Podcast appearances and mentions of ronald suny

The Rational Egoist: Unveiling Realities with Michael Liebowitz and Ronald Suny In this thought-provoking episode of The Rational Egoist, host Michael Liebowitz welcomes esteemed guest Professor Ronald Suny, the William H. Sewell Jr. Distinguished Professor of History at the University of Michigan and a renowned American Historian and Political Scientist. Together, they embark on a deep dive into the complexities of Russian history, the enigmatic leadership of Vladimir Putin, and the controversial perspectives of Tucker Carlson. Professor Suny brings his extensive expertise to the table, shedding light on the historical context that has shaped Russia's current political landscape. The conversation explores the roots of Putin's authoritarian governance, analyzing how historical narratives influence today's geopolitical strategies and the Russian people's perception of their leader. Adding an intriguing layer to the discussion, Liebowitz and Suny critically assess Tucker Carlson's often polarizing views on Russia and its leadership, juxtaposing them against the backdrop of objective historical analysis. This episode doesn't just recount facts; it challenges listeners to think critically about the narratives that shape our understanding of world leaders and their policies. Through a blend of meticulous historical scholarship and engaging dialogue, The Rational Egoist offers listeners a unique opportunity to explore the intersections of history, politics, and media narratives. Join us for an enlightening journey into the heart of Russian history, viewed through the lens of rational inquiry and intellectual rigor. Michael Leibowitz, host of The Rational Egoist podcast, is a philosopher and political activist who draws inspiration from Ayn Rand's philosophy, advocating for reason, rational self-interest, and individualism. His journey from a 25-year prison sentence to a prominent voice in the libertarian and Objectivist communities highlights the transformative impact of embracing these principles. Leibowitz actively participates in political debates and produces content aimed at promoting individual rights and freedoms. He is the co-author of “Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Correction Encourages Crime” and “View from a Cage: From Convict to Crusader for Liberty,” which explore societal issues and his personal evolution through Rand's teachings.Explore his work and journey further through his books:“Down the Rabbit Hole”: https://www.amazon.com.au/Down-Rabbit-Hole-Corrections-Encourages/dp/197448064X“View from a Cage”: https://books2read.com/u/4jN6xj

The Impeachment Trial of the "Christian" Crook Ken Paxton Divides Texas Republicans | Over 60 Environmental Activists Charged Under the Same RICO Statutes Trump and His Allies Face For Trying to Steal an Election | On the Brink of Another War Between Armenia and Azerbaijan as the Kremlin Switches Sides and the U.S. Holds Military Exercises in Armenia backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

The Hamilton Today Podcast with Scott Thompson: Oakville may get Canada's youngest mayor if all goes well for Jack Kukolic, who joins Scott to chat about the municipal election race coming up and what it is like for a young person in politics. Elissa Freeman speaks with Scott about the viral pictures of an Oakville teacher with augmented breasts, and attire that does not conceal her nipples. Canada is finally reviewing the effect of cannabis legalization… a year after the review was scheduled; Cannabis expert Brad Poulos joins Scott for that. With Russia announcing that they are mobilizing reservists for the war in Ukraine, many have been arrested. Others are making plans to avoid being sent to war. Ronald Suny, political science and history professor at the University of Michigan helps break that down with Scott. It is all coming up on the Hamilton Today Podcast. Guests: Greg Dunnett, President, Hamilton Chamber of Commerce. Carmi Levy, Technology Analyst & Journalist.  Jack Kukolic, candidate in the Oakville mayoral race, aiming to be youngest mayor in Canada. Elissa Freeman, PR and Pop Culture Expert. Brad Poulos, Instructor, Ted Rogers School of Management, Toronto Metropolitan University. Don Fox, Executive Financial Consultant, with The Fox Group, IG Private Wealth Management. Dr. Jane Boulden. Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College. Ronald Suny, professor of history and political science University of Michigan. He is a former researcher at the National Research University in St. Petersburg, Russia. Scott Radley. Host of The Scott Radley Show, Columnist with the Hamilton Spectator. Host – Scott Thompson Content Producer – Elizabeth Russell Technical/Podcast Producer - William Webber Podcast co-producer – Ben Straughan News Anchors – Dave Woodard, Diana Weeks Want to keep up with what happened in Hamilton Today? Subscribe to the podcast! https://megaphone.link/CORU8835115919

Episode 106: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 - This Week]5. War Communism - 0:21Mobilising Industry - 6:39[Part 19 - 21?]5. War Communism[Part 22 - 24?]6. The New Economic Policy: Politics and the Economy[Part 25 - 28?]7. The New Economic Policy: Society and Culture[Part 29?]ConclusionFootnotes:1) 0:31Diane Koenker, William Rosenberg, and Ronald Suny (eds), Party, State and Society in the Russian Civil War (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989).2) 1:39.3) 3:01Mauricio Borrero, Hungry Moscow: Scarcity and Urban Society in the Russian Civil War, 1917–1920 (New York: Peter Lang, 2003).4) 3:39A. A. Il'iukhov, Zhizn' v epokhu peremen: material'noe polozhenie gorodskikh zhitelei v gody revoliutsii i grazhdanskoi voiny (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2007), 36.5) 4:24Viktor Shklovskii, A Sentimental Journey (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984), 175.6) 5:16Il'iukhov, Zhizn', 169–70.7) 5:26Il'iukhov, Zhizn', 83.8) 6:05Il'iukhov, Zhizn', 178–9.9) 6:38Cited in Il'iukhov, Zhizn', 168.10) 7:01Silvana Malle, The Economic Organization of War Communism 1918–1921 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).11) 9:17V. I. Lenin, The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It, .12) 10:56Smith, Red Petrograd, 224.13) 14:27Ronald Kowalski, The Bolshevik Party in Conflict: The Left Communist Opposition of 1918 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1991).14) 17:04.15) 18:52Thomas F. Remington, Building Socialism in Bolshevik Russia: Ideology and Industrial Organization, 1917–1921 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1984).

Guest: Ronald Suny on Stalin: Passage to Revolution published by Princeton University Press. The post From Soso to Stalin appeared first on The Eurasian Knot.

Guest: Ronald Suny on Stalin: Passage to Revolution published by Princeton University Press. The post From Soso to Stalin appeared first on SRB Podcast.

Ronald Suny’s recent biography of the young Stalin, Stalin: Passage to Revolution (Princeton UP, 2020) covers “Soso” Jughashvili’s life up to the 1917 Revolution. Suny provides a wealth of detail as to the young Stalin’s life, and he embeds that life story in the broader story of Bolshevism. The Stalin that emerges from Suny’s portrait was skilled at navigating Party in-fighting an effective at speaking both to workers and to intellectuals. This biography does much make sense of the later Stalin, the perpetrator of the Purges.  Aaron Weinacht is Professor of History at the University of Montana Western in Dillon, MT. He teaches courses on Russian and Soviet History, World History, and Philosophy of History. His research interests include the sociological theorist Philip Rieff and the influence of Russian nihilism on American libertarianism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ronald Suny’s recent biography of the young Stalin, Stalin: Passage to Revolution (Princeton UP, 2020) covers “Soso” Jughashvili’s life up to the 1917 Revolution. Suny provides a wealth of detail as to the young Stalin’s life, and he embeds that life story in the broader story of Bolshevism. The Stalin that emerges from Suny’s portrait was skilled at navigating Party in-fighting an effective at speaking both to workers and to intellectuals. This biography does much make sense of the later Stalin, the perpetrator of the Purges.  Aaron Weinacht is Professor of History at the University of Montana Western in Dillon, MT. He teaches courses on Russian and Soviet History, World History, and Philosophy of History. His research interests include the sociological theorist Philip Rieff and the influence of Russian nihilism on American libertarianism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ronald Suny’s recent biography of the young Stalin, Stalin: Passage to Revolution (Princeton UP, 2020) covers “Soso” Jughashvili’s life up to the 1917 Revolution. Suny provides a wealth of detail as to the young Stalin’s life, and he embeds that life story in the broader story of Bolshevism. The Stalin that emerges from Suny’s portrait was skilled at navigating Party in-fighting an effective at speaking both to workers and to intellectuals. This biography does much make sense of the later Stalin, the perpetrator of the Purges.  Aaron Weinacht is Professor of History at the University of Montana Western in Dillon, MT. He teaches courses on Russian and Soviet History, World History, and Philosophy of History. His research interests include the sociological theorist Philip Rieff and the influence of Russian nihilism on American libertarianism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ronald Suny’s recent biography of the young Stalin, Stalin: Passage to Revolution (Princeton UP, 2020) covers “Soso” Jughashvili’s life up to the 1917 Revolution. Suny provides a wealth of detail as to the young Stalin’s life, and he embeds that life story in the broader story of Bolshevism. The Stalin that emerges from Suny’s portrait was skilled at navigating Party in-fighting an effective at speaking both to workers and to intellectuals. This biography does much make sense of the later Stalin, the perpetrator of the Purges.  Aaron Weinacht is Professor of History at the University of Montana Western in Dillon, MT. He teaches courses on Russian and Soviet History, World History, and Philosophy of History. His research interests include the sociological theorist Philip Rieff and the influence of Russian nihilism on American libertarianism.

Ronald Suny’s recent biography of the young Stalin, Stalin: Passage to Revolution (Princeton UP, 2020) covers “Soso” Jughashvili’s life up to the 1917 Revolution. Suny provides a wealth of detail as to the young Stalin’s life, and he embeds that life story in the broader story of Bolshevism. The Stalin that emerges from Suny’s portrait was skilled at navigating Party in-fighting an effective at speaking both to workers and to intellectuals. This biography does much make sense of the later Stalin, the perpetrator of the Purges.  Aaron Weinacht is Professor of History at the University of Montana Western in Dillon, MT. He teaches courses on Russian and Soviet History, World History, and Philosophy of History. His research interests include the sociological theorist Philip Rieff and the influence of Russian nihilism on American libertarianism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Soviet history and nationalism — Dr. Ronald Suny is a leading scholar of Imperial Russian and Soviet history, the Caucasus and more recently, of the Armenian Genocide, with significant contribution to the study of history and historiography. He speaks to Institute Director Salpi Ghazarian about socialism, ethnic conflict and revolution. Visit the USC Institute of Armenian Studies website for more.

The Armenian genocide was one of the most tragic events in the 20th century. The Ottoman government's deliberate attempt to purge Armenians during World War I led to the elimination of approximately 1.5 million of the 2 million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire just a few years earlier. While some families were able to escape the country and emigrate elsewhere, approximately eight hundred thousand Armenians were put to death by the Ottoman government and its allies within the Empire. Yet despite overwhelming evidence of the scale and purpose of this event, many governments, including the United States, have yet to officially recognize the Armenian genocide. In this episode of The Road to Now we speak with Ronald Suny, who is one of the world's foremost experts on the history of the Armenian genocide. Ron explains the process that led the Ottoman government to turn on its Armenian subjects and the methods it used to carry out this atrocity. He also explains why, in spite of the evidence, recognizing this as genocide remains a political hotspot both internationally and within modern Turkey, and why it is important to remember tragedies even when doing so makes us uncomfortable. Dr. Ronald Grigor Suny is the William H. Sewell Jr. Distinguished University Professor of History at the University of Michigan, Emeritus Professor of Political Science and History at the University of Chicago, and Senior Researcher at the National Research University – Higher School of Economics in Saint Petersburg, Russia. He is the author of numerous books, including “They Can Live in the Desert But Nowhere Else:” A History of the Armenian Genocide (Princeton University Press, 2015). The Road to Now is part of the Osiris Podcast Network. For more on this and all other episodes of our podcast, visit our website: www.TheRoadToNow.com.

Names can be deceiving. Americans call the area where Moscow’s writ runs “Russia.” But the official name of this place is the “Russian Federation.” Federation of what, you ask? Well, there are a lot of people who live in “Russia” who are in important senses not Russians. There are Ingush, Buryats, Chechens, Mordvinians, Tatars, and many others. Russia, then, is a “Federation” of Russians and non-Russians. But even that’s not quite right. As Valerie Kivelson and Ronald Suny point out in their excellent book Russia’s Empires (Oxford University Press, 2016), Russia is really an empire, and has long been. Since the 16th century, Moscow has gathered, conquered, colonized, assimilated, or otherwise brought to heel a great number of places occupied by people who were not Russians. Russians built this empire for different reasons at different times; it grew and (especially recently) it shrank. But it was always there, and still is. Kivelson and Suny convincingly argue that nothing about Russia—past or present—can really be understood outside the context of Russia as an empire. Listen in to our lively conversation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Names can be deceiving. Americans call the area where Moscow’s writ runs “Russia.” But the official name of this place is the “Russian Federation.” Federation of what, you ask? Well, there are a lot of people who live in “Russia” who are in important senses not Russians. There are Ingush, Buryats, Chechens, Mordvinians, Tatars, and many others. Russia, then, is a “Federation” of Russians and non-Russians. But even that’s not quite right. As Valerie Kivelson and Ronald Suny point out in their excellent book Russia’s Empires (Oxford University Press, 2016), Russia is really an empire, and has long been. Since the 16th century, Moscow has gathered, conquered, colonized, assimilated, or otherwise brought to heel a great number of places occupied by people who were not Russians. Russians built this empire for different reasons at different times; it grew and (especially recently) it shrank. But it was always there, and still is. Kivelson and Suny convincingly argue that nothing about Russia—past or present—can really be understood outside the context of Russia as an empire. Listen in to our lively conversation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Names can be deceiving. Americans call the area where Moscow’s writ runs “Russia.” But the official name of this place is the “Russian Federation.” Federation of what, you ask? Well, there are a lot of people who live in “Russia” who are in important senses not Russians. There are Ingush, Buryats, Chechens, Mordvinians, Tatars, and many others. Russia, then, is a “Federation” of Russians and non-Russians. But even that’s not quite right. As Valerie Kivelson and Ronald Suny point out in their excellent book Russia’s Empires (Oxford University Press, 2016), Russia is really an empire, and has long been. Since the 16th century, Moscow has gathered, conquered, colonized, assimilated, or otherwise brought to heel a great number of places occupied by people who were not Russians. Russians built this empire for different reasons at different times; it grew and (especially recently) it shrank. But it was always there, and still is. Kivelson and Suny convincingly argue that nothing about Russia—past or present—can really be understood outside the context of Russia as an empire. Listen in to our lively conversation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Names can be deceiving. Americans call the area where Moscow’s writ runs “Russia.” But the official name of this place is the “Russian Federation.” Federation of what, you ask? Well, there are a lot of people who live in “Russia” who are in important senses not Russians. There are Ingush, Buryats, Chechens, Mordvinians, Tatars, and many others. Russia, then, is a “Federation” of Russians and non-Russians. But even that’s not quite right. As Valerie Kivelson and Ronald Suny point out in their excellent book Russia’s Empires (Oxford University Press, 2016), Russia is really an empire, and has long been. Since the 16th century, Moscow has gathered, conquered, colonized, assimilated, or otherwise brought to heel a great number of places occupied by people who were not Russians. Russians built this empire for different reasons at different times; it grew and (especially recently) it shrank. But it was always there, and still is. Kivelson and Suny convincingly argue that nothing about Russia—past or present—can really be understood outside the context of Russia as an empire. Listen in to our lively conversation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Names can be deceiving. Americans call the area where Moscow’s writ runs “Russia.” But the official name of this place is the “Russian Federation.” Federation of what, you ask? Well, there are a lot of people who live in “Russia” who are in important senses not Russians. There are Ingush,... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Names can be deceiving. Americans call the area where Moscow’s writ runs “Russia.” But the official name of this place is the “Russian Federation.” Federation of what, you ask? Well, there are a lot of people who live in “Russia” who are in important senses not Russians. There are Ingush, Buryats, Chechens, Mordvinians, Tatars, and many others. Russia, then, is a “Federation” of Russians and non-Russians. But even that’s not quite right. As Valerie Kivelson and Ronald Suny point out in their excellent book Russia’s Empires (Oxford University Press, 2016), Russia is really an empire, and has long been. Since the 16th century, Moscow has gathered, conquered, colonized, assimilated, or otherwise brought to heel a great number of places occupied by people who were not Russians. Russians built this empire for different reasons at different times; it grew and (especially recently) it shrank. But it was always there, and still is. Kivelson and Suny convincingly argue that nothing about Russia—past or present—can really be understood outside the context of Russia as an empire. Listen in to our lively conversation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Names can be deceiving. Americans call the area where Moscow's writ runs “Russia.” But the official name of this place is the “Russian Federation.” Federation of what, you ask? Well, there are a lot of people who live in “Russia” who are in important senses not Russians. There are Ingush, Buryats, Chechens, Mordvinians, Tatars, and many others. Russia, then, is a “Federation” of Russians and non-Russians. But even that's not quite right. As Valerie Kivelson and Ronald Suny point out in their excellent book Russia's Empires (Oxford University Press, 2016), Russia is really an empire, and has long been. Since the 16th century, Moscow has gathered, conquered, colonized, assimilated, or otherwise brought to heel a great number of places occupied by people who were not Russians. Russians built this empire for different reasons at different times; it grew and (especially recently) it shrank. But it was always there, and still is. Kivelson and Suny convincingly argue that nothing about Russia—past or present—can really be understood outside the context of Russia as an empire. Listen in to our lively conversation.

This week marked the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Approximately 1.5 million people died at the hands of the ottoman Turks. Almost as tragic as the event itself, is the fact that for the past century, many countries have refused to acknowledge that this was in fact a genocide. That stance is changing. Libby is joined by Armenian historian and author, Ronald Suny to talk about it.Plus , It was budget week both provincially and federally. The federal budget brought changes for Zoomers that CARP has been advocating for years. Libby takes a look at the impact of these new rules with accountant Lorne Lebow, partner at Stern Cohen. 

This week marked the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Approximately 1.5 million people died at the hands of the ottoman Turks. Almost as tragic as the event itself, is the fact that for the past century, many countries have refused to acknowledge that this was in fact a genocide. That stance is changing. Libby is joined by Armenian historian and author, Ronald Suny to talk about it.Plus , It was budget week both provincially and federally. The federal budget brought changes for Zoomers that CARP has been advocating for years. Libby takes a look at the impact of these new rules with accountant Lorne Lebow, partner at Stern Cohen.

Hitler famously said about the Armenian genocide “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” For much of the last 75 years, few people did in fact speak of it.  When they did, the discussion largely revolved around the question of whether the killing deserved the label of genocide.  Scholarly analysis did exist.  But, in the public mind, it was largely swallowed up in a bitter debate about how to label, remember and interpret these events.  Tuning out the vitriolic rhetoric, many of my students thought about Armenia only in the context of the lessons Hitler apparently drew from it. This has gradually begun to change as historians and social scientists such as Taner Akça and Vahakn Dadrian have turned their attention to Armenia.  The book that forms the subject of today's interview–A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire (Oxford University Press, 2011), edited by Ronald Suny, Fatma Müge Göçek, and Norman Naimark– is an outstanding example of this new scholarship.  All three have a deep and long-lasting engagement with the subject and have played an important role in creating a dispassionate dialogue about the genocide. A Question of Genocide forms one of the important outcomes of this dialogue.  Its essays are  models of careful analysis and research.  Rather than attempting to present a complete narrative of events, they engage specific locations, questions or subjects.  They demand careful attention and reflection.   But, put together, they offer an excellent synopsis of the state of research and opinion on the period and subject.

Hitler famously said about the Armenian genocide “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” For much of the last 75 years, few people did in fact speak of it.  When they did, the discussion largely revolved around the question of whether the killing deserved the label of genocide.  Scholarly analysis did exist.  But, in the public mind, it was largely swallowed up in a bitter debate about how to label, remember and interpret these events.  Tuning out the vitriolic rhetoric, many of my students thought about Armenia only in the context of the lessons Hitler apparently drew from it. This has gradually begun to change as historians and social scientists such as Taner Akça and Vahakn Dadrian have turned their attention to Armenia.  The book that forms the subject of today’s interview–A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire (Oxford University Press, 2011), edited by Ronald Suny, Fatma Müge Göçek, and Norman Naimark– is an outstanding example of this new scholarship.  All three have a deep and long-lasting engagement with the subject and have played an important role in creating a dispassionate dialogue about the genocide. A Question of Genocide forms one of the important outcomes of this dialogue.  Its essays are  models of careful analysis and research.  Rather than attempting to present a complete narrative of events, they engage specific locations, questions or subjects.  They demand careful attention and reflection.   But, put together, they offer an excellent synopsis of the state of research and opinion on the period and subject. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hitler famously said about the Armenian genocide “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” For much of the last 75 years, few people did in fact speak of it.  When they did, the discussion largely revolved around the question of whether the killing deserved the label of genocide.  Scholarly analysis did exist.  But, in the public mind, it was largely swallowed up in a bitter debate about how to label, remember and interpret these events.  Tuning out the vitriolic rhetoric, many of my students thought about Armenia only in the context of the lessons Hitler apparently drew from it. This has gradually begun to change as historians and social scientists such as Taner Akça and Vahakn Dadrian have turned their attention to Armenia.  The book that forms the subject of today’s interview–A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire (Oxford University Press, 2011), edited by Ronald Suny, Fatma Müge Göçek, and Norman Naimark– is an outstanding example of this new scholarship.  All three have a deep and long-lasting engagement with the subject and have played an important role in creating a dispassionate dialogue about the genocide. A Question of Genocide forms one of the important outcomes of this dialogue.  Its essays are  models of careful analysis and research.  Rather than attempting to present a complete narrative of events, they engage specific locations, questions or subjects.  They demand careful attention and reflection.   But, put together, they offer an excellent synopsis of the state of research and opinion on the period and subject. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hitler famously said about the Armenian genocide “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” For much of the last 75 years, few people did in fact speak of it.  When they did, the discussion largely revolved around the question of whether the killing deserved the label of genocide.  Scholarly analysis did exist.  But, in the public mind, it was largely swallowed up in a bitter debate about how to label, remember and interpret these events.  Tuning out the vitriolic rhetoric, many of my students thought about Armenia only in the context of the lessons Hitler apparently drew from it. This has gradually begun to change as historians and social scientists such as Taner Akça and Vahakn Dadrian have turned their attention to Armenia.  The book that forms the subject of today’s interview–A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire (Oxford University Press, 2011), edited by Ronald Suny, Fatma Müge Göçek, and Norman Naimark– is an outstanding example of this new scholarship.  All three have a deep and long-lasting engagement with the subject and have played an important role in creating a dispassionate dialogue about the genocide. A Question of Genocide forms one of the important outcomes of this dialogue.  Its essays are  models of careful analysis and research.  Rather than attempting to present a complete narrative of events, they engage specific locations, questions or subjects.  They demand careful attention and reflection.   But, put together, they offer an excellent synopsis of the state of research and opinion on the period and subject. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hitler famously said about the Armenian genocide “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” For much of the last 75 years, few people did in fact speak of it.  When they did, the discussion largely revolved around the question of whether the killing deserved the label of genocide.  Scholarly analysis did exist.  But, in the public mind, it was largely swallowed up in a bitter debate about how to label, remember and interpret these events.  Tuning out the vitriolic rhetoric, many of my students thought about Armenia only in the context of the lessons Hitler apparently drew from it. This has gradually begun to change as historians and social scientists such as Taner Akça and Vahakn Dadrian have turned their attention to Armenia.  The book that forms the subject of today’s interview–A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire (Oxford University Press, 2011), edited by Ronald Suny, Fatma Müge Göçek, and Norman Naimark– is an outstanding example of this new scholarship.  All three have a deep and long-lasting engagement with the subject and have played an important role in creating a dispassionate dialogue about the genocide. A Question of Genocide forms one of the important outcomes of this dialogue.  Its essays are  models of careful analysis and research.  Rather than attempting to present a complete narrative of events, they engage specific locations, questions or subjects.  They demand careful attention and reflection.   But, put together, they offer an excellent synopsis of the state of research and opinion on the period and subject. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices