Focusing on the choices and actions of Jews during the Holocaust; Ordinary Jews examines the different patterns of behavior of civilians targeted by mass violence. Relying on rich archival material and hundreds of survivors' testimonies; Evgeny Finkel presents a new framework for understanding the survival strategies in which Jews engaged: cooperation and collaboration; coping and compliance; evasion; and resistance. Finkel compares Jews' behavior in three Jewish ghettos--Minsk; Kraków; and Białystok--and shows that Jews' responses to Nazi genocide varied based on their experiences with prewar policies that either promoted or discouraged their integration into non-Jewish society. Finkel demonstrates that while possible survival strategies were the same for everyone; individuals' choices varied across and within communities. In more cohesive and robust Jewish communities; coping--confronting the danger and trying to survive without leaving--was more organized and successful; while collaboration with the Nazis and attempts to escape the ghetto were minimal. In more heterogeneous Jewish communities; collaboration with the Nazis was more pervasive; while coping was disorganized. In localities with a history of peaceful interethnic relations; evasion was more widespread than in places where interethnic relations were hostile. State repression before WWII; to which local communities were subject; determined the viability of anti-Nazi Jewish resistance.Exploring the critical influences shaping the decisions made by Jews in Nazi-occupied eastern Europe; Ordinary Jews sheds new light on the dynamics of collective violence and genocide.
#370071 in Books 2015-03-29Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 8.40 x 1.10 x 5.50l; .0 #File Name: 0691165866408 pages
Review
18 of 19 people found the following review helpful. Partnership Ends Where Conflicts of Interest AriseBy Leonard J. WilsonThe Limits of Partnership by Angela Stent describes the history of US-Russian relations from the demise of the USSR in 1991 to the present. It provides a useful sequel; with a bit of overlap; to Jack Matlock’s Autopsy on an Empire which covers US-Soviet relations from 1985 to 1992.I was fortunate to have read The Limits of Partnership just before the Ukrainian situation heated up in late February 2014. Dr Stent describes US-Russian relations as having undergone four "resets"; none of which worked for very long:1. 1992: GHW Bush attempts to adjust to the demise of the USSR and to Boris Yeltsin’s leadership of Russia but is voted out of office before making much progress.2. 1993: Clinton tries to team up with Yeltsin. Yeltsin's erratic policy changes and declining health doom this effort.3. 2001: Putin calls GW Bush immediately after 9/11 and offers his support. Putin seeks to make Russia an equal partner with the US; but ends up feeling that his offer was not taken seriously.4. 2009: Obama seeks another reset in the aftermath of Russia's war with Georgia.From a Russian perspective; the most significant aspect of US-Russian relations has been the expansion of NATO. Since the demise of the Soviet Union; NATO's eastern border has moved ever closer to Moscow. Following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989; the Soviet Union and Russia had the strong impression (promise may be too strong a word) that NATO would not expand eastward.1. Having just escaped from Soviet control; the Poles; Czechs; and other former members of the Warsaw Pact desperately wanted US assurance that they would not be re-occupied by Russia. NATO membership was really the only tangible way of providing that assurance.2. Next came NATO membership for the three Baltic states; all former Soviet Republics. Here again; membership could be justified since the US had always refused to recognize the Soviet occupation of these countries in 1939 under the Ribbentrop-Molotov Non-Aggression Treaty.3. Finally; the US supported the color revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine; and spoke encouragingly of NATO membership for these historically Russian-controlled areas. Russia has pushed back with its war with Georgia and occupation of Crimea.My point in describing NATO’s progressive expansion is to demonstrate that there are profound geopolitical conflicts between the national interests of Russia and the US. Partnership can go only as far as a congruence of national interests allows. Beyond that point; diplomacy; conflict management; and compromise must come into play.1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Phenomenal overview of Relations between the two countries since the Cold War has endedBy Julian DouglassPhenomenal overview of relations between the two countries since the Cold War has ended. Professor Stent carefully draws the major shifts in the relations between the two countries and spells out what can be done to improve them. One of the major themes that the book spells out is the difference in mentalities of the leaders from the generations that they came from. She describes Bush (both of them) and Clinton as having a Cold War mentality even though the era is over; while Obama and Medvedev were of a new generation. Professor Stent poses the question; although not explicitly; is do the conflicting mentalities of Obama and Putin have anything to do with the struggles of today? Big Questions to ask considering who is coming in to the White House. Good book to reference anytime Russia comes into question in the news.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Highly recommendedBy LauraThis is one of the most concise; yet highly readable; books on post-Soviet Russia that I have read. Stent does a great job tracing the motivations and expectations of both sides in a balanced way and highlighting the sources of seemingly unresolvable tensions in the relationship. Unlike a lot of other sources on this topic; this book is not dry at all and was a very enjoyable and informative read.
