I suppose when I read it, it didn't occur to me to think that Snyder was arguing that it wasn't about the Jews. I thought he was arguing that is wasn't entirely about the Jews for some self-preservationists, inherently apolitical types that dominate the masses of most societies. It was these people that the Nazis needed to co-opt in order to precipitate the holocaust, and where that was impossible (i.e. according to Snyder's hypothesis, those places where bureaucracy was basically intact), the holocaust proceeded much slower. Anyway, that's what I took away, but I can see your point now in a way that wasn't obvious to me from the first two postings you made about not really liking the book.
he goes as far as blaming the Protocols of the Elders of Zion for antisemitic violence in the Soviet Union while dismissing the steady and unopposed pogroms that drove many jews out of tsarist Russia. That's one of the things I really liked about Judt - when presented with the breakup of Yugoslavia, he didn't wave his hands and say "no one could have predicted" and "both sides were at fault." He lays out chapter and verse how the Serbians had a blood feud against the Bosnians and have done since the Hapsburgs but violence was held in check by larger political powers. What was the Woodrow Wilson quote? "You can have peace or justice, but not both?" It seems like "peace" requires blame to be assigned to victims even when they're blameless. Snyder's book stinks of that.