Podcast appearances and mentions of norman naimark

The Russia-Ukraine war is less about resources and more about empire, history, and two nations' self-conceptions. Or so contends Norman Naimark, a Hoover Institution senior fellow and Stanford University history professor, who discusses how past and present cruelties involving the two combatants – common heritage, absorption, suppression and genocide, Vladimir Putin's mindset, and the Ukrainian […]

The Russia-Ukraine war is less about resources and more to do with empire, history, and the two nations' self-conceptions. Or so contends Norman Naimark, a Hoover Institution senior fellow and Stanford University history professor, who discusses how past and present cruelties involving the two combatants – common heritage, absorption, suppression and genocide, Vladimir Putin's mindset, and the Ukrainian people's resilience – factor into the past 19 months of fighting.

Norman Naimark is Robert & Florence McDonnell Professor of East European History at Stanford University. He is also Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution and the Institute of International Studies. He has worked on a wide array of topics related to the Cold War, genocide, communism, Hitler, Stalin, and more. In this episode, Robinson and Norman talk about the world history of genocide. After discussing just what constitutes genocide, they begin with the most distant reaches of prehistory—neanderthals and beyond—before moving up through biblical times, the Mongol conquest, the crusades, the colonial period, and more modern events.  Genocide: A World History: https://a.co/d/7o4tG25 OUTLINE 00:00 In This Episode… 00:55 Introduction 05:13 Norman's Background 16:24 What's an Archival Historian? 21:12 What is Genocide 35:59 Prehistoric and Biblical Genocide 48:20 Genghis Khan and the Mongolian Genocide 01:08:05 Were the Crusades Genocidal? 01:24:07 The Spanish Colonial Genocide 01:39:02 Race, Economics, and the Settler Genocides 01:48:02 The Genocides of Modernity 01:55:07 The Armenian Genocide 02:04:49 Is There a Genocide in Ukraine? Robinson's Website: http://robinsonerhardt.com Robinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University. Join him in conversations with philosophers, scientists, weightlifters, artists, and everyone in-between.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/robinson-erhardt/support

Looking at Russia in 2023, it is now clear that much has remained unchanged from Soviet times. The biggest change is the elimination of communist central planning, which made Russia's regime stronger despite the initial turmoil of the 1990s. This paper offers a clue as to why the communist economic management system had to go, and why the KGB's foreign intelligence and trade cadres, many of them based in Leningrad, came out on top of the refurbished new-old system, and did so with a vengeance. Tomasz's latest paper explores the roots of the Soviet collapse as it unfolded in the port economy of Leningrad, and the critical lessons that a group of local KGB officers drew from that process. These lessons helped them to recover from the setbacks of 1991 and to eventually take the helm of the Russian Federation in the 2000s. It was the KGB-covered smuggling schemes of late communism that provided the model for the Putin regime to spread its crony ways domestically and corrupt Western institutions abroad. Washington Post reporter Kathryn Belton wrote that “What had begun as corruption within the system became a KGB-cultivated petri dish for the future market economy.” This paper expands this apt metaphor with concrete examples of how that mechanism worked in practice amidst the late communist realities of Leningrad's maritime economy. ABOUT THE SPEAKER Tomasz Blusiewicz is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. Blusiewicz is a historian of modern Europe and Russia, with emphasis on the intersection of economics, trade, and politics in the Baltic Sea region. He is currently working on his first book manuscript, Return of the Hanseatic League, or How the Baltic Sea Trade Washed Away the Iron Curtain, 1945–1991. In it, he develops a transnational perspective on the Baltic region, from Hamburg in the west to Leningrad in the east, and highlights the role played by Hanseatic port cities such as Rostock, Gdańsk, Kaliningrad, and Riga, all of which served as “windows to the world” linking Communist-controlled Europe with the globalizing world in the Cold War era. Between 2017 and 2022, Blusiewicz worked as a history professor at the University of Tyumen, Russia. He helped to establish the only remaining English-language liberal arts college in Russia, the School of Advanced Studies, in the West Siberian city of Tyumen. There he designed and taught more than ten courses on modern history and international relations until March 2022, when he resigned from his position in protest against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Blusiewicz also designed, launched, and directed a master's program in Analytics and Consulting in International Relations. This program was taught in English mostly by US-educated scholars and professionals until it was suspended by the authorities in March 2022.

War is raging in Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin has made veiled—and not-so-veiled—threats about the use of nuclear weapons. And with President Joe Biden warning of the potential for "armageddon," many have begun asking a troubling question: Is this the beginning of a new Cold War?In this interview, Lindsay talks with historian Norman Naimark, author of the book "Stalin and the Fate of Europe." Naimark explains how we got to this moment in Ukraine—and the lessons we can draw from the Cold War.Listen to new episodes 1 week early and to all episodes ad free with Wondery+. Join Wondery+ for exclusives, binges, early access, and ad free listening. Available in the Wondery App https://wondery.app.link/americanscandal.Support us by supporting our sponsors!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Episode 111:This week we're continuing Russia in Revolution An Empire in Crisis 1890 - 1928 by S. A. Smith[Part 1]Introduction[Part 2-5]1. Roots of Revolution, 1880s–1905[Part 6-8]2. From Reform to War, 1906-1917[Part 9-12]3. From February to October 1917[Part 13 - 17]4. Civil War and Bolshevik Power[Part 18 - 22]5. War Communism[Part 23 - This Week]6. The New Economic Policy: Politics and the Economy - 0:43New Economic Policy and Agriculture - 11:08[Part 24 - 26?]6. The New Economic Policy: Politics and the Economy[Part 27 - 30?]7. The New Economic Policy: Society and Culture[Part 31?]ConclusionFootnotes:1) 1:01The great work on the history of these years is E. H. Carr's fourteen-volume A History of Soviet Russia, which covers the period from 1917 to 1929. It falls into four parts: The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917–23 (3 vols, 1950–3); The Interregnum, 1923–1924 (1954); Socialism in One Country, 1924–26 (4 vols, 1958–63); Foundations of a Planned Economy, 1926–1929 (6 vols, 1969–78, the first two co-authored with R. W. Davies).2) 3:49V. P. Danilov, ‘Vvedenie', Kak lomali NEP: Stenogrammy plenumov TsK VKP(b), 1928–1929gg., 5 vols (Moscow: Materik, 2000), vol. 1, 5–13 (6).3) 4:41Mark Harrison, ‘Prices in the Politburo 1927: Market Equilibrium versus the Use of Force', in Paul R. Gregory and Norman Naimark (eds), The Lost Politburo Transcripts (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 224–46.4) 7:12V. I. Lenin, ‘On Cooperation', .5) 7:30Moshe Lewin, The Making of the Soviet System (London: Methuen, 1985).6) 8:25Pirani, Russian Revolution in Retreat.7) 8:45L. N. Liutov, Obrechennaia reforma: promyshlennost' Rossii v epokhu NEPa (Ul'ianovsk: Ul'ianovskii gos. universitet, 2002), 17.8) 12:31Danilov, ‘Vvedenie', 6.9) 13:35Mark Harrison, ‘The Peasantry and Industrialization', in Davies (ed.), From Tsarism, 110.10) 13:58Wheatcroft, ‘Agriculture', in Davies (ed.), From Tsarism, 98.11) 14:47Harrison, ‘The Peasantry', 113.12) 16:20Harrison, ‘The Peasantry', 110.13) 16:59E. H. Carr and R. W. Davies, Foundations of a Planned Economy, 1926–1929, vol. 1 (London: Macmillan, 1969), 971.14) 17:41Danilov, ‘Vvedenie', 9.15) 18:08Tragediia sovetskoi derevni. Kollektivizatsiia i raskulachivanie. Dokumentyi i materialy, vol. 1 (Moscow: Rossiiskaia Polit. Entsiklopediia, 1999), 37–8; James Hughes, Stalin, Siberia and the Crisis of the New Economic Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 126–33.16) 18:36V. P. Danilov and O. V. Khlevniuk, ‘Aprel'skii plenum 1928g.', in Kak lomali NEP: Stenogrammy plenumov TsK VKP(b), 1928–1929gg., 5 vols (Moscow: Materik, 2000), vol. 1, 15–33 (29).17) 20:00V. P. Danilov, Rural Russia under the New Regime (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988), 269.18) 20:31Danilov, Rural Russia, 171.19) 21:20James W. Heinzen, Inventing a Soviet Countryside: State Power and the Transformation of Rural Russia, 1917–1929 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2004).20) 23:22Roger Pethybridge, The Social Prelude to Stalinism (Basingstoke: London, 1974), 226.21) 24:51K. B. Litvak, ‘Zhizn' krest'ianina 20-kh godov: sovremennye mify i istoricheskie realii', in NEP: Priobreteniia i poteri (Moscow: Nauka, 1994), 186–202.

Norman Naimark, distinguished scholar and expert on the Ottoman Empire, tells us all about vizierships and reckoners, the importance of sequins in orienting society, and how much people in the Ottoman Empire paid for sepulture.

Norman Naimark talks about his latest book, "The Humanities and the Ascendents."

Norman Naimark tells us of his new book, Sublimities: A New Literary History of Spenser, Donne and Shakespeare.

Lexman interviews Norman Naimark, a historian and author of the book "Spitsbergen 1911: The Inevitable Conflict". They discuss the history of Georgic Cutlery and how it shapes Norwegian gentilism.

In this episode, Lexman interviews Norman Naimark, a renowned historian and professor at Boston University. They discuss the topic of American foreign policy in the years after World War II, and its implications for the world today. Norman discusses America's willingness to abrogate its own treaties and commitments in order to achieve strategic objectives, as well as the importance of Baldricks in diplomatic negotiations. He also talks about the history of Pawpaws and their role in international relations. In the final segment, Lexman asks Norman about the possibility of upthrow and swingings being used to negotiate agreements in the future.

In this episode, host Lexman examines the implications of Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development on the idea of "ruction." Lexman asks Norman Naimark, a professor emeritus at the University of California, San Diego, to share his thoughts on the matter.

Although We Arm Police With Military Equipment, 19 Officers Stood By As 19 Kids and 2 Teachers Were Slaughtered | Will Democracies Remain United As Putin Intensifies His Destruction of Ukraine? backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 800 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more About Andrea Chalupa: I was born and raised in Davis, California, and currently live in Brooklyn, New York. After graduating from the University of California, at Davis with High Honors in History, with a focus on Soviet History, I studied Ukrainian at the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and the International School of Ukrainian Studies in L'viv, Ukraine. As a journalist, I cut my teeth in the newsrooms of Conde Nast Portfolio and AOL Money & Finance, and have written articles and columns for The Daily Beast, Forbes, TIME, and The Atlantic. Since 2004, while finishing my History thesis on the role of religion in Ukraine's independence movement at the fall of the Soviet Union, I began dreaming up a screenplay that would take me fifteen years to research, write, and produce. That screenplay became MR. JONES, directed by three-time Academy Award-nominee Agnieszka Holland and starring James Norton, Vanessa Kirby, Peter Sarsgaard, and Joseph Mawle as George Orwell. Much of the research for the film was compiled into my book Orwell and The Refugees: The Untold Story of Animal Farm, which has been taught in classrooms in Canada and Ukraine through the genocide education program Orwell Art. When I was growing up in Northern California, my grandfather Olexji was the world to me. Born in Donbas, a region in eastern Ukraine currently being invaded by Russia, my grandfather witnessed the Russian Revolution fought on his family farm as a small boy; survived the Holodomor, Stalin's genocide famine that killed an estimated 4 to 7 million people; and as a young father was arrested and tortured by the Soviet secret police during Stalin's purges. Shortly before he passed away at the age of 83, my grandfather wrote down his life story, showing the events Orwell allegorized in Animal Farm through the eyes of a survivor. It was for my grandfather and the countless others who suffered under the Soviet regime that I wrote and produced MR. JONES. The idea first came to me in my final year of university and followed me to Ukraine after college and to a road trip through Wales shortly before my wedding, and many research trips for several years after. I wanted to tell a story that would honor the millions of victims of Stalin, who has been resurrected under Putinism as a great hero, and expose how Kremlin propaganda works - sometimes with the help of corrupt Western journalists and political leaders. The history of Stalin's genocide is told through this short documentary I was asked to write, director, and produce for genocide education by the Holodomor Research and Education Consoritum at the University of Alberta. It features interviews with the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Anne Applebaum, author of Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine and Gulag: A History; Yale University's Timothy Snyder, author of Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin and On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century; Harvard University's Serhii Plokhy, author of The Gates of Europe: A History and The Last Empire: The Final Days of the Soviet Union, Stanford University's Norman Naimark, author of Stalin's Genocides, and other leading historians on this period. You can watch the documentary, called Stalin's Secret Genocide. As surreal as this journey has been against the backdrop of growing authoritarianism around the world, I met along the way brave human rights activists and journalists who continuously restored my faith. In January 2014, I helped launch #DigitalMaidan, a hashtag of the revolution in Ukraine; #MarchForTruth, a nationwide protest on June 3rd, 2017 demanding transparency and accountability in the Russia investigation, and helped lead a crowdfunding campaign to turn an oligarch's abandoned private zoo in Ukraine into an animal refuge. Over the years, I have spoken about Ukraine and Russia in the World Forum for Democracy at the Council of Europe, the Personal Democracy Forum at New York University, the National Press Club in Washington, DC, the National Arts Club in New York City, and went on a two-week university lecture tour of Canada, including McGill University, Carleton University, and the University of Toronto. And yes, I have a sister, Alexandra Chalupa, called one of the most influential people of the 2016 election by the investigative journalist Michael Isikoff who, along with David Corn, the first journalist to publish an interview with Christopher Steele, features my sister in their bestselling book Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump. The first three episodes of Gaslit Nation, recapping the 2016 election like a crime scene, explain how my sister was harassed and risked her life and career to alert the media about Paul Manafort and the Kremlin's attack on our democracy as it was happening. I've known Tim Wise for over 10 years and I have tried to showcase his work wherever I go from siriusxm to CNN to this podcast. I always learn so much when I read or talk to him. Today Tim and I talked about his latest writing Get all of his books 35 mins Tim Wise, whom scholar and philosopher Cornel West calls, “A vanilla brother in the tradition of (abolitionist) John Brown,” is among the nation's most prominent antiracist essayists and educators. He has spent the past 25 years speaking to audiences in all 50 states, on over 1000 college and high school campuses, at hundreds of professional and academic conferences, and to community groups across the nation. He has also lectured internationally in Canada and Bermuda, and has trained corporate, government, law enforcement and medical industry professionals on methods for dismantling racism in their institutions. Wise's antiracism work traces back to his days as a college activist in the 1980s, fighting for divestment from (and economic sanctions against) apartheid South Africa. After graduation, he threw himself into social justice efforts full-time, as a Youth Coordinator and Associate Director of the Louisiana Coalition Against Racism and Nazism: the largest of the many groups organized in the early 1990s to defeat the political candidacies of white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. From there, he became a community organizer in New Orleans' public housing, and a policy analyst for a children's advocacy group focused on combatting poverty and economic inequity. He has served as an adjunct professor at the Smith College School of Social Work, in Northampton, MA., and from 1999-2003 was an advisor to the Fisk University Race Relations Institute in Nashville, TN. Wise is the author of seven books, including his highly-acclaimed memoir, White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son, as well as Dear White America: Letter to a New Minority, and Under the Affluence: Shaming the Poor, Praising the Rich and Sacrificing the Future of America. His forthcoming book, White LIES Matter: Race, Crime and the Politics of Fear in America, will be released in 2018. His essays have appeared on Alternet, Salon, Huffington Post, Counterpunch, Black Commentator, BK Nation, Z Magazine and The Root, which recently named Wise one of the “8 Wokest White People We Know.” Wise has been featured in several documentaries, including “The Great White Hoax: Donald Trump and the Politics of Race and Class in America,” and “White Like Me: Race, Racism and White Privilege in America,” both from the Media Education Foundation. He also appeared alongside legendary scholar and activist, Angela Davis, in the 2011 documentary, “Vocabulary of Change.” In this public dialogue between the two activists, Davis and Wise discussed the connections between issues of race, class, gender, sexuality and militarism, as well as inter-generational movement building and the prospects for social change. Wise is also one of five persons—including President Barack Obama—interviewed for a video exhibition on race relations in America, featured at the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington DC. Additionally, his media presence includes dozens of appearances on CNN, MSNBC and NPR, feature interviews on ABC's 20/20 and CBS's 48 Hours, as well as videos posted on YouTube, Facebook and other social media platforms that have received over 20 million views. His podcast, “Speak Out with Tim Wise,” launched this fall and features weekly interviews with activists, scholars and artists about movement building and strategies for social change. Wise graduated from Tulane University in 1990 and received antiracism training from the People's Institute for Survival and Beyond, in New Orleans. Check out all things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Phil Round Music Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page

Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 800 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more Trae Crowder grew up in Celina, TN, a town sometimes described as having “more liquor stores than traffic lights” (2-0 as of the last count). Like most people from the deep rural south, Trae grew up with an affinity for literature, film, blacks, and gays. In 1998, at the age of 12, and after seeing Chris Rock on HBO, he decided he wanted to be a comedian. Trae first gained national attention (or notoriety, depending on your viewpoint) for his “Liberal Redneck” series of viral videos. He has been performing his particular brand of Southern-fried intellectual comedy in the Southeast for the past nine years and now, of course, tours nationally with his writing and drinking partners, Corey and Drew. Listen to his podcast https://www.traecrowder.com/podcast Follow him on Twitter  About Andrea Chalupa: I was born and raised in Davis, California, and currently live in Brooklyn, New York. After graduating from the University of California, at Davis with High Honors in History, with a focus on Soviet History, I studied Ukrainian at the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and the International School of Ukrainian Studies in L'viv, Ukraine. As a journalist, I cut my teeth in the newsrooms of Conde Nast Portfolio and AOL Money & Finance, and have written articles and columns for The Daily Beast, Forbes, TIME, and The Atlantic. Since 2004, while finishing my History thesis on the role of religion in Ukraine's independence movement at the fall of the Soviet Union, I began dreaming up a screenplay that would take me fifteen years to research, write, and produce. That screenplay became MR. JONES, directed by three-time Academy Award-nominee Agnieszka Holland and starring James Norton, Vanessa Kirby, Peter Sarsgaard, and Joseph Mawle as George Orwell. Much of the research for the film was compiled into my book Orwell and The Refugees: The Untold Story of Animal Farm, which has been taught in classrooms in Canada and Ukraine through the genocide education program Orwell Art. When I was growing up in Northern California, my grandfather Olexji was the world to me. Born in Donbas, a region in eastern Ukraine currently being invaded by Russia, my grandfather witnessed the Russian Revolution fought on his family farm as a small boy; survived the Holodomor, Stalin's genocide famine that killed an estimated 4 to 7 million people; and as a young father was arrested and tortured by the Soviet secret police during Stalin's purges. Shortly before he passed away at the age of 83, my grandfather wrote down his life story, showing the events Orwell allegorized in Animal Farm through the eyes of a survivor. It was for my grandfather and the countless others who suffered under the Soviet regime that I wrote and produced MR. JONES. The idea first came to me in my final year of university and followed me to Ukraine after college and to a road trip through Wales shortly before my wedding, and many research trips for several years after. I wanted to tell a story that would honor the millions of victims of Stalin, who has been resurrected under Putinism as a great hero, and expose how Kremlin propaganda works - sometimes with the help of corrupt Western journalists and political leaders. The history of Stalin's genocide is told through this short documentary I was asked to write, director, and produce for genocide education by the Holodomor Research and Education Consoritum at the University of Alberta. It features interviews with the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Anne Applebaum, author of Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine and Gulag: A History; Yale University's Timothy Snyder, author of Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin and On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century; Harvard University's Serhii Plokhy, author of The Gates of Europe: A History and The Last Empire: The Final Days of the Soviet Union, Stanford University's Norman Naimark, author of Stalin's Genocides, and other leading historians on this period. You can watch the documentary, called Stalin's Secret Genocide. As surreal as this journey has been against the backdrop of growing authoritarianism around the world, I met along the way brave human rights activists and journalists who continuously restored my faith. In January 2014, I helped launch #DigitalMaidan, a hashtag of the revolution in Ukraine; #MarchForTruth, a nationwide protest on June 3rd, 2017 demanding transparency and accountability in the Russia investigation, and helped lead a crowdfunding campaign to turn an oligarch's abandoned private zoo in Ukraine into an animal refuge. Over the years, I have spoken about Ukraine and Russia in the World Forum for Democracy at the Council of Europe, the Personal Democracy Forum at New York University, the National Press Club in Washington, DC, the National Arts Club in New York City, and went on a two-week university lecture tour of Canada, including McGill University, Carleton University, and the University of Toronto. And yes, I have a sister, Alexandra Chalupa, called one of the most influential people of the 2016 election by the investigative journalist Michael Isikoff who, along with David Corn, the first journalist to publish an interview with Christopher Steele, features my sister in their bestselling book Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump. The first three episodes of Gaslit Nation, recapping the 2016 election like a crime scene, explain how my sister was harassed and risked her life and career to alert the media about Paul Manafort and the Kremlin's attack on our democracy as it was happening. Check out all things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page  

Norman Naimark is a historian at Stanford, specializing in the history of genocide. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors: – Coinbase: https://coinbase.com/lex to get $5 in free Bitcoin – Quip: https://getquip.com/lex to get first refill free – Eight Sleep: https://www.eightsleep.com/lex and use code LEX to get special savings – NetSuite: http://netsuite.com/lex to get free product tour – ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/lexpod and use code LexPod to get 3 months free EPISODE LINKS: Norman's Website: https://history.stanford.edu/people/norman-naimark Stalin's Genocides (book): https://amzn.to/3oO0Hzb Stalin and the Fate of Europe (book): https://amzn.to/3pLbWrk Books & resources mentioned: The Origins of Totalitarianism (book): https://amzn.to/3oNDSvA Man's Search

Norman Naimark is a Professor of East European History at Stanford University. Professor Naimark has written on a wide variety of topics in East European and European history more generally, including radical politics in the Russian Empire, the Soviet Military Administration in Germany, the establishment of communism in Eastern Europe, and the history of genocide in 20th century Europe.

Recorded on February 14, 2017 Norman Naimark, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and an expert on Eastern Europe and genocides throughout history, brings his considerable expertise to Uncommon Knowledge to discuss the history of genocides from ancient to modern times. Peter Robinson sits down with Naimark to discuss his latest book, Genocide: A World History. Naimark argues that genocides occur throughout history, from biblical to modern times across the world. He considers genocides to be “the crime of crimes, worse than war crimes or crimes against humanity,” Naimark defines genocide as “intentional killing of a group of people as such,” meaning that the intention is to eliminate that group completely. He stresses the difference of this definition from warfare, as in war two sides are killing each other with the intention of subjugation rather than extermination. He goes into detail about a few incidents that he considers genocides, including but not limited to Nazi Germany, Stalin’s genocide of the kulaks, the Armenian genocide in the early 1900s, the Carthage genocide in 146 BC, the Rwandan genocide in the 1990s, and the Yuki genocide in California in the 1850s. Naimark argues that as genocides occur in contemporary society, sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their citizens; if they fail to do so the international community has a moral and civic obligation to step in to stop those genocides from occurring. Granted, he argues, that the cost of intervention needs to be assessed before stepping in but that overall each country has a national obligation to prevent the systematic extermination of people. Interested in buying Norman Naimark’s latest book, Genocide: A World History? You can buy it here. About the guest Norman M. Naimark is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is also the Robert and Florence McDonnell Professor of East European Studies and a senior fellow of Stanford's Freeman-Spogli Institute. He currently serves as the Sakurako and William Fisher Family Director of the Stanford Global Studies Division. Naimark is an expert in modern East European and Russian history. His current research focuses on Soviet policies and actions in Europe after World War II and on genocide and ethnic cleansing in the twentieth century. Naimark is author of the critically acclaimed volumes The Russians in Germany: The History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945–1949 (Harvard, 1995), Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in 20th Century Europe (Harvard, 2001), and Stalin's Genocides (Princeton, 2010). He is also author of the volumes Terrorists and Social Democrats: The Russian Revolutionary Movement under Alexander III (Harvard, 1983) and The History of the "Proletariat": The Emergence of Marxism in the Kingdom of Poland, 1870–1887 (Columbia, 1979). Naimark earned a BA (1966), MA (1968), and PhD (1972) in history from Stanford University. Before returning to Stanford in 1988 Naimark was a professor of history at Boston University and a fellow at the Russian Research Center at Harvard. He also held the visiting Kathryn Wasserman Davis Chair of Slavic Studies at Wellesley College. (Playing time: 49:08)

BYU’s Eric Hyer and Robert Griffiths on Trump’s relationship with China. Norman Naimark from Stanford University speaks on the future of US-Russia relations. Mistletoe expert Jonathan Brigg talks about why mistletoe matters. Anne Booth, author of “Refuge,” shares the refugee story found in the Nativity. Shawn O’Neill gives a “Rogue One” Review. And University of Guelph’s Jennifer Schacker on Britain’s holiday theater tradition.

The news includes: The Guys will be at the Southern California Genealogical Society's Jamboree on June 8-10, 2012. RootsMagic announces new webinars and additions to its catalog of recorded webinars. FamilySearch announces the addition of millions of new records on its site and the completion of almost half of the 1940 U.S. federal census. The Federation of Genealogical Societies announced that its Malcolm H. Stern-NARA Gift Fund has participated with NARA recently in digitizing and making available the records of the Sultana Disaster at the Fold3.com website. Ancestry.com announced that it has added its 10 billionth record to its site. Ancestry.com announced its AncestryDNATM service. Listener email includes: Michael asks about the notation on the 1880 U.S. federal census of “NG” under the birthplaces of an ancestor's parents. Chris sent a link to a fascinating article about using DNA to determine the origin of the Melungeons.(http://news.yahoo.com/dna-study-seeks-origin-appalachias-melungeons-201144041.html) Rich also sent another link on the same subject right after the podcast was recorded. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/melungeon-dna-study-origin_n_1544489.html?ref=fb&ir=Black+Voices&src=sp&comm_ref=false#s=1022230) Laurie asked about the available DNA tests, and Drew weighs in based on his experience. Walter asks whether there is a DNA test available to determine whether his mother and a good friend, who looks like his mother's twin, are related. Susanne asks about genealogy sites that are free. Bob talks about the work he and his wife are doing as arbiters for the 1940 indexing project. Tom asks when we think an index to the 1940 census will be available, and comments about the indexes not being made available until an entire state is indexed. Amy shares information about Titanicat by Marty Crisp. Linda writes about resources for the descendants of the Armenian Genocide. She tells us that University of Michigan Professor Fatma Muge Gocek has done extensive research on this issue with other area specialists (one is also here at U Michigan – Ronald Suny in Political Science). If the person who asked the question in an earlier podcast is still trying to find resources that might help her find information on her ancestors, she might send an e-mail to either Professor Gocek (Gocek@umich.edu) or Professor Suny (rgsuny@umich.edu) to see if they know where information on where people were moved or killed and records that might be useful. Gocek, Suny, and another scholar, Norman Naimark at Stanford, co-wrote a book, A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/MiddleEastern/?view=usa&ci=9780195393743) about the genocide. The Guys both recommend checking the University of South Florida's Holocaust & Genocide Studies Center site at http://lib.usf.edu/hgsc. Ann has a question about her husband's paternal grandfather who was born in international waters while his mother was emigrating from Wales to the United States. In another email, she reports on remarkable files uncovered in the possession of a library. Jo wrote to provide some clues and resources to Moshe who is researching a Jewish man named Markowsky.

Absolutely no one doubts that Stalin murdered millions of people in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. His ruthless campaign of “dekulakization,” his pitiless deportation of “unreliable” ethnic groups, his senseless starvation of Ukrainian peasants, his cruel attempt to “cleanse” the Communist Party of supposed “enemies of the people”–all of these actions resulted in mass death. In total, Stalin is responsible for the murder of roughly 10 million Soviet citizens. Again, this is well established. What is not well established is what to call Stalin's crimes. As Norman Naimark points out in his thought-provoking Stalin's Genocides (Princeton UP, 2010), historians and others have been peculiarly conflicted about this issue. Everyone agrees it's mass murder. But is it “genocide,” with all that term entails? Etymologically, it doesn't seem so: gens is Latin for “people who claim common descent,” that is, a clan, tribe, or even nation. The Kulaks were not a gens. Historically, genocide doesn't fit well either: after World War II, the UN decided that it would mean “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial religious group, as such.” Again, the Kulaks are none of these things. Naimark, however, argues Stalin's crimes should be considered genocide on three grounds. First, he demonstrates that some of Stalin's attacks were genocide under the UN definition, for example his exile and starvation of minority ethnic groups. Second, he shows that some of those who sought to define genocide during and after World War II did not intend to restrict it to gens: they included political groups, that is, entities like the Kulaks. The Soviets and others demanded these groups be removed from the definition, and they were. Third, he demonstrates that international law has evolved, and with it the legal meaning of genocide: recent proceedings in the Baltic states, for example, have broadened the definition. Some might ask “What does it matter what we call it?” I think it matters a lot. Words are not only an interpretation of the world, but they are also a reflection of who we are. The words the Nazis used to describe their crimes–“final solution,” “transport to the East,” “special handling”–tell us much about them. The words the Stalinists used to describe their crimes–“purge,” “evacuation,” “re-education”–tell us much about them as well. And so we have to ask: What does our persistent failure to call Stalin's crimes “genocide” say about us? Nothing very good, I think. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven't already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Absolutely no one doubts that Stalin murdered millions of people in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. His ruthless campaign of “dekulakization,” his pitiless deportation of “unreliable” ethnic groups, his senseless starvation of Ukrainian peasants, his cruel attempt to “cleanse” the Communist Party of supposed “enemies of the people”–all of these... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Absolutely no one doubts that Stalin murdered millions of people in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. His ruthless campaign of “dekulakization,” his pitiless deportation of “unreliable” ethnic groups, his senseless starvation of Ukrainian peasants, his cruel attempt to “cleanse” the Communist Party of supposed “enemies of the people”–all of these...

Absolutely no one doubts that Stalin murdered millions of people in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. His ruthless campaign of “dekulakization,” his pitiless deportation of “unreliable” ethnic groups, his senseless starvation of Ukrainian peasants, his cruel attempt to “cleanse” the Communist Party of supposed “enemies of the people”–all of these actions resulted in mass death. In total, Stalin is responsible for the murder of roughly 10 million Soviet citizens. Again, this is well established. What is not well established is what to call Stalin’s crimes. As Norman Naimark points out in his thought-provoking Stalin’s Genocides (Princeton UP, 2010), historians and others have been peculiarly conflicted about this issue. Everyone agrees it’s mass murder. But is it “genocide,” with all that term entails? Etymologically, it doesn’t seem so: gens is Latin for “people who claim common descent,” that is, a clan, tribe, or even nation. The Kulaks were not a gens. Historically, genocide doesn’t fit well either: after World War II, the UN decided that it would mean “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial religious group, as such.” Again, the Kulaks are none of these things. Naimark, however, argues Stalin’s crimes should be considered genocide on three grounds. First, he demonstrates that some of Stalin’s attacks were genocide under the UN definition, for example his exile and starvation of minority ethnic groups. Second, he shows that some of those who sought to define genocide during and after World War II did not intend to restrict it to gens: they included political groups, that is, entities like the Kulaks. The Soviets and others demanded these groups be removed from the definition, and they were. Third, he demonstrates that international law has evolved, and with it the legal meaning of genocide: recent proceedings in the Baltic states, for example, have broadened the definition. Some might ask “What does it matter what we call it?” I think it matters a lot. Words are not only an interpretation of the world, but they are also a reflection of who we are. The words the Nazis used to describe their crimes–“final solution,” “transport to the East,” “special handling”–tell us much about them. The words the Stalinists used to describe their crimes–“purge,” “evacuation,” “re-education”–tell us much about them as well. And so we have to ask: What does our persistent failure to call Stalin’s crimes “genocide” say about us? Nothing very good, I think. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Absolutely no one doubts that Stalin murdered millions of people in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. His ruthless campaign of “dekulakization,” his pitiless deportation of “unreliable” ethnic groups, his senseless starvation of Ukrainian peasants, his cruel attempt to “cleanse” the Communist Party of supposed “enemies of the people”–all of these actions resulted in mass death. In total, Stalin is responsible for the murder of roughly 10 million Soviet citizens. Again, this is well established. What is not well established is what to call Stalin’s crimes. As Norman Naimark points out in his thought-provoking Stalin’s Genocides (Princeton UP, 2010), historians and others have been peculiarly conflicted about this issue. Everyone agrees it’s mass murder. But is it “genocide,” with all that term entails? Etymologically, it doesn’t seem so: gens is Latin for “people who claim common descent,” that is, a clan, tribe, or even nation. The Kulaks were not a gens. Historically, genocide doesn’t fit well either: after World War II, the UN decided that it would mean “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial religious group, as such.” Again, the Kulaks are none of these things. Naimark, however, argues Stalin’s crimes should be considered genocide on three grounds. First, he demonstrates that some of Stalin’s attacks were genocide under the UN definition, for example his exile and starvation of minority ethnic groups. Second, he shows that some of those who sought to define genocide during and after World War II did not intend to restrict it to gens: they included political groups, that is, entities like the Kulaks. The Soviets and others demanded these groups be removed from the definition, and they were. Third, he demonstrates that international law has evolved, and with it the legal meaning of genocide: recent proceedings in the Baltic states, for example, have broadened the definition. Some might ask “What does it matter what we call it?” I think it matters a lot. Words are not only an interpretation of the world, but they are also a reflection of who we are. The words the Nazis used to describe their crimes–“final solution,” “transport to the East,” “special handling”–tell us much about them. The words the Stalinists used to describe their crimes–“purge,” “evacuation,” “re-education”–tell us much about them as well. And so we have to ask: What does our persistent failure to call Stalin’s crimes “genocide” say about us? Nothing very good, I think. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Absolutely no one doubts that Stalin murdered millions of people in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. His ruthless campaign of “dekulakization,” his pitiless deportation of “unreliable” ethnic groups, his senseless starvation of Ukrainian peasants, his cruel attempt to “cleanse” the Communist Party of supposed “enemies of the people”–all of these actions resulted in mass death. In total, Stalin is responsible for the murder of roughly 10 million Soviet citizens. Again, this is well established. What is not well established is what to call Stalin’s crimes. As Norman Naimark points out in his thought-provoking Stalin’s Genocides (Princeton UP, 2010), historians and others have been peculiarly conflicted about this issue. Everyone agrees it’s mass murder. But is it “genocide,” with all that term entails? Etymologically, it doesn’t seem so: gens is Latin for “people who claim common descent,” that is, a clan, tribe, or even nation. The Kulaks were not a gens. Historically, genocide doesn’t fit well either: after World War II, the UN decided that it would mean “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial religious group, as such.” Again, the Kulaks are none of these things. Naimark, however, argues Stalin’s crimes should be considered genocide on three grounds. First, he demonstrates that some of Stalin’s attacks were genocide under the UN definition, for example his exile and starvation of minority ethnic groups. Second, he shows that some of those who sought to define genocide during and after World War II did not intend to restrict it to gens: they included political groups, that is, entities like the Kulaks. The Soviets and others demanded these groups be removed from the definition, and they were. Third, he demonstrates that international law has evolved, and with it the legal meaning of genocide: recent proceedings in the Baltic states, for example, have broadened the definition. Some might ask “What does it matter what we call it?” I think it matters a lot. Words are not only an interpretation of the world, but they are also a reflection of who we are. The words the Nazis used to describe their crimes–“final solution,” “transport to the East,” “special handling”–tell us much about them. The words the Stalinists used to describe their crimes–“purge,” “evacuation,” “re-education”–tell us much about them as well. And so we have to ask: What does our persistent failure to call Stalin’s crimes “genocide” say about us? Nothing very good, I think. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Introduced by Norman Naimark, Larry Wolff talks about Wayne Vucinich's memoirs "Memoirs of My Childhood in Yugoslavia" and shared stories about Vucinich's childhood. (October 29, 2007)

Die Veranstaltung bildete den Auftakt zur Vortragsreihe »Stalinistischer Terror in der Sowjetunion und in Osteuropa: Neue Forschungen zu Tätern - Opfern - Folgen«, zu der der Lehrstuhl der Geschichte Osteuropas der HU Berlin und die Bundesstiftung Aufarbeitung eingeladen hatten. Für die Podiumsdiskussion "Von den Schauprozessen zu den Massenoperationen - Interpretationen des Großen Terrors in der Sowjetunion" konnten die Professoren Dr. Norman Naimark, Dr. Karl Schlögel und Jörg Baberowski gewonnen werden. Es moderierte Markus Wehner. Zugleich wurde das neue Jahrbuch für Historische Kommunismusforschung vorgestellt.

Norman Naimark, Professor an der Stanford-Universität sprach über sein Buch "Stalin und der Genozid" (Suhrkamp 2010). In seinem Vortrag rekapitulierte er die Geschichte des Genozid-Konzepts und erläuterte die Zusammenhänge zwischen den Massentötungen in der Sowjetunion der 1930er und der politischen Linie bzw. dem Vorgehen Stalins. Naimark begründete seine Überzeugung, dass die stalinistischen Verbrechen als Genozid anzusehen und im Vergleich mit denen Hitlers und der Nazis zu betrachten seien.

Die Veranstaltung bildete den Auftakt zur Vortragsreihe »Stalinistischer Terror in der Sowjetunion und in Osteuropa: Neue Forschungen zu Tätern - Opfern - Folgen«, zu der der Lehrstuhl der Geschichte Osteuropas der HU Berlin und die Bundesstiftung Aufarbeitung eingeladen hatten. Für die Podiumsdiskussion "Von den Schauprozessen zu den Massenoperationen - Interpretationen des Großen Terrors in der Sowjetunion" konnten die Professoren Dr. Norman Naimark, Dr. Karl Schlögel und Jörg Baberowski gewonnen werden. Es moderierte Markus Wehner. Zugleich wurde das neue Jahrbuch für Historische Kommunismusforschung vorgestellt.

Norman Naimark, Professor an der Stanford-Universität sprach über sein Buch "Stalin und der Genozid" (Suhrkamp 2010). In seinem Vortrag rekapitulierte er die Geschichte des Genozid-Konzepts und erläuterte die Zusammenhänge zwischen den Massentötungen in der Sowjetunion der 1930er und der politischen Linie bzw. dem Vorgehen Stalins. Naimark begründete seine Überzeugung, dass die stalinistischen Verbrechen als Genozid anzusehen und im Vergleich mit denen Hitlers und der Nazis zu betrachten seien.