kind reminder that timothy snyder isn’t held in great regard by other historians, even by right-wing ones—so, basically his own camp. especially on methodological grounds, omer bartov and richard evans have called out his use of chronological juxtaposition, saying it implies connections between events without enough evidence. this, along with other critiques, makes it an entertaining hundred page maybe, but not great value.
Snyder is right-wing? News to me!
(Speaking of right-wing historians, does anyone have thoughts on Richard Pipes? Specifically his book on the Russian Revolution. I found it fascinating, but it has been criticized, and I'm not sure how much credence to give the critiques.)
While we’re on the subject of reading advice, here’s mine. If I really want to learn something, like the history of the Russian Revolution, I have to read it three times. So, I’d read Pipes, then read Antony Beevor, then read China Mieville, then triangulate. Pick any three authors. Pipes was definitely conservative, but there is no such thing as completely objective history, especially on a topic like the Russian Revolution (arguably the most political event since the French Revolution)
I actually read Fitzpatrick's book on the Russian Revolution first. Her view was a lot different from that of Pipes, and I didn't feel well-positioned to adjudicate.
That's where my issue comes from. I don't think reading a 3rd book would solve it.
Pipes' account resonated better with my view of human nature, but maybe that's just my bias creeping in ;-)
Maybe the trick is to initially focus on well-studied areas of history where there is very little controversy, to calibrate your BS detector. Then once you're calibrated, you can be more judicious learning about the controversial stuff.
Thoughts on that strategy? If it seems good, I'd love to get some recs on specific "authoritative" history books which could be good for calibration purposes :-)
That's basically my strategy: try to start with more factual accounts. Sometimes, I start with the shorter accounts. Then move to the more opinionated or specific histories. It all depends on how closely you want to study a particular topic.
I'm just saying I don't feel like I know even the basic facts until I've seen them at least three times.
I don't have any other specific "authoritative" books to recommend. Maybe one of the Lenin or Stalin biographies? And Dr. Zhivago, of course...
You can also take Parfit’s advice and just read Sidgwick over and over.
BTW, Pipes was so hard on Lenin that he made me start thinking perhaps communism might've actually worked* if it wasn't for that Lenin guy.
* by "worked", I mean evolved into something more functional, benevolent, and incentives-aligned, perhaps akin to Nordic social democracy, or perhaps something novel
You're on to one of the biggest controversies of all: were all the big things that happened (an almost infinite list of almost infinite badness) due to Stalin, or was it Lenin, or did it all go bad starting with Marx? Or the French Revolution? Much ink and much blood spilled over those questions. Animal Farm touches on it (Orwell was a socialist but hated Stalin). Solzhenitsyn came to the opposite conclusion: that the Gulag and the purges started with Lenin. I don't think it will ever be settled.
yeah, Snyder is right-wing: "Snyder’s “century of blood,” with its “twinned totalitarianisms,” has become a new “common-sense,” liberal talking point — “Nolte with an NPR tote bag,” as a colleague put it. His Bloodlands is just a more sophisticated rendering of suggestive correlation between Nazism and the Soviet Union, legitimizing formerly fringe-nationalist dogmatic talking points, while hiding behind extremely problematic chains of citation. He has proved repeatedly willing to connect Nazi atrocities to Soviet crimes. Even Wehrmacht-veteran historians like Joachim Fest, who minimized the Holocaust, made clear that it was Hitler, not Stalin, who was “devoid of any civilizing ideas.” https://jacobin.com/2023/01/soviet-union-memorials-nazi-germ...
Is there anyone besides Jacobin who claims Snyder is right-wing? Of course from Jacobin's perspective, nearly everyone is right-wing.
even by right-wing ones—so, basically his own camp
Snyder isn't right-wing at all. Where did that come from?
> Where did that come from?
His ass.
every professional historian ever...
[dead]
Snyder has been defined ad “nolte with an NPR tote bag” (Nolte being the Ernst Nolte) for his work comparing communism with nazism https://jacobin.com/2023/01/soviet-union-memorials-nazi-germ...
Snyder has been defined as “Nolte with an NPR tote bag”
The difference between you and I is that when I encounter a blunt, ad hominem smear like this (noticed the unsourced formulation "A colleague says ...", in the same way that Trump says things like "People say she's a Marxist" to cheering crowds), I tend to go, "Okay, another vitriolic rant. Am I going to have time to finish ploughing through this? Probably not."
Whereas your gut take seems to be some form of: "Yesss! Score one for the team! Where can I get more of this stuff?"
The article is full of other raw insinuations, and plainly broken argumentation that should be jumping out at you.
But go ahead, read whatever you want, and import whichever memes you want.