BOOK REVIEW – Timothy Snyder, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (2010) – This is the book
Timothy Snyder, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (2010) – This is the book • What is the main argument of the book? • What scholarly debates or conversations is the author contributing to? • How does the author construct the argument? What are the main points they put forward, and how are these points structured? • What sources does the author use? • What are your opinions of the book? Are the arguments effective or convincing? Are there any questions which you think it doesn’t effectively address? Do you disagree with any of the conclusions? Where does it stand in relation to the views of other historians you have studied on the course? Does it succeed in advancing the scholarly debate?[unique_solution]
Timothy Snyder, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (2010) – This is the book • What is the main argument of the book? • What scholarly debates or conversations is the author contributing to? • How does the author construct the argument? What are the main points they put forward, and how are these points structured? • What sources does the author use? • What are your opinions of the book? Are the arguments effective or convincing? Are there any questions which you think it doesn’t effectively address? Do you disagree with any of the conclusions? Where does it stand in relation to the views of other historians you have studied on the course? Does it succeed in advancing the scholarly debate?