jesus.' My jaw hit the floor. I thought for a whole 5 or whatever seasons that Gemma had just straight up murdered the mother of Jax's child in a way that Jax would likely never learn the full details off. (And personally I thought that the show would have been better had Wendy never came back and if it was strongly implied that she died).

And for a very long time this one act of Gemma cemented her as a fantastic Machiavellian character who you do **not** want to fuck with. She was raped the following season, but I thought the show handled this in a surprisingly good way that didn't diminish how scary Gemma was capable of being when she wanted to.

But this feeling of "oh shit" around Gemma just slowly went away for me. The last half of the show felt like it was played more for laughs. I never felt Gemma was dangerous, but that she just the lovable toughish lady.

I do like that by the final season I was like "Oh, Gemma is no longer a Machiavellian manipulator, but is drug addled and unstable. A different kind of dangerous." But I felt that between those she became kind of a joke. Which was sad, because Gemma was for a couple a seasons one of my favourite female characters I'd seen on TV in a long time.

So, this could very well be intentional. You might be thinking "wow, a whole bunch of violent outlaw drug dealers and gun runners aren't good parents? Shocker." But like, I did find it interesting how so many of the characters I spent so much time with, Clay, Gemma, John (okay we just hear about him), Opie, and then Jax himself, either are or become really shit dads.

This was also the reason why I could never get too broken up over Opie's death. Because his wife dies in one of the first big "oh shit" moments of the show. And then he responds by being a massive bitch about.

Like don't get me wrong, I'm with him in terms of being angry and wanting revenge. I don't believe in this "you need to let go an hEaL" pussy shit. But like, Opie has two children who just lost their mom. No matter what kind of pain Opie is in, his kids are feeling it worse. And those kids NEEDED their dad to be there for them. Hell, even his own dad tells him "Dude, you need to be their for your children." And even after Opie has his revenge, he decides that instead of raising his kids as best he can he's instead going to go all in on the club. And that's just a really shitty thing to do.

Like, if Opie didn't have a family this would be way more understandable. He'd be a guy who after his partner was killed the MC would have been the only "family" he had left. So he doubles down on all the chaos and violence that the outlaw life brings until it finally consumes him.

But because Opie is a father this hits different. It now reads like a man who went through a tragedy, but is now *choosing* to shirk his responsibilities and essentially spend all his time playing dress up in a play house (a very violent playhouse not withstanding).

And again, "criminals = bad parents omg" but I couldn't help but feel the way Opie died and the way they talked about him after, that the show does try and present him as this kind of noble warrior, rather than the loser that he was.

I guess in the end you could say the show does treat Opie as a warning that Jax doesn't heed. Rather than taking the woman he loves and his children away from this life, he goes balls into it and they all pay the price. Jax chooses to off himself rather than be there for his boys (much like it's implied his own father did to him). And despite Jax's promise that "my sons will never know this life of chaos" I think the final shot of Abel with the "SONS" rings kinda implies that actually these boys will embrace the outlaw life.

Hi everyone, I'm a support and tank main who is just getting into DPS, and I still mostly just do quickplay. For a long time Reaper has been one of my favorite characters in every area except gameplay. I like his look, his voice, his ultimate, how he reloads. But I've never really been able to close the distance and do real damage before getting merked.

I find dire triggers really helps with this. There have been so many times where I can get another dps or support to *almost* dead, but then they escape away and I chase them before being put down by the rest of the team. Knowing I have one decent midrange attack on a manageable cool down has made this character way more playable for me.

I still have difficulty going up against an Ash/hanzo pairing, but as a scrub I really like this ability.

I only watch the OG series up to Season 20, and I like basically all of the ADAs. What I like about Carmichael is she is waaay the hell more punitive. Now this obviously has its drawbacks, as Abbie will treat even non-violent drug offenders as if they are sub human and this makes sense given her background in drug enforcement. But it is refreshing to meet someone who will look at a multiple murderer and go "Fuck this person, they deserve no mercy" when the other ADA's would wring their hands about how "omg, killing the multipule murderer is bad and I'm sad about it!" Again, that fact that she has her origins in drug enforcement make sense that she would have this overly hostile and pro "hang em high" attitude, to the point that she makes even McCoy go "Abbie, are you like, okay?"

She leaves the show in 2001 right? Meaning that her episodes were likely filmed in 2000 or early 2001. So even though I like her have zero doubt that 9/11 would have broken her brain and that she would have been heavily in favor of unfettered police powers and extremely high sentences, and would have seen any dissenting opinions towards the US as evidence of being pro-terrorist. And unlike some people who would have had the whole "I am in favor of us doing what we need to do to catch terrorists, but I am uncomfortable with the powers we are giving the state" I imagine Abbie would have been more "cowabunga it is!"

Edit: I imagine Abbie would have remained a hardcore republican for a long time. Whether or not trump's racism would be odious enough to make her stop supporting the GOP is anyone's guess.

(Spoilers for the whole movie)

I just cannot stop thinking about how clever it was for Nolan to use the sacking of Troy to talk about standards of decency and fairness, and the violation of those standards. The idea that what happened at Troy was so horrible that the Greeks (led by Odysseus) broke something in the world. That this was such a moral transgression that is having almost ontological ramifications. The idea that these old standards of decency and politeness are actually important things to keep. Shockingly, it's an idea that I think is actually a little conservative, at least in the former definition of that term.

It's a message that is both very timeless, but also very timely. I'm 33 years old, and like a lot of you I have felt what has been a slow loss of trust in the future, and in our institutions. I remember when the 'villains' of the day was John McCain and Mitt Romney, and I'm certain that if you told the majority of Republicans circa 2012 what would be happening today they would be legitimately horrified. It feels like the world has become so much cruller, more insane, that people have become more irrational. No one has hope anymore and because of that they've decided they're going to do their small part to make the world a WORSE place.

You can give a lot of answers as to what our "sacking of Troy" is that's caused this. And to be fair life is not so simple, there is not one single cause. And hopefully even not everyone everywhere feels what I'm feeling. And I'm sure more will happen that will fit the bill in the future. For me though? It's people who voted for trump in 2025. When he and the republicans had made clear who they were and what they wanted. Do the democrats suck? Was it a big pain in the ass to have to do lockdown for X number of years because of Covid? Is your pension a thing of the past? Yes. Duh. But in your selfishness and your intentional stupidity you've taken the "human misery lever" and decided to push it FORWARD rather than doing what small things you can to hold it back. Why did you do this? Why Joe Rogan, why Theo Von? Why did you go "Well I'm a little pissy. I'm going to put a gun to everyone's head, including myself, and pull the trigger?"

You people broke the world. You are worse than Germans who voted Hitler in 1933 because at least then the unthinkable was still unthinkable. You knew and you did it anyway. You will never deserve forgiveness for this.

Anyway, fantastic movie. It's easily the first time that Nolan has ever hit this powerful of an emotional cord with me.

For a long time my favourite Nolan movie was the Dark Night, but I think that this one might have topped it. (And honestly I might be a little biased about DK anyway). But I loved this movie. And I loved a lot of what people hated about it: I loved the costumes, I loved almost all the actors (Page and Nyong'o were great), this might be one of the best Matt Damon performances I've seen. I like the way that Nolan made this world feel both grounded and mystical at the same time.

And I really loved the central idea of this movie, that the sacking of Troy was so vicious and crossed such a profound moral line that its been leading to the decay of civilization itself. I thought this was a really good theme to explore given that we are living in a time where it feels like our institutions are failing us, and more and more it seems people are discarding things like decency. In short it feels like the world is becoming a more cruel place lately.

Also, I think this is oddly one of the most personal and emotional of Nolan's movies. A lot of his other movies are very impressive in some areas, but they have felt kinda light on the human factor. This one just had a some very good human drama in it that I thought hit very well.

And if so, why?

I think that I'm pretty out the loop on this, because I intentionally don't get involved in hype culture. If I'm interested in a movie I don't seek out any info about it's honestly such a better way to engage with media.

But I've heard from some of my friends that this was a movie that people were expecting to not be good. Which like, why wouldn't you? Nolan's last movie was THE cultural movie of 2023, and he's clearly become one of those directors that actors are eager to work with. After Oppenheimer wins the Oscars and becomes beloved by regular viewers too and I found out his next movie was going to be the Odyssey my immediate thought was "ah damn, that's probably going to fucking rock." And it did fucking rock btw.

I don't understand how, unless you expressly disliked all the other Nolan movies you wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt with this one? When directors have a lot of good hits they accumulate good will, and it takes some real stinkers to undo that. I'd say Nolan is pretty clearly one of the guys working right now who has this kind social capital.

So is that true that people were expecting this to suck, and if so fucking why?

I'm in a situation where everyone wants to go to imax and I'll ruin this time if I don't go.

I have these earmuffs with me, they are supposed to provide good ear protection. I also have a smaller pear of ear plugs I can put in undsrneat them

Is this enough protection for the Oddssy in Imax?

Edit: We are not going to the Imax anymore, and it's just a normal theater now.

I recently heard someone who makes pretty good philsophical content say that a recent translation of Heidegger's private notebook proved that he was a committed Nazi, and possibly even after the war that he retained these beliefs. I wanted to ask if anyone familiar with Heidegger can weigh in on this and just how *explicitly* he remains pro-Hitler?

Like, was Heidegger aware of the extent of the Holocaust, and did he comment on that at all?

Hello everyone, I'm a very unrefined beer drinker. I don't know much about beer beyond the fact that it is the greatest gift given to us by the gods. Anyway, I wanted to know what the general consensus is around people who 'know' their beer about the beers I drink.

- Guinness: My favorite beer. I tend to only drink this when having a nice dinner.

- Stella Artois: This is my go-to beer that I drink most frequently.

- Richard's Red: This is what I'll get a bar if they don't have the above two.

- Labatt Blue: This is what I drink if just want something cheap to drink and I don't care.

Put this troglodyte in his place XD.

SPOILERS FOR ENTIRE SHOW

There are many very good scenes in this show. I just wanna talk about what I think is my favourite because its the one I re-watch over and over. It's the one where Eren has that talk with Reiner in the basement before fucking chomping Willy Tybur. And there's really two things about this that I really like:

1: Eren brings this back to the thing that is motivating him. It's been a long time since the end of episode 1, but I like the re-affirmation that what is driving Eren is the the very legitimate pain of seeing his mother violently murdered, and knowing that Reiner is responsible for that. And just the way this is asked is great. It's not "Why did you attack us? Why did you destroy the wall?" It's super-personal, pointed, and graphic "Why was my Mom eaten by a Titan?"

I often see in fiction where a character will be upset that another character hurt them in a really profound way, but then after some time they seem to not worry about it as much. It's as if because the act didn't hurt he audience that much the affected characters eventually start to just get over the thing.

It's also just something that most victims of violence never get: A chance to confront the person who hurt them. There's a Nick Fury quote from one of the Ennis Punisher MAX issues that I'll paraphrase; they're talking about the reasons why terrorism happens and how it's often a response to some kind of previous domination, exploration, or violence, and Fury goes "When was the last time a terrorist attacked someone he had an actual beef with?" If someone you love is killed in an act of political violence you are probably never going to get a chance to demand that the person who fucked your life over justify it too you.

2: I love that Eren makes the deliberate, willing choice to be a worse person here. It's something I wish I've seen more in fiction, where characters become people and do things that the author does not approve off. There's nothing that says that character change or grow has to be positive. And the thing that really makes this chef's kiss for me is how cold Eren is about it. It would still be great if this was an emotional, in the moment decision that Eren makes. But instead this is very premeditated and he has planned all of this out. And even better, Eren knows that he's truly making a choice to inflict the same kind of pain on the same kind people he was as a little boy.

There's this beautiful moment before Eren transforms where he's describes how he's realized how wrong he was about his enemy, and that he can see the humanity in his enemy. Even in a way that Reiner couldn't until after he'd destroyed the walls. Eren tells Reiner "Hey man. I get it. You Marleyians are just like us back on the island. When you destroyed the walls you just saw us as a bunch of demons. The Marleyians pumped your head full of propaganda about us, and tales of glory, and told you it would be a good and noble thing to kill us evil islanders. You didn't know any better, how could you? You didn't get a chance to get to know us until after the attack."

And you think this is might be one of those classic "We have met the enemy and he is us" moments. And Eren is going to make the decision that so many protagonists make, and be the better person. That he is going to choose compassion over hatred, and to choose forgiveness over revenge. He even extends his hand to help Reiner (who is shattered by guilt) up to his feet. And you're like "Wow. Eren's grown so much. He was an angry boy who wanted to kill and hurt the people who had hurt him. And now he's choosing to put that anger aside and be better." And then Eren's all like

FUCKING NOPE

It's not often where you see a writer have the stones to do something like that. Where's it all like "No, no, no. You don't get it, I understand what I'm doing. I do see the humanity in my enemy. I do see the other side. I do understand why you did this, and I can even empathize with you. But I. Don't. Care. You hurt me. And now I'm going to hurt you."

Perfect.

Now the ending does kinda shit on how I view things, and I've never liked the conclusion of Eren's character. Which just sucks for me and I have to live with that. I've always thought that the conclusion of Eren's character should have been that he does the Rumbling because he wants too.

Not to do this 4-D Code Geass esq chess move that will unite the world. And not even to protect his homeland really. But because Eren is so hurt, and so angry at the injustices suffered by his people that he crosses an inexcusable line. Because he fucking hates everyone outside the island.

I think that would make for the better work of art in the end. Because you could simultaneously understand and sympathize with the pain and anger that Eren has, but find his actions inexcusable.

So from what I understand, an observant person could have concluded years before WWII was over that Germany would lose. I've even heard arguments that as early as 1941 the writing was on the wall for them. And the reason that Germany did not surrender was due mostly to Hitler being unwilling to surrender, even as the Third Reich was collapsing around them.

My question is, doesn't this seem to be a pretty strong example arguing FOR what is called 'great man theory?' The idea against great man theory is that even leaders are beholden too social forces. So the actions of large human organizations is rarely due to one single 'great leader' but a collective of interests.

But wouldn't there have been an enormous amount of pressure to end the war the closer we get to April 1945? By civilians who want the war over, by soldiers who don't want to fight in these extremely deadly theaters, by industrialists and businesses who do not want Germany and german infrastructure and businesses smashed, to even the German army's high command?

I have to assume the German generals were not idiots, that they knew they could not hold off three fronts, and that they did NOT want the Red Army on German soil. And then, when the time for a conditional surrender was past, why not just accept the unavoidable unconditional surrender and save German lives/infrastructure?

Heck, even if you were a nazi, couldn't you have had the hope to surrender but preserve the Nazi state if you surrendered when you still had leverage? Couldn't, after you failed to capture Moscow, or after Stalingrad, or after you failed to knock Britain out, or when American entered, couldn't the Nazis have gone:

"Hey world, I know you are all angry at us. We can keep fighting, and we might lose, but it will be the most painful affair in history. We can give up a certain amount of land we've conqoured/annexed, but the Nazi party remains in power in Germany. Heck, we'll even hand you Hitler on a silver platter if you want, because the whole world wants his blood."

If the answer is "Because Hitler and the high ranking Nazis preferred death to defeat," even in the face of the unimaginable pressures, desires, and financial/economic interests to stop the war, doesn't that suggest that this is an era of history that was mostly decided by the will of a few powerful men? Why, even as late as early 1945, was no one willing to just shoot Hitler and go "Guys we're done?"