The article up for discussion this week is "History and its woes: How Stalin and Hitler enabled each other's crimes" found on page 101 of this weeks issue. The article for all intensive purposes is a book review of what sounds like a proactive and interesting read. Below are some questions to respond to but as always do not feel the need to respond to more than a few. Enjoy the article!
The author of the book and the article use the term bloodlands, what is this in reference to and is it an appropriate title for the area?
The book "Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin" is a revisionist perspective on history. Is it important to look at such versions of history and if so how or why is it important to incorporate these interpretations into your instruction?
Do you agree with the authors perspective that the voiceless victims are forgotten in the history? How could we as educators insure this is not the case in our classrooms?(first page, second column)
Critics argue that the Soviet Union "cannot be compared to the Third Reich, which pioneered ethnic genocide" (102) for several reasons. Do you agree with their argument or do you feel it is acceptable to compare the two based on the level of violence they caused?
The area that Snyder calls the "Bloodlands" is the area of Eastern Europe from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. I think that "Bloodlands" is an interesting and apt title for this area because it has experienced intense persecution and bloodshed over the past 100 years.
I had never connected Hitler's and Stalin's violence in the way that Snyder does in his book; however, I think that his thesis is a fascinating and valuable revision to common understandings. Our focus on castigating Hitler (though this castigation is certainly deserved) does tend to minimize the horrors perpetrated by Stalin in Eastern Europe. Whether this is because Russia was on "our side" during WWII or whether it is because the Holocaust was a more shockingly obvious instance of genocide, I think that we need to acknowledge that there are many similarities between the Third Reich and Stalin's regime.
I do think that looking at revisionist perspectives in a history classroom is important for several reasons. First of all, as in this case, revisionism often highlights facts and accounts that have been downplayed or omitted from more traditional scholarship. This allows students to gain a more wide and complete view of history. Second, looking at revisionist history introduces students to the idea that history is not a long list of indisputable facts (as textbooks often present history to be) but is a dynamic body of interpretation--the process of many years of scholarship, revision, and re-revision. In short, arguments like Snyder's give students a taste of what historians do and how history is "created."
Great choice in article Jenny! The title "Bloodlands" describes the area from the Baltics to the Black Sea where a number of atrocities occurred at the hands of both Stalin and Hitler. I think the title is quite fitting and appropriately describes the territory that both leaders terrorized.
Revisionist history sometimes gets a bad reputation but I think in this case the author offers a new and interesting lens to view both leaders. I agree with the fact that Stalin's crimes against his own people as well as Eastern Europe often get over looked in history. I do however think it is a bit of a stretch to say that Stalin's crimes before WWII were an early model to Hitler. I do think that this type of history has a role in the classroom. The author of the article says "some stories are told because they are inconvenient." This could not be anymore true in the classroom. I feel as though many history teachers want to give their students the more pleasant view of history. I think this is doing an injustice to your students. By not including the truth (however horrible), students are not allowed to delve deep into the material and ask the tough questions. It is much more beneficial to think critically about serious topics as opposed to the basics.
I do agree with the author's statement that the voiceless are forgotten. In the classroom we can remedy this problem by using primary sources. We should strive to used primary sources beyond the typical and easily obtainable sources. Including primary sources from ordinary individuals can attempt to widen perspectives and illustrate the voices of those frequently left unstudied. Also, you can try to encourage students to talk to their grandparents and older relatives to find oral histories that are all around them.
Loved this article...makes me want to read the book!
The bloodlands refer to the Eastern European territories where huge amounts of human suffering occurred due to policies of tyrannical leaders. I believe this is an appropriate title for this region because it shows the detrimental bloodshed that happened in the early 20th century as a result of totalitarian societies. Mass extermination of German Jews and immense suffering plagued Soviet peasants. This literary project is interesting provocative as it connects two totalitarian societies that emerged in the 20th century.
I believe that Soviet socialism and the Third Reich can be compared because they were both social and political experiments that had dire effects on the society. Stalin and Hitler were both trying to create an idealized society that prospered based on the persecutions of subordinate groups. Both Stalin and Hitler committed atrocities in the name of nationalism and advancing their own agendas. Even though Hitler committed ethnic genocide, large scale tragedies such as starvation and concentration camps occurred under Stalin’s administration.
In order to address the voiceless victims in history it is important to incorporate multiple accounts of historical events by utilizing primary accounts. Teachers need to explain to students that history is a compilation of primary sources which are used to reflect a particular historical perspective. It is important to show students how this is done by exposing them to documents that can help them create their own interpretations of history. History is an active discipline, and it should be taught this way in the classroom by creating student-centered activities that allow for exploration.
Emily, I totally agree with you. This was an incredibly interesting article, and it makes me want to go purchase the book! It is very apt to call the lands between Germany and Russia the "bloodlands" because of the large-scale violence which the denizens of these areas have experienced in the twentieth century. The peoples of Eastern Europe have been almost constant victims of violence inspired by nationalism and racism, and I really appreciated the unique perspective Mr. Snyder presented as he connected their suffering to the rise of two world powers.
I also believe that revisionist history is extremely important both in scholarship and at the instructional level. The ideal historian is one who always questions dominant perspectives on history and searches for evidence to help reveal other notions of the truth. Mr. Snyder's argument provides another lens with which to view the complex relationship between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and the violence perpetrated by each regime. The axiom that violence begets more violence certainly reflects the relationship between German and Russian atrocities in World War Two. While the benefits of instruction on the horrors of the Holocaust are obvious, solid revisionist instruction should also include adequate coverage of violence on the Soviet front.
Finally, voiceless victims are all-too-often forgotten in popular history, and especially instruction in history. Aside from the examples Mr. Snyder elucidates, American history also significantly excludes many important aspects of Native American history and their contributions to modern America.
These are all fantastic comments and insights, and I, too, now want to buy the book. I do think that this review could certainly be used in a high school class at different levels. While advanced students could begin to explore the notion of revisionist history, it could also be used simply as a basis for a Venn Diagram comparing Hitler and Stalin.
The "bloodlands," the territory between the Baltic and Black Sea, has witnessed an incredible amount of tragedy and death over the years. Snyder's title, which looks extremely compelling (Amazon wishlist, perhaps?)seeks to both challenge and add to the history of 20th century European history.
The perspective of Revisionists is extremely important in history to help students realize the vitality, connectedness, and breadth of history. Interestingly, the article's author points out that Snyder uses just the kind of information which students dread (statistics and dates), yet he is able to do so in a way that draws readers in and presents an entirely fresh perspective. The power to use these kinds of resources sets a wonderful example for students, who may frequently discount the significance of such resources, since they may not make for the most interesting research.
I think another appealing aspect of this story is the humanity of it all. I also think that the humanity of history is something with which students can easily connect. As gruesome as it may be, students are often enthralled by the capabilities of dictators to abuse and bring harm to their fellow humans. Paralleling the Concentration Camps and the horrors of those places with the work of another dictator could serve as an easy "in" for the student imagination.
I also loved thinking about the geography that the Bloodlands entails: while much of Germany and Russia remained unharmed, Snyder points out that all of Belarus and Russia were utterly affected by the actions of Stalin AND Hitler. The interactions of these leaders and their vital connection are important for students to learn and serve as great foundations for a curious young mind to explore and discover new history.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe article up for discussion this week is "History and its woes: How Stalin and Hitler enabled each other's crimes" found on page 101 of this weeks issue. The article for all intensive purposes is a book review of what sounds like a proactive and interesting read. Below are some questions to respond to but as always do not feel the need to respond to more than a few. Enjoy the article!
ReplyDeleteThe author of the book and the article use the term bloodlands, what is this in reference to and is it an appropriate title for the area?
The book "Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin" is a revisionist perspective on history. Is it important to look at such versions of history and if so how or why is it important to incorporate these interpretations into your instruction?
Do you agree with the authors perspective that the voiceless victims are forgotten in the history? How could we as educators insure this is not the case in our classrooms?(first page, second column)
Critics argue that the Soviet Union "cannot be compared to the Third Reich, which pioneered ethnic genocide" (102) for several reasons. Do you agree with their argument or do you feel it is acceptable to compare the two based on the level of violence they caused?
The area that Snyder calls the "Bloodlands" is the area of Eastern Europe from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. I think that "Bloodlands" is an interesting and apt title for this area because it has experienced intense persecution and bloodshed over the past 100 years.
ReplyDeleteI had never connected Hitler's and Stalin's violence in the way that Snyder does in his book; however, I think that his thesis is a fascinating and valuable revision to common understandings. Our focus on castigating Hitler (though this castigation is certainly deserved) does tend to minimize the horrors perpetrated by Stalin in Eastern Europe. Whether this is because Russia was on "our side" during WWII or whether it is because the Holocaust was a more shockingly obvious instance of genocide, I think that we need to acknowledge that there are many similarities between the Third Reich and Stalin's regime.
I do think that looking at revisionist perspectives in a history classroom is important for several reasons. First of all, as in this case, revisionism often highlights facts and accounts that have been downplayed or omitted from more traditional scholarship. This allows students to gain a more wide and complete view of history. Second, looking at revisionist history introduces students to the idea that history is not a long list of indisputable facts (as textbooks often present history to be) but is a dynamic body of interpretation--the process of many years of scholarship, revision, and re-revision. In short, arguments like Snyder's give students a taste of what historians do and how history is "created."
Great choice in article Jenny! The title "Bloodlands" describes the area from the Baltics to the Black Sea where a number of atrocities occurred at the hands of both Stalin and Hitler. I think the title is quite fitting and appropriately describes the territory that both leaders terrorized.
ReplyDeleteRevisionist history sometimes gets a bad reputation but I think in this case the author offers a new and interesting lens to view both leaders. I agree with the fact that Stalin's crimes against his own people as well as Eastern Europe often get over looked in history. I do however think it is a bit of a stretch to say that Stalin's crimes before WWII were an early model to Hitler. I do think that this type of history has a role in the classroom. The author of the article says "some stories are told because they are inconvenient." This could not be anymore true in the classroom. I feel as though many history teachers want to give their students the more pleasant view of history. I think this is doing an injustice to your students. By not including the truth (however horrible), students are not allowed to delve deep into the material and ask the tough questions. It is much more beneficial to think critically about serious topics as opposed to the basics.
I do agree with the author's statement that the voiceless are forgotten. In the classroom we can remedy this problem by using primary sources. We should strive to used primary sources beyond the typical and easily obtainable sources. Including primary sources from ordinary individuals can attempt to widen perspectives and illustrate the voices of those frequently left unstudied. Also, you can try to encourage students to talk to their grandparents and older relatives to find oral histories that are all around them.
Loved this article...makes me want to read the book!
The bloodlands refer to the Eastern European territories where huge amounts of human suffering occurred due to policies of tyrannical leaders. I believe this is an appropriate title for this region because it shows the detrimental bloodshed that happened in the early 20th century as a result of totalitarian societies. Mass extermination of German Jews and immense suffering plagued Soviet peasants. This literary project is interesting provocative as it connects two totalitarian societies that emerged in the 20th century.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Soviet socialism and the Third Reich can be compared because they were both social and political experiments that had dire effects on the society. Stalin and Hitler were both trying to create an idealized society that prospered based on the persecutions of subordinate groups. Both Stalin and Hitler committed atrocities in the name of nationalism and advancing their own agendas. Even though Hitler committed ethnic genocide, large scale tragedies such as starvation and concentration camps occurred under Stalin’s administration.
In order to address the voiceless victims in history it is important to incorporate multiple accounts of historical events by utilizing primary accounts. Teachers need to explain to students that history is a compilation of primary sources which are used to reflect a particular historical perspective. It is important to show students how this is done by exposing them to documents that can help them create their own interpretations of history. History is an active discipline, and it should be taught this way in the classroom by creating student-centered activities that allow for exploration.
Emily, I totally agree with you. This was an incredibly interesting article, and it makes me want to go purchase the book! It is very apt to call the lands between Germany and Russia the "bloodlands" because of the large-scale violence which the denizens of these areas have experienced in the twentieth century. The peoples of Eastern Europe have been almost constant victims of violence inspired by nationalism and racism, and I really appreciated the unique perspective Mr. Snyder presented as he connected their suffering to the rise of two world powers.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that revisionist history is extremely important both in scholarship and at the instructional level. The ideal historian is one who always questions dominant perspectives on history and searches for evidence to help reveal other notions of the truth. Mr. Snyder's argument provides another lens with which to view the complex relationship between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and the violence perpetrated by each regime. The axiom that violence begets more violence certainly reflects the relationship between German and Russian atrocities in World War Two. While the benefits of instruction on the horrors of the Holocaust are obvious, solid revisionist instruction should also include adequate coverage of violence on the Soviet front.
Finally, voiceless victims are all-too-often forgotten in popular history, and especially instruction in history. Aside from the examples Mr. Snyder elucidates, American history also significantly excludes many important aspects of Native American history and their contributions to modern America.
These are all fantastic comments and insights, and I, too, now want to buy the book. I do think that this review could certainly be used in a high school class at different levels. While advanced students could begin to explore the notion of revisionist history, it could also be used simply as a basis for a Venn Diagram comparing Hitler and Stalin.
ReplyDeleteThe "bloodlands," the territory between the Baltic and Black Sea, has witnessed an incredible amount of tragedy and death over the years. Snyder's title, which looks extremely compelling (Amazon wishlist, perhaps?)seeks to both challenge and add to the history of 20th century European history.
ReplyDeleteThe perspective of Revisionists is extremely important in history to help students realize the vitality, connectedness, and breadth of history. Interestingly, the article's author points out that Snyder uses just the kind of information which students dread (statistics and dates), yet he is able to do so in a way that draws readers in and presents an entirely fresh perspective. The power to use these kinds of resources sets a wonderful example for students, who may frequently discount the significance of such resources, since they may not make for the most interesting research.
I think another appealing aspect of this story is the humanity of it all. I also think that the humanity of history is something with which students can easily connect. As gruesome as it may be, students are often enthralled by the capabilities of dictators to abuse and bring harm to their fellow humans. Paralleling the Concentration Camps and the horrors of those places with the work of another dictator could serve as an easy "in" for the student imagination.
I also loved thinking about the geography that the Bloodlands entails: while much of Germany and Russia remained unharmed, Snyder points out that all of Belarus and Russia were utterly affected by the actions of Stalin AND Hitler. The interactions of these leaders and their vital connection are important for students to learn and serve as great foundations for a curious young mind to explore and discover new history.