#248 – Norman Naimark: Genocide, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Absolute Power

Norman Naimark is a historian at Stanford, specializing in the history of genocide. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors: – Coinbase: https://coinbase.com/lex to get $5 in free Bitcoin – Quip: https://getquip.com/lex to get first refill free – Eight Sleep: https://www.eightsleep.com/lex and use code LEX to get special savings – NetSuite: http://netsuite.com/lex to get free product tour – ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/lexpod and use code LexPod to get 3 months free EPISODE LINKS: Norman’s Website: https://history.stanford.edu/people/norman-naimark Stalin’s Genocides (book): https://amzn.to/3oO0Hzb Stalin and the Fate of Europe (book): https://amzn.to/3pLbWrk Books & resources mentioned: The Origins of Totalitarianism (book): https://amzn.to/3oNDSvA Man’s Search for Meaning (book): https://amzn.to/3pMzs7d Radio Majdanek (Research Paper): https://bit.ly/3GxPEAb PODCAST INFO: Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/lexfridman YouTube Clips: https://youtube.com/lexclips SUPPORT & CONNECT: – Check out the sponsors above, it’s the best way to support this podcast – Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman – Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman – Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman – LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman – Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman – Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman OUTLINE: Here’s the timestamps for the episode. On some podcast players you should be able to click the timestamp to jump to that time. (00:00) – Introduction (07:08) – Stalin and absolute power (21:05) – Dictators and genocide (45:31) – What is genocide (55:38) – Human nature and suffering (1:25:23) – Mao’s Great Leap Forward (1:32:37) – North Korea (1:36:30) – Our role in fighting against atrocities (1:45:26) – China (1:49:35) – Hopes for the future and technology (2:04:28) – Advice for young people (2:07:15) – Love and tragedy

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Lex Fridman?

  The following is a conversation with Norman Neymar, a historian at Stanford specializing in genocide, war, and empire. This is the Lex Fridman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now here's my conversation with Norman Neymar. And now a quick few second mention of each sponsor. Check them out in the description. It's the best way to support this podcast. First is Coinbase, a platform I use to buy cryptocurrency. Second is Quip, an electric toothbrush. Third is Eight Sleep, a self cooling mattress cover I sleep on. Fourth is NetSuite, business software for managing HR, financials, and other details.

• 0:41Lex Fridman?

  And fifth is ExpressVPN, the VPN I've been using for many years. So the choices cryptocurrency, clean teeth, great sleep, great business, or privacy. Choose wisely, my friends. And now onto the full ad reads. As always, no ads in the middle. I try to make these interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out the sponsors. I enjoy their stuff. Maybe you will too. This show is brought to you by Coinbase, which is a trusted and easy to use platform to buy, sell, and spend cryptocurrency. I use it and love it. You can buy Bitcoin, Ethereum, Cardano, Dogecoin, and all of the most popular digital currencies. I think it's a

• 1:24Lex Fridman?

  great way to, what do you call that? Dip your toe into the cryptocurrency world and try it out. Try it out the different cryptocurrencies. It makes it easy to diversify both within the cryptocurrency world and from the non crypto world. In general, I just love it. I also love the interface, how easy it is to use, how easy it is to learn about cryptocurrency, about the state of the markets today and the state of the market over the past several months and years and so on. It's just super well done website. Go to Coinbase.com/lex. For a limited time, new users can get $5 in free Bitcoin when you sign up today at Coinbase.com/lex.

• 2:09Lex Fridman?

  That's Coinbase.com/lex.

• 2:13Lex Fridman?

  This show is also brought to you by Quip, an electric toothbrush that has timed sonic vibrations with 30-second pulses to guide the dentist's recommended two-minute clean. I am a big believer in habits. Doing a thing that's good for you every single day is part of your routine. Then the need for motivation completely dissipates. It completely disappears. And all that is left is a kind of ritual of goodness. Brushing your teeth well, I think, is quite obviously a good part of a healthy lifestyle. And doing it for a full two-minute clean is not just

• 2:58Lex Fridman?

  great for all the obvious reasons, but it's also good for the health of your teeth. If you go to getquip.com/lex right now, you get your first refill free. That's getquip.com/lex, spelled get Q U I P dot com slash lex. This episode is sponsored by Asleep and its PodPro mattress. It controls temperature with an app. It's packed with sensors. It can cool down to as low as 55 degrees on each side of the bed separately. I look forward to a lot of things in life, but one of the biggest is a good power nap. And there is a few places on earth I would rather take the power nap.

• 3:43Lex Fridman?

  I was gonna say power nap is a verb, but take the power nap then on a Asleep bed, my bed at home. It feels great. Warm blanket, cool bed. It's just heaven. And after like 20 minutes, I'm refreshed, ready to take on whatever difficult task lays ahead. They have a PodPro cover, so you can just add that to your mattress without having to buy theirs. But their mattress is nice, too. You can track a bunch of metrics like heart rate variability, but cooling alone is worth the money. Go to asleep.com/lex to get special savings. That's asleep.com/lex.

• 4:19Lex Fridman?

  This show is also brought to you by NetSuite. NetSuite allows you to manage financials, human resources, HR, inventory, e-commerce, and many more business-related details all in one place. Running a company is really difficult. What does Elon Musk call a company? First of all, he said a government is a company in the limit. Then he also called a company as a semi-sentient organism. Yes, and there's a lot of components to said organism. And some of it is just really difficult to get to work. So you want to make sure you're using the best tools for the job. It's not the exciting, the sexy things.

• 5:02Lex Fridman?

  It's like the infrastructure of a company, which is all the financial stuff, all the human resources in the inventory, if you're doing that kind of stuff, e-commerce, if you're doing e-commerce, all the business-related minutia, the details that are difficult to do without the good tool. And NetSuite is a great tool. Head to netsuite.com/lex to get their one-of-a-kind financing program. That's netsuite.com/lex. Netsuite.com/lex.

• 5:31Lex Fridman?

  This show is also brought to you by ExpressVPN. I use them to protect my privacy on the internet. I've used them for many years. They used to be a big sexy red button. It's still a big button, maybe a little bit less sexy, but the interface is just brilliantly designed. It's obvious how to use it, easy to use. It just works. It's super fast, which is obviously essential for a VPN. It works on any operating system. It works in Linux. I've been spending a lot of time in Linux recently, even more so than usual, because I'm doing all kinds of programming, not just robotic stuff, AI stuff, but I've been making some fun videos. Like I made a chess video in Linux.

• 6:13Lex Fridman?

  And then if I need to watch something, I'll go to the ExpressVPN or browse the web. I'll use ExpressVPN as my VPN of choice. Protects my data, allows me to move myself to different geographic locations to watch shows that are otherwise inaccessible to me. Anyway, go to expressvpn.com/lexpod to get an extra three months free. That's expressvpn.com/lexpod.

• 6:41Lex Fridman?

  This is the Lex Fridman Podcast, and here is my conversation with Norman Namarque.

• 7:08Lex Fridman?

  Did Stalin believe that communism is good not just for him, but for the people of the Soviet Union and the people of the world?

• 7:14Speaker 01

  Oh, absolutely. I mean, Stalin believed that socialism was the be-all and end-all of, you know, human existence. He was a true Leninist, and in Lenin's tradition, this was, you know, what he believed. I mean, that set of beliefs didn't exclude other kinds of things he believed or thought or did. But no, the way he defined socialism, the way he thought about socialism, you know, he absolutely thought it was in the interests of the Soviet Union and of the world. And in fact, that the world was one day going to go socialist. In other words, I think he believed in, eventually, in the International Revolution.

• 7:57Lex Fridman?

  So, given the genocide in the 1930s that you described, was Stalin evil, delusional, or incompetent?

• 8:07Speaker 01

  Evil, delusional, or incompetent? Well, you know, evil is one of those words, you know, which has a lot of kind of religious and moral connotations. And in that sense, yes, I think he was an evil man. I mean, he, you know, eliminated people absolutely unnecessarily. He tortured people, had people tortured. He was completely indifferent to the suffering of others. He couldn't have cared a whit. You know, that millions were suffering. And so, yes, I consider him an evil man. I mean, you know, historians don't like to Use the word evil. Use the word evil.

• 8:50Speaker 01

  It's, you know, it's a word for moral philosophers, but I think it certainly fits who he is. I think he was delusional. And there is a wonderful historian at Princeton, a political scientist, actually, named Robert Tucker, who said he suffered from a paranoid, delusional system. And I always remember that of Tucker's writing, because what Tucker meant is that he was not just paranoid, meaning, you know, I'm paranoid, I'm worried you're out to get me, right?

• 9:28Speaker 01

  But that he constructed a whole plots of people, a whole systems of people who were out to get him. So, in other words, his delusions were that there were all of these groups of people out there who were out to diminish his power and remove him from his position and undermine the Soviet Union, in his view. So, yes, I think he did suffer from delusions. And this had a huge effect, because whole groups then were destroyed by his activities,

• 10:08Speaker 01

  which he would construct based on these delusions. He was not incompetent. He was an extremely competent man. I mean, I think most of the research that's gone on, especially since the Stalin Archive was opened at the beginning of the century, and I think almost every historian who goes in that archive comes away from it with the feeling Of a man who is enormously hardworking, intelligent, you know, with an acute sense of politics, a really excellent sense of, you know, political rhetoric, a fantastic editor, you know, in a kind of agitational sense. I mean, he's a real agitator, right?

• 10:52Speaker 01

  And of a, you know, a really hard worker. I mean, somebody who works from morning till night, a micromanager in some ways. So his competence, I think, was really extreme. Now, there were times when that fell down, you know, times in the 30s, times in the 20s, times during the war, where he made mistakes. It's not as if he didn't make any mistakes. But I think, you know, you, you look at his stuff, you know, you look at his archives, you look what he did. I mean, this is an enormously competent man who, who, in many, many different areas of enterprise, because he, you know, he had this notion that he

• 11:31Speaker 01

  should know everything and did know everything. I remember one archive diolat, it's called, you know, a kind of folder that I looked at where he actually went through the wines that were produced in his native Georgia and, and, and wrote down how much they should make of each of these wines, you know, how, how many, you know, barrels they should, they should produce of these wines, which grapes were better than the other grapes, sort of correcting, in other words, what people were putting down there. So he was, you know, his competence ranged very wide, or at least he thought his competence ranged very wide. I mean, both things, I think, are the case.

• 12:13Lex Fridman?

  If we look at this paranoid, delusional system, Stalin was in power for 30 years. He is, many argue, one of the most powerful men in history.

• 12:24Lex Fridman?

  Did, in his case, absolute power corrupt him? Or did it reveal the true nature of the man? And maybe just in your sense, as we kind of build around this genocide of the early 1930s, this paranoid, delusional system, did it get built up over time? Was it always there? It's kind of a question of, did the genocide, was that always inevitable essentially in this man? Or did power create that?

• 12:52Speaker 01

  I mean, it's a great question, and I don't think you can, I don't think you can say that it was always kind of inherent in the man. I mean, the man without his position and without his power, you know, wouldn't have been able to accomplish what he eventually did in the way of murdering people, you know, murdering groups of people, which is what genocide is. So, you know, I don't, it wasn't sort of in him. I mean, there were, and again, you know, the new research has shown that, you know, he had, his childhood was, you know, not a particularly nasty one. And people used to say, you know, the father beat, beat him up. And it turns out, actually, it wasn't the father, it was the mother once in a while.

• 13:37Speaker 01

  But, but basically, you know, he was not an unusual young Georgian kid, or student even. And, you know, it was, it was the growth of the Soviet system and him within the Soviet system. I mean, his own development within the Soviet system, I think that led, you know, to the kind of mass killing that occurred in the 1930s. You know, he essentially achieved complete power by the early 1930s. And then as he, as he rolled with it, as you would say, you know, or people would say.

• 14:17Speaker 01

  You know, it increasingly became murderous. And there was no, you know, there were no checks and balances, obviously, on that murderous system. And not only that, you know, people supported it in the NKVD and elsewhere. He learned how to manipulate people. I mean, he was a superb, you know, political manipulator of those people around him. And, you know, we have, we've got new transcripts, for example, of, you know, Politburo meetings in the early 1930s. And you read those things and you read, you know, he uses humor and he uses sarcasm especially.

• 15:00Speaker 01

  He uses verbal ways to undermine people, you know, to control their behavior and what they do. And he's a really, you know, he's a real, I guess manipulator is the right word. And he does it, he does it with, you know, a kind of skill that on the one hand is admirable and on the other hand, of course, is terrible because it ends up, you know, creating the system of terror that he creates.

• 15:36Lex Fridman?

  I mean, I guess just to linger on it, I just wonder how much of it is a slippery slope. In the early 20s, 1920s, did he think he was going to be murdering even a single person, but thousands and millions? I just wonder, maybe the murder of a single human being, just to get them, you know, because you're paranoid about them potentially threatening your power, does that murder and open a door? And once you open the door, you become a different human being. A deeper question here is the Solzhenitsyn. You know, the line between good and evil runs in every man.

• 16:20Lex Fridman?

  Are all of us, once we commit one murder in this situation, does that open a door for all of us? And I guess even the further, deeper question is how how how easy it is for human nature to go on this slippery slope that ends in genocide?

• 16:37Speaker 01

  There are a lot of questions in those in those questions. And, you know, the slippery slope question, I would I would answer, I suppose, by saying, you know, Stalin wasn't the most likely successor of Lenin. There were plenty of others. There was a there were a lot of political contingencies that emerged in the 1920s that made it possible for Stalin to seize power. I don't think of him as a, you know, if you would just know him in 1925, I don't think anybody would say, much less himself, that this was a future mass murderer. I mean, Trotsky mistrusted him and thought he was, you know,

• 17:22Speaker 01

  a mindless bureaucrat. You know, others were less mistrustful of him. But, you know, he managed to gain power in the way he did through this bureaucratic and political maneuvering that was very successful. You know, the slippery slope, as it were, doesn't really begin until the 1930s, in my view. In other words, once once he gains complete power and control of the Politburo, once the the the programs that he institutes of the five-year plan and collectivization go through, once he reverses himself and is able to reverse himself

• 18:02Speaker 01

  or reverse the Soviet path, you know, to give various nationalities their, you know, their ability to develop their own cultures and sort of internal politics, once he reverses all that, you know, you have the Ukrainian famine in 32, 33, you have the murder of Kirov, who is one of the leading figures, you know, in the political system. You have the suicide of his wife. You have all these things come together in 32, 33 that then, you know,

• 18:36Speaker 01

  Make it more likely, in other words, that bad things are gonna happen. And people start seeing that, too, around him. They start seeing that it's not a slippery slope. It's a, it's a dangerous, it's a dangerous situation which is emerging. And, and some people really understand that. So I don't, I, I really do see a differentiation then between the twenties. I mean, it's true that Stalin during the civil war, there's a lot of, you know, good research on that, you know, shows that he already had some of these characteristics of being, as it were, murderous and being, you know, being dictatorial and pushing people

• 19:21Speaker 01

  around and that sort of thing. That was all there. But I don't, I don't really see that as kind of the necessary stage for the next thing that came, which was the thirties, which was really terror of the worst sort, you know, where everybody's afraid for their lives and there are most people are afraid for their lives and their families' lives and where torture and that sort of thing becomes a common part, you know, of who, who, what people had to face. So it's a different, it's a different world. And, you know, people will argue, they'll argue this kind of Lenin-Stalin continuity debate, you know, that's been going on since I was an undergraduate, right? That, that, that argument, you know, was Stalin the natural sort of next step from

• 20:06Speaker 01

  Lenin or was he something completely different? Many people will argue, you know, because of Marxism-Leninism, because of the ideology that, you know, was, it was the next natural, it was a kind of natural next step. I don't think so, you know, and I would, I would tend to lean the other way. Not absolutely, I mean, I won't make an absolute argument that what Stalin became had nothing to do with Lenin and nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism, it had a lot to do with it. But, you know, he takes it one step, one major step further. And again, that's why I don't like the slippery slope, you know, metaphor, because that means it's kind of slow and easy. It's a leap. And, and we call, you know, I mean, historians talk about the Stalin Revolution, you know,

• 20:51Speaker 01

  in twenty-eight and twenty-nine, you know, that, that he, he in some senses creates a whole new system, you know, through the five-year plan, collectivization and seizing political power the way he does.

• 21:05Lex Fridman?

  Can you talk about the 1930s? Can you describe what happened in Holodomor? The Soviet terror famine in Ukraine in the 32 and 33?

• 21:13Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 21:13Lex Fridman?

  That killed millions of Ukrainians.

• 21:15Speaker 01

  Right. It's a long story, you know, but let, let, let me try to be as succinct as I can be. I mean, the Holodomor, the, the terror famine of 32, 33 comes out of in part, an all-union famine that, that is the result of collectivization. You know, collectivization was a catastrophe. Uh, you know, the more or less of the so-called kulaks, the more or less richer farmers. I mean, they weren't really rich, right? Anybody with a tin roof and a cow was considered a kulak, you know? And other people who had nothing were also considered kulaks if they opposed collectivization. So these kulaks, we're talking millions of them, right?

• 22:00Speaker 01

  And Ukraine, it's worth recalling, and I'm sure you know this, was a, you know, heavily agricultural area. And Ukrainian peasants, um, you know, were on, in the countryside and resisted uh, collectivization more than even the Russian peasants resisted, uh, collectivization. Um, suffered during this collectivization program. And they, you know, burned sometimes their own houses. They killed their own animals. Um, they were shot, you know, sometimes on the spot. Um, tens of thousands and others were sent into exile. So there was a conflagration in the countryside.

• 22:41Speaker 01

  And the result of that conflagration in Ukraine was terrible famine. And again, there was famine all over the Soviet Union, but it was especially bad uh, in uh, Ukraine in part because Ukrainian peasants resisted. Now in 32, 33, a couple of things happened.

• 23:00Speaker 01

  I mean, I've argued this in my writing and, you know, I've also worked on this. I continue to work on it, by the way, with a museum in Kiev. It's going to be about the Hall de Mor. They're building the museum now and it's going to be a very impressive set of exhibits and talk with historians all the time about it. So what happens in '32, '33, a couple of things. First of all, Stalin develops an even stronger... I say even stronger because he already had an antipathy for the Ukrainians, an even stronger antipathy for the Ukrainians in general. First of all, they resist collectivization.

• 23:43Speaker 01

  Second of all, he's not getting all the grain he wants out of them, which he needs. And so he sends in, then, people to expropriate the grain and take the grain away from the peasants. These teams of people, you know, some policemen, some urban thugs, some party people, some poor peasants, you know, take part too, go into the villages and forcibly seize grain and animals from the Ukrainian peasantry. They're seizing it all over. I mean, let's remember again, this is all over the Soviet Union, in '32 especially.

• 24:24Speaker 01

  Then, you know, in December of 1932, January of '33, February of '33, Stalin is convinced the Ukrainian peasantry needs to be shown who's boss, that they're not turning over their grain, that they're resisting the expropriators, that they're hiding the grain, which they do sometimes, right? That they're basically not loyal to the Soviet Union, that they're acting like traitors, that they're ready, and he says this, you know, I think it's Kaganovich, he says it too, you know, "They're ready to kind of pull out of the Soviet Union and join Poland." I mean, he thinks Poland is, you know, out to get Ukraine.

• 25:08Speaker 01

  And so he's going to then essentially break the back of these peasantry. And the way he breaks their back is by going through another expropriation program, which is not done in the rest of the Soviet Union. So he's taking away everything they have, everything they have.

• 25:26Speaker 01

  There are new laws introduced where they will actually punish people, including kids, with death if they steal any grain, you know, if they take anything from the, you know, from the fields. So, you know, you can shoot anybody, you know, who is looking for food. And then he introduces measures in Ukraine, which are not introduced into the rest of the Soviet Union. For example, the Ukrainian peasantry are not allowed to leave their villages anymore. They can't go to the city to try to find something. I mean, we've got pictures of, you know, Ukrainian peasants dying on the sidewalks in Kharkiv and in Kiev and, and places like that, who've managed to get out of the village and get to the cities. But

• 26:10Speaker 01

  now they can't leave. They can't leave Ukraine to go to Belarus today, or to Russia, you know, to get any food. There's no, he won't allow any relief to Ukraine. A number of people offer relief, including the Poles, but also the Vatican offers relief. He won't allow any relief to Ukraine. He won't admit that there's a famine in Ukraine. And instead, what happens is that Ukraine turns into, the Ukrainian countryside turns into what my now past colleague who died several years ago, Robert Conquest, called a vast belson.

• 26:52Speaker 01

  And by that, you know, the image is of bodies just lying everywhere, you know, people dead and, and dying, you know, of hunger, which is, by the way, I mean, as you know, I've spent a lot of time studying genocide. I don't think there's anything worse than dying of hunger, from what I have read. I mean, you see terrible ways that people die, right? But dying of hunger is just such a horrible, horrible thing. And so, for example, we know there were many cases of cannibalism in the countryside, because there wasn't anything to eat. People were eating their own kids. Right? And Stalin knew about this. And again, you know, we started with this question

• 27:34Speaker 01

  a little bit earlier. He doesn't, he, there's not a sign of remorse, not a sign of pity, right? Not a sign of any kind of human emotion that normal people would have.

• 27:49Lex Fridman?

  What about the opposite of joy for teaching them a lesson?

• 27:55Speaker 01

  I don't think there's joy. I'm not sure Stalin really understood.

• 28:00Lex Fridman?

  Emotion.

• 28:01Speaker 01

  What joy was, you know, I, I, I, I think he felt it was necessary to get those SOBs, right? That they deserved it. He says that several times. This is their own fault. Right? This is their own fault. And as their own fault, you know, they get what they deserve,

• 28:23Speaker 01

  basically.

• 28:23Lex Fridman?

  How much was the calculation? How much was it reason versus emotion? In, in terms of, you said he was competent. Was there a long-term strategy? Or was this strategy based on emotion and anger and?

• 28:39Speaker 01

  No, I, well, I think actually the, the right answer is a little of both. I mean, usually the right answer in history is something like that. Right? Now, you can't, you can't, it wasn't just, I mean, first of all, you know, the, the Soviets had it in for Ukraine and Ukrainian nationalism, which they really didn't like. And by the way, Russians still don't like it. Right? So they had it in for Ukrainian nationalism. They, they feared Ukrainian nationalism.

• 29:10Speaker 01

  As I said, you know, Stalin, Stalin writes, you know, we'll, we'll lose Ukraine, you know, if these guys win, you know? So there's a kind of long-term determination.

• 29:22Speaker 01

  As I said, you know, to kind of break the back of Ukrainian national identity and Ukrainian nationalism as any kind of separatist force whatsoever. And so there's that rational calculation. At the same time, I think Stalin is annoyed and peeved and angry on one level with the Ukrainians for resisting collectivization and for being difficult and for not, you know, not conforming, you know, to the way he thinks peasants should act in this situation. So you have both things.

• 30:02Speaker 01

  He's also very angry at the Ukrainian party and eventually purges it for not being able to control Ukraine and not be able to control the situation. You know, Ukraine is in theory, the breadbasket, right, of Europe. Well, how come the breadbasket isn't turning over to me all this grain so I can sell it abroad? And, and, you know, build new factories and support the workers in the cities. So there's a kind of annoyance, you know, when things fail. And this is absolutely typical of Stalin. When things fail, he blames it on other people and usually groups of people, right? Not individuals, but groups again. So a little bit of both, I think, is the right answer.

• 30:42Lex Fridman?

  This blame, it feels like there's a playbook that dictators follow. I just wonder if it comes naturally or just kind of evolves. Because, you know, blaming others and then telling these narratives and then creating the other and then somehow that leads to hatred and genocide. It feels like, like there's too many commonalities for it not to be a naturally emergent strategy that works for dictatorships.

• 31:08Speaker 01

  I mean, that's a good, it's a very good point. And I think it's one, you know, that, you know, has its merits. In other words, I think. You're right that there's certain kinds of strategies by dictators that are common to them. A lot of them do killing, not all of them, of that sort that Stalin did. I've written about Mao and Pol Pot and Hitler. And there is a sort of, as you say, a kind of playbook for political dictatorship, also for a communist totalitarian way of functioning. And that way of functioning was described already by Hannah Arendt early on when she wrote The Origins of Totalitarianism.

• 31:53Speaker 01

  And she more or less writes the playbook, and Stalin does follow it. The real question, it seems to me, is to what extent? And how deep does this go and how often does it go in that direction? I mean, you can argue, for example, Fidel Castro was not a nice man, right? He was a dictator, he was a terrible dictator. But he did not engage in mass murder. Ho Chi Minh was a dictator, a communist dictator who grew up in the communist movement, went to Moscow, spent time in Moscow in the 30s and went to find, found the Vietnamese Communist Party.

• 32:35Speaker 01

  He was a horrible dictator, I'm sure he was responsible for a lot of death and destruction. But he wasn't a mass murderer. And so you get those. I would even argue, others will disagree, that Lenin wasn't a mass murderer. That he didn't kill the same way that Stalin killed. Or people after him, there are communist dictators too, after all, Khrushchev was a communist dictator. But he stopped this killing. And he's still responsible for Gulag and people sent off into a Gulag and imprisonment and torture and that sort of thing. But it's not at all the same thing. So there are some, like Stalin, like Mao.

• 33:17Speaker 01

  Like Pol Pot, you know, who commit these horrible, horrible atrocities, extensively engaging, in my view, in genocide. And there's some who don't. And, you know, what's the difference? Well, you know, the difference is partly in personality, partly in historical circumstance, you know, partly in, you know, who is it that controls the reins of power?

• 33:41Lex Fridman?

  How much do you connect the ideas of communism or Marxism or socialism to Holodomor, to Stalin's rule? So how naturally is he kind of alluded to? Does it lead to genocide?

• 33:57Speaker 01

  It's also, I mean, in some ways, I've just addressed that question by saying it doesn't always lead to genocide. You know, in the case, again, you know, Cuba is not pretty, but it didn't have, there was no genocide in Cuba. And same thing in North Vietnam.

• 34:14Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 34:14Speaker 01

  You know, even North Korea, as awful as it is, as terrible dictatorship, right? And people's rights are totally destroyed, right? They have no freedom whatsoever. You know, is not, as far as we know, genocidal. Who knows whether it could be or whether if they took over South Korea, you know, mass murder wouldn't take place and that kind of thing. But my point is, is that the ideology doesn't necessarily dictate genocide. In other words, it's an ideology, I think, that makes genocide sometimes too easily possible, given, you know, the way it thinks through history as being, you know,

• 34:58Speaker 01

  you're on the right side of history and some people are on the wrong side of history and you have to destroy those people who are on the wrong side of history. I mean, there is something in, you know, Marxism-Leninism, which, you know, has that kind of language and that kind of thinking. But I don't think it's necessarily that way. There's a wonderful historian at Berkeley named Martin Malia, who has written, you know, wrote a number of books on this subject. And he was very, very, he was very, he was convinced that the, you know, that the ideology itself, you know, played a crucial role in the murderousness of the Soviet regime.

• 35:42Speaker 01

  I'm not completely convinced. You know, when I say not completely convinced, I think that you could argue it different ways. Equally valid, you know, with equally valid arguments.

• 35:53Lex Fridman?

  I mean, there's something about the ideology of communism that allows you to decrease the value of human life. Almost like this philosophy, if it's okay to crack a few eggs to make an omelet.

• 36:06Speaker 01

  Right.

• 36:07Lex Fridman?

  So maybe that, if you can reason like that, then it's easier to take the leap of for the good of the country, for the good of the people, for the good of the world. It's okay to kill a few people. And then that's where I, I, I wonder about the slippery slope.

• 36:25Speaker 01

  Yeah, no, no, again, you know, I don't think it's a slippery slope. I think it's, I think it's dangerous. No, I think it's dangerous, but I don't, I don't consider, you know, I don't like Marxism, Leninism any better than the next guy. And I've lived in plenty of those systems to know how they can beat people down and how they can, you know, destroy human aspirations and, and human interaction between people. But they're not necessarily murderous systems. They are systems that contain people's autonomy, that

• 37:04Speaker 01

  Force people to into work and labor and lifestyles that they don't want to live. I spent a lot of time, you know, with with East Germans and Poles. Uh, you know, who lived in and even and even in the Soviet Union. Um, you know, in the post Stalin period where people lived lives they didn't want to live. You know, and and hadn't didn't have the freedom to choose. Uh, and that was terrifying in and of itself. But these were not murderous systems. And they and they they and they, you know, ascribe to Marxism values.

• 37:39Lex Fridman?

  So I suppose it's important to draw the line between mass murder and genocide and mass murder versus just mass violation of human rights.

• 37:50Speaker 01

  Right, right.

• 37:52Lex Fridman?

  And the leap to mass murder, you're saying, um, maybe easier in some ideologies than others, but it's not clear that somehow one ideology definitely leads to mass murder or not.

• 38:05Speaker 01

  Exactly.

• 38:06Lex Fridman?

  I wonder how many factors, what factors, how much of it is a single charismatic leader? How much of it is the, um, uh, conflagration of multiple historical events? How much of it is just dumb, the opposite of luck? Do you have a sense where if you look at a moment in history, predict, looking at the factors, well, there's something bad's going to happen here? When you look at Iraq at when Saddam Hussein first took power? Well, you could, or you can, you know, go even farther back in history. Would you be able to predict? So you said, you already kind of answered that with Stalin saying, there's no way you

• 38:51Lex Fridman?

  could have predicted that, uh, in the early twenties. Is that always the case? You basically can't predict.

• 38:57Speaker 01

  It's pretty much always the case. In other words, I mean, history is a wonderful, um, you know, discipline and way of looking at life and the world in retrospect, meaning it happened. It happened and we know it happened. And it's too easy to say sometimes it happened because it had to happen that way. It it almost never has to happen that way. And, you know, things, um, so I I very much, um,

• 39:28Speaker 01

  I'm of the school of that emphasizes, you know, contingency and choice and difference and different paths and not, you know, not necessarily a path that has to be, that has to be followed. Um, uh, and those, you know, and, and, you know, sometimes you can, you can, you can warn about things. I mean, you can think, well, something's gonna happen. And usually, usually the way it works, let me just give you one example. I'm, I'm thinking about an example right now, which was the war in Yugoslavia, you know, which came in the 1990s and eventually, eventuated in genocide in Bosnia. And, and, and I, you know, I remember very clearly, you know, the 1970s and 1980s in

• 40:12Speaker 01

  Yugoslavia and people would say, you know, there's trouble here and, you know, some, something could go wrong. But no one in their wildest imagination thought that there would be outright war between them all. Then the outright war happened, genocide happened, and afterwards, people would say, I saw it coming. You know, so you get a lot of that, uh, especially with pundits and journalists and that's, I saw it coming. I knew it was happening, you know? Well, I mean, what happens in the human mind, and it happens in your mind too, is, you know, you go through a lot of alternatives. I mean, think about January 6th, you know, in this country and all the different alternatives which people had in their mind or, or, or before January 6th, you know, after, after

• 40:57Speaker 01

  the lost election. You know, things could have gone in lots of different ways and there were all kinds of people choosing different ways it could have gone, but nobody really knew how it was gonna turn out. Wasn't it smart people really understood that there'd be this cockamamie uprising on January 6th, you know, that almost, you know, caused this enormous grief? So, all of these kinds of things in history, you know, are, are deeply contingent. They depend on, you know, factors that we cannot predict. And, uh, you know, and it's the joy of history that it's open. You know, I, you, you think about how people are now, I mean, let me give you one more example and then I'll shut up. But, but, you know, there's the environmental example. You know, we're all threatened, right? We know it's coming. We know there's trouble, right?

• 41:42Speaker 01

  We know there's going to be a catastrophe some point, but when? What's the catastrophe?

• 41:48Lex Fridman?

  Yeah, what's the nature of the catastrophe? Everyone says catastrophe.

• 41:51Speaker 01

  Right, right.

• 41:52Lex Fridman?

  Is it going to be wars because of resource constraints? Is it going to be hunger? Is it going to be like mass migration of different kinds that leads to some kind of conflict and immigration? And maybe it won't be that big of a deal and a total other catastrophic event will completely challenge the entirety of the human civilization.

• 42:10Speaker 01

  That's my point. That's my point. That's my point. You know, we really don't know. I mean, there's a lot we do know. I mean, the warming business and all this kind of stuff, you know, scientifically there. But how it's going to play out and everybody's saying, you know, different things. And, and then you get somewhere in 50 years or 60 years, which I won't see. And people say, aha, I told you it was going to be X or it was going to be Y or is it going to be Z? So I, I just don't think in history you can.

• 42:42Speaker 01

  Well, you can't predict, you simply cannot predict what's going to happen.

• 42:46Lex Fridman?

  It's kind of when you just look at Hitler in the 30s for me. Oftentimes when I kind of read different accounts, it is so often, certainly in the press, but in general, me just reading about Hitler, I get the sense like this is a clown. There's no way this person will gain power.

• 43:06Speaker 01

  Which one?

• 43:06Lex Fridman?

  Hitler.

• 43:07Speaker 01

  Hitler.

• 43:07Lex Fridman?

  Hitler. Hitler. No, no, no. With Stalin, you don't get a sense he's a clown. He's a really good executive. You think, you don't think it'll lead to mass murder, but you think he's going to build a giant bureaucracy at least. With Hitler, it's like, like a failed artist who keeps screaming about stuff. There's no way he's gonna, I mean, you certainly don't think about the atrocities, but there's no way he's going to gain power.

• 43:35Speaker 01

  Right.

• 43:35Lex Fridman?

  Especially against communists. I mean, there's so many other competing forces that could have easily beat him. And so, but then you realize like, you know, event after event where this clown keeps dancing and all of a sudden he gains more and more power and, and just certain moments in time, he makes

• 43:55Lex Fridman?

  this strategic decisions in terms of cooperating or gaining power of the military, all those kinds of things.

• 44:03Lex Fridman?

  That eventually give them the power. I mean, this clown is one of the most impactful in the negative sense, human beings in history.

• 44:13Speaker 01

  Right. And even the Jews who are there and are being screamed at and discriminated against and whose, you know, there's a series of measures taken against them incrementally during the course of the 1930s. But very few who leave.

• 44:26Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 44:27Speaker 01

  I mean, some pick up and go and say, I'm getting the hell out of here, you know? And, you know, some Zionists, you know, try to leave too and go to the United States and stuff, but go to Israel and Palestine at the time, but, or to Britain or France. But in general, you know, even, even the Jews who should have been very sensitive to what was going on, you know, didn't really understand the extent of the danger. And it's really hard for people to do that, you know? It's, it's almost impossible, in fact, I think.

• 44:59Lex Fridman?

  So most of the time in that exact situation,

• 45:04Lex Fridman?

  nothing would have happened or there'd be some drama and so on. It'd be there's some bureaucrat and, but every once in a while in human history, there's a kind of turn. There may be something catalyzes, something else and just it accelerates, it accelerates, escalates, escalates. And then war breaks out or totally, you know, revolutions break out.

• 45:25Speaker 01

  Right.

• 45:28Lex Fridman?

  Can we go to the big question of genocide? What is genocide? What are the defining characteristics of genocide?

• 45:36Speaker 01

  Dealing with genocide is a difficult thing when it comes to the definition. There is a definition, the December 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide is considered the sort of major document of definition in the definitional sense of genocide. And it emphasizes, you know, the intentional destruction, you know, of an ethnic, national, racial or religious group. Those are the four groups again, comma, as such. And what that means basically is destroying the group as a group. There's a kind of beauty.

• 46:22Speaker 01

  In human diversity and different groups of people, you know, Estonians, you know, a tribe of Native Americans, South African tribes, you know, the Rohingya in Myanmar, there's a kind of beauty humanity recognizes in the distinctiveness of those groups. You know, this was a notion that emerges really with Romanticism after the French Revolution and the beginning of the 19th century with Herder mostly. And this this beauty of these groups then, you know, is what is under attack in genocide. And it's with intent, you know, the idea is that it's intentional destruction.

• 47:07Speaker 01

  So this is a kind of, you know, analogy to first degree, second degree, and third degree murder. Right? First degree murder, you know, you're out to kill this person and you plan it and you go out and you do it. Right? That's intent. Right? Manslaughter is not intent. You end up doing the same thing, but it's different. So, you know, the the major person behind the definition is a man named Raphael Lemkin. I don't know if you've heard his name or not, but he was a Polish Jewish jurist who came, you know, from Poland, came to the United States during the war and had been a kind of

• 47:49Speaker 01

  crusader for recognizing genocide. It's a word that he created, by the way. And he coined the term in 1943 and then published it in 1944 for the first time. Geno meaning people and side meaning killing, right? And so Lemkin then had this term and he pushed hard to have it recognized. And it was in the UN Convention. So that's the rough definition. The problem with it is the definition, the problems with the definition are several. You know, one of them is, is it just these four groups, you know, racial, religious, ethnic or national? See, this comes right out of the war. And what's in people's minds in 1948.

• 48:35Speaker 01

  Our Jews, Poles, Russians, Yugoslavs sometimes, who were killed by the Nazis. That's what's in their mind. But there are other groups too, if you think about it. You know, who are killed. Social groups or political groups. And that was not allowed in the convention. Meaning, for a lot of different reasons. The Soviets were primary among them. They didn't want other kinds of groups. Let's say kulaks, for example, to be considered. That's a social group. Or peasants, which is a social group. So, or a political group. I mean, let's take a group. You know, communists killed groups of people. But non-communists also killed groups of people.

• 49:20Speaker 01

  In Indonesia in 1965, 66, they killed, you know, I don't know exactly, but roughly 600,000 Indonesian communists. Well, is that genocide or not? You know, and my point of view, it is genocide. Although, it's Indonesians killing Indonesians. And we have the same problem with the Cambodian genocide. I mean, we talk about a Cambodian genocide. But most of the people killed in the Cambodian genocide were other Cambodians. They give it the name. They're ready to recognize it's genocide because they also killed some other peoples. Meaning the Vietnamese, Acham people, who are, you know, Muslim, Muslim, smaller Muslim people in the area, and a few others. So, the question then becomes,

• 50:05Speaker 01

  well, does it have to be a different nationality or ethnic group or religious group for it to be genocide? And my answer is no. You know, you need to expand the definition. It's a little bit like with our constitution. We got a constitution. I mean, but we don't live in the end of the 18th century, right? We live in the 21st century. And so you have to update the constitution over the centuries. And similarly, the genocide convention needs updating too. So that's how I work with the definition.

• 50:33Lex Fridman?

  So this is this invention. Was it an invention, this beautiful idea, romantic idea, that there's groups of people and the group is united by some unique characteristics? That was an invention in human history, that this idea? Not the CS individuals?

• 50:50Speaker 01

  Yes, in some senses it was. I mean, it's not, you know, there are things are always constructed in one fashion or another and that the construction, you know, more or less represents the reality. And what the reality is always much more complicated than the construction or the invention of the, of a term or a concept or a way of thinking about a nation, right? And, and this way of thinking of nations, you know, as, as again, you know, groups of religious, linguistic, um, uh, not political necessarily, but cultural entities is something that was essentially invented, yes.

• 51:33Lex Fridman?

  Yes, I mean, you know, if you look at-

• 51:35Speaker 01

  There are no Germans in the 17th century. There are no Italians in the 17th century, right? They're only there after, you know, the invention of the nation, which comes, again, mostly as out of the French Revolution and in the Romantic Movement, a man named Johann Gottfried von Herder, right? Who was the, really the first one who sort of went around, collected people's languages and collected their sayings and their dances and their folk ways and stuff and said, isn't this cool? You know, that they're Estonians and that they're Latvians and that they're these other, these interesting, different peoples who don't even know necessarily that they're different peoples, right?

• 52:18Speaker 01

  That comes a little bit later, right? Once the concept is invented, then people start to say, hey, we're nations too, you know? And the Germans decide they're a nation and they unify. And the Italians discover they're a nation and they unify instead of being, you know, Florentines and Romans and, and, you know, Sicilians.

• 52:40Lex Fridman?

  But then beyond nations, there are political affiliations, all those kinds of things. It's fascinating that, you know, you start, you look at the early Homo sapiens, and then there's obviously tribes, right? And then that's very concrete, that is geographic location, and it's a small group of people. And you have warring tribes probably connected to just limited resources. But it's fascinating to think that that is then taken to the space of ideas, to where you can create a group at first to appreciate its beauty. You create a group based on language, based on maybe even political philosophical ideas, religious ideas, all those kinds of things.

• 53:24Lex Fridman?

  And then that naturally then leads to getting angry at groups.

• 53:29Speaker 01

  Right.

• 53:29Lex Fridman?

  And making them the other, and then hatred.

• 53:31Speaker 01

  Right. That comes more towards the end of the 19th century, you know, with the influence of Darwin. I mean, you can't blame Darwin for it, but neo-Darwin, Darwinians, you know, who start to talk about, you know, the competition between nations, the natural competition. The weak ones fall away, the strong ones get ahead. You know, you get this sort of combination also with, you know, modern antisemitism and with racial thinking, you know, the racial thinking at the end of the 19th century is very powerful. So now, you know, at the end of the 19th century versus the beginning of the, you know, the middle of the 19th century, you know, you can be a German and be a Jew, and there's no contradiction.

• 54:14Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 54:14Speaker 01

  As long as you speak the language and you, you know, you dress and think and act and share the culture. By the end of the 19th century, people are saying, no, no, you know, they're not Germans. They're Jews, they're different, they have different blood, they have different, they don't say genes yet, but you know, that's sort of a sense of people. And that's when, you know, there's this sense of superiority too, and inferiority.

• 54:37Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 54:37Speaker 01

  You know, that they're inferior to us.

• 54:39Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 54:40Speaker 01

  You know, and, and that we're the strong ones. And we have to, you know, and Hitler, by the way, just adopts this hook, line and sinker. I mean, there are a whole series of thinkers at the end of the 19th and beginning of 20th century who he cites in Mein Kampf, you know, which is written in the early 1920s, that, you know, basically.

• 55:00Speaker 01

  pervades this racial thinking. So nationalism changes. So nationalism in and of itself is not bad. I mean, it's not bad, you know, to share culture and language and, and, you know, folkways and, and a sense of common belonging. There's nothing bad about it inherently. But then what happens is it becomes, you know, frequently is used and becomes, especially on fascism, becomes dangerous.

• 55:30Lex Fridman?

  And then it's especially dangerous when the two conflicting groups share geographic location.

• 55:36Speaker 01

  That's right.

• 55:37Lex Fridman?

  So like with Jews. You know, I come, you know, I'm a Russian Jew. And it's always interesting. I take pride in, in, you know, I love the tradition of the Soviet Union of Russia. I love America. So I love these countries. They have a, they have beautiful tradition and in literature and science and art and all those kinds of things. But it's funny that people, not often, but sometimes, correct me that I'm not Russian. I'm a Jew. And it's a, it's a, it's a nice reminder.

• 56:17Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 56:18Lex Fridman?

  That that is always there, that desire to create these groups. And then when they're living in the same place, for that division between groups, that hate between groups can explode. And I just, I wonder, why is that there? Why does, why does the human heart tend so easily towards this kind of hate?

• 56:45Speaker 01

  You know, that's a big question in and of itself. You know, the human heart is full of everything, right? It's full of hate. It's full of love. It's full of indifference. It's full of apathy. It's full of energy. So.

• 56:59Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 56:59Speaker 01

  I mean, hate is something, you know, that.

• 57:05Speaker 01

  I mean, I, I think, and, you know, along with hate, you know, the ability to really hurt and injure people is something that's within all of us. You know, it's within all of us. And it's just something that's part of who we are and part of our society. So, you know, we're shaped by our society and our society can do with us often what it wishes. You know, that's why it's so much nicer to live in a more or less beneficent society like that of a democracy in the West than to live in the Soviet Union. Right? I mean, because, you know, you have more or less the freedom to do, to do what you wish

• 57:49Speaker 01

  and, and not to be forced into situations in which you would have to then do nasty to other people. Some societies, as we talked about, you know, are more, are more have, have proclivities towards, you know, asking of its people to do things they don't want to do and, and forcing them to do so. So, you know, freedom is a wonderful thing. To be able to choose not to do evil is a great thing, you know? Whereas in some societies, you know, you feel in some ways for, not so much for the NKVD bosses, but for the guys on the ground, you know, in the 1930s, or not so much for the

• 58:31Speaker 01

  Nazi bosses, but for the guys, you know, in the police battalion that were told, "Go shoot those Jews," you know? And you do it, not necessarily because they force you to do it, but because your social, you know, your social situation, you know, encourages you to, and you don't have the courage not to.

• 58:57Lex Fridman?

  Yeah, I was just, as I often do, rereading Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning, and he said something, I just, I often pull out sort of lines. "The mere knowledge that a man was either a camp guard or a prisoner tells us almost nothing. Human kindness can be found in all groups, even those which as a whole it would be easy to condemn." So that's speaking to, you feel for those people at the lowest level implementing the orders.

• 59:36Lex Fridman?

  Of those above.

• 59:37Speaker 01

  Right. And also you worry yourself, what will happen if you were given those same orders, you know? I mean, what would you do? You know, what kind of reaction would you have in this similar situation? And, um, you know, you don't know.

• 59:55Lex Fridman?

  I could see myself in, in World War Two, uh, fighting for almost any country that I was born in.

• 1:00:05Lex Fridman?

  There's a love of community. There's a love of country that's just, um, at least to me, it comes naturally, just love of community and countries wanted this community.

• 1:00:14Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:00:15Lex Fridman?

  And I could see fighting for that country, especially when you're sold the story that you're fighting evil. And I'm sure every single country was sold that story effectively. And then, uh, when you're in the military and you have a gun in your hand or you're in the police force and, uh, you're ordered, go to this place and, uh, commit violence. It's hard to know what you would do. It's a mix of fear. It's a mix of, um, maybe you convince yourself, you know, what can one person really do? And over time, it's again, that slippery slope. Cause you could see all the people who protest, who revolt, they're ineffective.

• 1:01:01Lex Fridman?

  So like, i- if you actually want to practically help somehow, you're going to convince yourself that you can't, one person can't possibly help.

• 1:01:09Speaker 01

  Right.

• 1:01:10Lex Fridman?

  And then you have a family, so you want to make, you know, you want to protect your family. You, you tell all these stories and over time it, uh, you naturally convince yourself to dehumanize the other. Yeah, I think about this a lot.

• 1:01:26Lex Fridman?

  Mostly because I worried that I would be a good German.

• 1:01:30Speaker 01

  Yeah, no, no, that's right. That's right. And one of the, you know, one of my tasks as a, as a teacher, right, of our students, and I have, you know, classes on genocide. I have one now. Uh, and another one, by the way, on Stalin. Um, but the one on, on genocide, you know, one of my tasks is to try to, try to get, get the students to understand this is not about weird people who live far away and in time and in place. But it's about them, you know, and that, you know, that's a hard lesson. But it's an important one, you know, that, that this is in all of us, you know, it's in all of us. And there's nothing, you know, and, and you just try to gird yourself up, you know, to try to figure out ways

• 1:02:15Speaker 01

  that maybe you won't be complicit. Um, and that you learn how to stand by your principles, but it's very hard. It's extremely difficult and you can't, the other interesting thing about it is not predictable. Now, there's they've done a lot of studies of Poles, for example, who during the war saved Jews, you know. Well, who are the Poles who saved Jews versus those who turned them in? It's completely unpredictable, you know, sometimes it's the worst antisemites who protect them because they don't believe they should be killed, right? Um, and sometime, you know, you, you, it's not predictable. It's not as if the humanists among us, you know, are the ones who, uh, you know, can consistently show up, you know, uh,

• 1:02:58Speaker 01

  you know, and, and experience danger, in other words, and are ready to take on danger. Uh, to defend, you know, your fellow human beings, not necessarily. I mean, sometimes simple people do it and sometimes they do it for really simple reasons and sometimes people you would expect to do it don't. You know, and you've got that mix and it's just not predictable.

• 1:03:21Lex Fridman?

  One thing I've learned in this age of social media is it feels like the people with integrity and the ones who would do the right thing are the quiet ones.

• 1:03:32Lex Fridman?

  In terms of humanists, in terms of activists, there's so many points to be gained

• 1:03:38Lex Fridman?

  of declaring that you would do the right thing. It's the simple, quiet folks. Because I've seen quite, on a small, obviously much smaller scale, just shows of integrity and character when there were sacrifices to be made and it was done quietly. Now, this sort of the small heroes. Those are, you're right, it's surprising, but they're often quiet. That's why I'm distrustful of people who kind of proclaim that they would do the right thing.

• 1:04:09Speaker 01

  Right, right, right. And there are different kinds of integrity too. I mean, I edited a memoir of a Polish,

• 1:04:20Speaker 01

  you know, underground fighter, a member of the underground who was in Maidanek, in the concentration camp in Maidanek, you know, and it was just an interesting mix of different kinds of integrity. You know, on the one hand, you know, it really bothered him deeply when Jews were killed or sent to camp or that sort of thing. On the other hand, he was something of an anti Semite, you know. He would, you know, sometimes if Jews were his friends, he would help them. And if they weren't, sometimes he was really mean to them. You know, and you could, and there are various levels, you know, a concentration camp is

• 1:04:59Speaker 01

  a terrible social experiment in some ways, right?

• 1:05:05Speaker 01

  But you learn a lot from how people behave. And what you see is that, you know, people behave sometimes extraordinarily well in some situations and extraordinarily poorly in others. And it's mixed and you can't predict it. And it's hard to, hard to find consistency. I mean, that's the other thing. It's, you know, I think we claim too much consistency for the people we study and the people we think about in the past. You know, they're not consistent, any more than we are consistent, right?

• 1:05:33Lex Fridman?

  Well, let me ask you about human nature here on both sides. So first, what have you learned about human nature from studying genocide? Why do humans commit genocide? What lessons? First of all, why is a difficult question, but what insights do you have into humans? That genocide is something that happens in the world?

• 1:05:55Speaker 01

  That's a really big and difficult question, right? And it's, it has to be parsed, I think, into different kinds of questions. You know, why does genocide happen? You know, which the answer there is frequently political, meaning, you know, why Hitler ended up killing the Jews? Well, it had a lot to do with the political history of Germany and wartime history of Germany, right? In the 30s. And, you know, it's traceable to then. Like you mentioned it yourself, you can't imagine Hitler in the mid 20s turning into

• 1:06:34Speaker 01

  anything of the kind of dictator he ended up being and the kind of murderer, mass murderer he ended up being. So, so, and the same thing goes, by the way, for Stalin and Soviet Union and Pol Pot. I mean, these are all essentially political movements where the polity state seized, you know, by a ideological or, you know, party, single party movement and then is moved in directions where, where mass killing takes place. Another, the other question, separate that question out. The other question is why do ordinary people participate?

• 1:07:14Speaker 01

  Because the fact of the matter is, just ordering genocide is not enough. Just saying, you know, go get them is not enough. There have to be people who will cooperate and who will do their jobs, you know, both at the kind of mezzo level, the middle level of a bureaucracy, but also at the everyday level. You know, people who have to pull the triggers and that kind of thing and, you know, force people into the gas chamber and grab people, you know, in Kiev in September 1941 at Babinjar and push them, you know, towards the ravine where the machine gunners are going to shoot them down. You know, and those are all such different questions. The question of, um, you know, the especially the lower level,

• 1:07:59Speaker 01

  people who actually do the killing, is a question which I think we've been talking about, which is that within all of us, you know, is the capability of being murderers, and mass murderers, I mean, to participate in mass murder. I won't call them laws of social psychology, but the the character of social psychology. You know, we will do it in most cases. I mean, one of the shocking things that I learned just, you know, a few years ago, studying the Holocaust is that you could pull out. In other words, if if they order a police battalion to go shoot Jews, you didn't have to do it. You could pull out. They weren't gonna, they never killed anybody. They never, they never executed anybody. They never even punished people for saying,

• 1:08:42Speaker 01

  no, I don't, I'm not gonna do that. So people are doing it voluntarily. They may not want to do it. You know, they give them booze to try to, you know, numb the pain of murder, because they know there's, there is pain. I mean, people experience pain when they murder people. But they don't pull out. And so it's the character of who we are in society, in groups. And we're very, very influenced. I mean, we're highly influenced by the groups in which we operate. And, you know, who we talk to and and who our friends are within that group and who is the head of the group. And, I mean, you see this even, I mean, you see it in any group, you know, whether it's in the academy, right? At that Stanford,

• 1:09:27Speaker 01

  or whether it's, you know, in a labor union, or whether it's in a church group in in Tennessee or wherever, you know, people pay attention to each other and they and they are unwilling, frequently, to say, no, this is wrong. Even though all of you think it's right, it's wrong. I mean, they just don't do that usually, especially in societies uh, that are authoritarian or totalitarian, right? Because it's it's harder, because there's a backup to it, right? There's the NKVD there, or there's the Gestapo there. There are other people there. So you just, you know, they may not be forcing you to do it. But but your social being.

• 1:10:10Speaker 01

  Plus this danger in the, in the distance, you know, you do it.

• 1:10:16Lex Fridman?

  But then if you go up the hierarchy, at the very top, there's a dictator, presumably, you know, you go to like middle management, to the bureaucracy.

• 1:10:27Lex Fridman?

  The higher you get up there, the more power you have to change the direction of the Titanic.

• 1:10:33Speaker 01

  Right, right, right.

• 1:10:34Lex Fridman?

  But nobody seems to do it.

• 1:10:37Speaker 01

  Right. Or what happens, and it does happen, it happens in the German army. I mean, it happens in the case of the Armenian genocide, where we know there are governors who said, no, I'm not, I'm not going to kill Armenians. What kind of business is this? They're just removed. They're removed. And you find a replacement very easily. So, you know, you do see people who stand up. And again, it's not really predictable who it will be. I would maintain, I mean, I haven't done the study of the, of the Armenian governors who said no, I mean, the Turkish governors who said no to the Armenian genocide. But, you know, there are people who do step aside every once in a while in the middle level. And again, they're German generals who say, wait a minute, what is this business

• 1:11:21Speaker 01

  in Poland when they start to, to kill Jews or in Belarus? And, you know, they're just pushed aside. You know, if they don't do their job, they're pushed aside. Or they end up doing it. And they usually do end up doing it.

• 1:11:35Lex Fridman?

  What about on the victim's side? So I mentioned Man's Search for Meaning. What can we learn about human nature, the human mind, from the victims of genocide? So Viktor Frankl talked about the ability to discover meaning and beauty, even in suffering.

• 1:11:55Lex Fridman?

  Is there something to be said about, you know, in your studying of genocide that you've learned about human nature?

• 1:12:03Speaker 01

  Well, again, I don't, I have to say, I come out of the study of genocide with a very pessimistic view of human nature, a very pessimistic view.

• 1:12:13Lex Fridman?

  Even on the victim's side?

• 1:12:14Speaker 01

  Even on the victim's side. I mean, the victims will eat their children, right? Ukrainian case, they have no choice. You know, the victims will rob each other. The victims will form hierarchies within victimhood. So you see, let me give you an example. Again, I told you I was working on Maidanik. And there's, in Maidanik, at a certain point in '42, a group of Slovak Jews were arrested and sent to Maidanik. Those Slovak Jews were a group, somehow they, I mean, they stuck together, they were

• 1:12:58Speaker 01

  very competent, they were, you know, many of them were businessmen, they knew each other, and for a variety of different reasons within the camp. And again, this shows you the diversity of the camps, and also, you know, these images of black and white in the camps are not very useful. They ruled the camp. I mean, they basically had all the important jobs in the camp, including jobs like beating other Jews and persecuting other Jews and persecuting other peoples, which they did. And this Polish guy who I mentioned to you, who wrote this memoir, hated them because of what they were doing to the Poles, right?

• 1:13:41Speaker 01

  And, and, and he, you know, he's, he's incensed, because aren't these supposed to be the Untermenschen? He says, and look what they're doing. They're treating us, you know, like dirt. And they do, they treat them like dirt. So, you know, in this kind of work on Maidanik, there's certainly parts of it that, you know, were inspiring. You know, people helping each other, people trying to feed each other, people giving warmth to each other. You know, there's some very heroic...

• 1:14:17Speaker 01

  Polish women who end up having a radio show called Radio Majdanek, which they put on every night in the women's camp, which is, you know, to raise people's spirits. And they, you know, sing songs and do all this kind of stuff, you know, to, to try to keep themselves from, you know, the horrors that they're experiencing around them. And so you do see that and you do see, you know, human beings acting in support of each other. But, you know, I mean, Primo Levi is one of my favorite writers about, about the Holocaust and about the camps.

• 1:14:58Speaker 01

  And, you know, I don't, I don't think Primo Levi saw anything, you know? I mean, he had pals, you know, who, who he helped and who helped him. I mean, but he describes this, this kind of, you know, terrible, inhuman environment, which no one can escape, really. No one can escape. He ends up committing suicide too, I think, because of his, his sense of, we don't know exactly why, but probably because of his sense of what happened in the camp. I mean, later he goes back to Italy, he becomes a writer and that sort of thing. So I don't, I don't, especially in the concentration camps, it's really hard to find places like Vicofrancio where you can say, you know,

• 1:15:42Speaker 01

  I am moved in a positive way, you know, by what happened. There were cases, there's no question. People hung together, they tried to help each other. But, but, you know, they were totally, totally caught in this, in this web of genocide.

• 1:16:03Lex Fridman?

  See, so there are stories, but the thing is, I have this sense, maybe it's a hope, that within most, if not every human heart, there's a kind of like flame of compassion and kindness and love that waits, that longs to connect with others, that ultimately unmasked, overpowers everything else. If you just look at the story of human history.

• 1:16:33Lex Fridman?

  The resistance to violence and mass murder and genocide feels like a force that's there. And it feels like a force that's more powerful than whatever the dark momentum that leads to genocide is. It feels like that that's more powerful. It's just quiet. It's hard to tell the story of that little flame that burns with all within all of our hearts, that longing to connect to other human beings. And we there's something also about human nature and us as storytellers that we we're not very good at telling the stories of that little flame. We're much better at telling the stories of atrocities.

• 1:17:14Speaker 01

  No, you know, I I think maybe I fundamentally disagree with you. I think maybe I fundamentally I don't disagree that there is that flame. I just think it's just too easily doused. And I think it's too easily goes out in a lot of people. And I mean, I like I say, I come away from this work a pessimist. You know, there is this work by a Harvard psychologist now, I'm forgetting.

• 1:17:43Lex Fridman?

  Steven Pinker.

• 1:17:44Speaker 01

  Yes, yes. Steven Pinker, that shows over time, you know. And, you know, initially I was quite skeptical of the work, but in the end I thought he was quite convincing that over time, the incidence of homicide, you know, goes down, the incidence of rape goes down, the incidence of genocide, except for the big blip, you know, in the middle of the 20th century, goes down. Not markedly, but it goes down generally, that that, you know, more that norms, international norms are changing how we think about this and stuff like that. I thought I thought he was pretty convincing about that. But think about, think about, you know, we're we're modern people. I mean, we we've advanced so fast in so many different areas.

• 1:18:29Speaker 01

  I mean, we should have eliminated this a long time ago, a long time ago. You know, how is it that, you know, we're still facing this business of genocide in Myanmar and Shenzhen and in, you know, Tigray in Ethiopia, you know, the potentials of genocide there and all over the world, you know, we still, we still have this thing that we cannot handle, that we can't deal with. And, you know, again, you know, electric cars and planes that fly from here to, you know, Beijing. Think about the differences between 250 years ago or 300 years ago and today. But the differences in genocide are not all that great.

• 1:19:14Speaker 01

  I mean, the incidence has gone down. I think Pinker has demonstrated. I mean, there are problems with his methodology, but on the whole, I'm with him on that book. I thought in the end, it was, it was quite well done. So, you know, I do not, I have to say, I'm not, I'm not an optimist about what this human flame can do. And, you know, I once, someone once said to me, when I posed a similar kind of question to a seminar, a friend of mine at Berkeley once said, remember original sin, Norman? Well, I don't, you know, that's very Catholic and I don't, I don't really think in terms of original sin. But in some ways, you know, her point is we carry this with us.

• 1:19:59Speaker 01

  You know, we carry with us a really potentially nasty mean streak that can do harm to other people.

• 1:20:10Lex Fridman?

  But we carry the capacity to love, too.

• 1:20:12Speaker 01

  Yes, we do. And so we do. That's part, that's part of the deal.

• 1:20:16Lex Fridman?

  You have a bias in that you have studied some of the darker aspects of human nature and human history. So it is difficult from the trenches, from the muck, to see a possible sort of way out through love. But it's not obvious that that's not the case. You mentioned electric cars and rockets and airplanes. To me, the more powerful thing is Wikipedia, the internet. Only 50% of the world currently has access to the internet, but that's growing in information and knowledge and wisdom, especially among women in the world.

• 1:20:56Lex Fridman?

  As that grows, I think it becomes a lot more difficult, if love wins, it becomes a lot more difficult for somebody like Hitler to take power, for genocide to occur, because people think, and the masses, I think, the people have power when they, when they're able to think, when they can see the full kind of.

• 1:21:18Lex Fridman?

  First of all, when they can study your work, they can know about the fact that genocide happens, how it occurs, how the promises of great charismatic leaders lead to great destructive mass genocide. And just even studying the fact that the Holocaust happened for a large number of people is a powerful preventer of future genocide. Like, one of the lessons of history is just knowing that this can happen, learning how it happens, that normal human beings, leaders that give big promises, can also become evil and destructive. The fact, knowing that that can happen, is a powerful preventer of that.

• 1:22:01Lex Fridman?

  And then you kind of wake up from this haze of believing everything you hear, and you learn to just, in your small, local way, to give, put more love out there in the world. I believe it's possible, it's not, it's not too good. Sort of to push back, I'm not, it's not so obvious to me that in the end, I think in the end, love wins. That's my intuition, I had to put money on it. I have a sense that this genocide thing is more and more going to be an artifact of the past.

• 1:22:39Speaker 01

  Well, I certainly hope you're right. I mean, I certainly hope you're right. And, you know, it could be you are, we don't know. But the evidence is different. The evidence is different. And, you know, the capacity of human beings to do evil to other human beings is repeatedly demonstrated. You know, whether it's in massacres in Mexico, or, you know, ISIS and the Azizidi Kurds, or, you know, you can just go on and on, Syria. I mean, look what, I mean, Syria used to be a country, you know? And now it's a...

• 1:23:21Speaker 01

  You know, it's been a mass grave and and people then have left in the millions, you know, for other places. And, you know, I'm not saying, um, you know, I'm not saying, I mean, the Turks have done nice things for the Syrians and the Germans welcomed in a million or so and actually reasonably absorbed them. I mean, it's all it's not, I'm not saying bad things only happen in the world. There are good and bad things that happen. You're absolutely right. And, um, but I don't think we're on the path to eliminating these bad things, really bad things from happening. I just don't think we are. And I don't think there's any, I don't think the facts demonstrated. I mean, I hope, I hope you're right. But, but I think otherwise,

• 1:24:06Speaker 01

  otherwise it's just an article of faith.

• 1:24:10Lex Fridman?

  Well.

• 1:24:11Speaker 01

  You know, which is perfectly fine. It's better to have that article of faith than to have a article of faith which says, you know, things should get bad or things like that.

• 1:24:20Lex Fridman?

  Well, it's not, it's not just fine. It's the only way if you want to build a better future. So optimism is a prerequisite for engineering a better future. So like, okay, so a historian has to see clearly into the past.

• 1:24:33Speaker 01

  Right.

• 1:24:34Lex Fridman?

  An engineer has to, has to imagine a future that's different from the past, that's better than the past. Because without that, they're not going to be able to build a better future. So there's a kind of saying like you have to consider the facts. Well, at every single moment in history, if you allow yourself to be, um, too grounded by the facts of the past, you're not going to create the future. So that's kind of the tension that we're living with. To have a chance, we have to imagine that that better future is possible. But one of the ways to do that is to study history.

• 1:25:11Speaker 01

  Which engineers don't do enough of.

• 1:25:13Lex Fridman?

  They do not.

• 1:25:14Speaker 01

  Which is a real problem, you know, it's a real problem.

• 1:25:18Lex Fridman?

  Or basically, a lot of disciplines in science and so on don't, don't, don't do enough of.

• 1:25:22Speaker 01

  Right.

• 1:25:24Lex Fridman?

  Can you tell the story of China from 1958 to 1962? What was called the Great Leap Forward orchestrated by Chairman Mao Zedong that led to the deaths of tons of millions of people making it arguably the largest famine in human history?

• 1:25:42Speaker 01

  Uh, yes, I mean, it was, uh, you know, a terrible set of events. That led to the death, you know, people will dispute the numbers. You know, 15 million, 17 million, 14 million, 20 million people died.

• 1:26:02Lex Fridman?

  Many people say 30, 40, 50 million.

• 1:26:05Speaker 01

  Some people will go that high, too. That's right. That's right. Essentially Mao and the Communist Party leadership, and it was, you know, it was mostly Mao's doing, decided he wanted, you know, to move the country into communism. And part of the idea of that, you know, was rivalry with the Soviet Union. You know, Mao was a good Stalinist, or at least felt like Stalin was the right kind of communist leader to have, and he didn't like Khrushchev at all. And he didn't like what he thought were Khrushchev's reforms and also Khrushchev's pretensions to moving the Soviet Union into communism. So Khrushchev, you know, started talking about giving more power to the party, less power to the state.

• 1:26:49Speaker 01

  And if you have more power to the party versus the state, then you're moving into communism quicker. So what Mao decided to do was to engage in this vast program of, you know, building what were called people's communes. And these communes, you know, were enormous conglomerations of essentially collective farms, you know? And what would happen on those communes is there would be, you know, there would be places for people to eat and there would be places for the kids to be raised and, you know, essentially kind of separate homes and they would be schooled. Everybody would turn over their metal, which was one of the, actually turned out to be

• 1:27:32Speaker 01

  terribly negative phenomenon, their metal pots and pans to be melted to then make steel. Every of these big communes would all have little steel plants and they would build steel and the whole countryside would be transformed.

• 1:27:49Speaker 01

  Well, like many of these sort of, I'm a true megalomaniac project, you know, like some of Stalin's projects too. And this particular project, then, you know, the people had no choice. They were forced, you know, to do this. It was incredibly dysfunctional for Chinese agriculture. And ended up, you know, creating, as you mentioned, a terrible famine that everybody understood was a famine as a result of this. I mean, there were some, there were also some problems of nature at the same time and some flooding and bad weather and that sort of thing. But it was really a man-made famine.

• 1:28:34Speaker 01

  And Mao said at one point, you know, who cares? You know, if, you know, millions die, it just doesn't matter. We've got millions more left. I mean, he would periodically say things like this that showed that like Stalin, he had, you know, total indifference, you know, to the fact that people were dying in large numbers. It led again to cannibalism and to terrible wastage all over the country and millions of people died. And there was just no stopping it. You know, there were people in the party who began to kind of edge towards telling Mao this wasn't a great idea, you know, and that he should back off, but he wouldn't back off. And the result was, you know, catastrophe in the countryside

• 1:29:19Speaker 01

  and all these people dying. And then they, you know, compounding the problem was the political elite, which then, you know, if peasants would object or if certain people would say, no, they'd beat the hell out of them. You know, they would beat people, you know, who didn't do what they wanted them to do. So it was, it was really, really a horrific set of events on the Chinese, the Chinese countryside. I mean, You know, and people, people wrote about it. I mean, we, we, we learned about it. There were people who were keeping track of what was going on and eventually wrote books about it. So, you know, so we have, I mean, we have pretty good documentation, not so much on the numbers.

• 1:30:02Speaker 01

  Numbers is, numbers are always a difficult problem, you know? I'm, I'm facing this problem, by the way, this is a little, little bit separate with the Holodomor, where, you know, Ukrainians are now claiming 11.5 million people died in Holodomor. And, you know, most people assume it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 million, 4.5 million, maybe. So you have wildly different numbers that come out. And we have different kinds of numbers, as, as you mentioned, too, with the Great Leap Forward. So it was a huge catastrophe for, for China and now only backed off when he had to. And then, you know, revived a little bit with the, you know, Red Guards Movement later on,

• 1:30:41Speaker 01

  when, when, you know, he was, he was upset that the bureaucracy was resisting him a little bit when it came to the Great Leap, but he had, he had to back off. It was such a, such a terrible catastrophe.

• 1:30:53Lex Fridman?

  So one of the things about numbers is that they usually talk about deaths. But with, with the famine, with starvation, the, the thing I often think about that's impossible to put into numbers is the number of people and the degree to which they were suffering. You know, the number of days spent in suffering.

• 1:31:16Speaker 01

  Oh, yeah.

• 1:31:18Lex Fridman?

  And so, I mean, death is, I, it, death is just one of the consequences of suffering. And to me, it feels like one, two, three years of months and then years of, of not having anything to eat is, is worse. And it's sort of those, those aren't put into numbers often.

• 1:31:43Speaker 01

  That's right. And the effect on people long-term, you know, in terms of their mental health, in terms of their physical health, their ability to work, all those kinds of things, you know? I mean, Ukrainians are working on, there are people working on this subject now, you know, the long-term effect of, of the hunger famine on them. And I'm sure there's a similar kind of a long-term effect. On Chinese peasantry of what happened, you know, I mean, you're destroying.

• 1:32:07Lex Fridman?

  Multi-generational.

• 1:32:08Speaker 01

  Yes, multi-generational, that's right.

• 1:32:10Lex Fridman?

  Wow.

• 1:32:11Speaker 01

  And, you know, it's a, it's a really, you're absolutely right. This is a terrible, terrible way to die. And, uh, and it lasts a long time. And sometimes you don't die, you survive. But, you know, in, in the kind of shape where you can't, you can't do anything. I mean, you can't, you can't function. Now, your brain's been injured, you know. Um, I know it's a really, uh, these, these famines are really horrible. You're right.

• 1:32:37Lex Fridman?

  So when you talk about genocide, it's often talking about murder.

• 1:32:40Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:32:40Lex Fridman?

  Where do you place North Korea in this discussion? We kind of mentioned it. So in the, what is it? The arduous march.

• 1:32:51Lex Fridman?

  Of the 1990s. Where was mass starvation? Uh, many people describe mass starvation going on now in North Korea. When you think about genocide, when you think about atrocities going on in the world today, where do you place North Korea?

• 1:33:08Speaker 01

  So take a step back. When the, uh, there were all these courts that were set up for, for Bosnia and for Rwanda and, and, and for other genocides, uh, in the 1990s. And then, um, the, the decision was made by the international community, UN basically, to set up the International Criminal Court, which would then try genocide in the more modern period, uh, the more contemporary period. And, um, the ICC lists three crimes, basically. You know, the, the genocide, uh, uh, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

• 1:33:50Speaker 01

  Um, and subsumed to crimes against humanity are a lot of the kinds of things you're talking about with North Korea. I mean, it's, it's torture, it's artificial, sometimes artificial famine or famine, you know, that is not.

• 1:34:07Speaker 01

  Not necessary, right? Not necessary to have it. And other, there are other kinds of, you know, mass rape and stuff like that. There are other kinds of things that fit into the crimes against humanity. And that's sort of where I think about North Korea as committing crimes against humanity, not genocide. And again, remember genocide is, is meant to be, I mean, some people, there's disagreement among scholars and jurists about this. Some people think of genocide as the crime of crimes, the worst of the three that I just mentioned. But some think of them as co-equal. And the ICC, the International Criminal Court, is dealing with them more or less as co-equal,

• 1:34:51Speaker 01

  even though we tend to think of genocide as the worst. So I, I mean, what I'm trying to say is that, you know, I don't wanna, I don't wanna split hairs. I, I think it's sort of morally and ethically unseemly, you know, the split hairs about what is genocide and what is a crime against humanity. You know, this is for lawyers, not for historians. Terminology wise. Yeah, yeah, you know, that it, you, you don't wanna get into that. Because it, I mean, it happened with Darfur a little bit, where the Bush administration had, had declared that Darfur was a genocide. And the UN said, no, no, it's, you know, it wasn't genocide, it was a crime against humanity. And that, you know, that confused things versus clarified them.

• 1:35:35Speaker 01

  I mean, we knew, damn well knew what was happening. People were being killed and being attacked. And, and so, you know, on the one hand, I, I think the whole concept and the way of thinking about history, using genocide as an important part of human history is, is crucial. On the other hand, I don't, I don't like to. You know, get involved in the hair splitting of what's genocide and what's not. So that, you know, North Korea, I tend to think of, like I said, as a as committing crimes against humanity and, and, you know, forcibly incarcerating people, torturing them, that kind of thing.

• 1:36:16Speaker 01

  You know, routinely incarcerating, depriving them of certain kinds of of human rights can be considered a crime against humanity. But I don't think of it in the same way I think about genocide, which is an attack on a group of people. Let me just leave it at that.

• 1:36:30Lex Fridman?

  What in this, if we think about, if it's okay, can we loosely use the term genocide here? Just let's not play games with terminology. Just bad crimes against humanity.

• 1:36:42Speaker 01

  Right.

• 1:36:44Lex Fridman?

  Of particular interest are the ones that are going on today still. Because it raises the question to us, what do people outside of this, what role do they have to play? So what role does the United States? Or what role do I, as a human being, who has food today, who has shelter, who has a comfortable life? What role do I have when I think about North Korea? When I think about Syria? When I think about maybe the Uighur population in in China?

• 1:37:21Speaker 01

  Well, I mean, the role is the same role I have, which is to teach and to learn and to get the message out that this is happening. Because the more people who understand it, the more likely it is that the United States government will try to do something about it. You know, in, within the context of who we are and where we live, right? And so, you know, I write books, you do shows, you know? Or maybe you write books too. I don't know.

• 1:37:52Lex Fridman?

  No, I do not write books, but I tweet.

• 1:37:55Speaker 01

  You tweet, okay.

• 1:37:56Lex Fridman?

  Ineloquently. But that's not the, I guess that's not the, yes, so certainly this is true. And in terms of a voice, in terms of words, in terms of books, you are, I would say, a rare example of somebody that has powerful reach with words. But I was also referring to actions. The United States government, what are the options here? So, war has costs. And war seems to be, as you have described, sort of potentially increase the atrocity, not decrease it. If there's anything that challenges my hope for the future is the fact that sometimes we're not powerless to help,

• 1:38:40Lex Fridman?

  but very close to powerless to help. Because trying to help can often lead to, in the near term, more negative effects than positive effects.

• 1:38:52Speaker 01

  That's exactly right. I mean, the unintended consequences of what we do can frequently be as bad, if not worse, than trying to relieve the difficulties that people are having. So I think you're caught a little bit. But it's also true, I think, that we can be more forceful. I think we can be more forceful without necessarily war. You know, there is this idea of the so-called responsibility to protect. And this was an idea that came up after Kosovo, which was, what, 1999? And when the Serbs looked like

• 1:39:35Speaker 01

  they were going to engage in a genocidal program in Kosovo. And it was basically a program of ethnic cleansing, but it could have gone bad and gotten worse, not just driving people out, but beginning to kill them. And the United States and Britain and others intervened. And Russians were there too, as you probably recall. And I think correctly, people have analyzed this as a case in which genocide was prevented or stopped. In other words, the Serbs were stopped in their tracks. I mean, some bad things did happen. We bombed Belgrade and the Chinese embassy and things like that. But, you know, it was stopped.

• 1:40:18Speaker 01

  And following upon that, then there was a kind of international consensus that we needed to do something, I mean, because of Rwanda, Bosnia, and the positive example of Kosovo, right? That genocide did not happen in Kosovo. And I think that argument has been substantiated. Anyway.

• 1:40:40Speaker 01

  And this notion of the, or this doctrine or whatever, of the responsibility to protect them was adopted by the UN in 2005 unanimously. And what it says is, there's a hierarchy of measures that should be... Well, let me take a step back. It starts with the principle that sovereignty of a country is not... You don't earn it just by being there and being your own country. You have to earn it by protecting your people. So this was all agreed, with all the nations of the UN agreed, you know, Chinese and Russians too.

• 1:41:25Speaker 01

  That sovereignty is there because you protect your people against various depredations, right? Including genocide, crimes against humanity, you know, forced imprisonment, torture and that sort of thing. If you violate that justification for your sovereignty, that you're protecting your people, that you're not protecting them, the international community has the obligation to do something about it. All right? Now, then they have a kind of hierarchy of things you can do. You know, starting with... I mean, I'm not quoting exactly, but you know, starting with kind of push and pull, you know, trying to convince people, "Don't do that."

• 1:42:10Speaker 01

  You know, to Myanmar, "Don't do that to the Rohingya people," right? Then it goes down the list, you know, and you get to sanctions, or threatening sanctions, and then sanctions, you know, like we have against Russia. But you go down the list, right? You go down the list and eventually you get to military intervention at the bottom, which they say is the last thing, you know, and you really don't want to do that. And not only do you not want to do it, but it, just as you said, just as you pointed out, it can have unintended consequences, right? And we'll do everything we can, short, you know, of military intervention,

• 1:42:51Speaker 01

  but, you know, if necessary, that can be undertaken as well. And so the responsibility to protect, I think, is a...

• 1:43:02Speaker 01

  You know, it was not implementable. Oh, one of the things it says in this last category, right? The military intervention is that the intervention cannot create more damage than it relieves, right? And so for Syria, we came to the conclusion, you know, that, I mean, the international community in some ways said this in so many words, even though the Russians were there, obviously, we ended up being there and that sort of thing. But the international community basically said, you know, there's no way you can intervene in Syria. You know, there's just no, no way without causing more damage, you know, than you would relieve. So, you know, in some senses, that's what the international community is saying about,

• 1:43:46Speaker 01

  you know, Xinjiang and the Uighurs too. You know, I mean, you can't even imagine what hell would break loose if there was some kind of military trouble, you know, to threaten the Chinese with. But you can go down that list with, you know, the military leadership of Myanmar, and you can go down that list with the Chinese Communist Party, and you can go down the list, you know, with others who are threatening, you know, with Ethiopia and what it's doing in Tigray. And, you know, you can go down that list and start pushing.

• 1:44:25Speaker 01

  I think what happened, there was more of a willingness in the 90s and in, you know, right at the turn of the century, you know, to do these kinds of things. And then, you know, when Trump got elected and, you know, he basically said, you know, America first and out of the world, we're not going to do any of this kind of stuff. And now Biden has the problem of trying to rebuild consensus on how you, how you deal with these kinds of things. I think it's not impossible. I mean, here I tend to be maybe more of an optimist than you. You know, I think it's not impossible that the international community can muster

• 1:45:05Speaker 01

  some internal fortitude and push harder, short of war, you know, to get the Chinese and to get the, again, Myanmar and to get others to kind of back off of violations of people's rights, the way they are routinely doing it.

• 1:45:25Lex Fridman?

  So that's in the space of geopolitics, that's the space of politicians and UN and so on.

• 1:45:30Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 1:45:31Lex Fridman?

  The interesting thing about China, and this is a difficult topic, but there's so many financial interests that not many voices with power and with money speak up, speak out against China. Because it's a very interesting effect, because it costs a lot for an individual to speak up. Because you're going to suffer, I mean, China just cuts off the market. Like, if you have a product, if you have a company, and you say something negative, China just says, okay, well, then they knock you out of the market.

• 1:46:12Lex Fridman?

  And so any person speaks up, they get shut down immediately financially. It's a huge cost, sometimes millions or billions of dollars.

• 1:46:20Speaker 01

  Right.

• 1:46:21Lex Fridman?

  And so what happens is everybody of consequence, financially, everybody with a giant platform is extremely hesitant to speak out. It's a very, it's a different kind of hesitation that's financial in nature. I don't know if that was always the case. It seems like in history, people were quiet because of fear, because of threat of violence. Here, there's almost like a self-interested preservation of financial, of wealth. And I don't, I don't know what to do that, I mean, I don't know if you can say something there, like.

• 1:47:00Lex Fridman?

  The genocide going on because people are financially self-interested.

• 1:47:06Speaker 01

  Yeah, no, I think, I mean, I think the analysis is correct. And it's not only, but it's not only corporations, but it's, you know, it's the American government that represents the American people that also feels compelled not to challenge the Chinese on human rights issues.

• 1:47:27Lex Fridman?

  But the interesting thing is, it's not just, you know, I know, I know a lot of people from China. And first of all, amazing human beings and a lot of brilliant people in China. They also don't want to speak out and not because they're sort of quote unquote like silenced, but more because they're going to also lose financially. They have a lot of businesses in China. They, you know, they're running, in fact, the Chinese government and the country has a very interesting structure because it has a lot of elements that enable capitalism within a certain framework. So you have a lot of very successful companies and they operate successfully. And then the leaders of those companies, many of whom have either been on this podcast

• 1:48:12Lex Fridman?

  or want to be on this podcast, they really don't want to say anything negative about the government. And the nature of the fear, I sense, is not the kind of fear you would have in Nazi Germany. It's a very kind of, it's a mellow, like, why would I speak out when it has a negative effect on my company, on my family, in terms of finance, strictly financially?

• 1:48:38Lex Fridman?

  And that's, uh, that's difficult. That's a different problem to solve. That feels solvable because it feels like it's a money problem. If you can control the flow of money. Where the government has less power to control the flow of money. It feels like that's solvable. And that's where capitalism is good. That's where a free market is good. So it's like, that's where a lot of people in the cryptocurrency space, I don't know if you follow them. They kind of say, okay, take the monetary system, the power to control money away from governments. Make it a distribut-- like allow technology to help you with that. That's a hopeful message there. In fact, a lot of people argue that kind of Bitcoin, these cryptocurrencies can help

• 1:49:22Lex Fridman?

  deal with some of these authoritarian regimes that lead to violations of basic human rights. If you can control, if you can give the power to control the money to the people, you can take that away from governments. That's another source of hope, where technology might be able to do something good. That's something different about the 21st century than the 20th, is there's technology in the hands of billions of people.

• 1:49:47Speaker 01

  I mean, I have to say, I think you're a naive when it comes to technology. I mean, I don't, I'm not someone who understands technology. So it's wrong of me, you know, to argue with you because I don't really spend much time with it. I don't really like it very much and I'm not, you know, I'm neither a fan nor a connoisseur. So I just don't really know. But what human history has shown, basically, and that's a big statement. You know, I don't want to pretend I can tell you what human history has shown. But, you know, technology, atom bomb. I mean, that's the perfect example of technology. You know, what happens when you discover new things? It's a perfect example, what's going on with Facebook now.

• 1:50:32Speaker 01

  It's an absolutely perfect example. You know, and, you know, I once, I once went to a lecture by Eric Schmidt about the future, you know, and about all the things that were going to happen and all these wonderful things. Like, you know, you wouldn't have to translate yourself anything. You wouldn't have to, you wouldn't have to read a book, you know? You wouldn't have to drive a car. You don't have to do this, you don't have to do that. What kind of life is that? So, you know, my, my view of technology is it's, it's subsumed. You know, to the political, uh, social and moral needs of our day and should be subsumed to that day. It's not going to solve anything by itself. It's going to be you and me that solve things. Uh, if they're solved, or our political system that solves things.

• 1:51:16Speaker 01

  Technology is neutral on one level. It is simply a human, uh, I mean, they're talking now about how artificial intelligence, you know, is going to do this and is going to do that. I'm not so sure there's anything necessarily positive or negative about it, except it does obviously make work easier and things like that. I mean, I, you know, I like email and I like, you know, word processing and that sort of all that stuff is great. But, but actually solving human relations in and of itself, or international relations, or, or conflict among human beings.

• 1:51:58Speaker 01

  I mean, I see technology as, you know, causing as many problems as it solves and maybe even more, you know, the kind

• 1:52:06Lex Fridman?

  Maybe.

• 1:52:07Speaker 01

  Maybe even more.

• 1:52:08Lex Fridman?

  Yeah. The, the question is, so like you said, technology is neutral. I agree with this. Technology is a, is a toolkit, is a toolset that enables humans to have wider reach and more power. The printing press. The, the rare reason I can read your books is, I would argue, so first of all, the printing press and then the, uh, the internet. Uh, Wikipedia, I think, has immeasurable effect on, uh, humanity. Technology is a double-edged sword. It allows

• 1:52:43Speaker 01

  Right.

• 1:52:44Lex Fridman?

  Bad people to do bad things

• 1:52:45Speaker 01

  Right.

• 1:52:46Lex Fridman?

  And good people to do good things.

• 1:52:47Speaker 01

  Exactly.

• 1:52:48Lex Fridman?

  Ultimately boils down to

• 1:52:49Speaker 01

  Right, the people.

• 1:52:50Lex Fridman?

  What, the people and whether you believe the capacity for good outweighs the capacity of bad. And so you said that I'm naive, it is true, I'm naively optimistic. I would say you're naively cynical about technology. But here we have, uh, one overdressed naive optimist and one brilliant, uh, but nevertheless a technologically naive cynic, and we don't know. We don't know that whether the capacity for good or the capacity, uh, for evil wins out in the end.

• 1:53:22Speaker 01

  Right.

• 1:53:23Lex Fridman?

  And like we've been talking about, the trajectory of human history seems to pivot on a lot of Random seeming moments, so we don't know. But I, I remain, as a builder of technology, I, I remain optimistic. And, and I should say, kind of, um, when you are optimistic, it is often easy to sound naive. And I'm not sure what to make of that, a small effect. And not to linger on specific words, but I've noticed that people who kind of are cynical about the world somehow sound more intelligent.

• 1:54:06Speaker 01

  No, no, the, the issue is how, how do you, how are, how can you be realistic about the world? It's not optimistic or pessimistic, it's not cynical. The question is, how can you be a realist, right?

• 1:54:17Lex Fridman?

  Yes, that's a good question.

• 1:54:18Speaker 01

  And, and, you know, realism depends on, on a combination of, of knowledge and wisdom and good instincts and that sort of thing. And that, that is, that's what we strive for.

• 1:54:33Lex Fridman?

  Yes.

• 1:54:33Speaker 01

  You know, is a kind of realism. We both strive for that kind of realism. But, but, I mean, here, here's an example I would give you. You know, what about, again, we've got this environmental issue, right? And technology has created it. It's created it. I mean, the growth of technology, I mean, we all like to be heated well in our homes and we want to have cars that run quickly and fast on, on, you know, gas and this. We all, I mean, there's all, we're all consumers and we all profit from this. I don't, I don't, not everybody profits from it, but, you know, but, but we want to be comfortable. And technology has provided us with a comfortable life. And it's also provided us, you know, with this incredible danger, which it's not solving,

• 1:55:18Speaker 01

  at least not now.

• 1:55:19Lex Fridman?

  Okay.

• 1:55:20Speaker 01

  And it may solve.

• 1:55:21Lex Fridman?

  Yep.

• 1:55:21Speaker 01

  But it may, it's only, my view is, you know what's gonna, what's gonna happen? A horrible catastrophe. It's the only way, it's the only way we will direct ourselves to actually trying to do something about it. We don't have the wisdom and the realism and the sense of purpose. You know, what's her name, Greta goes blah, blah, blah, something like that in her, in her last talk about the, about the, um,

• 1:55:54Speaker 01

  The Environmental Summit in Glasgow, or whatever it was. And, you know, we just, we just don't have it unless we're hit upside the head really, really hard. And then maybe, you know, the, the business with nuclear weapons. You know, I think somehow we got hit upside the head and we realized, oh man, you know, this could really do it to the whole world. And so we started, you know, serious arms control stuff. And, you know, but up to that point, you know, I mean, there was just something about, you know, Khrushchev's big bomb, his big hydrogen bomb, which he exploded in the Times, I think it was the anniversary or something like that, you know, I mean,

• 1:56:39Speaker 01

  just think what we could have done to each other.

• 1:56:41Lex Fridman?

  Well, that's the double edged sword of technology.

• 1:56:43Speaker 01

  Yeah, I agree.

• 1:56:44Lex Fridman?

  There's a lot of people, there's a lot of people that argue that nuclear weapons is the reason we haven't had a World War III. So nuclear weapons, the mutual assured destruction leads to a kind of like, we've reached a certain level of destructiveness with our weapons where we were able to catch ourselves not to create, like you said, hit really hard. This is the, this is the interesting question about a kind of hard, hard and really hard upside the head with the, with the, with the environment. I would argue, see, we can't know the future, but I would argue as the pressure builds, there's already, because

• 1:57:26Lex Fridman?

  of this created urgency, the amount of innovation that I've seen that sometimes is unrelated to the environment, but kind of sparked by this urgency has been humongous, including the work of Elon Musk, including the work of just, you could argue that. The SpaceX and the new exploration of space is kind of sparked by this environmental like urgency, I mean, connected to Tesla and everything they're doing with electric vehicles and so on. There's a huge amount of innovation in the space that's happening. I could see the effect of climate change resulting in more positive innovation that

• 1:58:08Lex Fridman?

  improves the quality of life across the world than the actual catastrophic events that we're describing, which we cannot even currently predict. Right. It's not like there's going to be, there's going to be more extreme weather events. What does that even mean? There's going to be a gradual increase of the level of water? What does that even mean in terms of catastrophic events? It's going to be pretty gradual. There's going to be migration of people. We can't predict what that means. And in response to that, there's going to be a huge amount of innovators born today that have dreams and that will build devices and inventions and from space to vehicles to in the software

• 1:58:49Lex Fridman?

  world that enable education across the world. All those kinds of things that will on mass, on average, increase the quality of life on average across the world. So it's not at all obvious that these, the things, that the technologies that are creating climate change, global warming, are going to have a negative, net negative effect. We don't know this. And I'm kind of inspired by the dreamers, the engineers, the innovators and the entrepreneurs that build, that, that, that wake up in the morning, see problems in the world and dream that they're going to be the ones who solve those problems. That's, that's the human spirit. And that I'm not exactly, it is true that we need those deadlines.

• 1:59:34Lex Fridman?

  We need to be freaking out about stuff. And the reason we need to study history and the worst of human history is then we can say, oh shit, this too can happen. It's a slap in the face. It's a wake up call that if you're, if you get complacent, if you get lazy, this is going to happen. And that, listen, there's a lot of really intelligent people, ambitious people, dreamers, skilled dreamers that build solutions that make sure this stuff doesn't happen anymore. So there's, I think there's reason to be optimistic about technology, not in a naive way. There's an argument to be made in a realistic way that,

• 2:00:13Lex Fridman?

  like with technology, we can build a better future. And then Facebook is a lesson, in the way Facebook has been done, is a, is a, is a lesson how not to do it. And that lesson serves as a, as a guide of how to do it better, how to do it right, how to do it in a positive way. And the same, the same, every single sort of failed technology contains when it, the lessons of how to do it better. I mean, without that, what's the source of hope for human civilization? You know, that, I mean, that by way of question, you have truly studied

• 2:00:56Lex Fridman?

  some of the darkest moments in human history. Put on your optimist hat. Where?

• 2:01:02Speaker 01

  I have one.

• 2:01:03Lex Fridman?

  Yes.

• 2:01:05Speaker 01

  The glimmers of it.

• 2:01:07Lex Fridman?

  There's, yes. What, what is your source of hope for the future of human civilization?

• 2:01:13Speaker 01

  Well, I think it, it resides in, you know, some of what you've been saying, which is the, in the persistence of this civilization over time, despite, you know, the incredible setbacks, you know, two enormous world wars, you know, the nuclear standoff, the...

• 2:01:38Speaker 01

  You know, the horrible things we're experiencing now with climate change and migration and stuff like that. That despite these things, you know, we are persisting. And we are continuing, and like you say, we're continuing to invent and we're continuing to try to solve these problems. And, you know, we're continuing to love as well as hate. And, um, you know, that, um. You know, I'm, I'm basically, I mean, I have children and grandchildren and I think they're gonna, they're gonna be just fine. You know, I'm not a, I'm not a, a, a doom and gloom or, you know, I'm not a Cassandra saying the world is coming to an end. I'm not like that at all.

• 2:02:20Speaker 01

  Um, you know, I, I think that, um. You know, things will persist. Another, by the way, source of tremendous optimism on, on my part. The kids I teach. You know, I, I teach some unbelievably fantastic young people, you know, who are sort of like you say, they're dreamers and they're, and they're problem solvers. And they're, um, they're, I mean, they, they have enormously humane. Uh, values and ways of thinking about the world and they wanna, they wanna do good. You know, if you take the kind of, I mean. This has probably been true all the way along, but I mean, the percentage of do-gooders.

• 2:03:02Speaker 01

  You know, is really enormously large. Now, whether they end up working for some kind of shark law firm or something. You know, or, or, uh, you know, that, that, that kind of thing, or whether they end up human rights lawyers is they all wanna be, right? Yeah. Uh, the, you know, is a different kind of question, but, but certainly, um. You know, these young people are talented, they're smart, they're wonderful values, they're energetic, they work hard, you know, they're focused. Um, and of course, it's not just Stanford. I mean, it's all over the country, you know, you have young people, uh, who really wanna contribute. And they wanna contribute. I mean, you, I mean, it, it's true, some of them end up, you know.

• 2:03:48Speaker 01

  Working to get rich, I mean, that's inevitable, right? But but the percentages are actually rather small, at least at this age. You know, maybe when they get a mortgage and a family and that sort of thing, you know, financial well being will be more important to them. But right now, you know, you catch this young generation and they're fantastic. They're fantastic and and they're not what they're often portrayed as being, you know, kind of silly and naive and knee jerk leftists and that. They're not at all like that. You know, they're really, they're really fine young people. So that's a source of optimism to me, too.

• 2:04:28Lex Fridman?

  What advice would you give to those young people today, maybe in high school, in college, at Stanford, maybe to your grandchildren about how to have a career they can be proud of, have a life they can be proud of?

• 2:04:43Speaker 01

  Pursue careers that are in the public interest, you know, in one fashion or another, and not just in their interests. And and that would be, I mean, it's not bad to pursue a career in your own interests. I mean, as long as you're, it's something that's useful and positive for the, you know, for for their families or whatever. But yeah, so I mean, I I try to, I try to advise kids to find themselves somehow. You know, find who they want to be and what they want to be and try to pursue it. And the NGO world is growing, as you know, and and a lot of young people are kind of throwing themselves into it and and, you know, Human Rights Watch and that kind

• 2:05:28Speaker 01

  of stuff and and, you know, they want to do that kind of work and it's it's very admirable.

• 2:05:35Lex Fridman?

  I I I tend to think that even if you're not working in human rights, there's a certain way in which if you live with integrity, the

• 2:05:47Lex Fridman?

  I believe that all of us, or many of us, have a bunch of moments in our lives when we're posed with a decision. It's a quiet one. Maybe it'll never be written about or talked about. Where you get to choose whether you, uh, there's a choice that is difficult to make, may require sacrifice, but it's the choice that, uh, the best version of that person would make. That's the best way I can sort of say how to act with integrity. It's the very thing that would resist the early days in Nazi Germany. It sounds dramatic to say, but those little actions.

• 2:06:29Lex Fridman?

  And I feel like the best you can do to avoid genocide on scale is for all of us to live in that way. To, within those moments, unrelated potentially to human rights, to anything else, is to take those actions. Like, I, I believe that all of us know the right thing to do.

• 2:06:48Speaker 01

  I know, that's right. I think that's right. You put it very well. I couldn't have done it better myself. No, no, I, I agree. I agree completely that there are, you know, you know, to live, to live with truth, which is what Vasyl Havel used to say, this famous Czech dissident, you know, talked about living in truth, but also to live with integrity.

• 2:07:11Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 2:07:12Speaker 01

  And that's really super important.

• 2:07:15Lex Fridman?

  Well, let me ask you about love. What role does love play in this whole thing, in the, in the human condition? In all the study of genocide, it does seem that hardship in moments brings out the best in human nature. And the best in human nature is expressed through love.

• 2:07:32Speaker 01

  Well, as I already mentioned to you, I think hardship can, is not a good thing for, for, you know, it's not the best thing for love. I mean, it's better, it's better to not have to suffer and not have to. Yes, I think it is. I think it's, you, you know.

• 2:07:52Speaker 01

  As I mentioned to you, you know, studying concentration camps, you know, this is not a place for love. It happens. It happens. But it's not really a place for love. It's a place for rape. It's a place for torture. It's a place for killing and it's a place for inhuman action, one to another, you know? And also, as I said, among those who are suffering, not just between those who are... And then there are whole gradations, you know? The same thing in the Gulag, you know? There are gradations, all the way from the the criminal prisoners who beat the hell out of the political prisoners, you know, who then have others below them who they beat down. You know, so everybody's beating the hell out of everybody else.

• 2:08:36Speaker 01

  So I would, I would not idealize in any way suffering as a, you know, a... A source of beauty. A source of beauty and love. I wouldn't do that. I think it's a whole lot better for people to be relatively prosperous. I'm not saying super prosperous, but to be able to feed themselves and to be able to feed their families and house their families and take care of themselves. You know, to foster loving relations between people. And, um, you know, I think it's no accident that, um, you know, poor families have much,

• 2:09:17Speaker 01

  you know, worse records when it comes to crime and things like that, you know? And, and also to wife beating and to child abuse and stuff like that. I mean, you just, you don't, you don't wanna be poor and indigent and not have a roof over your head, be homeless. I mean, it doesn't mean, again, you know, homeless people are, are mean people. That's not what I'm trying to say. What I'm trying to say is that, you know, what we wanna try to foster in this country and around the world. And one of the reasons, you know... I mean, I'm very critical of the Chinese in a lot of ways, but I mean, we have to remember they pulled that country out of horrible poverty, right?

• 2:09:59Speaker 01

  And I mean, there's still poor people in the countryside, there's still problems, you know, with, with want and need among the Chinese people. But, you know, there were millions and millions of Chinese who were living at the bare minimum of life, which is no way to live, you know, and no way, again, to foster love and compassion and, and getting along. So, I want to be clear, I don't speak for history, right? I'm giving you, I'm, there used to be historians, you know, in the 19th century who really thought they were speaking for history.

• 2:10:32Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 2:10:32Speaker 01

  You know? I don't think that way at all. I mean, I understand I'm a subjective human being with my own, my own points of view and my own opinions, but...

• 2:10:41Lex Fridman?

  I'm trying to remember this, in this conversation, that you're, despite the fact that you're brilliant and you've written brilliant books, that you're just human.

• 2:10:49Speaker 01

  Well, I am.

• 2:10:51Lex Fridman?

  With an opinion.

• 2:10:52Speaker 01

  That's it. Yeah. No, no, that's absolutely true. And I tell my students that too. I mean, I make sure they understand this is not history speaking, you know, this is me and Norman and I'm, you know, and this is, this is what it's about. I mean, I spent a long time studying history and, and have enjoyed it enormously. But, you know, I'm an individual with my points of view. And one, and one of them is that I've developed over time, is that, you know, you know, human want is a real, is a real tragedy for people and it hurts people. And it also causes upheavals and difficulties and stuff like that.

• 2:11:34Speaker 01

  So I feel for people, you know, I feel for people in Syria, I feel for people in, in, you know, in Ethiopia, in Tigray, you know, when they don't have enough to eat. And, you know, what that does, I mean, it doesn't mean they don't love each other, right? It doesn't mean they don't love their kids. But it does mean that it's harder, you know, to do that and to and.

• 2:11:55Lex Fridman?

  I'm not so, I'm not so sure. It's obvious to me that it's harder. It's there's suffering. There is suffering, but you, the numbers, we've been talking about deaths, been talking about suffering, but the numbers were not quantifying. The, the history that you haven't perhaps been looking at is all the times that people have fallen in love deeply with friends, with romantic love, that the, the, the, the positive emotion that people have felt. And I'm not so sure that amidst the suffering, those moments of beauty and love can be discovered. And if we look at the numbers, I'm not so sure the story is obvious. There, that, you know, I mean, again, I, I suppose you may disagree with Viktor Frankl, I may too, maybe depending on the day. I mean, he says that if there's meaning to this life at all,

• 2:12:40Lex Fridman?

  there's meaning to the suffering too, because suffering is part of life. There's something about accepting the ups and downs, even when the downs go very low, and within all of it, finding a source of meaning. I mean, he's arguing from the perspective of psychology, but just this life is an incredible gift, almost no matter what. And I'm not, it's easy to look at suffering and think if we just escape the suffering, it will all be better. But we all die. There's beauty in the whole thing. And

• 2:13:19Lex Fridman?

  it, it is true that it's just, from all the stories I've read, especially in famine and starvation, it's just horrible. It is horrible suffering. But I, I also just want to say that there's love amidst it, and we can't forget that.

• 2:13:35Speaker 01

  No, no, I don't, I don't forget it. I don't forget it.

• 2:13:37Lex Fridman?

  And, and I think it's from the stories. Now, I don't want to make that compromise or that trade, but the intensity of friendship in war, the intensity of love in war. Is very high. So I'm not sure what to make of these calculations. But if you look at the stories, some of the people I'm closest with, and I've never experienced anything even close to any of this. But some of the people I'm closest with is people I've gone through difficult times with. There's something about that. There, there's a society or a group where things are easy. The intensity of the connection between human beings is not as strong. I don't know what to do with that calculus. Because I too agree with you.

• 2:14:20Lex Fridman?

  I want to have as little suffering in the world as possible. But we have to remember about the love and the depth of human connection and find the right balance there.

• 2:14:32Speaker 01

  No, there's some, there's something to what you're saying. There's clearly something to what you're saying. I was just thinking about Soviet Union, you know, when I lived there and, and people on the streets were so mean to one another and they never smiled. You grew up there? No, but you were, you're too young.

• 2:14:46Lex Fridman?

  No, no, I remember well. I came here when I was 13, yeah.

• 2:14:49Speaker 01

  Okay. So anyway, I remember living there and just how hard people were on each other on the streets. And when you got inside people's apartments, when they started to trust you, you know, the friendships were so intense and so wonderful. So in that sense, I mean, they did live a hard life. But there wasn't enough food on the table and there was a roof over their heads.

• 2:15:10Lex Fridman?

  There's a certain line.

• 2:15:11Speaker 01

  There's a certain, there are lines, you know? I don't think there's one line, but you know, it's kind of a shading. And the other story I was thinking of as you were talking was, it's not a story, it's a history, a book, you know, by a friend of mine who wrote about love in the camps, in the refugee camps for Jews in Germany after the war. So these were Jews who had come mostly from Poland and were, you know, some survived the camps, came from awful circumstances. And then they were put in these camps, which were not joyful places. I mean, they were guarded sometimes by Germans even, but they're basically under the British,

• 2:15:53Speaker 01

  British control and they were trying to get to Israel, you know, trying to get to Palestine right after the war. And how many pairs there were, how many people coupled up. But remember, this is after being in the concentration camp. It's not being in the concentration camp. And it's also being free.

• 2:16:11Lex Fridman?

  Yes.

• 2:16:11Speaker 01

  You know, to more or less free, you know, to express their emotions and to, and to be. Human beings after this horrible thing which they suffered. So I wonder whether there's, you know, as you say, some kind of calculus there where, you know, the, the, the level of suffering is, um, is such that it's just too much for humans to bear and, uh, you know, which I would suggest, I mean, I haven't studied this myself. I'm just giving you my point of view, you know, my off the cuff remarks here, but it was very inspiring to read about these couples who had met right in these camps and started to couple, couple up, you know, and, and get married and,

• 2:16:55Speaker 01

  and try to find their way to Palestine, which was a difficult thing to do then.

• 2:16:59Lex Fridman?

  When did you live in Russia and the Soviet Union? What's your memory of that time?

• 2:17:03Speaker 01

  Well, so a, a number of different times. So I, I went there, I first went there in sixty nine, seventy.

• 2:17:10Lex Fridman?

  Wow.

• 2:17:10Speaker 01

  A long time ago and, uh, uh, then I lived in, uh, in Leningrad mostly, but also in Moscow in nineteen seventy five. So it was détente time, um, but it was also a time of political uncertainty and also, um, hardship, you know, for Russians themselves, you know, standing in long lines. I mean, you must remember this for food and for, uh, getting anything was almost impossible. It was a time when Jews, uh, were trying to get out. Um, in fact, I just talked to a friend of mine from those days who I helped get out and get to Boston and the lovely people who had managed to have a good, a good life

• 2:17:54Speaker 01

  in the United States after they left. Uh, but it wasn't an easy time. It wasn't an easy time at all. I remember people set fire to their doors and, you know, their daughter was, uh, persecuted in school, you know, once, once they declared that they wanted to immigrate and that sort of thing. So it was a very, it was a lot of antisemitism. Um, so it was a tough time. Dissidents, you know, hung out with some dissidents and one guy was actually killed. Uh, we think by the, nobody knows exactly by the KGB, but his art studio was, uh, he had a separate studio in, in Leningrad, St. Petersburg today. You know, just a small studio where he did his art and somebody set it on fire.

• 2:18:39Speaker 01

  And we think it was KGB, but you know, you never really know.

• 2:18:44Speaker 01

  And he died in that fire. So, you know, it was not a, it was, it was a tough time. And, uh, you know, you knew you were followed. You knew you were being reported on as a, as a foreign scholar, as I was. There was a formal exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union and, you know, they let me work in the archives, but then, you know, Ivanov got to work in the,

• 2:19:07Lex Fridman?

  Right.

• 2:19:08Speaker 01

  in the physics lab at Rochester or something like that, you know, so it was a, it was an exchange which sent historians and literary people and some social scientists to Russia. And they sent all the scientists here to, you know, grab what they could from MIT and those places.

• 2:19:27Lex Fridman?

  How, how is your Russian? Has, do you have any knowledge of Russian language that has helped you to understand?

• 2:19:34Speaker 01

  Oh, yeah, yeah. I mean, I, I can read it fine. And the speaking, you know, comes and goes. Depending on whether I'm, I'm there or whether I've been there recently, or if I spend some time there. Because I really need, you know, I have Russian friends who speak just Russian. So, you know, when, when I'm there, I then, you know, I can communicate pretty well. I can't really write it, unfortunately. I mean, I mean, I can, but it's not very good. But I get along fine.

• 2:20:01Lex Fridman?

  What's your fondest memory of the Soviet Union, of Russia?

• 2:20:05Speaker 01

  Friends.

• 2:20:06Lex Fridman?

  Friends?

• 2:20:07Speaker 01

  It's friends.

• 2:20:08Lex Fridman?

  Was vodka involved or is it just vodka involved?

• 2:20:13Speaker 01

  Little bit. You know, I'm not much of a drinker.

• 2:20:14Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 2:20:15Speaker 01

  So I would, they, you know, they'd just make fun of me and I'd make fun of myself. That was easy enough. I don't really like, you know, a heavy drink. I've done a lot of that.

• 2:20:24Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 2:20:25Speaker 01

  Not a lot. I'd done some of that, but I never really enjoyed it and, and would get sick and stuff. But, um, no, it's friends. You know, one friend I made.

• 2:20:36Speaker 01

  In the dormitory, you know, it was a dormitory for foreigners, but also Siberians who had come, you know, to Leningrad to study. And so I met a couple of guys and one in particular from Omsk became a wonderful friend. And we talked and talked and talked outside, you know, we would go walk outside because we both knew they were, you know, people were listening and stuff. And he would say, well, this is, he was an historian, you know, and so we would talk history. And he'd say, well, this was the case, wasn't it? I said, no, I'm sorry, Sasha, it wasn't the case. It was, you know, we think Stalin actually had a role in killing Kirif. I mean, we're not sure, but he said, no. I said, yeah.

• 2:21:17Speaker 01

  You know, so, you know, we had these conversations and he was a, he was a, what I would, I don't know if he would agree with me or not. I mean, we're still friends, so he was a

• 2:21:28Lex Fridman?

  He's gonna check in with you after this.

• 2:21:30Speaker 01

  Maybe he'll listen to the blog or I'll send it to him or something. He was a kind of naive Marxist Leninist. And he thought I was a, you know, I was a, you know, I had this capitalist ideology. He'd say, what ideology you have? And I said, I don't have an ideology, you know, I try to just put together kind of reason and facts and accurate stories and try to tell them in that way. No, no, no, no, you must, you know, you're a bourgeois, you know, this or that. I said, no, I'm really not. And, and so we would have these talks and these kind of arguments. And then, I mean, sure enough, you know, we corresponded for a while and then he had to stop corresponding because he became a, a kind of local official in Omsk.

• 2:22:13Speaker 01

  And he, he sort of migrated more and more to being a Democrat. And he was then in the, you know, Democratic Movement under Gorbachev and, you know, and the Council of People's Deputies, which they set up, which was, you know, elected as a, as a, as a Democrat from Omsk and had a political career through the Elson period. And once Putin came along, you know, it was over. He didn't like Putin and, you know, and Putin didn't like the Elson people, right? Who were, tried to be, some of them tried to be Democrats. And Sasha was one who really did. He just published his memoirs in Russian, by the way, which are very good, I think.

• 2:22:55Lex Fridman?

  You know the name of it?

• 2:22:59Speaker 01

  Commander of gift of last.

• 2:23:02Speaker 01

  That's what it's called. It was hard, it's hard to translate in English. Commander of gift of last, but I, I mean, I translated.

• 2:23:09Lex Fridman?

  This is so beautiful, like the, do you find that the translation is a problem? Or no, it's such a different.

• 2:23:16Speaker 01

  Yes, translation is very difficult.

• 2:23:18Lex Fridman?

  With the Russian language, I mean, it's the only language I know deeply. Except, except English. And it seems like so much is lost of, of, of the pain, the poetry, the beauty of the people is.

• 2:23:28Speaker 01

  And translators are to be treasured and good ones to be just, I mean, those who, who do the translations, you know, when you read, you know, things in translation, sometimes they're quite beautiful. You know, whether it's Russian or Polish or German or anything French.

• 2:23:43Lex Fridman?

  Yeah, I'm actually traveling to Paris. Talk to the, the, the famous translators, the Dostoevsky Tolstoy. And I'm just going to do several conversations with them about like, you could just sometimes just grab a single sentence and just talk about the translation that's, that's.

• 2:24:00Lex Fridman?

  And also, as you said, I would love to be a fly in the wall with some of those friends you had, because the perspective on history, non-academic sort of without, just as human beings is so different.

• 2:24:13Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 2:24:13Lex Fridman?

  From the United States versus Russia. When you talk about the way the World War Two was perceived and all those kinds of things, it's, um, it's fascinating. It's a, history also has an opinion and perspective. And so sometimes stripping that away is really difficult. And then I guess that is your job and at its highest form, that is what you do as a historian. Well, Norman, spasibo ba shosh, to sivon yisam.

• 2:24:40Lex Fridman?

  I really appreciate your valuable time. It's, it's truly an honor to talk to you and thank you for, um, taking us through a trip through some of the worst parts of human history and, and, uh, and talking about hope and love at the end. So I really appreciate your time today.

• 2:24:55Speaker 01

  Okay, thank you. Thank you for having me.

• 2:24:59Lex Fridman?

  Thanks for listening to this conversation with Norman Namark. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Stalin. "A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic." Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.