NationStates Jolt Archive

On the so-called 'Holodomore' 75th anniversary I would like make a tribute here in NSG to it, in order to correctly expose this myth as the piece of Nazi anti-communist propaganda which it truly is, and was then eventually exported to America as a tool of upper-class domination.

This book documents how and why fraudulent stories about the Ukrainian famine of the 1930s made the presses worldwide and have become accepted as fact by almost everyone, despite the fact that they are provably false. The stories of millions of deaths caused by famine in Ukraine in 1933 and 1934, supposedly caused by the effects of the Soviet system, were fabricated by Nazi propagandists in their propaganda campaigns against Bolshevism. The spread of these stories to America took route through the presses of William Randolph Hearst, who has also since been proven, as I have documented on this website, to have been working in collaboration with the Nazis and publishing Nazi propaganda in mainstream American publications throughout the later half of the 1930s and into the 1940s.

These fabrications, which are well documented in this book, have become almost completely accepted as facts by Americans, and these fabrications have been repeatedly used, and are still used, by politicians despite the fact that they are provably false and were provably produced by a Nazi conspirator. The fact that William Randolph Hearst was conspiring with the Nazis during the 1930s is proven outside of this book, and is a part of official American government record, yet his fabricated publications about the Ukrainian famine are still referenced as fact today.

This book does not claim that no famine took place in Ukraine, or that there were not hardships related to the collectivization programs of the Soviets. The book is an examination of the stories published about the famine that did take place, and how those stories became politicized.

http://rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm

Lies about the collectivization have always been, for the bourgeoisie, powerful weapons in the psychological war against the Soviet Union.

We analyze the development of one of the most `popular' lies, the holocaust supposedly perpetrated by Stalin against the Ukrainian people. This brilliantly elaborated lie was created by Hitler. In his 1926 Mein Kampf, he had already indicated that Ukraine belonged to German `lebensraum'. The campaign waged by the Nazis in 1934--1935 about the Bolshevik `genocide' in Ukraine was to prepare people's minds for the planned `liberation' of Ukraine. We will see why this lie outlived its Nazi creators to become a U.S. weapon. Here are how fabrications of `millions of victims of Stalinism' are born.

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

Even if it's not a holocaust or genocide, the fact still stands that Stalin willingly murdered untold millions with the idiotic policy of collectivization, which he continued to force through despite the massive amount of evidence to the contrary that clearly showed it was doing nothing but annihilating the Soviet Union's agricultural base. This was the man who had people's reputations, and later their lives, destroyed because they realized the foolishness of the quack Lysenko and the damage he posed to agriculture and agricultural science.

Collectivization simply did not work, end of story. Agriculture in the USSR was so badly savaged by the policy that it took years for it to recover to pre-collectivization levels, and even then remained so dysfunctional and inefficient that Soviet food supplies lagged far behind the levels of other countries, even other Communist states that had deferred or otherwise limited the extent of collective farming. The sheer economic, environmental, and social cost of this policy is so great it rivals any civil war, and its effects will last far longer.

It might not have been intentional genocide, but that does not excuse Stalin in the slightest. Murder by willful negligence is murder all the same.

Please keep posting, it certainly shows you have not read my links, which clearly address and indeed refute you're claims.

Please keep posting, it certainly shows you have not read my links, which clearly address and indeed refute you're claims.

Really? It pretty distinctly says that they do not deny the famines, just the genocide.

I don't think anyone can honestly deny the death, suffering, and destruction caused by collectivization, but whether it was genocide or simply the natural outcome of Stalinist tyranny, another step in the same process of mass murder and terror wrought by his regime is a whole other issue. Genocide or not, collectivization was a disaster, and Stalin is entirely guilty for not taking responsibility for his actions and instead allowing those people to starve and die.

Nobody can argue this fact, especially people who actually lived in the USSR and saw its effects firsthand, and you'd have to search pretty hard to find someone who supported the collective farms. That was the one part of the system that evoked a strong, widespread disdain, and for good reason.

I know I sound stupid, but what exactly is collectivization? I have heard of it, but don't really know anything. If anyone has links that are better than wiki, I'd be happy to see them. Otherwise, I'll just read wiki while waiting for a detailed/biased explanation from someone.

I know I sound stupid, but what exactly is collectivization? I have heard of it, but don't really know anything. If anyone has links that are better than wiki, I'd be happy to see them. Otherwise, I'll just read wiki while waiting for a detailed/biased explanation from someone.

Collectivization was the process by which the Soviet government reorganized the farm structure, eliminating most private agricultural property and pooling it together in to state-run and state-managed farms of various sizes and operating procedures. Basically, they redistributed land formerly belonging to individuals and instead had all of the farmers work on the collective farms, pooling resources and labor as a way of (theoretically) optimizing agricultural output while simultaneously abolishing most private property. Collectives also allowed the state to ensure equal access to scarce supplies of machinery, chemicals, fertilizers and tools, much of which were too expensive for poor peasants to afford on their own. However, it was not very efficient, and as a result the country depended on private plots for a massively disproportionate amount of foodstuffs and food products.

It's important to note, however, that the share of inefficiency stemming from the farms and the amount stemming from the higher levels is generally unknown; there were many cases of produce rotting or otherwise being lost due to problems ranging from shortages of storage silos to delays in receiving central Gosplan orders from Moscow. However, it's clear that the farms were significantly underproductive compared to the private plots even before losses due to supply chain issues.

Nice historical Vetalia.

Nice historical Vetalia.

The Soviet Union is one of my main historical interests, although I tend to be more interested in the postwar period than the 1920's or 1930's.

...


It sounds pretty good theoretically, but not fun to organize.

It sounds pretty good theoretically, but not fun to organize.

Well, there were some voluntary collective farms, but one of the biggest problems was that the land taken had been redistributed to the peasants in the first place following the Revolution. It wasn't the feudal landowners of the czarist era that owned the land, or even the kulaks, but primarily poor, previously landless peasants that owned small plots.

Had the Soviets gone from the feudal system of the czar to collective farms, it might have been far more successful (although the extent of success in the rest of the USSR, especially the Asian republics, is unknown), but instead they made the mistake of giving the peasants land and then taking it away, effectively forcing them back in to a landless state even if it were an improvement over the feudal conditions many had experienced prior to the revolution.

As my second link indicated, most of the inefficiency came from the ad hoc nature of the agrarian collectivization, rather than the misconception of the all powerful central 'bureaucracy' controlling the collectivization; the truth is more of a local based soviet process and spontaneous mass-movement. Even if you don't believe this from my source the facts of the Soviet Union at that time clearly indicate the technological stage of the USSR at that time simply couldn't have produced that level of centralism.

The capitalist propaganda also likes to ignore how the wealthy Kulaks withheld food from the people to speculate on higher prices, and operate a capitalist market, which severely worsened the famine. The defeat of the Kulaks was literally an economic civil war between the capitalist elite of Ukraine and the socialists.

Well, there were some voluntary collective farms, but one of the biggest problems was that the land taken had been redistributed to the peasants in the first place following the Revolution. It wasn't the feudal landowners of the czarist era that owned the land, or even the kulaks, but primarily poor, previously landless peasants that owned small plots.

Had the Soviets gone from the feudal system of the czar to collective farms, it might have been far more successful (although the extent of success in the rest of the USSR, especially the Asian republics, is unknown), but instead they made the mistake of giving the peasants land and then taking it away, effectively forcing them back in to a landless state even if it were an improvement over the feudal conditions many had experienced prior to the revolution.
Yes I agree, the NEP was a mistake of Lenin, which is why Stalin abolished it.

Yes I agree, the NEP was a mistake of Lenin, which is why Stalin abolished it.

I cannot agree. The NEP had one huge advantage over both War Communism (which it replaced) and Collectivization: it worked better.

The NEP wasn't eliminated in order to replace it with a better system; it was eliminated because it was anti-doctrinal. That's Bolshevik doctrine, btw, not socialist doctrine - much of the NEP was organized at the village level, and by quite democratic and equalitive methods. Under the NEP, sufficient food and agricultural product was available for the Soviet Union to begin exporting to friendly neighbours, bringing in foreign currency and propping up the value of the Ruble, making the purchase of foreig equipment (necessary after the destruction of much of the USSR's nascent industrial power had been destroyed during the Civil War).

The problem was, many of the Bolshevik branch of the party were centralists, including Stalin. This can be seen in the erosion of the Worker's Soviets' powers and their gradual elimination (particularly, but not exclusively, during the five-year plans). They used the success and relative wealth of the more successful NEP operating farms as an excuse to Collectivize them, calling the wealthier peasents "Kulaks" (inaccurately - this was specific term for a wealthy peasent under Tsarist rule) and "NEPmen".

It's not fully clear how much Stalin supported this policy, but he clearly didn't do anything to prevent it.

Murder by willful negligence is murder all the same.It's called manslaughter, actually...

Erm, no.

You've posted from that source before and it's bullshit. You used to be funny, EA. What happened?

Crazy! The Nazis didn't just make up ONE holocaust...they made up TWO!

Those silly Nazis...wonder what they would have thought up next...

Crazy! The Nazis didn't just make up ONE holocaust...they made up TWO!

Those silly Nazis...wonder what they would have thought up next...Helicopters and cruise missiles.

Helicopters and cruise missiles.

And Nazi porn.

Even if you don’t believe this from my source the facts of the Soviet Union at that time clearly indicate the technological stage of the USSR at that time simply couldn’t have produced that level of centralism.
I can understand your need to deny genocide and famine, but denying centralisation and bureaucracy I just don’t get.

You can’t examine any aspect of the USSR without coming across the two; they permeated the whole system. They’re as much a part of the history of the Soviet Union as propaganda and queuing.

Nah, Commie Nazis!

http://www.supersimpsons.com/mcbain.jpg

On the so-called 'Holodomore' 75th anniversary I would like make a tribute here in NSG to it, in order to correctly expose this myth as the piece of Nazi anti-communist propaganda which it truly is, and was then eventually exported to America as a tool of upper-class domination.

I once read an interview of a Ukrainian man who fought during the "Great Patriotic War". This was years ago, but he talked pretty extensively about the famines the Ukraine was suffering from and how, when he returned, he had to fight his way through bread lines.

If the USSR was such a blast, why did it fall?

Crazy! The Nazis didn't just make up ONE holocaust...they made up TWO!

Those silly Nazis...wonder what they would have thought up next...
It's not so much what they would have thought up but what they did think up. Such as their Antarctic base. (http://crashrecovery.org/OMEGA-FILE/omega2.htm) And even their Moon base. (http://www.subversiveelement.com/UFO_German_Moon_Base.html) Those naughty Nazis!

And Nazi porn.Nonono. The Nazis were prudes.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13333913']It's not so much what they would have thought up but what they did think up. Such as their Antarctic base. (http://crashrecovery.org/OMEGA-FILE/omega2.htm) And even their Moon base. (http://www.subversiveelement.com/UFO_German_Moon_Base.html) Those naughty Nazis!Oh dear:
The historical facts are evident. Beginning in 1838, long before the end of the Second World War, the Nazi's commenced to send out numerous exploratory missions to the Queen Maud region of Antarctica. Not just long before the end of the war, long before the Nazi party itself, not to mention Germany.

Eureka, I've met many crazy people here, but you take the prize for "Most deluded communist"
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/ukra.html
This is like being a holocaust denier.

Still attempting to deny Stalin's evils, I see.

Still attempting to deny Stalin's evils, I see.

IT"S ALL A LIE PROPAGATED BY CAPITALIST-RACIST-FASCIST-IMPERIALIST SCUMBAGS!!!!!

Utter rubbish. The Holodor was mass murder in an attempt to break the will of the Ukranian population and impose the will of the USSR on them.

Considering EA's lack of replies to his last thread like his - a less than masterful defense of Stalin - I doubt he'll come back now he's been criticized.

Thanks! I knew there were Holocaust deniers, but not Holodomore deniers, and now I know.

Lets start with the author, Douglas Tottle. Why should I trust a non-historian to produce an historical work?

For a run down of the problems with the book's historical accuracy:
http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/serbyn4.htm

IT"S ALL A LIE PROPAGATED BY CAPITALIST-RACIST-FASCIST-IMPERIALIST SCUMBAGS!!!!!

You forgot ZIONIST :)

This doesn't even make sense. If the Nazis really wanted to embarrass the Russians, they would have spread propaganda about how few people the government had killed.

It's called manslaughter, actually...

I'd say given the fact that Stalin not only orchestrated it but condoned its effects, it's not hard to label it as murder.

coming from the common right-wing loons on NSG.

Those being everyone but you?

:rolleyes:

I'd say given the fact that Stalin not only orchestrated it but condoned its effects, it's not hard to label it as murder.

Murder of White fascists, kulak capitalists and other class criminals? You aren't serious are you, my sources refute the death of innocents, not the deserved deaths of bourgeois slime.

If the USSR was such a blast, why did it fall?
Krushevite/Breshnevite revisionism and state capitalism after the death of Stalin, which you yourself could have answered, plus the Holodomor lies, if you read my sources, sources which are far more historically accurates and truthful (which you will discover if you read them) than the anti-communist tripe coming from the common right-wing loons on NSG.

Those being everyone but you?

:rolleyes:
No. Those who through a combination of cognitive dissonance and slavish McCarthyism refuse to accept truth even when it's well sourced and accurate right under their noses. These people it seems would rather believe Nazi conspiracy theorists than objective analysis and fact.

No. Those who through a combination of cognitive dissonance and slavish McCarthyism refuse to accept truth even when it's well sourced and accurate right under their noses.

Again... everyone but you. Do you see anyone else here defending your argument?

But I guess all of us are just "right-wing loons"... somehow....

*wonders where his framed picture of Ronald Reagan went*

EA, there are a few communists, several socialist and a lot of left-wing people on these boards. There are several right-wing and several in between and undefined as well.

However, no one can agree with your stalinist revionist bullshit, because that's exactly what it is.

Happy new year though ;)

On the so-called 'Holodomore' 75th anniversary I would like make a tribute here in NSG to it, in order to correctly expose this myth as the piece of Nazi anti-communist propaganda which it truly is, and was then eventually exported to America as a tool of upper-class domination.


Well the second book is a high quality source of information regarding Stalin and its truthfulness speaks for itself.

Such as the section on the Warsaw rising in Aug 1944
If the Red army was so exhausted after its push into Poland , why did Stalin refuse permission for the RAF/USAF to land and refuel in eastern Poland while doing supply drops to the forces fighting the Germans in Warsaw.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, but not when he's Polish by all accounts

Why dont you read the accounts from the gulags instead, or the accounts of those poor red army soliders forced to surrender to nazi germany, used as slave labour by the nazi's, killed by the million by the nazi's, then the survivors were sent to the gulags as traitors when the war ended.

That was the reality of Stalin's rule , not some fawning document that reads worse than the North Korean news agency

Murder of White fascists, kulak capitalists and other class criminals? You aren't serious are you, my sources refute the death of innocents, not the deserved deaths of bourgeois slime.
I am thoroughly disturbed by this statement. Apparently, 10% of the Ukrainian population at that time were bourgeois slime and therefore deserved to die. I don't know what to call advocating or praising a murder of a certain group but genocide. If there is another term for that, please tell me.

*wonders where his framed picture of Ronald Reagan went*
This yours?

This yours?

Fuck, I'm still astonished that I managed to type that, even in jest.

This yours?

Naw, it's mine. Don't know why the wife put it in the dumpster...:D

Fuck, I'm still astonished that I managed to type that, even in jest.

Naw, it's mine. Don't know why the wife put it in the dumpster...:D
Oh. *reads label at the back of frame* "This belongs to: S-O-H-E-R-A-N". Fall of Empire, I think this is yours. :D

Oh, I found these with a pack of cookies. Cookies, anyone?

I'm no fan of Stalin, but his crimes are too often exaggerated and his merits are too often ignored. Everyone seems to think that Stalin was either a hero or a monster. Am I the only one who thinks he was just about okay-ish?

I'm no fan of Stalin, but his crimes are too often exaggerated and his merits are too often ignored. Everyone seems to think that Stalin was either a hero or a monster. Am I the only one who thinks he was just about okay-ish?

No, any reasonable viewing of the evidence shows that Stalin did actually do some good. He was largely responsible for modernization and industrialization in the 1930s (building on Lenin's NEP, which provided a reasonable basis for growth), he did an absolutely brilliant job rallying the Soviet citizenry during WWII, and his foreign policy was quite inspired - if entirely opportunistic.

The problem is, he also forced many nations into socialist governments they neither desired nor needed, oppressed minorities, murdered millions, and was directly responsible for setting up a political system that could not adjust sufficiently to survive in the long term. His bad acts massively outweigh his good ones.

Stalin was a dick. That truth, if anything, is self-evident.

No, any reasonable viewing of the evidence shows that Stalin did actually do some good. He was largely responsible for modernization and industrialization in the 1930s (building on Lenin's NEP, which provided a reasonable basis for growth), he did an absolutely brilliant job rallying the Soviet citizenry during WWII, and his foreign policy was quite inspired - if entirely opportunistic.

The problem is, he also forced many nations into socialist governments they neither desired nor needed, oppressed minorities, murdered millions, and was directly responsible for setting up a political system that could not adjust sufficiently to survive in the long term. His bad acts massively outweigh his good ones.
I believe Stalin did a massive amount of good to the world, albeit indirectly and unintentionally. The existence of the Soviet Union was the single greatest reason why left-wing and progressive politics had any success at all in the 20th century. The threat of communist revolution - made credible by the Soviet example - scared the ruling classes into accepting limited social programs, welfare, social security, universal health care, and everything we call social democracy today. Moreover, the Allied victory in World War II - again made possible by Stalin and the Soviet Union - ended the Great Depression and paved the way for a period of unprecedented prosperity (and unprecedented success for center-left politics) in the West in the post-war era. The same Allied victory also led to decolonization and the indepedence of much of Africa and Asia.

In other words, in a bizarre twist of fate, most people in the West owe their prosperity to Stalin and most people in the Third World owe their countries' independence to Stalin. Of course, Stalin himself never intended any of that, but such is his legacy nonetheless.

This is all on top of Stalin's merits in industrializing the Soviet Union, developing its economy to the point where it was the second-largest in the world, and greatly improving the standards of living of the average Soviet citizen.

Yes, he was also a bloody tyrant who killed millions and oppressed tens of millions more, who destroyed the USSR's chances of developing a proper socialist economy, created a system that eventually led to his country's downfall, and crippled the international communist movement.

But I think his positive achievements are just about enough to balance out his crimes, so my overall opinion of him is ambivalent.

(and yes, he was very much a dick)

I believe Stalin did a massive amount of good to the world, albeit indirectly and unintentionally. The existence of the Soviet Union was the single greatest reason why left-wing and progressive politics had any success at all in the 20th century. The threat of communist revolution - made credible by the Soviet example - scared the ruling classes into accepting limited social programs, welfare, social security, universal health care, and everything we call social democracy today. Moreover, the Allied victory in World War II - again made possible by Stalin and the Soviet Union - ended the Great Depression and paved the way for a period of unprecedented prosperity (and unprecedented success for center-left politics) in the West in the post-war era. The same Allied victory also led to decolonization and the indepedence of much of Africa and Asia.

In other words, in a bizarre twist of fate, most people in the West owe their prosperity to Stalin and most people in the Third World owe their countries' independence to Stalin. Of course, Stalin himself never intended any of that, but such is his legacy nonetheless.

This is all on top of Stalin's merits in industrializing the Soviet Union, developing its economy to the point where it was the second-largest in the world, and greatly improving the standards of living of the average Soviet citizen.

Yes, he was also a bloody tyrant who killed millions and oppressed tens of millions more, who destroyed the USSR's chances of developing a proper socialist economy, created a system that eventually led to his country's downfall, and crippled the international communist movement.

But I think his positive achievements are just about enough to balance out his crimes, so my overall opinion of him is ambivalent.

(and yes, he was very much a dick)

Russia industrialized in spite of, rather than because of Stalin's "reforms"

He also was responsible for killing 4 of my relatives whne he invaded Poland in his pact with Hitler.

Eureka Australis, you lose your argument before you even get a chance to retort because you failed to include the right time period. The correct date is 1932-1933, not '33-'34, as you indicated in the quoted segments.

Also, it's called "Stalin's Forced Famine" because the people were forced into collectivism, and forced to give up their crops. Collectivism itself was not responsible for the famine, I will agree with you on that, but the policies behind it were. The fact that people had their food taken from them caused it.

You have also omitted the fact that despite there being a famine, the USSR at the time denied it and wouldn't accept help from the western world. The USSR allowed for the famine to continue, making it forced on two fronts; first because there was aid that was denied and secondly because the food grown was taken from the farmers as punishment because of the resistance of the population to becoming part of the USSR.

I believe Stalin did a massive amount of good to the world, albeit indirectly and unintentionally. The existence of the Soviet Union was the single greatest reason why left-wing and progressive politics had any success at all in the 20th century. The threat of communist revolution - made credible by the Soviet example - scared the ruling classes into accepting limited social programs, welfare, social security, universal health care, and everything we call social democracy today. Moreover, the Allied victory in World War II - again made possible by Stalin and the Soviet Union - ended the Great Depression and paved the way for a period of unprecedented prosperity (and unprecedented success for center-left politics) in the West in the post-war era. The same Allied victory also led to decolonization and the indepedence of much of Africa and Asia.

In other words, in a bizarre twist of fate, most people in the West owe their prosperity to Stalin and most people in the Third World owe their countries' independence to Stalin. Of course, Stalin himself never intended any of that, but such is his legacy nonetheless.

This is all on top of Stalin's merits in industrializing the Soviet Union, developing its economy to the point where it was the second-largest in the world, and greatly improving the standards of living of the average Soviet citizen.

Yes, he was also a bloody tyrant who killed millions and oppressed tens of millions more, who destroyed the USSR's chances of developing a proper socialist economy, created a system that eventually led to his country's downfall, and crippled the international communist movement.

But I think his positive achievements are just about enough to balance out his crimes, so my overall opinion of him is ambivalent.

(and yes, he was very much a dick)

:::::GODWIN WARNING:::::
:::::GODWIN WARNING:::::
:::::GODWIN WARNING:::::

Y'know, it's like saying that Hitler did a lot of good - after all, it was his war that turned Soviet Union a global superpower, thus triggering most of the events you've mentioned. But I think his positive achievements are just about enough to balance out his crimes, so my overall opinion of him is ambivalent.

(and yes, he was very much a dick) :rolleyes:

*snip*
Hitler started the war, but Stalin ended it. Stalin was directly involved in creating the post-war world. Hitler wasn't. So Stalin was the more direct cause of the events I mentioned.

Otherwise you might as well argue that Hitler's mother's father's grandmother was really the source of all the events I mentioned, because she gave birth to a child who had a son who had a daughter who gave birth to Hitler who started World War 2, which led to the Allied victory and all the benefits of the post-war world...

But I see your point. You're saying that Stalin should not be given any merit for the unintended consequences of his actions. Would you argue that no one should ever receive praise or blame for the unintended consequences of their actions?

I love reading these beat down threads. How long will it take AP to realize that his act has grown old?

I love reading these beat down threads. How long will it take AP to realize that his act has grown old?
Oh, you decided to come in, I assume NSG counts as time off from stone throwing at Palestinians?

Oh, you decided to come in, I assume NSG counts as time off from stone throwing at Palestinians?

Please quit with your flaming. I want you to please go back and respond to your Stalin thread from December. There are four pages of posts there ripping your "essay" apart. It is considered good courtesy to go and defend your own "arguments."

Those being everyone but you?

:rolleyes:

Why, yes, Soheran, didn't you know that, as someone who values human life, you are actually a Right-wing Murderous Neo-Nazi Nazi Fifth Columnist Bourgeois Fascist Thug and Traitor(c)?

Please quit with your flaming. I want you to please go back and respond to your Stalin thread from December. There are four pages of posts there ripping your "essay" apart. It is considered good courtesy to go and defend your own "arguments."
Lol, flaming is quite an ironic accusation given that yours and your friends posts in that thread is nothing but complete anti-communist flamebait, I have to keep reminding myself that in America anti-communism is institutionalized. As for the 'responses', they are not even worst mentioning, for as I said most were nothing but one liner comments, and the others infantile 'mainstream line' which is clearly refuted by the work itself. In fact I doubt any of them, including yourself, even read it. You certainly did not 'refute' any of it, rather just make snide responses from out-of-context quotations of it and refused to try and even attempt to deal with it wholly. You certainly didn't, and neither did the other fools with small attention spans.

Why, yes, Soheran, didn't you know that, as someone who values human life, you are actually a Right-wing Murderous Neo-Nazi Nazi Fifth Columnist Bourgeois Fascist Thug and Traitor(c)?

Couldn't you just have put a few more words in? It would have made your post 1 and a half lines, that might be a record for the inept responses to my defense of Stalin. Certainly you'll be tied with IDF.

Couldn't you just have put a few more words in? It would have made your post 1 and a half lines, that might be a record for the inept responses to my defense of Stalin. Certainly you'll be tied with IDF.

Or you could try and reply to posts that are more than that mere one and a half lines. You might get somewhere. Or do the numbers over that one and a half frighten you?

As much as I don't like IDF, he does have a point about your threads and your... how shall we call it... lack of response to more thought provoking arguments to your defence of the USSR and Stalin.

Couldn't you just have put a few more words in? It would have made your post 1 and a half lines, that might be a record for the inept responses to my defense of Stalin. Certainly you'll be tied with IDF.

Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. Your witty retort stung me so bad. Boo-hoo-hoo.


What if I don't feel like validating your pathetic and idiotic arguments with an actual response? Hmmmm? It's rare that I actually agree with Fass, but on this one I do.

Fine then, let's look at this:

You claim that there is a hidden truth about the Soviet Union, that the murderous actions of Stalin were actually non-existent, and all of this is merely a long-perpetuated Nazi lie. But! Rejoice ye worlde! For Andaras Prime has access to the long hidden "secret truth!" Never mind that your arguments revolve around devaluing human life, ad hominem attacks, designed to permit you to discredit mainstream sources, and therefore internally justify your ability to ignore the legitimate criticisms these sources raise about the actions and misdeeds of Soviet Communism in the twentieth century.

Your original post, and the sources provided, make it quite clear that the Ukrainian famines happened. Further, as any anthropologist will tell you, famine is not some sort of natural event, it doesn't just happen: It's driven by policies of the powerholders, in this case, I.V. Stalin, and that they were largely driven by Stalin's policies of agricultural collectivization cannot be called into doubt. The seizure of grain and other agricultural products from people who were visibly starving, under pain of death, by Soviet agents under the orders of Stalin only further condemns what he's done, and shows your sources to be ludicrous in their defense of the actions of the Soviet dictator. Likely, for the primary purpose of extinguishing any of the remaining anti-Russian or anti-Stalin dissent that remained in the Ukraine.

Also, to cite the outstanding Hitlerian claim that the Ukraine "should" belong to Germany as evidence that, somehow, the Holodomor was a fictional Nazi construction is even more tenuous, at best. Lebensraum was not just the Ukraine, but all lands to the East, which were inhabited by Slavs. I fail to see how this invalidates the fairly certain and secure information we have regarding what happened to millions of people in the Ukraine during the Holodomor, as well as other events, such as the Kulak deportations.

Hitler started the war, but Stalin ended it. Stalin was directly involved in creating the post-war world. Hitler wasn't. So Stalin was the more direct cause of the events I mentioned.


I suppose we have Tojo to thank then for involving the US while the rest of Asia was being raped and pillaged?

Sorry, I don't count unintended consequences as balancing factors.

While we're here, let's try some actual neutral sources on for size, mayhaps? I like wikipedia because it is so easily edited, and the crap is weeded out, so the far-right is not going to have much luck propagandizing here. So, try to read these without your knee-jerk N4z1PR0P4g4/\/b4 response. I know it's basic, but basic is what you seem to need, to get out of your fantasy world.


The holodomor, and the people whose lives you so sickeningly devalue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor)
Population Transfer Policies in the USSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union)
Force Settlement Programs in the USSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_settlements_in_the_Soviet_Union)

How about the Kulak deportations? (http://www.jstor.org/view/00376779/di021460/02p03734/0)

And some books you might not enjoy, because they might burst your ideological bubble:

A review of the book "The Ghost of the Executed Engineer (http://www.jstor.org/view/00211753/ap010280/01a00800/0). It's about a highly competent engineer, Peter Palchinsky, who was concerned about the plight of the people during Stalin's rush to industrialization and collectivization. In the end, it was his concerns about the welfare of the common people that got him killed.

[/url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago]I doubt I even need to mention this,[/url] but the Gulag Archipelago, by Solzhenitsyn, cannot be forgotten, the brutality and depravity of the Stalinist regime.

Further, the politicization of non-political elements, such as government criticisms of the work of Shostakovich, reveal that what the Soviet regime wanted to do, more than anything else, was to control information. All types of information, regardless of how innocuous it might be.

I was curious and wanted to find more on this. AP was denying it...

I wonder if he would deny that there were other famines and droughts in the USSR that occurred with almost regular certainty? Of course, most of the other famines and droughts were met with some kind of aid or assistance from the state whereas, this didn't occur with the Holodomor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famines_in_Russia_and_USSR

I know it's Wiki, but it's open and a good place to start.

Anyway, it seems that at the same time that Holodomor occurred, that two other regions in the USSR were suffering from it as well. Kuban and Don were the two other areas, and as many as 40 million were affected. A little fact that was excluded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm

Something else worth noting about this, is that it affected rural Ukraine, leaving the cities relatively free of the affects.

Another wiki article, and it is not bias, as it does present the other side, asking if the Holodomor was indeed genocide or not.

EDIT - Andaluciae, I just realised after making this post that we're on the same page, using at least one of the same links.

Even if it's not a holocaust or genocide, the fact still stands that Stalin willingly murdered untold millions with the idiotic policy of collectivization, which he continued to force through despite the massive amount of evidence to the contrary that clearly showed it was doing nothing but annihilating the Soviet Union's agricultural base. This was the man who had people's reputations, and later their lives, destroyed because they realized the foolishness of the quack Lysenko and the damage he posed to agriculture and agricultural science.

Collectivization simply did not work, end of story. Agriculture in the USSR was so badly savaged by the policy that it took years for it to recover to pre-collectivization levels, and even then remained so dysfunctional and inefficient that Soviet food supplies lagged far behind the levels of other countries, even other Communist states that had deferred or otherwise limited the extent of collective farming. The sheer economic, environmental, and social cost of this policy is so great it rivals any civil war, and its effects will last far longer.

It might not have been intentional genocide, but that does not excuse Stalin in the slightest. Murder by willful negligence is murder all the same.

Please keep posting, it certainly shows you have not read my links, which clearly address and indeed refute you're claims.

Oh, and AP, it's pretty clear that those who dispute your claims don't have a monopoly on short, content free responses. You're pretty damn good at it yourself.

Otherwise you might as well argue that Hitler's mother's father's grandmother was really the source of all the events I mentioned[...]

But I see your point. You're saying that Stalin should not be given any merit for the unintended consequences of his actions. Would you argue that no one should ever receive praise or blame for the unintended consequences of their actions?

Okay, now I see your, yeah, I could have picked a better example. However, though Stalin's actions may have been beneficial in the long run, I'd not say these unintended consequences are to a slightest degree in his favour; I'd consider it a twist of fate, or hand of God turning evil into good, but not something balancing ole' Joe's crimes. I think there's a maximum degree of evilness, which is not to be crossed, if one has to receive praise for good done unintendedly when doing bad. We're not talking about a burglar, who, by triggering the alarm, made the police or whoever arrive just in time to save the landlord from heart attack.

And, by the way:
Moreover, the Allied victory in World War II - again made possible by Stalin and the Soviet Union
Some say Stalin quite actively helped Hitler to be able to start the war. Even before the time of li'l Adi, USSR was a natural ally of shunned by any other European power Germany, and when Hitler began to build up his armies, Stalin let him exercise them upon Russian steppes.

Finally, to ease up: :)

Eureka Australis, Officially Warned for trolling and flaming. Check this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13354895#post13354895).

Andaluciae, you've wandered from attacking the argument to attacking the poster. Kindly wander back.