Talk:Bloodlands

Book Title
Why does the article use "Bloodlands: Europe Between Stalin and Hitler" but the cover image have "Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin" (with Stalin and Hitler reversed)? Which is the correct title, or have they both been used on different editions of the book? Calathan (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It`s the wrong way around, shall move it now. Tentontunic (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've asked that the title be corrected where it currently appears on the main page. Calathan (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Snyders numbers
I made a series of corrections to the statistical information in the article based on on my copy of Bloodlands and a hard copy of the article in the Ottawa Citizen, Pages 411-412 of Bloodlands can be verified on amazon.com. We may not agree with Snyder's numbers but we must make sure that we post what he actually wrote. --Woogie10w (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed an information that stated the Germans killed 170 000 in Poland 1939-1941 and the Soviets 30 000. I can´t see this in the summary 411-412 and in an article in NYBooks Snyder writes that they killed 100 000 each: About 200,000 Polish civilians were killed between 1939 and 1941, with each regime responsible for about half of those deaths. I would be surprised if he has different numbers in Bloodlands but if so, I would like to see quotes from the book. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * On page 151 Synder puts the number executed by Soviets at 30,000, I backed into the figure of 200,000 to come up with 170,000. Good catch, thanks for pointing out that Synder interview --Woogie10w (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of whom were non-combatants
In the section Number of Victims, the description most of whom were non-combatants is not correct. The word most implies that some were combatants, in fact Synder does not include combatants in his figure of 14 million. We need make sure that this article is correct, we cannot misrepresent the position of Snyder since he is a living person. I believe that Biographies of living persons is relevant in this situation. Controversial, poorly-sourced claims in biographies of living people should be deleted immediately.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I include the victims of the Warsaw uprising and other partisans because I believe Snyder includes them. They were not professional soldiers but I believe that they could fairly be termed 'in combat'.  TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not so, re Warsaw-Synder only includes those shot in "reprisals" (see p.411, he does not include those killed in the fighting. In particular he mentions the Wola massacre see p.304 --Woogie10w (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying, but Snyder goes to great lengths to place the Warsaw uprising in the context of the separate 'colonial projects' of the Nazis and the Soviets: It's sorta the story that encapsulates his thesis.  So he then splits hairs on it...  I just think the word "all" is too definitive.     In any event, I'm not going to argue it further, the most recent revisions are acceptable and I appreciate your willingness to actually edit, rather than engage in a war of deleting/reverting.  Well done.  The only thing I would like to see is that the language regarding outside civilians reflect more than just Jewish civilians. Perhaps something like "including indigenous civilians and stateless civilians (primarily Jewish) transported to concentration camps and death facilities in Poland" but I'll leave that up to you.  TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * armed partisans killed in the fighting in Poland & the USSR are not incduded by Snyder. We need to cite Snyder carefully, remember controversial, poorly-sourced claims in biographies of living people should be deleted immediately. BTW, I have read the book and own it.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

From the book: "not a single one of the fourteen million murdered was a soldier on active duty ... none were bearing weapons". Editing page to reflect Snyder's actual words. Wallnot (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm aware that "Combatants included disarmed military personnel in occupied countries and prisoners of war" might have been intended to resolve the disagreement. I'm not sure whether POWs can be classified as combatants, per Red Cross guidelines. The Wikipedia page for "non-combatant" includes soldiers who are hors de combat, or "outside the fight," which includes POWs. Regardless, it is apparent, based on his careful choice of words, that Snyder avoided addressing this ambiguity himself. I removed both "combatant" and "non-combatant" to reflect that choice. Wallnot (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Lazare
The Jacobin is not RS. It is, as is blatantly obvious from its own description, WP:FRINGE. For it to be WP:RS it would have to have "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". It doesn't. In particular, the review under question is a prime example of that.

Additionally, the quote being included is inaccurate (Lazare is confused - Antyk didn't exist until November 1943, whereas the quote is from 1942, so Antyk could not have made it) and off topic (what's it got to do with Snyder?), not to mention the wording is highly POV. The text was, unsurprisingly, inserted into the article by some fly-by-night IP.

Stop reinserting it. It's WP:FRINGE, non-WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:POV.

And oh yeah, if you're going start attributing views to people based solely on their ethnicities, you might want to take that "[| I am a fascist. I am openly fascist, both here and in real life.]" stuff off your user page. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Marek, you need to revert yourself! I see four reverts from you now on this material! Anyhow, let's begin…


 * "The Jacobin is not RS." So you keep saying, but since when have left-wing publications been proscribed sources? Jacobin is so unreliable and amateurish that Random House is partnering it. As for the author, Lazare has written for a number of incontestably reliable publications, e.g. London Review of Books, and is also author of multiple books—again, published by perfectly normal people like Harcourt. Both magazine and author ought to get a pass, unless you want to get a dispute resolution up and running on this.
 * "… blatantly obvious from its own description, WP:FRINGE…" Not 100% sure what you are referring to here. The notion of "virulent" (Richard J. Evans) antisemitism in Poland before, during, and even after WWII is a fringe theory? If that's what you meant, then surely that is not the case. If you're referring specifically to the somewhat—how shall we say?—ambivalent attitude of the Home Army toward Jews, then you can see a list of scholarly studies that take such a view listed in, for example, John Lowell Armstrong, "The Polish Underground and the Jews: A Reassessment of Home Army Commander Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski's Order 116 against Banditry", Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 72, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), pp. 259–276 ("Most Jewish authors attribut[e] the Home Army's hostility to endemic Polish anti-Semitism"). I'm not sure the Holocaust survivors listed, in particular, would have appreciated being branded WP:FRINGE. ;D
 * the quote being included is inaccurate… The only valid criticism so far, I reckon. The fact the IP put in the text that it was Home Army, not specifically Antyk, that made the claim perhaps gives cause for suspicion.
 * what's it got to do with Snyder? As Lazare says in the article, Snyder writes in Bloodlands that the Home Army didn't arm the Jewish fighters in the Warsaw ghetto because of their fear of communism; Lazare says Snyder is here ignoring any possible antisemitic motivation behind the lack of help. For example, Bloodlands, bottom of p. 297:
 * Some Jews did survive the ghetto uprising, but found a hard welcome beyond the ghetto. In 1943 the Home Army was even more concerned about communism that it had been in 1942 etc. etc.
 * Concerned about communism, hence hesitant to help Jewish fighters, is what Snyder states. I repeat my best guess: you don't like Lazare's article because he portrays the Home Army in a bad light. As for my user page: no, Marek! Fascism is life! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ummmm... did you actually read Armstrong's article or are you just quoting random stuff? His whole point is the opposite of the claim you're making (thanks for reminding me of that source).
 * And the problem with the Jacobin source is not that it's left wing. It's that far-left, Stalinist apologetics and all, without "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". The claim that an organization which did not exist until 1943 issued some statement in 1942 pretty much makes that clear. There's a lot of other nonsense in that review, like Lazare approvingly relying on Nazi propaganda issued by a Nazi collaborator, Frantsishak Alyakhnovich. That's right, in an article in which he accuses Snyder of lying and all but accuses him of Holocaust denial, Lazare himself is not being honest and using Nazi sources (of course without letting the reader know where the info comes from).
 * Aside from this not being RS (certainly not for any claims about the Home Army) it's UNDUE and off topic. The article is about Snyder's book, not about the Home Army.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "did you actually read Armstrong's article…" Umm, did you actually read what I wrote? I referred to the scholarly and other sources Armstrong mentions in his article that go against his view, i.e. I intended to demonstrate that the opposite to his view is not just fringe . Anyway, I'm not impressed with Lazare for other reasons, and I'm heartily sick of conversing with such an insufferably arrogant individual. Let's leave it here. I'm sure we'd both rather be editing articles rather than back-and-forthing here. Feel free, if you want, to have the last word, which I promise to read. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Book reviews, whether in the New York Times or the Jacobin are not considered reliable sources. They are not fact-checked prior to publication and are the opinions of their writers only.  I have always thought the best way to report how a book was received was to use secondary sources that report how it was received, which avoids neutrality problems.  Does anyone know if such a source exists for this book?  Lacking that approach there is no reason to exclude this review while keeping others.  Certainly the criticism of the double genocide theory is significant and should be included in this article.  TFD (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not just the RS issue. It's WP:FRINGE, non-WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. There is a "fact-checking" aspect to the text under discussion which involves repeating some ridiculous claims that Lazare makes (one of which is based on claims made by a Nazi collaborator) which, putting everything else aside, are not even directly related to the subject of this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The quote appears in Reuben Ainsztein's 1974 book Jewish resistance in Nazi-occupired Eastern Europe, according to Google books. Whatever year the quote was made, the suggestion that "Antyk" contained anti-Semitic elements is not a fringe view.  But I do not see why the quote, whether genuine or not, should be in the article.  We should just report Lazare's opinion.  TFD (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm, well, this still doesn't square with the fact that Antyk did not exist until 1943. And actually from the snippet of the view, this does certainly seem like a fringe view. Anyway, yes, the quote does not belong in the article. I also think that Lazare's review as a whole doesn't either but a short mention of it may qualify under Wikipedia policies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the Antyk that was created in 1943, was not created by the Government's Delegate Office but by the Political Consultative Committee. Distinct organizations with somewhat overlapping areas of competence and jurisdiction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

POV
The page gives too much weight to uncritical praise from popular writers, hardly mentioning major criticisms from professionals. My attempts to fix this imbalance were reverted by IPs and recently registered editors. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * So far, I have no time to edit this article, but these sources may be helpful:


 * Once and for all: The encounter between Stalinism and Nazism. Critical remarks on Timothy Snyder's "Bloodlands"Author(s): JÖRG BABEROWSKISource: Contemporary European History, May 2012, Vol. 21, No. 2 (May 2012), pp. 145-148Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41485457


 * DAN MICHMANBook Title: New Directions in the History of the Jews in the Polish Lands Book Editor(s): Antony Polonsky, Hanna Węgrzynek and Andrzej ŻbikowskiPublished by: Academic Studies Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv7xbrh4.38


 * A quote:


 * "''From the perspective of today, one can say that the pendulum has even moved so far in emphasizing Eastern Europe from June 1941 onward, and first and foremost its killing sites as the locus of the Shoah, that one will find recent studies which entirely marginalize or even disregard the importance to the Holocaust of such essential issues as the 1930s in Germany and Austria; the persecution and murder of Western and Southern European Jewry; first steps of persecution in Tunisia and Libya; and other aspects of the Holocaust such as the enormous spoliation and the cultural warfare aimed at exorcising the jüdische Geist.7 Perhaps the blunt-est example for this development is Timothy Snyder’s book Bloodlands,8which has been hailed on the one hand for its innovative perspective, but also extremely criticized by world-renowned experts on both Nazism and Stalin’s Soviet Union."


 * "For praise see the long list of endorsements and quotations from reviews in the soft-cover reprint of his book; for very critical reviews see “Forum Bloodlands—eine Debatte über europäische Geschichte zwischen Hitler und Stalin” [The Bloodlands forum—A debate about European history between Hitler and Stalin], Journal of Modern European History10 (2012), issues 3 and 4, with contributions by Manfred Hildermeier (“Montagen statt Mehrwert” [Montages instead of composite picture]), Dariusz Stola (“A Spatial Turn in Explaining Mass Murder”), Dietrich Beyrau (“Snyders Geografie” [Snyder’s geography]), Sybille Steinbacher (“Befriedung der Erinnerung?” [The pacification of memory]), Dan Michman (“Bloodlands and the Holocaust”), and Johannes Hürter (“Gewalt, nichts als Gewalt” [Violence, nothing but violence]). An extremely critical review is Thomas Kühne, “Great Men and Large Numbers. Undertheorizing a History of Mass Killing,” Contemporary European History 21, no. 2 (2012): 133–43, who says that “The book’s dilemma is the way it presents history, or, more precisely, its obsession with large numbers and its resorting to great men when it comes to understanding what happened. ‘For the time being’, the reader is briefed at the end of the book, ‘Europe’s epoch of mass killing is overtheorised and mis-understood’. Rather than drawing ‘theoretical conclusions’ and thus confirming a ‘dispro-portion of theory to knowledge’, says Snyder, ‘we must understand what actually happened, in the Holocaust and in the Bloodlands generally’ (p. 383). This is a strong statement. It distorts the relationship between theory and knowledge and marks a decisive setback in the historiography of ‘Europe’s epoch of mass killing."


 * Great Men and Large Numbers: Undertheorising a History of Mass KillingAuthor(s): THOMAS KÜHNESource: Contemporary European History, May 2012, Vol. 21, No. 2 (May 2012), pp. 133-143Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41485456


 * " Snyder is not the first to think about what Hitler and Stalin had in common and how their murderous politics related to each other. The more provocative historians were in doing so and the more they thereby questioned the uniqueness, or the peculiarity, of the Holocaust, the more their work was met with resistance or even disgust, most prominently and controversially the German Ernst Nolte in the 1980s.4 Snyder's move to link Soviet and Nazi crimes is as politically tricky today as it was then. As it seems to reduce the responsibility of the Nazis and their collaborators, supporters and claqueurs, it is welcomed in rightist circles of various types: German conservatives in the 1980s, who wanted to 'normalise' the German past, and East European and ultranationalists today, who downplay Nazi crimes and up-play Communist crimes in order to promote a common European memory that merges Nazism and Stalinism into a 'double-genocide' theory that prioritises East European suffering over Jewish suffering, obfuscates the distinction between perpetrators and victims, and provides relief from the bitter legacy of East Europeans' collaboration in the Nazi genocide."


 * Bloodlands and the HolocaustAuthor(s): Dan MichmanSource: Journal of Modern European History / Zeitschrift für moderne europäische Geschichte / Revue d'histoire européenne contemporaine, Vol. 10, No. 4, Eugenics after 1945 (2012), pp. 440-445Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26266041


 * "By emphasizing place – the sites of killing – Snyder ends up neglecting time – the process of destruction that culminated in but was by no means limited to the act of murder. The Holocaust was not a moment of murder – it was an evolving process of erasure. The Holocaust was a much larger project than the killings themselves, enormous as they were. It resulted from different motives than other mass murders in the «bloodlands» area. The memory of all mass murders haunts the descendants of the victims, and mutual recognition of the sufferings by the different victim groups is important for developing a better future, but that is post factum. As for the historical occurrence in real time, Bloodlands has not convinced me that there was a territory of «bloodlands» which provides a historical explanation for murder, least of all for the Holocaust. By emphasizing place – the sites of killing – Snyder ends up neglecting time – the process of destruction that culminated in but was by no means limited to the act of murder. The Holocaust was not a moment of murder – it was an evolving process of erasure. The Holocaust was a much larger project than the killings themselves, enormous as they were. It resulted from different motives than other mass murders in the «bloodlands» area. The memory of all mass murders haunts the descendants of the victims, and mutual recognition of the sufferings by the different victim groups is important for developing a better future, but that is post factum. As for the historical occurrence in real time, Bloodlands has not convinced me that there was a territory of «bloodlands» which provides a historical explanation for murder, least of all for the Holocaust."


 * I hope that may be helpful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Edits to the "Academic reviews" section
I thank Davide King and others for their work on this article in recent months. However I have restored some of my edits from a few months back when I substantially expanded the "Academic reviews" section, and also cut some of what I saw as undue emphasis on critical voices. I believe that this section should reflect not only the balance of scholarly reception but also the nuance of that reception, and that organizing it into opposing "positive" and "negative" subsections distorts this nuance. I also think that more can and should be done to restore due balance to the section, in particular cutting those remarks which come from scholars not considered notable enough to have their own WP articles –– as I did before, though this was partially reverted at some point over the summer. I have not gone so far as to cut these passages again, and would like to invite further comment about how best to present a balanced account of this book's scholarly reception before making more substantial changes. (In the interest of full disclosure, this is the area of my professional focus as a historian, but I do not have a personal relationship with Snyder.) Generalrelative (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up I will suggest that, if the consensus is to retain the critical reviews by red-linked authors, we ought to include discussion of these mostly positive reviews by lesser known scholars for balance:
 * This one from the Journal of Modern History by Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius:
 * This one from the Sarmatian Review by Raymond Gawronski:
 * And this more equivocal review in Reviews in History by Tom Lawson:
 * My only remaining concern would be sprawl, since –– were we to quote from supportive reviewers to the degree that we currently quote critical ones –– this would then become a very long section indeed. Generalrelative (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, it has to be seen whether those who do not have a page are really not notable before we engage in a false balance of adding any positive review. They not having yet a page does not make them automatically not notable (see also the case of Theresa Greenfield). As an example, Diner and Srola are mentioned by Sémelin, who provide a good summary, so they are due. Davide King (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks to you. I actually agree on "Positive" and "Negative", and in general we should all strive to include any relevant analysis or due criticism directly in the body rather than creating a "Criticism" or "Controversy" section that is going to attract more than it should be. I simply applied that division for readability purposes; perhaps there are other ways to do that in a more neutral way, like using years, merge some text, or moving some reviews in the Snyopsis and have some analysis or criticism there, without having to remove academic reviews that can still be helpful. I disagree with your removal here of Dariusz Srola. It was mentioned by Sémelin, so it was due, and it was a good summary of criticism, since the previous sentence mentioned criticism. It could be moved elsewhere (perhaps at "Number of victims") but should not have been removed. Davide King (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to hear that we are mostly on the same page. I have no problem with including Dariusz Srola's words in principle, but the issue I raised just above still stands: if we are to quote from critical and supportive reviewers in proportion to their prevalence (which in my appraisal is roughly equal) then we are going to have a very long section on our hands. My idea of limiting the section to only those scholars notable enough to have a WP page was simply my attempt to find a pragmatic solution to this problem of sprawl. Other solutions however would be most welcome. Generalrelative (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See my comment above which discuss this. Them not having a page does not automatically imply that are not notable (some of them do not have a page but are mentioned by Sémelin, so they are due, while those who you listed may not be even mentioned by him; perhaps we should create their pages, and then see which one will stand as notable, etc. Davide King (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Aye, perhaps, but then we're getting beyond the scope of what I can reasonably accomplish in my spare time. At this point I'm willing to leave things as they are (and I won't object if you'd like to re-add a mention of Srola's critique farther down in the section). I may add some discussion of the more positive reviews I've linked above at a later date, and if there is concern that they may be undue we can reevaluate at that time. I very much appreciate your thoughtful engagement on this matter. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added the three sources mentioned above. Happy to discuss further if necessary. I'm not sure the best place for the first two to go (in terms of logical flow). The Lawson review, on the other hand, makes for a very balanced end to the section in my opinion. Generalrelative (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

"... makes for a very balanced end to the section in my opinion." I respect your opinion but what criteria should we follow for which one goes first, or last? The only neutral criteria is chronological order. I think the second paragraph should be merged with the third, as it provides a good summary for both support and criticism. This is how it would look like:

I think that the last two paragraphs make for, to quote your own words, a balanced end to the section of both views (the first more positive, the second more critical).

Davide King (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You state that The only neutral criteria is chronological order. I disagree. A better criterion is logical flow, and the section as currently written has much more of it than would be the case were we to rely on chronological order exclusively. E.g. the 2013 summary of the critical reception by Jacques Sémelin makes an excellent intro to the section. By the same token, Lawson's balanced evaluation strikes a good middle ground between the criticism and the praise, and for that reason makes for a neutral end point. Generalrelative (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you please clarify what you mean exactly by logical flow, and how is it lacking from my proposal above? It still opens up with the 2013 summary, with which I agree is a good summary and intro. Mine is structured as follows:
 * Intro (2013 summary)
 * Summary of both positive reactions (Judt et al.) and criticism (Evans)
 * More supportive review
 * More critical review
 * And vice versa
 * And so on
 * Final closure more supportive
 * Final closure more critical
 * I do not know about you but this looks like logical flow to me. In addition, all this follows chronological order, which is important, e.g. some positive things or criticism that was not mentioned earlier, acceptance, non-acceptance of the concept, seeing how the books' review changed by year, if they did, etc. It is also better in merging some related paragraphs rather than have too many short paragraphs with no connection to each other. Davide King (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Aha, okay. I say go ahead and make whatever changes you think necessary, and if we need to we can reengage here. Generalrelative (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing these edits. Looks like a fine compromise to me. I've just reintroduced a couple paragraph breaks and fixed the chronological order of a couple reviews. Hope that works for you. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I really appreciate your comments and kindess but you have essentially reverted the purpose of my edit. Why do we need to separate some paragraphs that would be better served and relent if merged? See examples:
 * Before
 * The book received praise from an array of experts in the field. Tony Judt called Bloodlands "the most important book to appear on this subject for decades." Other positive reviews include those from Wendy Lower, who wrote that it was a "masterful synthesis", John Connelly, who called it "morally informed scholarship of the highest calibre", and Christopher Browning, who described it as "stunning", while Dennis Showalter stated that "Snyder has written several first-rate books ... And Bloodlands takes his work to a new level." Mark Roseman wrote that "the book's core achievement is ... to tell the story of Nazi and Soviet violence in a way that renders that savage chapter anew, and enduringly changes what we see." Bloodlands also received harsh criticism from other historians of the period, and specialists on Nazism and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union. In a "blistering review" on 4 November 2010 for the London Review of Books, Richard J. Evans wrote that because of a lack of causal argument, "Snyder's book is of no use." Evans wrote that "[i]t seems to me that he is simply equating Nazi genocide with the mass murders carried out in the Soviet Union under Stalin. ... There is nothing wrong with comparing. It's the equation that I find highly troubling." Evans later conceded that Snyder's own critical review of Evans' The Third Reich at War, published the year before in The New York Review of Books, was "one of the many reasons Snyder's book made [him] so cross."
 * After
 * The book received praise from an array of experts in the field. Tony Judt called Bloodlands "the most important book to appear on this subject for decades." Other positive reviews include those from Wendy Lower, who wrote that it was a "masterful synthesis", John Connelly, who called it "morally informed scholarship of the highest calibre", and Christopher Browning, who described it as "stunning", while Dennis Showalter stated that "Snyder has written several first-rate books ... And Bloodlands takes his work to a new level." Mark Roseman wrote that "the book's core achievement is ... to tell the story of Nazi and Soviet violence in a way that renders that savage chapter anew, and enduringly changes what we see." Bloodlands also received harsh criticism from other historians of the period, and specialists on Nazism and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union. In a "blistering review" on 4 November 2010 for the London Review of Books, Richard J. Evans wrote that because of a lack of causal argument, "Snyder's book is of no use." Evans wrote that "[i]t seems to me that he is simply equating Nazi genocide with the mass murders carried out in the Soviet Union under Stalin. ... There is nothing wrong with comparing. It's the equation that I find highly troubling." Evans later conceded that Snyder's own critical review of Evans' The Third Reich at War, published the year before in The New York Review of Books, was "one of the many reasons Snyder's book made [him] so cross."
 * Why should those be separated? They can be merged in a single paragraph as a further into and summary from Sémelin, so the whole paragraph should be a summary/intro of both more positive and more critical reviews, hence the merge, just like Nazi Germany being responsable for twice as many deaths is merged in the second paragraph of the lead, as it is more relevant there. Also rather than have a bunch of short paragraphs in the end, they can be merged in two separate paragraphs to represent a close balance of both more positive and more critical reviews.
 * Before
 * A June 2012 review in The Journal of Modern History by Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius stated that "[b]y examining the conjuncture, clashes, and perverse interrelations of extreme ideological regimes in these 'bloodlands', Snyder presents a clearly argued, eloquently crafted and unflinching reckoning up of the human tragedy, on a scale vast beyond imagining", and posited that the book "deserves a large and engaged audience." A November 2012 review by Christian Ingrao expressed dissatisfaction with the book's "chronological starting point", positing that Snyder could have started his analysis in 1914 by integrating into it the violence committed during World War I and even to the failed 1905 Russian Revolution, when peasants revolted in ways which shook both Russia and Ukraine. In a December 2012 review for Cahiers du Monde russe, Amir Weiner stated that Snyder is not an expert either on Soviet or Nazi history, and wrote: "Long on promises and short on delivery, replete with equations that are often baseless and at times tasteless, Bloodlands ends up as a bloody nose to history." A December 2016 review in Reviews in History by Tom Lawson evaluated Snyder's scholarly success in hindsight, positing that, on its own terms, "Bloodlands was at best partially successful" but its substantive influence can be seen in the more recent "steady stream of scholars attempting to assert the wider contexts for Nazi violence – in terms of the history of imperialism; the wider history of genocide or of inter-ethnic tensions beyond simply a history of German antisemitism. As such while Snyder did not provide many of the answers in Bloodlands, he did begin to ask the questions."  In a April 2017 review in Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine, Jean Solchany wrote that the proposed concept of the Bloodlands "does not lead to a productive spatial decentering but, on the contrary, offers a dated and simplified reading of German and Soviet history based on a comparative stance that exaggerates similarities and a hypothetical interactionist paradigm."
 * After
 * A June 2012 review in The Journal of Modern History by Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius stated that "[b]y examining the conjuncture, clashes, and perverse interrelations of extreme ideological regimes in these 'bloodlands', Snyder presents a clearly argued, eloquently crafted and unflinching reckoning up of the human tragedy, on a scale vast beyond imagining", and posited that the book "deserves a large and engaged audience." A December 2016 review in Reviews in History by Tom Lawson evaluated Snyder's scholarly success in hindsight, positing that, on its own terms, "Bloodlands was at best partially successful" but its substantive influence can be seen in the more recent "steady stream of scholars attempting to assert the wider contexts for Nazi violence – in terms of the history of imperialism; the wider history of genocide or of inter-ethnic tensions beyond simply a history of German antisemitism. As such while Snyder did not provide many of the answers in Bloodlands, he did begin to ask the questions." In a December 2012 review for Cahiers du Monde russe, Amir Weiner stated that Snyder is not an expert either on Soviet or Nazi history, and wrote: "Long on promises and short on delivery, replete with equations that are often baseless and at times tasteless, Bloodlands ends up as a bloody nose to history." A November 2012 review by Christian Ingrao expressed dissatisfaction with the book's "chronological starting point", positing that Snyder could have started his analysis in 1914 by integrating into it the violence committed during World War I and even to the failed 1905 Russian Revolution, when peasants revolted in ways which shook both Russian and Ukraine. In a April 2017 review in Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine, Jean Solchany wrote that the proposed concept of the Bloodlands "does not lead to a productive spatial decentering but, on the contrary, offers a dated and simplified reading of German and Soviet history based on a comparative stance that exaggerates similarities and a hypothetical interactionist paradigm."
 * Thank you for your time. Davide King (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh, we seem to have very different ideas about what makes a coherent paragraph, but at this point I'm not really interested in sinking more time into this. The major balance issues with the academic reception section are mostly resolved in my view, which is what's most important to me. If you really feel that you need to get rid of the paragraph breaks I reintroduced, I won't stand in the way. Thanks to you as well for your thoughtful engagement. Generalrelative (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time. Davide King (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh, we seem to have very different ideas about what makes a coherent paragraph, but at this point I'm not really interested in sinking more time into this. The major balance issues with the academic reception section are mostly resolved in my view, which is what's most important to me. If you really feel that you need to get rid of the paragraph breaks I reintroduced, I won't stand in the way. Thanks to you as well for your thoughtful engagement. Generalrelative (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Just to be honest, the "Reception" section is simply not readable. With a very large number of reviews, one must be very selective, i.e. select reviews that say something interesting on the subject. I could clean this up, but someone will probably revert. My very best wishes (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the excessive number of reviews cited (which makes two sections unreadable), how about the following approach? Let's remove all reviews (a) by non-notable people we do not have pages about, and (b) reviews that say nothing except "I like/do not like it" according to the current description on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2022
This sentence seems ungrammatical: “Snyder's thesis is that the "bloodlands", a region that now comprises Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), northeastern Romania, and the westernmost fringes of Russia, is the area that Stalin and Hitler's regimes, despite their conflicting goals, interacted to increase suffering and bloodshed many times worse than had they acted independently.[1]”

I would correct the part that reads “…is the area that Stalin and Hitler's regimes…” to “…is the area where Stalin and Hitler's regimes…” 94.229.76.206 (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I worked on this sentence and the rest of the lead. I mistakenly marked my edit as "minor". Thanks for bringing this awkward sentence to light. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Publisher
In my paperback copy, the copyright notice attributes the publisher as Vintage (an imprint of Penguin Random House) with the original hardback attributed to The Bodley Head, in 2010. There's no mention of Basic Books.

On the Basic Books page, Timothy Snyder is listed as an author published by Basic Books, citing this article. On the page for The Bodley Head, there is a list of books published under that imprint, and it doesn't include Bloodlands. That list is apparently made from the category "The Bodley Head books".

Amazon lists a hardback edition published by Basic Books in 2010. So was it published simultaneously in New York by Basic Books, and in London by The Bodley Head? How can we show that the book was originally published under both imprints?

Incidentally, my copy shows a new cover price of £10.99; Amazon has no copies for less than £11.90, offers paperback copies for as much as £98, and a hardback edition for an eye-watering £164! I don't buy books from Amazon, but it sure looks scammy to me. MrDemeanour (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a late reply, but to be clear, in the United Kingdom, Bloodlands is published by Penguin Random House under the Vintage imprint as a paperback and originally under The Bodley Head sub-imprint as a hardback. In the United States, Bloodlands is published by Hachette Book Group under the Basic Books imprint as a paperback  and originally as a hardcover. This can be confirmed by viewing the copyright pages for the UK edition  and the US edition . Malerisch (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Richard J. Evans' comments
I recently made to the "Reception" section that was, along with a couple other edits I made, by. The reason I made the change is because the present wording fundamentally mischaracterizes Evans' remark regarding why he was so "cross" with Snyder's book, to the point of being a grotesque misrepresentation of his views.

Presently (and prior to my change), the article claims Evans conceded that Snyder's own critical review of Evans' [book]... was "one of the many reasons Snyder's book made [him] so cross" (emphasis mine).

In reality, however, Evans as is making no such "concession"; quite the opposite. First, we have to look at the comment that Evans is immediately replying to, that of one "Charles Coutinho". It is in fact Coutinho, not Evans, that makes the claim the article is presently attributing to Evans himself: that Richard Evans’s less than entirely positive review of Timothy Snyder’s book may or may not have been influenced by Snyder’s own less than positive review of Evans’s latest book.

The fact that Evans responds to it as he does clearly suggests that he is refuting such a characterization, not "conceding" it. (As for Coutinho, given he is, as far as I can tell, just some random dude on the Internet—correct me if I am wrong—I don't see any reason why the article should be amplifying his criticism on Wikipedia.)

What Evans is actually doing is simply arguing that another historian's (Davies') criticism of his review (as constituting gatekeeping of his academic "parish" from "interlopers") is a better description of Snyder himself, as evinced by certain (false, according to Evans) claims Snyder makes in his review of Evans' work.

To summarize, this is basically what this exchange amounts to:


 * 1) Davies criticizes Evans for gatekeeping.
 * 2) Some random person speculates that Evans' review is driven by a vendetta of revenge, because of Snyder's negative review of Evans' book.
 * 3) Evans replies that the only relevance of Snyder's review is to the extent that it demonstrates how Snyder himself gatekeeps his "parish", as evinced both by this book and the erroneous and unsubstantiated claims about [Evans'] supposed ignorance of Russian and East European history that Snyder makes in the review Coutinho mentions.

In other words, Evans is drawing attention to the commonalities between (what he feels to be) the poor scholarship underlying both Snyder's review and book. It is reductive and inaccurate to condense this to a simple vendetta narrative, as both Coutinho and this Wikipedia article presently do, and it is even worse to attribute such a narrative to Evans himself. Fundamentally, at no point does Evans ever say something like Snyder's own critical review of Evans' [book]... was "one of the many reasons Snyder's book made [him] so cross". And yet this is, verbatim, the wording on the page.

I am open to alternate suggestions as to how to modify this section, but for the above reasons, I do not believe the present wording is accurate or honest.

As for the revert,, you pointed me to the previous discussion about the "Academic Reviews" section. However, I'm not seeing any discussion there about this particular bit, so I don't really see the relevance. I also disagree that the "Reception" section has already been hashed out extensively in the Talk discussion above; there's really not much there relevant to my edits, it's far from "extensive", and the discussion petered out rather than reaching any sort of consensus about much of anything—but I will likely follow up with another post about the other edits by me that you challenged, so let's keep this section to discussing this edit specifically. Brusquedandelion (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Here is Evans' final paragraph in full: I think that speaks for itself. Happy to hear what others have to say. If no one happens by to weigh in, a neutral posting at WP:NPOVN would be the way to go. Generalrelative (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am glad you agree it speaks for itself—that was my point too. If no one else lodges any objections, I will be reintroducing the change I made within a few days. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not how this works. In case I was not clear, you stated above: But that is precisely what Evans is saying here, at least as I read the paragraph. If no one else comes by to support your alternative reading, the thing to do would be to bring the matter to WP:NPOVN, as I said above. Generalrelative (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "But that is precisely what Evans is saying here, at least as I read the paragraph."


 * No, it isn't, but you should have led with that. You haven't actually addressed anything in my comment, in which I very specifically explain why this reading is misleading to the point of being wrong. It isn't the review as a whole, or the fact Snyder made a critical review: it's Snyder's erroneous and unsubstantiated claims about [his] supposed ignorance of Russian and East European history, to the extent they speak to his incorrigible desire to drive out fellow historians he sees as ‘interlopers’ from what he considers to be his own ‘parish’. Brusquedandelion (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I am arguing that Snyder's own critical review of Evans' [book] is a reasonable and encyclopedic summary of that rather flowery bit of WP:MANDY. (Evans would be expected to downplay the validity of criticism that made him angry, wouldn't he?) I should note that I know and like and massively respect Evans, but he has here admitted that there is a bit of personal animus behind his critique of Bloodlands, which is relevant to the article. Generalrelative (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "I am arguing that Snyder's own critical review of Evans' [book] is a reasonable and encyclopedic summary of that rather flowery bit of WP:MANDY."


 * WP:MANDY doesn't even begin to become relevant to a criticism levied by some random dude on the Internet. It is flatly against multiple Wikipedia policies (not least WP:BLP) to be amplifying criticisms of literally some random dude, and doubly so if we then falsely claim that the target's denial was in fact confirmation. To my knowledge, not even Snyder himself has made this allegation.(If you have any other reliable sources making the same criticism, that's a different matter, but I am not seeing that.)
 * To convert an off-hand "clapback" against some Internet weirdo making an allegation that no serious reliable source has made into a confirmation of the allegation by Evans himself is perverse.
 * Also, by invoking WP:MANDY, you seem to be agreeing with me that he is denying the allegation, not confirming it.
 * "Evans would be expected to downplay the validity of criticism that made him angry, wouldn't he?"


 * If he is downplaying it, and our article implies he is "conceding" it, then the article is dishonest! How could this be any clearer?
 * "I know and like and massively respect Evans, but he has here admitted that there is a bit of personal animus behind his critique of Bloodlands, which is relevant to the article."


 * You yourself have characterized this is denial of admission, just above; he is not "admitting" anything that you think he is. But let's put that aside for a minute. If you want to personalize the conflict, then why are Snyder's own erroneous and unsubstantiated claims about [Evans'] supposed ignorance of Russian and East European history not worth mentioning here too? As it is, the article is a biased characterization of the dispute, whether or not you view it through a personalized lens: it insinuates Evans responded in a personal manner to what was previously a scholarly dispute.
 * I'd also like to point out that you have done nothing to explain why my edit was wrong, while I have done plenty to explain why the present wording is misleading to the point of dishonesty. What, exactly, about the wording in my edit is wrong? Is it an inaccurate representation of the exchange? Does it misquote anyone? No, on the contrary, it provides more context. It's very telling when someone opposed an edit that provides more context; it is suggestive that they are trying to tell a specific story that is betrayed by a full account of the facts. If your reading of Evans was so straightforward and obvious as you allege, there would be no reason to oppose adding more context.
 * I would further like to point out that my edit actually incorporated an actually relavant criticism of Evans (relavant in the sense of being from a reliable source): that of historian Norman Davies. That is the sort of criticism that we should be platforming, if any, not the random allegations of any random fool on the Internet. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You say: Also, by invoking WP:MANDY, you seem to be agreeing with me that he is denying the allegation, not confirming it. Not in the slightest. Evans is quite clearly admitting to having been motivated, at least in part, by personal animus –– and no reasonable reading of either Evans' comment or my own could be taken to imply otherwise. Since we are now going round in circles, this will be my final reply to you until such time as the discussion becomes reinvigorated by new voices and/or new arguments. I am not required to engage point-by-point with your walls of text until you are WP:SATISFIED. Rather, I have tried to keep this discussion focused on the crucial point in question. I have also advised you to take this to WP:NPOVN if you disagree. Please do so, or wait for others to chime in, or simply drop it. Best wishes, Generalrelative (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's my thoughts on this: in his reply, Evans writes that Charles Coutinho does indeed put his finger on one of the many reasons Snyder’s book made me so cross. Last I checked, if you "put your finger on something", you identify something exactly , so I don't see how this can be read as Evans "refuting" Coutinho's characterization of his comments. More importantly, these letters are primary sources—as WP:PRIMARY states, [d]o not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Rather than dissecting Evans's exact words, we should see what secondary sources say about these letters. (This article also cites a letter from Guido Franzinetti , but I don't think this really counts as a secondary source.) I was able to find a source from the New Statesman discussing the exchange that supports Generalrelative's view:In my opinion, this source should be added to the article. I wasn't able to find a secondary source that supported Brusquedandelion's reading of Evans's response. Malerisch (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Good looking out, Malerisch. I've added the New Statesman source. Generalrelative (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)