October 2010

The Propaganda of a College Degree

by Ben Atlas on 10.31.2010.9:29pm · 1 comment

One of the administration’s chants is that America needs more college educated workers to meet the demands of the increasingly technology driven service economy. This flies in the face of the facts that according to The Chronicle of Higher Education there are “some 17 million Americans with college degrees who are doing menial jobs.” Here some of the current job assignments for the underemployed workers with Bachelors and Professional degrees.

The article there concludes:

“The relentless claims of the Obama administration and others that having more college graduates is necessary for continued economic leadership is incompatible with this view. Putting issues of student abilities aside, the growing disconnect between labor market realities and the propaganda of higher-education apologists is causing more and more people to graduate and take menial jobs or no job at all. This is even true at the doctoral and professional level—there are 5,057 janitors in the U.S. with Ph.D.’s, other doctorates, or professional degrees.”

Some might argue that many of the underemployed got the wrong degree for the economy.This is somewhat true, although the economy changes direction and the “hot fields” with the speed that often exceeds the time required to complete an education.

Is America Having a Heart Attack?

by Ben Atlas on 10.31.2010.11:55am · 2 comments

S&P Composite Index 1871-2010

I been looking at this chart by Catherine Mulbrandon for a week now (click to enlarge).The infographic shows the exponential growth of US stocks from 1871 based on Robert Shiller’s data. Obviously there is this incredible palpitation of the last two decades, with each swing matching the cumulative growth of the entire American century (we normally look only at a small time stretch, so we don’t notice the comparable abnormality of the mountainous formations of the last two decades). Note the 800 point drop from the top of the Dotcom bubble and the retracing of the same low during the current bubble, it’s exceeds the entire cumulative American stocks gains from 1871 to 1987 (and I though Nassim Taleb was kidding when he said that during the Savings and Loan crisis in the 90s and now during the mortgage bubble, the banks lost more than they ever made, incredible)! Similarly the drop of the Great Depression exceeded the cumulative previous gains. The destruction of wealth in the last decades is so massive that it leaves only the lottery winners or the “house” with the century worth of the American productive wealth. The era of the oligarchy turbocharged by the global slave labor and the federal monetary policy. Hence the sharp decline of the productive middle class (it aint the cost of the healthcare as they told you).

There is also the historical aspect that is clearly observable on this chart. Nassim Taleb hooked me up with the idea that the black swans fly in pairs. And I have been noticing it more and more when thinking about history. Take a look at the pairs along the time axis. There is the obvious WWI and WWII, but also the Korean War and the Vietnam War, the pair of Iraq wars (and naturally the last two black swan stock crashes). Outside of the scope of this chart, but within the same pattern, are the 1967 and Yom Kippur wars in Israel. Going way back is the destruction of the Temple and the Bar Kochba messianic revolt. Psychologically this is easy to understand. Besides the unfinished business on the battlefields and the urge for a revenge there is a still living generation of a conflict participants whose condition changed drastically depending on the outcome of the conflict. People have a hard time accepting and adjusting to a changed social role, they look to return to the former identity or status by all means possible.

1933 Nazi Propaganda Poster about the danger of the Treaty of Versailles

Germany in danger of an Air Attack from Czechoslovakia

Above this idea illustrated in it’s purest form, it shows the connection between the WWI and the WWII. This is 1933 Nazi propaganda poster (via JF Ptak). See how the Treaty of Versailles left Germany in a defenseless posture. Germans were called to mobilize for the war production, to correct the mortal danger of the of the Versailles Treaty. And it took Germany just six years to openly break from the limitation of the Treaty of Versailles and to build the strongest european war machine. So just like Stalin and Hitler were one prolonged historical event, so were the black swans of the WWI and WWII. All the black swans seem to fly in pairs.

Religions and History

by Ben Atlas on 10.30.2010.10:07pm · 2 comments

I am always perplexed by this contradiction. On one hand every religion, especially the messianic religions, insist that history has meaning. And this goes for an individual or an entire nation. There is a purpose and significance to the scripted events, even the calamities. One would think that the study of history would be a sacred subject,  it is after all the direct evidence of the plan, yet the opposite is true. While religions loud the meaning of history, they hide or even reconstruct the historic events, which technically speaking is sacrilege. Continuing Yeshayahu Leibovitch theme, there are several Israeli TV segments of his conversations with a Dominican priest, at the 9:20 mark בשתי אוקטבות Yeshayahu Leibovitch defines “history” (consistent with From Lev Tolstoy to Isaiah Berlin).

The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Psychopath or Charlatan?

by Ben Atlas on 10.30.2010.9:11pm · 10 comments

Yeshayahu Leibovitch posed his famous question:

YouTube Preview Image

Notice the picture of Isaiah Berlin there. And the closely related dilemma.

YouTube Preview Image

Whatever the motivation or a condition, the bottom line is that after all the tzores in the last century we got ourselves a person who captured and continues to capture the imagination of many, who modeled himself after the twin villains from Moscow and Berlin. In the spiritual sense the abused is compelled to perpetuate the crime. And it is only our luck that the apparatchiks don’t have the real power or for sure they would build a secret police, inquisition, the works. Does anyone have any doubt that Benzi Shemtov or his numerous ilk, given the power, would put the worst KGB tortures to shame? And the other sign of powerlessness is that these commissars can’t do no good, but they can still do the damage. Yeshayahu Leibovitch on somewhat related subject.

YouTube Preview Image

Let me explain the last Leibovitch’s clip. When Yeshayahu Leibovitch defines a religion he understands that by definition its functions in the opposition to power. Karl Marx’s vision of socialism was in fact a pure opposition to power. If a religion is colluding with power or uses nationalism as a metaphor for the God given power, than it morphs into nazional socialism, Nazism for short, or the original Soviet version. For whatever reason Mendel Schneerson decided to go into this market. And today his emissaries worship exclusively power and money (that’s why they like to be photographed with the political leaders and the oligarchs). In addition they don’t preach the religion but they traffic in the jewish nostalgia, an identity variant of the Jewish nationalism. As far Yeshayahu Leibovitch is concerned this is no longer a religion. But it also illustrates why Mendel Schneerson had to imitate both totalitarian leaders who were the purest expression of this craft available to him during his formative years. In fact the 20th century was about the redefining of religions as nationalism. This form of nationalism swept even the muslim world, including all major Arab powers besides the oil kingdom, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Abdel Nasser in Egypt, Hafez al-Assad in Syria were all part of the creed.

The King Size Bed Pashkvil

by Ben Atlas on 10.29.2010.8:18am · 0 comments

The beautiful art of Pashkvil, this one about a king size bed. Great writing, the only thing missing is בס”ד (and the untouched by a computer classic poster print). No relation to the glorious Maya in the earlier post.

via Prof. David Assaf’s עונג שבת list

Maya Plisetskaya dances Carmen

by Ben Atlas on 10.29.2010.12:07am · 0 comments

Maya, Maya, “as iz geven mit vemen tzum tisch geyn…” ►click to continue

The Voynich Manuscript – The Most Mysterious Book

by Ben Atlas on 10.28.2010.11:10pm · 0 comments

The Voynich Manuscript, named so after Telze born Wilfrid Voynich who bought it in 1912. It was written around 15-16th century. No one knows the author or the language. Some suggested that it’s an encrypted code but the best cryptographers failed to crack it. It has the fantastic botanical and astronomical drawings of the unknown plants and cosmos. The entire book is on wikimedia (more details on wikipedia). If not for the human vignettes, I would say it was left here by the aliens.

Joel from Williamsburg, a Survivor’s Story

by Ben Atlas on 10.28.2010.9:35pm · 0 comments

Joel Engelman at Shea Hecht’s seminar: ►click to continue

Procrastination and Entrapment

by Ben Atlas on 10.23.2010.4:40pm · 0 comments

“College can be that intermediate period between jail and slavery” and the corollary – “procrastination is the soul rebelling against entrapment” – Nassim Taleb.

I don’t think the purveyors of this civilization realize how big a part in their offers plays the fear of entrapment. Even in the Soviet Russia a career required an attendance but not your soul, it was less of an entrapment. The slave masters never concern themselves about the easy exit, they ignore the natural human tendency to cherish the freedom as our very essence. Procrastination is never an indecision, it’s the resistance, the final stand of the freedom fighters, the valiant if futile attempt of the human soul to fulfill its destiny.

The Bloodlands

by Ben Atlas on 10.23.2010.2:56pm · 0 comments

Ukrainians greeting the invading Germans soldiers during WWII

Ukrainians greeting the invading German soldiers during WWII

Timothy Snyder in his new book Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin makes all the points I have written about for years (according to Anne Applebaum):

  • Stalin a Hitler must be understood as a one historical event, driven by the twins who hated each other and depended on each other.
  • Similarly Gulag and Holocaust are the intertwined chapters of the same phenomenon (I would go even further than Snyder and say that the prolonged Gulag is far more consequential to the history of the Jews than the Holocaust).
  • Despite the “marketing attempts” to equate Holocaust with Auschwitz, most Jews were killed in the ravines and forests next to where they lived, the murders often carried out by their neighbors (this reminds me how many Americans think that Siberia and Russia are essentially the same countries).
  • Most American wars and deaths (even today in Iraq and Afghanistan) are remote, the unseen suffering. There is simply no comparison to the eternal trauma from the repeated waves of death and devastation in what Snyder calls the Bloodlands.

Anne’s review is worth quoting almost in the entirety:

“Snyder’s ambition is to persuade the West—and the rest of the world—to see the war in a broader perspective. He does so by disputing popular assumptions about victims, death tolls, and killing methods—of which more in a moment—but above all about dates and geography. The title of this book, Bloodlands, is not a metaphor. Snyder’s “bloodlands,” which others have called “borderlands,” run from Poznan in the West to Smolensk in the East, encompassing modern Poland, the Baltic states, Ukraine, Belarus, and the edge of western Russia. This is the region that experienced not one but two—and sometimes three—wartime occupations. This is also the region that suffered the most casualties and endured the worst physical destruction.

Unpainted shingles on a building in Lwow, Ukraine, reveal former history.

Unpainted shingles on a building in Lwow/Lviv/Lemberg/Lvov, Ukraine, reveal history.

More to the point, this is the region that experienced the worst of both Stalin’s and Hitler’s ideological madness. During the 1930s, 1940s, and early 1950s, the lethal armies and vicious secret policemen of two totalitarian states marched back and forth across these territories, each time bringing about profound ethnic and political changes. In this period, the city of Lwów was occupied twice by the Red Army and once by the Wehrmacht. After the war ended it was called L’viv, not Lwów, it was no longer in eastern Poland but in western Ukraine, and its Polish and Jewish pre-war population had been murdered or deported and replaced by ethnic Ukrainians from the surrounding countryside. In this same period, the Ukrainian city of Odessa was occupied first by the Romanian army and then by the Wehrmacht before being reoccupied by the Soviet Union. Each time power changed hands there were battles and sieges, and each time an army re-treated from the city it blew up the harbor or massacred Jews. Similar stories can be told about almost any place in the region.

This region was also the site of most of the politically motivated killing in Europe—killing that began not in 1939 with the invasion of Poland, but in 1933, with the famine in Ukraine. Between 1933 and 1945, fourteen million people died there, not in combat but because someone made a deliberate decision to murder them. These deaths took place in the bloodlands, and not accidentally so: “Hitler and Stalin rose to power in Berlin and Moscow,” writes Snyder, “but their visions of transformation concerned above all the lands between.”

Beginning in the 1930s, Stalin conducted his first utopian agricultural experiment in Ukraine, where he collectivized the land and conducted a “war” for grain with the kulaks, the “wealthy” peasants (whose wealth sometimes consisted of a single cow). His campaign rapidly evolved into a war against Ukrainian peasant culture itself, culminating in a mass famine in 1933. In that same year, Hitler came to power and began dreaming of creating Lebensraum, living space, for German colonists in Poland and Ukraine, a project that could only be realized by eliminating the people who lived there. In 1941, the Nazis also devised the Hunger Plan, a scheme to feed German soldiers and civilians by starving Polish and Soviet citizens. Once again, the Nazis decided, the produce of Ukraine’s collective farms would be confiscated and redistributed: “Socialism in one country would be supplanted by socialism for the German race.”

Not accidentally, the fourteen million victims of these ethnic and political schemes were mostly not Russians or Germans, but the peoples who inhabited the lands in between. Stalin and Hitler shared a contempt for the very notions of Polish, Ukrainian, and Baltic independence, and jointly strove to eliminate the elites of those countries. Following their invasion of western Poland in 1939, the Germans arrested and murdered Polish professors, priests, intellectuals, and politicians. Following their invasion of eastern Poland in 1939, the Soviet secret police arrested and murdered Polish professors, priests, intellectuals, and politicians. A few months later, Stalin ordered the murder of some 20,000 Polish officers at Katyn and in other forests nearby as well.

Stalin and Hitler also shared a hatred for the Jews who had long flourished in this region, and who were far more numerous there than in Germany or anywhere else in Western Europe. Snyder points out that Jews were fewer than one percent of the German population when Hitler came to power in 1933, and many did manage to flee. Hitler’s vision of a “Jew-free” Europe could thus only be realized when the Wehrmacht invaded the bloodlands, which is where most of the Jews of Europe actually lived. Of the 5.4 million Jews who died in the Holocaust, four million were from the bloodlands. The vast majority of the rest—including the 165,000 German Jews who did not escape—were taken to the bloodlands to be murdered. After the war, Stalin became paranoid about those Soviet Jews who remained, in part because they wanted to perpetuate the memory of the Holocaust. At the end of his life he purged and arrested many thousands of them, though he died too soon to carry out another mass murder.

Above all, this was the region where Nazism and Soviet communism clashed. Although they had signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact in 1939, agreeing to divide the bloodlands between them, Stalin and Hitler also came to hate each other. This hatred proved fatal to both German and Soviet soldiers who had the bad luck to become prisoners of war. Both dictators treated captured enemies with deadly utilitarianism. For the Germans, Soviet POWs were expendable: they consumed calories needed by others and, unlike Western POWs, were considered to be subhuman. And so they were deliberately starved to death in hideous “camps” in Poland, Russia, and Belarus that were not camps but death zones. Penned behind barbed wire, often in open fields without food, medicine, shelter, or bedding, they died in extraordinary numbers and with great rapidity. On any given day in the autumn of 1941, as many Soviet POWs died as did British and American POWs during the entire war. In total more than three million perished, mostly within a period of a few months.

In essence the Soviet attitude toward German POWs was no different. When, following the Battle of Stalingrad, the Red Army suddenly found itself with 90,000 prisoners, it also put them in open fields without any food or shelter. Over the next few months, at least half a million German and Axis soldiers would die in Soviet captivity. But as the Red Army began to win the war, it tried harder to keep captives alive, the better to deploy them as forced laborers. According to Soviet statistics, 2.3 million German soldiers and about a million of their allies (from Romania, Italy, Hungary, and Austria, but also France and Holland) eventually wound up in the labor camps of the Gulag, along with some 600,000 Japanese whose fate has been almost forgotten in their native land.

Some were released after the war and others were released in the 1950s. There wasn’t necessarily any political logic to these decisions. At one point in 1947, at the height of the postwar famine, the NKVD unexpectedly released several hundred thousand war prisoners. There was no political explanation: the Soviet leadership simply hadn’t enough food to keep them all alive. And in the postwar world there were pressures—most of all from the USSR’s new East German client state—to keep them alive. The Nazis had operated without such constraints.

Though some of the anecdotes and statistics may be surprising to those who don’t know this part of the world, scholars will find nothing in Bloodlandsthat is startlingly new. Historians of the region certainly know that three million Soviet soldiers starved to death in Nazi camps, that most of the Holocaust took place in the East, and that Hitler’s plans for Ukraine were no different from Stalin’s. Snyder’s original contribution is to treat all of these episodes—the Ukrainian famine, the Holocaust, Stalin’s mass executions, the planned starvation of Soviet POWs, postwar ethnic cleansing—as different facets of the same phenomenon. Instead of studying Nazi atrocities or Soviet atrocities separately, as many others have done, he looks at them together. Yet Snyder does not exactly compare the two systems either. His intention, rather, is to show that the two systems committed the same kinds of crimes at the same times and in the same places, that they aided and abetted one another, and above all that their interaction with one another led to more mass killing than either might have carried out alone.

Snyder explains:

The Nazi and Soviet regimes were sometimes allies, as in the joint occupation of Poland [from 1939–1941]. They sometimes held compatible goals as foes: as when Stalin chose not to aid the rebels in Warsaw in 1944 [during the Warsaw uprising], thereby allowing the Germans to kill people who would later have resisted communist rule…. Often the Germans and the Soviets goaded each other into escalations that cost more lives than the policies of either state by itself would have.

In some cases, the atrocities carried out by one power eased the way for the other. When the Nazis marched into western Belarus, Ukraine, and the Baltic states in 1941, they entered a region from which the Soviet secret police had deported hundreds of thousands of people in the previous few months, and shot thousands of prisoners in the previous few days. The conquering Germans were thus welcomed by some as “liberators” who might save the population from a genuinely murderous regime. They were also able to mobilize popular anger at these recent atrocities, and in some places to direct some of that anger at local Jews who had, in the public imagination—and sometimes in reality—collaborated with the Soviet Union. It is no accident that the acceleration of the Holocaust occurred at precisely this moment.

To look at the history of mid- twentieth-century Europe in this way also has consequences for Westerners. Among other things, Snyder asks his readers to think again about the most famous films and photographs taken at Belsen and Buchenwald by the British and American soldiers who liberated those camps. These pictures, which show starving, emaciated people, walking skeletons in striped uniforms, stacks of corpses piled up like wood, have become the most enduring images of the Holocaust. Yet the people in these photographs were mostly not Jews: they were forced laborers who had been kept alive because the German war machine needed them to produce weapons and uniforms. Only when the German state began to collapse in early 1945 did they begin to starve to death in large numbers.

The vast majority of Hitler’s victims, Jewish and otherwise, never saw a concentration camp. Although about a million people died because they were sent to do forced labor in German concentration camps, some ten million died in killing fields in Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia—that means they were taken to the woods, sometimes with the assistance of their neighbors, and shot—as well as in German starvation zones and German gas chambers. These gas chambers were not “camps,” Snyder argues, though they were sometimes adjacent to camps, as at Auschwitz:

Under German rule, the concentration camps and the death factories operated under different principles. A sentence to the concentration camp Belsen was one thing, a transport to the death factory Bełz·ec something else. The first meant hunger and labor, but also the likelihood of survival; the second meant immediate and certain death by asphyxiation. This, ironically, is why people remember Belsen and forget Bełz·ec.

He makes a similar point about Stalin’s victims, arguing that although a million died in the Soviet Gulag between 1933 and 1945, an additional six million died from politically induced Soviet famines and in Soviet killing fields. I happen to think Snyder’s numbers are a little low—the figure for Gulag deaths is certainly higher than a million—but the proportions are probably correct. In the period between 1930 and 1953, the number of people who died in labor camps—from hunger, overwork, and cold, while living in wooden barracks behind barbed wire—is far lower than the number who died violently from machine-gun fire combined with the number who starved to death because their village was deprived of food.

The image we have of the prisoner in wooden shoes, dragging himself to work every morning, losing his humanity day by day—the image also created in the brilliant writings of Primo Levi, Elie Wiesel, and Alexander Solzhenitsyn—is in this sense somewhat misleading. In fact, prisoners who could work had at least a chance of staying alive. Prisoners who were too weak to work, or for whom work could not be organized because of war and chaos, were far more likely to die. The 5.4 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust mostly died instantly, in gas ovens or in silent forests. We have no photographs of them, or of their corpses.”

Lwow photos via flickr/aisipos

Tank being demonstrated during celebration of national holiday.

Tank being demonstrated during celebration of national holiday. John Phillips, Warsaw, Poland, 1938.

Anne Applebaum writes in the The Worst of the Madness how Polish poet Czesław Miłosz described the war in 1953:

“Murder became ordinary during wartime … and was even regarded as legitimate if it was carried out on behalf of the resistance. In the name of patriotism, young boys from law-abiding, middle-class families became hardened criminals, thugs for whom “the killing of a man presents no great moral problem.” Theft became ordinary too, as did falsehood and fabrication. People learned to sleep through sounds that would once have roused the whole neighborhood: the rattle of machine-gun fire, the cries of men in agony, the cursing of the policeman dragging the neighbors away.

For all of these reasons, Miłosz explained, “the man of the East cannot take Americans [or other Westerners] seriously.” Because they hadn’t undergone such experiences, they couldn’t seem to fathom what they meant, and couldn’t seem to imagine how they had happened either. “Their resultant lack of imagination,” he concluded, “is appalling.”

60 years after Czesław Miłosz wrote this, I am still confronted by the same sentiment.

Perhaps this is the occasion to further curate John Phillips’ photos, now from Poland. It appears that John Phillips made two trips to Poland, before the war in 1938 and after the war 1945. Unlike Roman Vishniac, John Phillips didn’t stage. ►click to continue

The Etymology of Genocide

by Ben Atlas on 10.23.2010.9:33am · 0 comments

Several distinct points from Anne Applebaum’s article in the NYR are worth a distinct attention. I plan several posts about the same article:

“…this word [Genocide] (from the Greek genos, tribe, and the French -cide) was coined in 1943 by a Polish lawyer of Jewish descent, Raphael Lemkin, who had long been trying to draw the attention of the international community to what he at first called “the crime of barbarity.” In 1933, inspired by news of the Armenian massacre, he had proposed that the League of Nations treat mass murder committed “out of hatred towards a racial, religious or social collectivity” as an international crime. After he fled Nazi-occupied Poland in 1940, Lemkin intensified his efforts. He persuaded the Nuremburg prosecutors to use the word “genocide” during the trials, though not in the verdict. He also got the new United Nations to draft a Convention on Genocide. Finally, after much debate, the General Assembly passed this convention in 1948.

As the Stanford historian Norman Naimark explains in Stalin’s Genocides, the UN’s definition of genocide was deliberately narrow: “Acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” This was because Soviet diplomats had demanded the exclusion of any reference to social, economic, and political groups. Had they left these categories in, prosecution of the USSR for the murder of aristocrats (a social group), kulaks (an economic group), or Trotskyites (a political group) would have been possible.

Although Lemkin himself continued to advocate a broader definition of the term, the idea that the word “genocide” can refer only to the mass murder of an ethnic group has stuck. In fact, until recently the term was used almost exclusively to refer to the Holocaust, the one “genocide” that is recognized as such by almost everybody: the international community, the former Allies, even the former perpetrators.

Perhaps because of that unusually universal recognition, the word has more recently acquired almost magical qualities. Nations nowadays campaign for their historical tragedies to be recognized as “genocide,” and the term has become a political weapon both between and within countries. The disagreement between Armenians and Turks over whether the massacre of Armenians after World War I was “genocide” has been the subject of a resolution introduced in the US Congress. The leaders of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine campaigned to have the Ukrainian famine recognized as “genocide” in international courts (and in January 2010, a court in Kiev did convict Stalin and other high officials of “genocide” against the Ukrainian nation). But the campaign was deliberately dropped when their more pro-Russian (or post-Soviet) opponents came to power. They have since deleted a link to the genocide campaign from the presidential website.

As the story of Lemkin’s genocide campaign well illustrates, this discussion of the proper use of the word has also been dogged by politics from the beginning. The reluctance of intellectuals on the left to condemn communism; the fact that Stalin was allied with Roosevelt and Churchill; the existence of German historians who tried to downplay the significance of the Holocaust by comparing it to Soviet crimes; all of that meant that, until recently, it was politically incorrect in the West to admit that we defeated one genocidal dictator with the help of another. Only now, with the publication of so much material from Soviet and Central European archives, has the extent of the Soviet Union’s mass murders become better known in the West. In recent years, some in the former Soviet sphere of influence—most notably in the Baltic states and Ukraine—have begun to use the word “genocide” in legal documents to describe the Soviet Union’s mass killings too.

Naimark’s short book is a polemical contribution to this debate. Though he acknowledges the dubious political history of the UN convention, he goes on to argue that even under the current definition, Stalin’s attack on the kulaks and on the Ukrainian peasants should count as genocide. So should Stalin’s targeted campaigns against particular ethnic groups. At different times the Soviet secret police hunted down, arrested, and murdered ethnic Poles, Germans, and Koreans who happened to be living in the USSR, and of course they murdered 20,000 Polish officers within a few weeks. A number of small nations, notably the Chechens, were also arrested and deported en masse in the immediate postwar period: men, women, children, and grandparents were put on trains, and sent to live in Central Asia, where they were meant to die and eventually disappear as a nation. A similar fate met the Crimean Tatars.

Like Snyder’s, Naimark’s work has also ranged widely, from his groundbreaking book on the Soviet occupation of East Germany to studies of ethnic cleansing. As a result his argument is authoritative, clear, and hard to dispute. Yet if we take the perspective offered in Bloodlands seriously, we also have to ask whether the whole genocide debate itself—and in particular the long-standing argument over whether Stalin’s murders “qualify”—is not a red herring. If Stalin’s and Hitler’s mass murders were different but not separate, and if neither would have happened in quite the same way without the other, then how can we talk about whether one is genocide and the other is not?

To the people who actually experienced both tyrannies, such definitions hardly mattered. Did the Polish merchant care whether he died because he was a Jew or because he was a capitalist? Did the starving Ukrainian child care whether she had been deprived of food in order to create a Communist paradise or in order to provide calories for the soldiers of the German Reich? Perhaps we need a new word, one that is broader than the current definition of genocide and means, simply, “mass murder carried out for political reasons.” Or perhaps we should simply agree that the word “genocide” includes within its definition the notions of deliberate starvation as well as gas chambers and concentration camps, that it includes the mass murder of social groups as well as ethnic groups and be done with it.

…we liberated one half of Europe at the cost of enslaving the other half for fifty years. We really did win the war against one genocidal dictator with the help of another. There was a happy end for us, but not for everybody. This does not make us bad—there were limitations, reasons, legitimate explanations for what happened. But it does make us less exceptional. And it does make World War IIless exceptional, more morally ambiguous, and thus more similar to the wars that followed.”