Been very busy, and short on opportunity to write everything here I've wanted to since last posting. I've been reading attentively, and continuing to enjoy things a great deal. I'm keeping a list.
One thing in particular strikes me as wrong or flawed enough to demand that I must respond now. That is in the history talk, in particular the paragraph starting with 'Very much so'. I'm certain that it doesn't satisfy me.
I tend to see it more in terms of the existence of the Soviet Union as a driver. In particular, the combination of the intrigue culture the Russians inherited from the Byzantines and the Communist ideology with the backing of a state power could not do other than meddle in the affairs of its neighbors. It was also prone to letting rumors of the results of its management of client states leak out into the rest of the continent.
That it was the Germans who most notably acted on reports from family in Soviet territory, and that the dominant faction of Germans had a wasteful fixation on Jews (with a huge oppurtunity cost in the amount of the communists they were able to kill), are factors that seem more prone to variation.
Likewise, the Great Depression was a stressor that probably influenced events in a worse direction, on net. (Gee, it is almost like lots of young men with much time and little future makes wars more likely and more severe. Good thing nothing like that is happening now.
) The Great Depression was apparently a narrow thing, if it had been earlier or later, various industries in different stages of their cycles probably would have made it more the usual sort of thing.
That said, I should keep in mind who is saying that. He seems to be talking the same sort of 'get the soft sciences up to or past the hard sciences' stuff that many anti-communists see at the heart of communism. So some biases that way might be expected from him or from his organization.