History as Propaganda: Intellectuals and the Ukrainian Crisis David North@davidnorthwsws 16 May 2014 A group of right-wing academics, journalists, pro-war human-rights activists, and specialists in “discourse” is gathering in Kiev this coming weekend (May 16-19, 2014). The purpose of the meeting-headed by Professor Timothy Snyder of Yale University and Leon Wieseltier, the neo-con literary editor of The New Republic-is to bestow political and moral respectability on the Ukrainian regime that came to power in February, through a putsch financed and directed by the United States and Germany. Promoting themselves as an “international group of intellectuals,” the organizers have issued a publicity handout-excuse me, a “Manifesto”-in which the meeting is described as “an encounter between those who care about freedom and a country where freedom is dearly won.” [1] There is some truth in this statement, as the overthrow of the Yanukovych government did, in fact, cost the United States a great deal of money.

You geniuses are going to start WW 3. Thanks, pal.

@@pauldalnoky6055 Ukraine is going to start it? I’d argue Russia is.

@@jeremya.695 it started the last one

@@pauldalnoky6055 How did Ukraine start WWII?

When Snyder published this essay in early 2010, he evidently considered Bandera and the OUN to be an important, dangerous and disturbing element of Ukrainian history. However, by the time Bloodlands was published in October 2010, only eight months later, Snyder’s treatment of this subject had undergone a radical change. In his 524-page book, the operations of the Ukrainian nationalists received the most cursory mention. The index of Bloodlands does not contain a single entry for either Stepan Bandera or the OUN! The entire book devotes just one sentence, on page 326, to the murderous activities of the UPA, commanded by the OUN. In the course of 2010, as final preparations were being made for the publication of Bloodlands, Snyder decided that references to the crimes of the Ukrainian nationalists should be kept out of the book. None of the facts and issues relating to Ukrainian fascism raised by Snyder in his February 2010 essay in the New York Review of Books were raised in Bloodlands.

When Snyder published this essay in early 2010, he evidently considered Bandera and the OUN to be an important, dangerous and disturbing element of Ukrainian history. However, by the time Bloodlands was published in October 2010, only eight months later, Snyder’s treatment of this subject had undergone a radical change. In his 524-page book, the operations of the Ukrainian nationalists received the most cursory mention. The index of Bloodlands does not contain a single entry for either Stepan Bandera or the OUN! The entire book devotes just one sentence, on page 326, to the murderous activities of the UPA, commanded by the OUN. In the course of 2010, as final preparations were being made for the publication of Bloodlands, Snyder decided that references to the crimes of the Ukrainian nationalists should be kept out of the book. None of the facts and issues relating to Ukrainian fascism raised by Snyder in his February 2010 essay in the New York Review of Books were raised in Bloodlands.

Even more now in the Spring of the South. 😨

This is important too as it reveals who the real Timmy is ...! When Snyder published this essay in early 2010, he evidently considered Bandera and the OUN to be an important, dangerous and disturbing element of Ukrainian history. However, by the time Bloodlands was published in October 2010, only eight months later, Snyder’s treatment of this subject had undergone a radical change. In his 524-page book, the operations of the Ukrainian nationalists received the most cursory mention. The index of Bloodlands does not contain a single entry for either Stepan Bandera or the OUN! The entire book devotes just one sentence, on page 326, to the murderous activities of the UPA, commanded by the OUN. In the course of 2010, as final preparations were being made for the publication of Bloodlands, Snyder decided that references to the crimes of the Ukrainian nationalists should be kept out of the book. None of the facts and issues relating to Ukrainian fascism raised by Snyder in his February 2010 essay in the New York Review of Books were raised in Bloodlands.

Timothy Snyder is a propagandist disguised as a historian.

When Snyder published this essay in early 2010, he evidently considered Bandera and the OUN to be an important, dangerous and disturbing element of Ukrainian history. However, by the time Bloodlands was published in October 2010, only eight months later, Snyder’s treatment of this subject had undergone a radical change. In his 524-page book, the operations of the Ukrainian nationalists received the most cursory mention. The index of Bloodlands does not contain a single entry for either Stepan Bandera or the OUN! The entire book devotes just one sentence, on page 326, to the murderous activities of the UPA, commanded by the OUN. In the course of 2010, as final preparations were being made for the publication of Bloodlands, Snyder decided that references to the crimes of the Ukrainian nationalists should be kept out of the book. None of the facts and issues relating to Ukrainian fascism raised by Snyder in his February 2010 essay in the New York Review of Books were raised in Bloodlands.

Poor Poland. I suppose I’ll have to read Snyder though he sounds like a social scientist/Scientologist and praised more than bagwan Sri Rajneesh. I want to know if he mentions the partition of Poland or is the theme American politics, a love of the EU and a visceral hatred of Donald trump. Yes Americans can engage in hatred and killing too, probably

+Toosin Beymen Not really all that complicated. He's simply saying that pretending Bolshevik atrocities were somehow better than Nazi atrocities is bad history, and that deliberately lying about the facts is not good history, regardless of who gets annoyed.

+DrCruel I don't think it is quite that simple. I have watched every video he has done both on YT & other University specific sites. I became interested enough to read Bloodlands & currently reading Black Earth...It is in fact complex but he seems to weave together separate & diverse individual histories...part of that is recognizing the reality (as opposed to the propaganda), the horror of living under Stalin's terror & the evils he committed against an endless list of ethnic victim groups

***** On the Bolsheviks and their escapades, I think Vladimir Brovkin is very good. Also Richard Pipes and Robert Conquest. My experience is that one has to be skeptical about certain historians because of their ideology (that applies especially to Left fascists and their sympathizers). Ethnicity has nothing at all to do with it.

***** Really. Brovkin's books are very well researched (and from Russian language sources - he followed your advice, apparently). The works of Pipes and Conquest seem to have been vindicated by the Venona papers and documentation released after the fall of the Bolshevik Empire. They also seem to correspond very closely to a lot of first-hand opinions from Eastern Europeans after the 1989-1991 liberation. Maybe Brovkin, Conquest and Pipes aren't liars. Maybe you're just another lying Left fascist. Think I'll go with that hypothesis and see where it leads me. But thanks for your input.

You have to listen to it a couple times because he’s terrible at speaking

How convenient!

IT SOUNDS TO ME THAT BIDEN WANTS THE UKRAINIANS DEAD. HE KEEPS ARRANGING FOR MORE MONEY AND WEAPONRY TO ARRIVE THERE, MEANWHILE, THE TOLL OF UKRAINIAN DEATHS IS ATTROCIOUS. BUT SELENSKY'S WIFE IS SEEN SHOPPING IN OTHER COUNTRIES WEALTHIEST DISTRICTS. SHE AND HER HUSBAND ARE NOT SCATHED. BIDEN AND THE WAR [HOG] HAWKS, CELEBRATE, AS THEY CONTINUE TO TELL US HERE IN AMERICA THAT IS THE CAUSE OF INFLATION. BULLS--T!

Thats pretty much middle east here lol.sad but you have to.laugh at times

'The entirety of time'?

@@stuartwray6175 Yes.. entirety of time = period he lectered on.

Crap What a stupid insult

Jack Smith you can kinda say it's about his story and individuals story or how someone views the world.

Yeah Yeah just said he was just waiting on on him I think he’s a

@@MsBloodyFox said that the bill would would would would

@@MsBloodyFox said said he’s

Yeah Yeah Yeah and and Aidan Aidan got a zoot he’s he’s he’s going bell and n got got a a lot more more like like that that one would be be better for me but It’ll just just puts it in

Neither did i know that 3/4 of the world's Jews lived in that limited region. We had read of "the Pale" the agrarian region of the 19th century, when and where the vast pogroms began. Though I was introduced to Jewish history in a prison where others were kept due to coercive state thought to isolate dissenters, and became aware of much of the specific atrocities relevant there, the ideology has now been unfortunately dispersed worldwide through mis- and purposely dis-information via commercial internet (that's since 1992-3. Before then it was not an engine for profitmaking, but for discourse among educaitonal institutions and within governance institutions.). I don't wish to depersonalize the internet - it is merely, as was writing, a tool through which humans comunicate. It is the beliefs and individual minds promoting specious division and atrocity to which you, i, and others should take exception.

I think you may have forgotten about all the history books and university history courses of the last 80 years. So little taught about real true history coupled with critical thought. I found more on the internet than I ever found in history books.

In case of German Jews I think factors in their survival was familiarity with the territory so to speak. Of course many of them had already been chased away from the Reich due to Nazi terror tactics. Then there were cases of Jews married to non-Jews, which offered some protection, and of course familiarity in the sense that most German Jews were highly secular and of course all spoke German, so the lets say "traditional" images of Jews did not apply to them, so on a personal level it is more difficult to see them as the "other" or a threat when you hadn't believed it since your earliest days. Of course this is mostly my speculation. One reason might have been simply because there weren't as many and the German forces were occupied with conquest in the East so German Jews were not seen as a high priority. We had a similar phenomenon with German Sinti and Roma, were in fact the Nazi policies were sometimes so confused that we have cases of people being drafted into the Wehrmacht just to be thrown out in 1942 when Himmler & Co had finally made up their minds. Of course that has to do with the partially Indian origin of Sinti and Roma, so that was another issue. In fact this "lack" of thoroughness is sadly something that is often used to claim the porajmos was not as bad as the Shoah or cannot be compared to, or wasn't unique, even though e.g. if yopu were 1/8 Jew, you were pretty much a non-issue, if your were 1/8 "gypsy" it was off to the camps with you (in those case we have the story of soldiers being sent to Auschwitz still in their uniforms). But that is a whole other lecture.

Dear Inotaishu1 (aka Professor Snyder) - Just now reading your response to pink pig (aka Jambonmauve) the fraction 1/8 jumped out. For me, dissonance between the precision and the evil of the Holocaust never ends. You are right that we must keep this in history and fight poetic or philosophical interpretations of the killing that suggest its facts belong outside of simple description. I mixed it up recently with an evangelical Protestant Islamophobe I know who posted something about the inappropriateness of making comparisons between Trump and Hitler, that this somehow was an insult to Jews, of which I am one and he isn't - not complaining, just saying. Comparisons, in his mind (and I understand your comments on the challenges and appropriate timing of comparisons) demean the sacred memory of the Holocaust. I presume he thinks the killings should remain some precious symbol of man's inhumanity to man, and not be mined for their instructive value in preventing re-runs. Another Messianic Jew and I objected strongly. Personally, I think it is just a distant cousin to denial - an effort to keep it out of the conversation. Unthinkable. Unspeakable. No, not really. The best minds were on it. Theologically, the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Religious Life is documented brilliantly in Susan Heschel's The Aryan Jesus. Joseph Goebbel's, as a PR guy was no schlub, if you read his Principles of Propaganda. The medical experiments, the measuring of skulls, the sheer volume of work to defend the notion of die Herrenrasse and bring its bloody implications to life, the description of stolen artworks, the counting of corpses, the ordinary testimony of Eichmann all protest our inclination to proclaim the Holocaust so horrible, so "inhuman" that we cannot explain, understand or engage with it. It would be easier to dismiss systematic killings as barbarian, savage, as distilled evil that we civilized folk cannot really see and therefore, refuse to see when it starts to percolate again right under our noses. “History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes.” - attributed to Mark Twain, probably in error Hey pink pig, the professor's response was worth waiting for, wasn't it? Let's now wait together for that other lecture. Laura Donna (aka TLDNR), Granby, Connecticut, U.S.A.

OK read your article in Vox this morning. So history Doesn't rhyme.

I am not Professor Snyder, I can guarantee you that.

oh you sounded very knowledgeable and when you mentioned another lecture, I thought you were! Case of mistaken identity

A prophet of his own making? What gives him away? The T-shirt perhaps “I’m a prophet!”?

Denazification? You’ll need an army of social scientists and care workers and maybe a few units of nazis to point out who’s who. Starting now? Change you can believe in! There’s a problem…some of the American team think Utah is the capital of the USA, and might confuse it with Ukraine. There are many problems of execution including human fallibility. Not everyone is a clean as a whistle leader prophet of an unknown sect

@@paulgrieve7031 Get an Antifa T-Shirt.

That account of his story has been completely debunked...see Grover Furr for instance...

@@gp9206 A calcified gargoyle on an apparently life-long quest to exonerate Stalin of murders the old boy was practically boasting he committed. A Stalinist blowhard cortotionist, an expert in an entirely different field, who writes about the main historical questions concerning his fringe ideology. He just so happens, in every single instance of his research, to find history that completely agrees with his ideological positions. Almost as if he was looking exactly for it and nothing else, and would find it in irrespective of the facts or against them. On first pass it seems to me that three or four good passages from Snyder, Serge or Conquest weigh more than his entire bibliography on the subject.

@@willnash7907 oh Dear...let's not go to the original sources brigade have gotten to you too...do you really believe that Snyder believes his cartoonist account of history...when Snyder himself debunked it before he wrote it...!

@@gp9206 Snyder is a Yale lecturer and they are big on original sources. Like, you can look up his RMP reviews and see students complaining because he expects them to read at least the abridged. He made his late career digging into eastern european archives, making connections and writing his books. His knowledge is clearly vast on the subject. Unlike your ideologue, he does not examine the Soviets as a question of political allegiance floating in the void but as a coherent and small if pivotal part of the history of the entire region from antiquity. Also Conquest who is on a similar line was distinguished for how extensively he linked up with Russian expats and nationals to get his info, which is why when the records were opened up in the three waves, Thaw, Glasnost, Collapse, he was validated again, and again, and again... Serge was actually there to witness much of the history.

@@willnash7907 Yale...is it... perhaps he went to Yell too... Snyder mockingly dismissed Russian references to Ukrainian nationalists’ mass murder of Poles and Jews during World War II as “a past that never happened” and “nonsensical and necrophiliac accounts of history.” But at an earlier stage of his career, Snyder wrote detailed accounts of the genocidal activities of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). His article, “The Causes of Ukrainian-Polish Ethnic Cleansing 1943,” appeared in the May 2003 edition of Past and Present. This 37-page scholarly article focused on the OUN’s mass killing of Poles in Volhynia. The OUN’s military wing, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army [UPA], wrote Snyder, “killed about fifty thousand Volhynian Poles and forced tens of thousands to flee in 1943.” “By the end of April 1943,” according to Snyder’s account, “the UPA had perhaps ten thousand soldiers under its command, and had reduced much of Volhynia to mutual slaughter.” Snyder continued: Throughout April and throughout Volhynia, UPA soldiers surrounded colonies and villages, burned houses, shot or forced back inside those who tried to escape. In mixed settlements, the UPA’s security services warned Ukrainians to flee by night, then killed everyone remaining at dawn. This was a co-ordinated attack by armed men upon a leaderless and disorganized population

I think that some would consider Timothy a holocaust denier due to the poor definition of the term and how it's used more as a pejorative term rather than anything meaningful. The professor questions accepted beliefs and understandings people have of what made up the holocaust and that is namely that Hitler alone killed Jews, that Auschwitz was the center or focus of Jewish extermination, and that millions of Jews were exterminated in that camp as well as other Nazi camps. If you present anything other than that long held so called 'accepted' narrative you will be considered by many as being a 'holocaust denier' when in fact the people who hold to that position are 'holocaust truth deniers'.

The hyperbole of Hollywood and conspiracy theories are always the main factors to emotional appeals.

Snyder is another of your deniers too it seems... When Snyder published this essay in early 2010, he evidently considered Bandera and the OUN to be an important, dangerous and disturbing element of Ukrainian history. However, by the time Bloodlands was published in October 2010, only eight months later, Snyder’s treatment of this subject had undergone a radical change. In his 524-page book, the operations of the Ukrainian nationalists received the most cursory mention. The index of Bloodlands does not contain a single entry for either Stepan Bandera or the OUN! The entire book devotes just one sentence, on page 326, to the murderous activities of the UPA, commanded by the OUN. In the course of 2010, as final preparations were being made for the publication of Bloodlands, Snyder decided that references to the crimes of the Ukrainian nationalists should be kept out of the book. None of the facts and issues relating to Ukrainian fascism raised by Snyder in his February 2010 essay in the New York Review of Books were raised in Bloodlands.

'this reality that throughout the history until this day' What does that mean?

@@stuartwray6175 ask Snyder!!

@@paulgrieve7031 the syntax scrambles my brain - 'to put to our conscience this reality that throughout the history until this day'

@@stuartwray6175 I understand. He speaks loads of rubbish quite often but the books read quite well I suppose.

Doomed for some repetition is seems ....

@@Brianbeesandbikes And here it has come.

Fanks

Bloodlands

+rianmonnahan I believe he in part makes that point

He argues in the book black earth that the breakdown of state institutions is one of the major factors to enable such high murder rates. The argument goes further and states that the double occupation in the bloodlands is the reason for the complete breakdown of institutions. So yes, that is his point.

I think he would reject that as a primary cause as he rejected Arendt's ideas. The reason being that the killing started well before the clash of armies. In fact initial stage from 1933 was while they were essentially on the same side, and almost all the killing happened in the Soviet territory. This is similar to the rejection of the Arendt hypothesis on totalitarianism, where he squelched it by pointing out that the killing happened somewhere other than where it would align with her hypotheses. Rural not city. In this case we have geographic and temporal separation. However, there are other factors one could look back at the previous clashes as informing these events, such as WWI, and a half dozen other occurrences through history.

Snyder makes the point that Russia was killing in the bloodlands mostly before the war. Germany stepped up its killings there during the war. Each had a different agenda.

Keep the history coming!

Quite a mixture You can invent a new language to change the world!!! One change you can believe in should be sufficient First: who is wrong?

You may have overlimited yurself in enlarging the real mass of atrocity to attribute inty regions with relatively minimal percentages of brutality, while omitting other regions with far larger and more organized denial or elimination of community and consequent actual organized, uncontested genocidal actions. "frontera" is the actual word, but does not now nor ever has meant borderlands between established nations, but referred to regions not completely exploited. Nuevo Mexico happened to be too distant, for example, for the new 1820s Mexican nation to administrate. As stopgap to the Comanche (Kamantsi, meaning "they like to fight") raiding/trading empire, expatriate Euros and Euroamericans disgruntled with their failure to take power or profit in some states of the still-new USA 1789 or post-1803, as you define it - emigrated in response to official Mexican grants in order to populate or assist control in that region. Limits on the power of those immigrants - for example they desired a cotton/slave economy, a real estate arrogation and sales economy, and related exploitation, and so in 1835 rebelled succeedi8ng only for a short period, as Mexican forces had to be gathered together over years to restore it. The expats, whose names and actual biographical exploitative bents were well-known to anyone familiar with their biographical materials, then quickly ran off to the nation they had previously hated, asking for special annexation by the USA. Receiving it, they became Texas, protected by the major force of the continent. Omitted in concepts such as la frontera, were the human residents. The Puebloan peoples had successfully rebelled for Twenty eyars in the the 17th century, until a Nuevo Espana force returned to quell the indigenous again, with the usual religious excuse and coercion. In Alta California (it did nto occur in Baja California due to xeric climate and tiny populations, though missions had also been established there to subjugate, enslave, control) the missionaries actively enslaved, and used Spanish military to murder, and recapture indigenous who were inherently more civilized than they. The so-called "mission indians" , while having differing languages and customs, due to their habitation of different habitat types, largely did NOT have a WORD meaning "war" - organized acquisitional/coercive violence. These tribal cultures reaching about to what are now California/Oregon borderlands (quite the "frontier" to murderous gold seekers and deforestation industries by the 1950s), had a culture of sharing, almost all avoiding exploitation and slavery of others until you reach the Modoc and the more northern Pacific tribes. It was a significant cultural boundary. So. The "Frontiera" exists solely in your mind, and NOT in reality. Humans, like OTHER animals sense molecularly, hormonally, pheromonally, and in the odd quirks of evolution cognitively, through sexual nonattraction to those with whom they sp[end developmental period before pubertal onset, outbreeding versus inbreeding. We tend to be eager to outbreed. This phenomenon occurs worldwide, through means i indicate, though it might require a huge effort to educate in biology, neuroscience, and evolution for you to remotely understand. Hood is also not a nation, the word is nationhood without caps. While uyghurs are a Turkic people, Han Chinese dynasties have for a coup0le tens of centuries attempted to exert cotrol over regions occupied by others. I fall prey to a probale error in ideation to which Professor Snyder addresses across time: Did the Denisovans and Neanderthals possess the territoriaality that seems common to Homo [not so] sapiens? Nearly all of us outside Africa are products of outbreeding and thus likely the natural friendly affiliative sense less than a majority now appear to sense in themselves due to overassessment of threat. From Indopacific Denisovan mix to other clearly identifiable genetic mixing, , evidence favors that you refer SOLELY to cruel coercive control by cantankerous choleric fear- and hate-arousers. the long steppe and the spottily fertile regions through which the Silk Road passed, have always been attractive to raiders/highwaymen. The peculiar cultural behavioral complexes of extreme mate-guarding (FAR older than islam) leading to honor killing, paired with obligate friendly generous treatment of strangers, point to the great highway of humanity persisting there. The Turkic tribes were among the earliest domesticators (enslavers? Think onthis if you know equine behaviors) of horses. From Arya- those who swept east from steppe north of Caucasus into India, and from whom the word Iran self-describes, to the numerous peoples who remained essentially seasonal migrators until recent times, high mobility took these very people - some of whom retain the very surname Uyg[h]ur, in once, greek or Hittite now-Turkey. NONE are innocent of the blame you ascribe to Chinese or US, or others. The na-Dene' peoples from subarctic to Tenochtitlan, were mobile. TH nahuaho - "Nahua" meaning the region around upper Colorado River basin, had swept into the Valle' de Mexico, calling themselves mexica, a word meaning Wolf, perhaps due to being a Wolf Clan, define to you, but NOT to me a region. For previous indigenous lived there, sometimes supplanting others since at least 13k ya. Nothing persists. I lived for far over a decade in a caldera, parts of which blew 2 inches of soil into Saskatchewan and Nebraska. Like bacteria, our lives are too short to detect slow changes, or to be alive during some fast changes. There is only compassion, or not. That you reserve yours for one or two or three individuals or tribes, or nations, infers your own cognitive limits. I suggest you expand them considerably.

@@briseboy Poblano*, Nueva España*... typos happen.

Scott Berta oh yes that was very funny.I must put that in my joke book

Extremely powerful lectUre on TRUTHS! Its time Hollywood made some truthful movies about masskillings etc and not the fantacies that were produced.

here come the Wehraboo’s

possible translation: There's still no answer to the question of what's the general or the doctor outside the obete and Hitler who stood before the tribúns and handed over the army because it's a pain

That Furr guy is worth less than the dirt on my boots, so idk why Snyder would care.

@@Dynamo128 that language starts feuds

Furr is a Stalinist POS.

regular Wehrmacht soldiers did heavily contribut to the killings, rapes and destructions. It is believed that less than 5% of all wehrmact soldiers and administrators, might not be directly involved in the holocaust. Some historians believe now, that not one soldier did not at some point participate. But ofc there are degrees. The SS and Einsatzgruppen did the greater part of the direct killing (pulling the trigger).

sri krishna Poland too

"He claims the holocaust was initiated by Ukrainians and not a Germans." No he doesn't. In fact no one does. At least no historian.

"He states the Holocaust (by bullets) was initiated after the attack on Soviet Union with collaboration of locals." That's true. "He claims the holocaust was initiated by Ukrainians and not Germans." That's a lie. I've listened to most of them and even read his book, he never states that ukrainians initiated holocausts, contrary, some reviewers even criticised him for white-washing ukrainian partisans by glossing over anti-polsih and anti-jewish massacres perpetrated by banderists.

There is a history class about Ukraine going now in Yale uni. They put all lections (6 by now) online, very interesting.

He was a Georgian

I guess being Georgian he had something to prove. Like a certain Austrian.

@@julianshepherd2038 Stalin was so crazy he hated everyone. He killed millions of Russians, Ukrainians etc. The irony is what defeated Hitler was he double crossed Stalin by invading Russia in 41. It was really Russia who finished off the Nazis and it was the Russians who liberated all the death camps in Poland

He was a full-fledged commie!

@@philodonoghue3062 exactly!

Interesting comment..... Talking about "underestimation": Since you seem to be evidence oriented, here are a few facts for you that show that Russia (to be more precise: the Kremlin) underestimated Ukraine (= the Ukrainian leadership as well as the Ukrainian population) and "the West" (= the governments as well as the majority of the population in the USA & EU & Australia). - invasion of Kiev failed, mostly due to underestimation of the will to resist & fight of the Ukrainians - Mariupol did not fall quickly, could only be taken at the price of total destruction. Significant underestimation of the above... - Taking full military control of Donetsk & Luhansk oblasts failed due to significant underestimation of ...... By that time, military help from "the West" had kicked in and made a difference. Another underestimation by the Kremlin, which had believed "the West" would not stick together and support Ukraine militarily. - Sweden and Finland are joining NATO, another underestimation by the Kremlin...... - massive exodus from Russia, by people that are not willing to support the war. 2nd wave of exodus is still ongoing. Another underestimation by the Kremlin..... Here is my prediction: - "the West" has started another arms-race, similar to the cold war. Russia does not have the economic capabilities to compete. Russia will lose the arms race like the SU did and will further ruin its economy along the way. - Ukraine will not be "de-nazified". You cant remove something that isn´t there. Ukraine will continue to be a sovereign country, electing its leadership without asking the Kremlin for permission. - as for the military situation: Russian occupation has reached its maximum, Russian troops will continue to be driven back (watch next: Lyman). The mobilisation in Russia will not change the momentum. "The West" will continue to supply weapons, & intelligence to the Ukrainian army that they will use in their favour. - the Russian economy will continue to shrink, standard of living and life expectancy of the average Russian will continue to drop. Putin will not care, since he has the means and the will to suppress any opposition. Russians will not revolt, since indoctrination and suppression are too strong in Russia. Not a pleasant outlook for Russians. I have a number of Russian friends and am sad to say this. Kind regards Winston

Is this lecture about the native people in America? DF

@@Ghostshadows306 1:04:00 where he claims the holocaust was unique. The genocide of native nations in the US was an important base for Raphael Lemkin's legal argument when he defined the crime of Genocide. Lemkin lost his whole family in nazi concentration camps during WWII. I realized something rewatching the lecture: he's putting make up on the nazis! I also realized he doesn't know what dialectics is: he thinks whataboutism is dialectics! BTW, the first victims of the holocaust (as defined by the Prof. of the Nizik Nursing School) were the Germans killed during Aktion T4.

@@maxheadrom3088 Don’t even know what the F you’re talking about. The lecture is about the Holocaust. Not the Native Americans. Is that too hard to understand?

In what way?

@Fabian Kirchgessner Here are two positive thoughts taken from the holy Hebrew Scriptures that will console all broken hearts: First-Promise recorded in Psalm 37: 9-12 says: "For the wicked will be eliminated, but those who put their hope in Jehovah will inherit the earth. Just a little while longer, and the wicked will no longer exist; you will look where they were, and they will no longer be there. But the meek will inherit the earth and fully enjoy of abundant peace." Second-Promise recorded in Isaiah 25: 8 says: "He will remove death forever, and the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will wipe the tears from all faces. He will remove from all the earth the disgrace of his people, for Jehovah himself has spoken." Have a very pleasant day.

The gulags were not in the area he is discussing... The whole point of his lecture was the effect that hitler and stalin had in poland belarus and the western ukraine from 33-45

@@feereel And I'm pointing out that limiting his field of view to that area is senseless if his subject is actually what he claims it is, "The Origins of Mass Killing".

@@gandydancer637 ..the book seemed a lot different than the lecture.. read the book a few years ago and was an interesting take on all the suffering and death in the areas affected by the molotov, - rippentrop pact...

@@feereel * von Ribbentrop All I know is the lecture.

@@gandydancer637 .. yes gerd von..

The link is that anti-Semites actually see a connection there.

And in a relatively free society Gover Furr is free to say what he likes. His books are freely available and other historians are free to express what they think about his books. I value this freedom.

That's not exactly true. More died due to Nazi Germany, its allies, and its fellow-travelers on the ground than by the Soviet Union in the same amount of time - and that makes a lot of sense considering there are a lot more 'chefs' in that kitchen, you get me? Additionally, one might say "well what about the entirety of the Soviet Union's existence?" To that I say, "what about it?" the disparity in timelines between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union make me inclined to discount that sort of criteria - one lasted much longer than the other so it stands to reason more would perish due to its practices but the fact that it's not such an easy tally to calculate really highlights just how much awful was packed into a relatively short amount of time when it comes to the Nazis and their allies.

Yes Stalin ultimately killed more. But what will really rustle their jimmies is how much more Mao killed compared to both of Stalin and Hitler..

He is excluding war.

Stalin, Hitler, and Mao are arguing this point in hell right now.

I, also, noticed that Snyder said that Nazis killed more than Soviets. This is where some tabular data would be helpful, dates numbers and references. Snyder talks about the psychology too much for me. I need the facts first.