What is Reddit's opinion of
Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
35 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
Thanks! Snyder is a great writer. Bloodlands is definitely worth the read -- it's a look at the mass killings under the Hitler and Stalin regimes. If that sounds like both-sides-ism or something, it's more like 'political mass murder' is itself the center of the story, often told from the point of view of its victims.
I've joked before about how the ignorant Russian soldiers don't know what an indoor toilet is but here is a quote from a truly superb book I'm reading at present, Bloodlands - Europe between Hitler & Stalin. (can't RECOMMEND it highly enough!)
When Germany & Russia secretly agreed to 'share' Poland - in Russia's portion, they brought in Russian communist party persons to take charge of this area:
>"The Soviet Citizens who now ruled Eastern Poland were falling off bicycles, eating toothpaste, using toilets as sinks, wearing multiple watches, or bras as earmuffs , or lingerie as evening gowns."
I joked but the TRUTH is not far off - this is a quote from a truly superb book I'm reading at present, Bloodlands - Europe between Hitler & Stalin. (can't RECOMMEND it highly enough!)
When Germany & Russia secretly agreed to 'share' Poland - in Russia's portion, they brought in Russian communist party persons to take charge of this area:
>"The Soviet Citizens who now ruled Eastern Poland were falling off bicycles, eating toothpaste, using toilets as sinks, wearing multiple watches, or bras as earmuffs , or lingerie as evening gowns."
Funny thing is I made the joke before I read this portion of the book!
Shooting was what they did for a very long time, but even the Nazis were complaining they all had to be drunk to do it consistently, and I shit you not, the boots on the ground were complaining about how it was taking a moral toll on them.
This entire topic is covered in extreme depth in this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Bloodlands-Europe-Between-Hitler-Stalin/dp/0465031471
Stalin and the Soviets committed genocides as well. It wasn't the primary goal so much as a side effect though. Highly recommend this book about the poor people who lived and died in that region that was conquered 2 or 3 times.
https://www.amazon.com/Bloodlands-Europe-Between-Hitler-Stalin/dp/0465031471
Please provide a source for your revisionist 10M figure.
Second: am I not saying that both are equally as responsible for war crimes, democide and genocide?
Look, you can take a look at the numbers the way you want. Brutally killing noncombatants in the millions still makes you a regime that stands on the wrong side of history.
I dare you to read Bloodlands. You won't finish it.
Whether you establish a classification between whoever kills more is up to you; defending either of them likens you to both.
Well, right now I'm reading Bloodlands for a history course, so that should be... uh, inspiring?
Then again, just seeing the rules, I would have to be careful about selections here.
you make it sound as if I personally take some EU funds. And you have a really condescending attitude. "You take our money, we helped you, so you must listen as we tell you". From my perspective (I am Czech), it was Germany and Russia who fucked my country up 80 years ago. One side Nazis killing slavic people because they were untermenschen, on the other side fucking USSR. If it were not for these two countries, communism would not have decimated eastern Europe. You need some history lessons
https://www.amazon.com/Bloodlands-Europe-Between-Hitler-Stalin/dp/0465031471
and nowadays we see history repeating itself. Gemany is no more nazistic and imperialistic, but it is spineless and enabling another fascist Regime, which is current Russia. Russia is again threatening other countries
I mean...maybe? People say this but I am not sure the numbers actually add up ( this isn't a defense of Stalin, he was a loony fucking butcher and communism is a disaster). Mao for sure, but the ongoing famines in Russia and purges may not have equaled the cost of Barbarossa and the holocaust. I suppose it doesn't matter all that much after a certain point who killed more millions, but it depends how much you lay at each of their feet. Like, do you attribute every death from the famine to Stalin''s body count due to his clear mismanagement, or only those in Ukraine which were clearly intentional? The numbers are pretty damn high for the holocaust and hitlers push into russia too (around 20 million), so I am not sure Lenin and Stalin actually top it, even with the couple of million dead from purges and the unknown millions dead from the famines. Soviet recordkeeping tends to be a bit dicier than the records of Nazi war crimes, too, so it isn't all too clear.
Point being, not sure they actually did kill more, but it also likely doesn't matter. Pol Pot isn't somehow "less bad" than mao just because he killed less people. BUT I do think people tend to give particular weight to the holocaust not just due to numbers, but the accelerated amount of time in which it occurred, the fundamental strangeness of nazi race theory, and the violent and industrial nature of the killing. Famine, for good or ill, just doesn't tend to grab as much attention.
Sources:https://news.stanford.edu/2010/09/23/naimark-stalin-genocide-092310/
https://www.amazon.com/Bloodlands-Europe-Between-Hitler-Stalin/dp/0465031471
The book that these bullet points come from is called Bloodlands:Europe between Hitler and Stalin, and is extremely in depth and readable.
Check out Bloodlands if you want see just how bad it was in Eastern Europe and why Russia believes the Ukraine belongs to them.
> They'll see you stated opinion, called it fact
How ironic.
Here are my sources to help reinforce this and for anyone who wishes to deep dive into this discussion.
https://www.amazon.com/Bloodlands-Europe-Between-Hitler-Stalin/dp/0465031471
I would recommend this book (assuming of course your not some disingenuous Marxist arguing in bad faith) it will explain the many reasons why you are wrong!
https://www.amazon.com/Bloodlands-Europe-Between-Hitler-Stalin/dp/0465031471
Sounds like the typical communist mass murder psychosis driven propaganda against religion. If you must read something that stirs up your humanity, I recommend this book: Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder
>According to some sources, the total number of Christian victims under the Soviet regime has been estimated to range around 12 to 20 million. At least 106,300 Russian clergymen were executed between 1937 and 1941.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution\_of\_Christians\_in\_the\_Soviet\_Union
> And still they kept their language, culture and cities. Most of their lives kept the same, the colonization was a struggle of power to decide who's keeping the wealth. And , being european they indirectly benefited from colonization by having cheaper everything to buy and develop.
You have that little idea about this region that it is hilarious. Yes we were so lucky to get genocided and undergo forced russification our cities razed to the ground and survivors either sent to siberia or german camps depending on the generation as that lasted way longer than only WW2.But we were lucky to be white in a german gas chamber or communist mass grave.But in the new leftist racist insanity somehow every white person is a privileged.
https://www.amazon.com/Bloodlands-Europe-Between-Hitler-Stalin/dp/0465031471
>First, this GDP/c is the biggest bullshit, the money comes from everyone working hard so the top 1% profit from exporting stuff while most of the population live in poverty, so you increase a bit if your GPD, but the same resource will generate WAY MORE wealth to the contries that are buying it cheap.
Yes under socialism we had no 1% and had to ration luxuries like butter or sugar.SO PROSPEROUS
>Whats the point of Brazil being one of the richest countries on earth but also being one of the most unequal?
Brazil is neither rich per capita nor in total and one of most unequal in terms of wealth are places like sweden or netherlands they are more unequal than US.
>Of course not, but thas how it worked for millions of years and how its supposed to be, we were ignorant and harmless. Now we know how the world works but still have the tribal mentality, so if we gonna keep being ignorant is better to do with sticks and stones, give a chance for a smarter species and let life be than starting a mass exctinction for the sake of profit.
Yeah we lived through communism for nearly 3 generations it ended in millions killed rest had to live in slavery and destitute poverty but go ahead try one more time i am certain Cubans and Venezuelans are happy with their rulers that removed the system that as you say "everyone working hard so the top 1% profit ". >but we still keep doing it for money, its madness.
After XX century to be a socialist it takes a special kind of "smart" person.Can you remind me who built the Berlin wall and why?
Read Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin. https://www.amazon.com/Bloodlands-Europe-Between-Hitler-Stalin/dp/0465031471/ref=nodl_
If you are interested in Ukraine's history of the 20th century in the context of Central-Eastern Europe Timothy Snyder is highly recommended, e.g. Bloodlands
And here's a well research book that you should trust more than a youtube video. :)
https://www.amazon.com/Bloodlands-Europe-Between-Hitler-Stalin/dp/0465031471
Recommend this one. Covers the ‘43 and ‘44 uprising and how the area was caught in between Nazi and Soviet atrocities
Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465031471/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_m.WpFbTPS4RQ3
I suggest you read this book.
> The Holocaust was a specific genocide. Against the Jews. By the Nazis.
did you miss the giant
>"hol·o·caust ˈhäləˌkôst,ˈhōləˌkôst/ destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, especially caused by fire or nuclear war. "a nuclear holocaust" synonyms: cataclysm, disaster, catastrophe; More
at the top of the screen? THE holocaust is a specific event involving nazi germany. It is distinct from A holocaust.
>No grain was requisitioned.
This is a lie.
>because the grain of the collective farms was not of the peasants, was of the state.
declaring that the state now owns your grain is the definition of requisition.
>The quotas were lowered in 1932,
I fail to see what you think you're proving with these numbers.
>What a strange "genocide", when you reduce the demanded quotas, and send food to the people that you pretend to starve to death.
Again, you straight up deny a holocaust. There is no doubt that millions starved. The reduced demand quotas were still in excess of what was produced. There is no doubt that the famine was denied, that international aid was refused.
/u/lobotomy42 mentioned one Timothy Snyder book - I'd like to mention another of his: Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin.
I found it a really interesting (if rather highly depressing) look at what happens and how people might respond given two highly unappealing options facing their countries (Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltics).
EDIT: Also wanted to add another Timothy Snyder book - can you tell he's one of my favourite historians? - Thinking the Twentieth Century which was written as a conversation between Tony Judt and Timothy Snyder, a reflection back on twentieth century intellectuals (and their own personal lives).
Lviv was part of Poland for 20 years until 1939.
WW2 happened
Read about the history of Stepan Bandera and the UPA
You should visit Lviv!
https://lifeinua.info/love-lviv/
http://www.lvivtoday.com.ua/exploring-lviv/1512
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/travel/lvivs-and-a-familys-stories-in-architecture.html
I recommend the book <strong>Bloodlands</strong> by Timothy Snyder.
A great book about this is <em>Bloodlands</em>.
>at the top of the screen? THE holocaust is a specific event involving nazi germany. It is distinct from A holocaust.
And, nobody uses Holocaust to address a genocide different than THE Holocaust.
>No grain was requisitioned. This is a lie.
Trosky, exiliated in Mexico during those years, is a really great source about the USSR agriculture.
>declaring that the state now owns your grain is the definition of requisition.
Declaring the land state owned is requisition. Give that land to the peasants, in exchange of an annual production quota, isn't.
>I fail to see what you think you're proving with these numbers.
That the USSR had not INTENDED to starve the peasants.
>Again, you straight up deny a holocaust. There is no doubt that millions starved. The reduced demand quotas were still in excess of what was produced.
Again, you still doesn't know what a Genocide is. I never denied the deaths by starvation, I deny that the USSR had the INTENTION of starving them. Without intention, you CAN'T have a genocide.
>There is no doubt that the famine was denied, that international aid was refused.
So, they denied the famine, but they low the quotas and send food to the starving areas?? Strange.
Timothy Snyder puts the figure for deaths caused by Stalin at 3.8 million. That's huge, but a far far cry from 20 million, and quite a bit bit short of the over 10 million he attributes to Hitler in the same geographical region up to 1945.
Whoa...
I think you need to read Timothy Snyder. http://www.amazon.ca/Bloodlands-Europe-Between-Hitler-Stalin/dp/0465031471
Dunno why the downvotes. You're exactly right.
Just finished reading Bloodlands. Suffice it to say that if either army appeared on the horizon, and you were Eastern European, you were completely fucked.
The rules were different on the Western front, though.
Check out the book Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder. It's an excruciating and depressing read, but the empirical evidence Snyder uses makes its very clear that the famines in the early years of the USSR were NOT by any means accidental or due to ineptitude. Unfortunately, I do not have my copy with me at the moment, but if you're interested in know way more than you ever wanted to know about the Soviet Famines in the 1930's, this is the book to go to. Here is a rather grizzly excerpt:
>Survival was a moral as well as a physical struggle. A woman doctor wrote to a friend in June 1933 that she had not yet become a cannibal, but was “not sure that I shall not be one by the time my letter reaches you.” The good people died first. Those who refused to steal or to prostitute themselves died. Those who gave food to others died. Those who refused to eat corpses died. Those who refused to kill their fellow man died. Parents who resisted cannibalism died before their children did.
Popular alternatives to Bloodlands: Europe Between ...
Come as You Are: The Surprising New Science that Will Transform Your Sex Life
White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism
