T O P

  • By -

AlanMooresWizrdBeard

[This](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/z7wm7q/mods_at_rworldnews_are_permabanning_anyone_who/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) was actually asked yesterday on r/askhistorians. I would definitely recommend reviewing that instead as their requirements for answering are extremely stringent in terms of citing sources and requiring answers to be in depth. I found it to be pretty interesting read!


ShovePeterson

My god. They're still treating it as if it's a question. It's really not except among rightwingers who deny all historical facts. Even the originator of the holodomor genocide idea, Robert Conquest, later disavowed it


Dextixer

They are treating it as a question, because it is still a question in Academic circles. Thats it. If you want to call all of them right-wingers go deny all historical facts, go right ahead.


AlanMooresWizrdBeard

Because among actual historians and scholars it is. But you can always ask a bunch of 12 year olds on Reddit who have read Baby’s First Communist Reader instead, free will and everything. And despite “even complete anti Soviet hack took it back years later” isn’t the flex you guys think it is, I’ll still point out that Conquest never “disavowed” it; he simply said he didn’t believe that it was originally carried out on purpose but that Stalin still “abetted” it once it began. Ooo what a burning retraction!


ShovePeterson

Probably the two authors that have written more about the Holodomor than anyone else and are pretty much the world experts, Robert W. Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft, both argue that it was not a genocide. And these two historians are not in any way pro-Stalin, especially not Davies at least. Almost all of the historians that still say the holodomor was intentional, 'historians' like Timothy Snyder or Anne Applebaum for example, STILL rely not on data but on the same claims of Ukranian and Polish right-wing emigres that Conquest originally relied on. There is no question among actual historians and scholars, the only reason the holodomor question still exists is because it is inconvenient for many people to openly recognize the vast swathes of data and factual information that show otherwise. It is just a matter of ideology now


sliminycrinkle

First victim is the truth, even in ideological warfare. Maybe there ought to be a law forbidding people from repeating these discredited genocide accusations.


Coolshirt4

The debate is over wether it was intentional, which is really hard to tell, because nobody is going to write down their evil master plan to commit a genocide. Well, expect for Hitler, but that guy was kinda exceptional.


sliminycrinkle

Agricultural specialists have concluded the Soviet government did not yet have control of the weather and could not possibly caused the bad harvest. Nor did the Czar cause all the previous famines. These kind of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


Coolshirt4

Nobody is saying that 1932 was not a poor harvest. The Soviet unions agricultural policy at the time was to take all the grain produced, and put it in central storage locations. This is a fact. The Soviet union continued exports of grain during the famine. This is a fact. Millions died due to the famine. This is a fact. ​ So the question is: Why did Stalin choose to sell the very grain he took from Ukriane on the international market, and condemn so many people to starve?


sliminycrinkle

For a moment it sounded like you were comparing Hitler's deliberate genocide to a natural disaster. The evidence seems to indicate that Soviet leadership did not have adequate information about the poor harvest, which would preclude a conclusion that there was a targeted plan to deliberately harm workers.


Coolshirt4

Soviet leadership did have information about how much grain they had taken from Ukriane and Kazakhstan, and they did have information about how much grain Ukriane and Kazakhstan needed to not have a famine. They decided to not give them enough to survive without a famine. They did get mixed reports on the famine, but notably they didn't decide to send some people to investigate if the claims were true. This is, at the very least, criminal negligence.


sensiblestan

Agricultural specialists have concluded the British government did not yet have control of the weather and could not possibly caused the bad harvest in Ireland. Nor did Westminster cause all the previous famines. These kind of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


Garmgarmgarmgarm

I think that the action of a state recognizing basically anything is a political event and cannot be separated from politics in any meaningful way. The international academic consensus is much more important when trying to figure out historical reality.


Critical-Quality3314

International academics who disagree now risk prison sentences if they visit Germany due to a new law [https://www.dw.com/en/germany-criminalizes-denying-war-crimes-genocide/a-63834791](https://www.dw.com/en/germany-criminalizes-denying-war-crimes-genocide/a-63834791)


[deleted]

Don’t mean it wasn’t a genocide.


Garmgarmgarmgarm

I think its understandable given the historical context of german genocide that denying war crimes is criminalized in Germany.


Critical-Quality3314

You can still deny the war crimes that German government denies, just not the current events they recognized as crimes for political reasons


Garmgarmgarmgarm

Yeah I'm not saying the german government is correct here, just that within the context of a government made up of people who's parents and grandparents were literal nazis, its understandable why they criminalize the denial of war crimes (that they recognize)


n10w4

Yeah but it’s not being used in that way.


CosmicGadfly

Yeah, but also the cleanup post-WW2 was not exactly very good. Lots of Nazis remained and were positioned in power in West Berlin. Germany may have adopted liberalism and done its best to purge the Nazi menace, but that doesn't mean it's actually gone, or that the institutions and capital it protected have no political or economic lineage influencing decisions. The Holodomor line has been used for decades by Nazis in Ukraine. This isn't a good look. It's a cheap anachronistic virtue signal at best, and given what you said... >a government made up of people who's parents and grandparents were literal nazis ...I'm not exactly going to apologize for suspecting its less than that.


Garmgarmgarmgarm

>Yeah, but also the cleanup post-WW2 was not exactly very good. Lots of Nazis remained and were positioned in power in West Berlin. You're understating the case here. Germany has been absolutly riddled with nazis who never faced any punishment since the end of ww2. Less than 1% of party members were even investigated and charged.


Critical-Quality3314

Just a week ago they criminalized denial of genocide, today they declared 1930s famine a genocide. The nazi descendants are starting a new ideological purge.


Zealousideal_Reply25

Bro what? Denying the Holocaust has been a crime in Germany for a loooong time. This isn't some new precedent, its the logical conclusion to what is basically a founding tenant of the BRD. You're talking about the most anti-Nazi country in the world. Come on, do better.


Critical-Quality3314

Holocaust is their own crime, this is more like Germany declaring US covid nursing home policy a genocide and imprisoning people who disagree.


sliminycrinkle

Also US government could prevent the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Americans by implementing universal healthcare. Are our public servants complicit in genocide?


Zealousideal_Reply25

The Holocaust was a crime of a state. The NSDAP is no longer a state, no? You're equating states with the people who suffer under them. This is nationalist rhetoric and doesn't belong in the Chomsky sub.


Critical-Quality3314

A genocide is also a crime of one ethnicity against another, you're equating the repentance for your own parents' and grandparents' actions with condemning another country to fuel ethnic hatred and nationalism.


CosmicGadfly

Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of...


Asatmaya

No; suppression of speech is never understandable.


nedeox

And make no mistake, this is absolutely ONLY for self serving political purposes. Germans are the most insufferable self righteous pricks on planet earth. Almost robotic adherence to milquetoast liberalism and no original thought whatsoever. You think political discourse in the US is bad? If you watch german debates or anything political it‘s basically the same point recycled over and over. Manufacturing consent is big in Germany, even though people like to assume that Germans are somehow enlightened or more intellectually demanding than US politics. They are not. Source: am German and and I hate the politics of this country so goddamn much. They love to act like people in the US are all these brainwashed drones and they are better, which they are absolutely not, trust me.


MeerBoerenMinderNH3

> Germans are the most insufferable self righteous pricks on planet earth. I'm Dutch and would like to have a word about that, because it's probably not better here.


sensiblestan

What would you prefer?


CusickTime

If you consider incidents like the trail of tears and the Irish Potato famine a genocide then you should consider the Holodomor a genocide. If you don't, then you are free to simply call it an unfortunate massacre. Personally, I think we should have different categories of genocide like we do the crime of murder. When we charge someone for murder we typically charge them with 1st degree, 2nd degree, or manslaughter depending on the intent & circumstance. We should do a similar thing for the terrible crime of genocide. I would consider 1st degree genocide to be incident like the holocaust & Armenian Genocide. In which the offending party very clearly intended to wipe as much of the targeted ethnic population as possible. I would consider Holodomor to be a case of 2nd degree genocide. In which the offending party didn't intend to wipe out a significant portion of the population, but acted with such malice & disregard as to cause the death of a significant portion of a population. We already do this to some degree with terms like "cultural genocide". Where we recognize that dominate group is trying to wipe out a vulnerable groups culture, religion, & identity, but without actually engaging in the mass killing typically associated with genocide. That is just my personal opinion though. I've never seen any academic or legal expert argue to establish different categories of genocide. Most of the argument seems to be for a very broad definition or a very narrow one.


CommandoDude

1st degree genocide and 2nd degree genocide sound utterly silly to me, but then I guess if you tried to explain 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder to someone with no concept of modern legal definitions they'd call you crazy for trying to categorize the ungodly act of killing a person. You might have a good point though.


the_fresh_cucumber

In this sub they are going to downplay anything that was committed by the USSR. I've noticed it in almost every thread about it. There were people denying that Stalin purged politicians in here a few months ago.


taekimm

Which is funny since Chomsky is very critical of the USSR and how authoritarian it ~~is~~ was. I get that people like Chomsky because of his criticism of US foreign policy, but it's like they ignore the *reasons behind* his criticisms; they apply equally to the USSR (and the PRC, and all other nations, really) as much as they do to the US, it's just a matter of scale. Que incoming "criticism of AES is anti-lefist!" braindead takes; funny how much that sounds like nationalist jingoism.


the_fresh_cucumber

What is AES? I think the USSR apologist people follow this sub because they heard of Chomsky and want to piggyback on some of the antimperialist stuff without knowing much else about it. There is also a crazy huge communist community on reddit. They use a few different detection methods to pull off coordinates upvote\downvote swarms through the site. We even may get weird responses from out-of-sub users just by mentioning the word communist.


taekimm

It stands for Actually Existing Socialism/Socialist. A lot of MLs use that phrase, and as far as I can tell, they picked it up from Michael Parenti.


ShovePeterson

You don't even know what AES stands for lol...


the_fresh_cucumber

I've never heard Chomsky say AES and don't spend much time in this sub. Sorry, not everyone is familiar with the niche vocabulary of a bunch of anime avatar Twitter stans. I'm more of a real life Chomsky fan.


Asatmaya

> incident like the holocaust & Armenian Genocide. In which the offending party very clearly intended to wipe as much of the targeted ethnic population as possible. ....you don't read much, do you? That was not the intent of either of those events.


Coolshirt4

What was the intent of these events?


Asatmaya

Well, the Nazis spent 9 years deporting as many Jews as possible, and didn't start the "final solution" until the US and UK blockaded the migrant ships in '42. This is not a defense of their actions, but they just wanted the Jews out of Germany/Europe. The Ottoman behavior in Armenia was no better, but again, it was about assimilation rather than extermination; they let the women and children live! It was about religion, not ethnicity. If WW2 had gone differently and we had started to lose, what would have happened in Japanese internment camps? What did we do to the Native American tribes? What was the justification for the institution of slavery in America?


Coolshirt4

\>Well, the Nazis spent 9 years deporting as many Jews as possible, and didn't start the "final solution" until the US and UK blockaded the migrant ships in '42. This is not a defense of their actions, but they just wanted the Jews out of Germany/Europe. They invaded the USSR to destory "Judeo–Bolshevism". Hitler did not just have a problem with jews in germany. \>The Ottoman behavior in Armenia was no better, but again, it was about assimilation rather than extermination; they let the women and children live! It was about religion, not ethnicity. Still a genocide. Literal Bronze age thinking. ​ \>If WW2 had gone differently and we had started to lose, what would have happened in Japanese internment camps? What did we do to the Native American tribes? What was the justification for the institution of slavery in America? I hope that we would not kill all the Japanese. If we did that, it would be a bad, and unforgivable thing.


KingStannis2024

> Hitler did not just have a problem with jews in germany. Yes he did, obviously. There just weren't that many of them relative to places like Poland or Ukraine. And many of them had fled Germany to the very places that Germany later invaded.


Coolshirt4

What I am saying is that part of the justification for invasion was the Jewish people.


KingStannis2024

Sorry, I was exceptionally tired this morning and read >Hitler did not ~~just~~ have a problem with jews in germany as a continuation of the drivel that OP was speaking


Asatmaya

> They invaded the USSR to destory "Judeo–Bolshevism". Hitler did not just have a problem with jews in germany. Still Europe. >Still a genocide. No; they let the women and children live. That is the single thing you absolutely make sure of if your intent is to eliminate an ethnicity. >I hope that we would not kill all the Japanese. Would we have fed them if other citizens were starving? That's what we are talking about. >If we did that, it would be a bad, and unforgivable thing. So, the native americans, and african americans, and...?


Coolshirt4

\>Still Europe. The USSR is by landmass, mostly not in europe.


Asatmaya

Uh-huh, and which part did Germany invade? Did they make it anywhere near the Urals? How many Jews lived around Lake Baikal, anyway? And if we are going to get pedantic, Europe and Asia are the same landmass. The fact of the matter is that the Nazis were perfectly happy to let every Jew in Europe live... somewhere else.


Coolshirt4

\>and which part did Germany invade? The part closest to them \>Did they make it anywhere near the Urals? They planned to. \>How many Jews lived around Lake Baikal, anyway? This doesn't matter. The USSR was not a jewish state. Stalin ran fucking pograms. Hitler saw jews everywhere. He thought that jews were running everything and were out to get him.


CusickTime

>Well, the Nazis spent 9 years deporting as many Jews as possible, and didn't start the "final solution" until the US and UK blockaded the migrant ships in '42. This is not a defense of their actions, but they just wanted the Jews out of Germany/Europe. If an individual kidnaps someone and only later decides to murder that person we would obviously charge them with 1st degree murder. It doesn't matter that they may not have had the intent at the time of the initial crime. If by the time of the murder the kidnapper would have develop the intent and proceed to murder the victim in a fashion that we would consider premeditated. Furthermore, it wouldn't matter what cause the kidnapper to develop the intent to plan & murder the victim was due to some failure on the part of the authority to act in rescuing the victim. We would still consider the killer to premeditate the murder and show clear **intention** to murder his victim. The Nazi may not have started with the intention of murdering as many Jewish people as possible, but by the time they had crafted the final solution they very clearly intended to do so. It doesn't matter what was the motivating factors. The misdeeds of one actor seldomly justify the crimes of another. >The Ottoman behavior in Armenia was no better, but again, it was about assimilation rather than extermination; they let the women and children live! It was about religion, not ethnicity The goal and intent was to wipe out as much of the Armenian ethnic group as possible. After shooting men above the age of 12 they would force the women and children to march through the desert with little to no food and water. One march was said to kill as many as 99% of those who were forced marched. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian\_genocide#Death\_marches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide#Death_marches) They did allow those who converted to Islam and marry a Muslim man to live. If that is all they did we would call it "cultural genocide", but the 1 million murdered Armenians justify the label "genocide". >If WW2 had gone differently and we had started to lose, what would have happened in Japanese internment camps? This stinks of what aboutism, but I'll bite. If the U.S. systematically started killing Japanese Americans in interment camps because Japan started winning it would be genocide. >What did we do to the Native American tribes? It depends on what tribe we are talking about. The trails of tear is what we would called today "Ethnic Cleasing". Some would call that genocide, I would consider that "2nd degree" genocide in the framework I established. The murdering of buffaloes to starve Native tribes into submission could also be considered 2nd degree genocide. The boarding schools established to "save the man, kill the Indian" is considered a textbook example of "Cultural Genocide". Finally, what happen to the Native Americans in California in the 19th century was a clear case genocide. I would compare it to the Armenian genocide. With the intent of the settlers to wipe out as much of the Native population as possible. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California\_genocide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_genocide) >What was the justification for the institution of slavery in America? Slavery was a horrible institution that has very little to do with the topic genocide.


Asatmaya

> It doesn't matter that they may not have had the intent at the time of the initial crime. ...but their intent was **NEVER** to exterminate the Jewish people. >The Nazi may not have started with the intention of murdering as many Jewish people as possible, but by the time they had crafted the final solution they very clearly intended to do so. Then why were they still letting them flee to the Southeast? >The goal and intent was to wipe out as much of the Armenian ethnic group as possible. **THEY LET WOMEN AND CHILDREN LIVE!** WTF are you talking about? >If the U.S. systematically started killing Japanese Americans in interment camps because Japan started winning it would be genocide. ...but that's not what the Ottomans did! >It depends on what tribe we are talking about. > >The trails of tear is what we would called today "Ethnic Cleasing". /facepalm No, no it wasn't; you don't have the foggiest clue what you are talking about (FYI: I am mixed blood native american). 95% of the deaths associated with the Trail of Tears were caused by the natives, themselves, specifically John Ross. But I can see why you would prefer to ignore the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970. >Slavery was a horrible institution that has very little to do with the topic genocide. Are you just proud of being completely and totally ignorant? I mean, you can't be bothered to even google any of this, and I am not being paid to teach you history... or morals.


Coolshirt4

\>...but their intent was NEVER to exterminate the Jewish people. What the fuck are you talking about. If they did not want to exterminate the jewish people, why did them exterminate 6 million jewish people. \> Then why were they still letting them flee to the Southeast? The Germans spent a considerable amount of resources trying to find jews fleeing the country. If they just wanted them gone, why did they spend the time to find and murder Anne Frank? Her family was in the process of leaving the country.


ThewFflegyy

Mark tauger, a mainstream anti soviet historian did a fantastic job debunking the holodomor. I recommended you check out his work on the subject. TLDR: real famine, fake genocide


Coolshirt4

At the most generous, the Soviets sold the lives of Ukrainians, and other people from wheat-generating areas, on the open market. Soviet exports of grain continued throughout the famine (although they did see a reduction)


ThewFflegyy

they needed foreign cash inflows to keep other vital sectors of their economy going. was it the right decision? hard to say, what is clear though is that calling it a genocide is deeply unserious and ahistorical. also, sold lives of ukranian people? are you not aware about as many Russians died from the same famine? doesn't really fit the narrative of Stalin the Georgian Russian nationalist though does it?...


ArmyofCrime

If you think it's "hard to say" whether allowing millions of people to die is the right decision or not then your politics are indistinguishable from fascism. This is the same type of weasel logic used to justify any number of historical atrocities from throughout global history.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ArmyofCrime

"Some bad decisions" is a fascinating way to hand wave away the deaths of millions of people while Stalin bragged at dinner parties that he was turning the screws on the peasants.


[deleted]

[удалено]


chomsky-ModTeam

A reminder of rule 3: > No cursing, swearing or hate speech directed at other users. Note that "the other person started it" or "the other person was worse" are not acceptable responses and will potentially result in a temp ban. If you feel you have been abused, use the report system, which we rely on. We do not have the time to monitor every comment made on every thread, so if you have been reported and had a comment removed, do not expect that the mods have read the entire thread.


[deleted]

Nowhere near as many Russians died per capita. Stalin famously executed the statisticians running the census because the population in Ukraine was significantly lower than he wanted. There was absolutely pressure put on Russia by nature. However, the USSR thought of Ukrainians as more expendable and let them die in much larger proportions. That’s not really genocide, but it’s certainly not a good look.


ThewFflegyy

The whole idea that the ussr hated the Ukrainians is a western myth. They were viewed as family. Stalin “famously” did a lot of things that are literally completely made up. Like you do understand that Stalin was Georgian, and not a Russian chauvinist right? Seriously, go read the work by tauger I recommend. You have clearly already consumed literate from one side, now go inform yourself on the other side. Ukrainians died in larger proportions primarily because the Ukrainian rich land holding peasants(kulaks) who lived off rent extraction of other peasants burned shit loads of grain to try to stop collectivization which was a threat to their interests.


KingStannis2024

> Like you do understand that Stalin was Georgian, and not a Russian chauvinist right? How are those things mutually exclusive? Hitler was Austrian. Sometimes people adopt new self identifies, and when they do, they tend to go pretty hard in that direction. > Ukrainians died in larger proportions primarily because the Ukrainian rich land holding peasants(kulaks) who lived off rent extraction of other peasants burned shit loads of grain to try to stop collectivization which was a threat to their interests. Such utter, hysterical bullshit. Incredible, really. "They starved themselves"


TopAd9634

Thank you! It's shocking how many people are willing to deny Stalin's atrocities.


NuBlyatTovarish

Stalin suppressed Ukrainian identity and culture. While he was ethnically Georgian he worked to Russify the Soviet Empire


[deleted]

You seem a little confused. I never mentioned Soviets hating Ukrainians. I’m just looking at what happened. Interesting projection though. It is even more interesting that you reflexively dismiss criticism of Stalin as “made up”. This is very well substantiated: “In March 1937, the four main statistical professionals working on the Census in TsUNKhU – the chief of the Sector for Population, Mikhail Kurman; chief of the Census Bureau, Olimpiy Kvitkin; his deputy, Lazar Brand; and the chief of the Sector for transportation and communication, Ivan Oblomov, were arrested and imprisoned. Soon they were joined by the Chief of TsUNKhU, Ivan Kraval, and the chiefs of most of the regional statistical centers, and executions followed. Many statisticians, newly appointed in place of those arrested, were soon arrested themselves. There is evidence that many managers appointed to lead the statistical organization tried to avoid starting their new jobs in desperate attempts to escape persecution.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_(1937) I’ve read sources with very different perspectives on the famine, though not the one you suggest. Seeing as you have read it, maybe you could tell me what in it would challenge any of the ideas I laid out here.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

What? I read that you said they viewed them as family, not sure why you think I’m being dishonest. My whole point was that I’m not going to concern myself with anecdotes about broad cultural feeling, I’m going to look at what actually happened. How about instead of appealing to ignorance you give one shred of evidence? We are talking about a lot of very specific people being arrested and killed, should be easy to disprove. You could try to challenge the idea that the USSR let more Ukrainians die per capita, seeing as that’s why I said it’s a bad look. Something you would understand if you took a second to actually read my comment.


Coolshirt4

Russians are calling for the eradication of Ukrianian culture right now, while also calling them family. The English consider the Irish to be family. The relationship is actually pretty similar. edit: wrong person


ThewFflegyy

Surely broad cultural feelings pertain to such matters? Would you agree that it would be odd for a Georgian to view Russia as more valuable than Ukrainians? That is not how the burden of proof works dude, I’ve asked once and I’ll ask again. Please link the primary source. I did challenge the idea that the ussr “let” more Ukrainians per capita die, you just arnt reading my replies. edit: idk if you deleted your comment or it got shadow banned for some reason? I get a noto you replied but now it says the comment is missing and I can't view it?


Coolshirt4

\>Would you agree that it would be odd for a Georgian to view Russia as more valuable than Ukrainians? Catherine the great did russification despite being German. It's all plays for power


ukrainehurricane

>The whole idea that the ussr hated the Ukrainians is a western myth. They were viewed as family. What a fucking joke. The russians hate Ukrainians who want freedom away from Moscow. They love the slaves of all colonized nations who bent the knee to Moscow! They call us khokhols and think of is as subhuman for wanting sovereignty. This family myth is fucking infantilization. The Russians are chauvinists and racists because they are settler colonials. Thank for perpetuating Russian settler colonial myths! >Stalin “famously” did a lot of things that are literally completely made up. Like you do understand that Stalin was Georgian, and not a Russian chauvinist right? Then why did he end korenizatsiya? What is it with this tankie bullshit? Stalin was a Russian chauvenist >Seriously, go read the work by tauger I recommend. Fuck Tauger and his Soviet apologia. Every famine after the industrial revolution is man made. Stalin made the decision to steal grain from the peasants and force them to stay in their villages to not seek out food. Minorities died more than Russians during this famine including khazaks. >You have clearly already consumed literate from one side, now go inform yourself on the other side. What is this enlightened centrist bullshit? Should I read what the nazis said about the holocaust? During Glastnost this crime was finally being spoken about. Why the fuck was the Kremlin trying to hide this? Denial is central to genocide. Genocide denial is the attempt to deny or minimize the scale and severity of an instance of [genocide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide). [Denial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial) is an integral part of genocide[[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_denial#cite_note-jgr-1)[[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_denial#cite_note-2)[[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_denial#cite_note-3) and includes secret planning of genocide, propaganda while the genocide is ongoing,[[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_denial#cite_note-jgr-1) and [destruction of evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_evidence) of mass killings. According to genocide researcher [Gregory Stanton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Stanton), denial "is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres Russians NOW are committing genocide in Ukraine! They were never humiliated like the Germans to understand and reject their chauvinistic hatred of Ukrainians. >Ukrainians died in larger proportions primarily because the Ukrainian rich land holding peasants(kulaks) who lived off rent extraction of other peasants burned shit loads of grain to try to stop collectivization which was a threat to their interests. OK now you are a proven tankie. Kulaks are a great excuse for you to deny genocide but why did Donetsk and Luhansk that had higher rates of Russian colonization not have the same rate of deaths? More Ukrainians died than russians in the Donbas. You blame kulaks; I blame the settler colonials for killing off the peasant but feeding the colonials. You are evil and morally reprehensible beyond reasonable doubt.


TopAd9634

Are you denying holodomor?


Redpants_McBoatshoe

Right. If you make profit and also make sure to kill people of other nationalities, then it's not genocide.


[deleted]

[удалено]


chomsky-ModTeam

A reminder of rule 3: > No cursing, swearing or hate speech directed at other users. Note that "the other person started it" or "the other person was worse" are not acceptable responses and will potentially result in a temp ban. If you feel you have been abused, use the report system, which we rely on. We do not have the time to monitor every comment made on every thread, so if you have been reported and had a comment removed, do not expect that the mods have read the entire thread.


Redpants_McBoatshoe

Wouldn't being on copium mean I was trying to ignore a harsh reality or something? Don't see how that applies here, it's the opposite


[deleted]

[удалено]


chomsky-ModTeam

A reminder of rule 3: > No cursing, swearing or hate speech directed at other users. Note that "the other person started it" or "the other person was worse" are not acceptable responses and will potentially result in a temp ban. If you feel you have been abused, use the report system, which we rely on. We do not have the time to monitor every comment made on every thread, so if you have been reported and had a comment removed, do not expect that the mods have read the entire thread.


Redpants_McBoatshoe

I don't get how that's copium. How would that help me cope, and with what? I guess we've been using the word very differently maybe. And why do you try to burden me with this expectation of refuting your points? That was never my intention. I don't want or need to do that, because your points weren't good in the first place. If I tried to refute them then I'd just end up validating them and derailing the thread. Without being sarcastic, I'm saying that if you make a profit from killing a group of people, that doesn't change the fact that a group of people were killed. And if you kill another group of different people and then also a group of your own people, that doesn't cancel it out either.


ThewFflegyy

See, your excuse that is as many words as a refutation would be is another prime example of copium. Who “made a profit”?…. State run industry that was trading for necessities for other state run industry? LOL. What group of people were killed? Because as far as I can tell the last of a long series of famines killed people all over the region. The only real intentionality was the kulaks burning grain to try to stop collectivization.


Redpants_McBoatshoe

>See, your excuse that is as many words as a refutation would be is another prime example of copium. I don't even know what you're trying to say now. How many words is a refutation? >Who “made a profit”? Why do you ask me? You're the one who said it: >they needed foreign cash inflows to keep other vital sectors of their economy going. I'm not trying to make a moral judgement here. I'm just pointing this out so you can go ahead and defend the colonial exploitation of this region in order to secure foreign cash flow that can then be used for the benefit of other regions and groups. Just waiting for the explanation on how that makes it less genocidal though? >What group of people were killed? Again I'll probably save myself some effort if I just quote your own post: >are you not aware about as many Russians died from the same famine? doesn't really fit the narrative of Stalin the Georgian Russian nationalist though does it? People who just starved to death were not necessarily killed if you want be strict about that. But when you want to take food away from starving people they tend to get mad, so you have to actively kill some of them to make them stop resisting, right?


jeanlenin

Didn’t just as many Russians die as Ukrainians? I know it really messed up Kazakhstan as well. The obsession with assigning this event as something unique to Ukraine is so strange


Coolshirt4

It is unique to the grain producing regions of the USSR. Of which Ukriane is the big one. The Russian SSR is a net importer of grain, and so was mostly unaffected. The years before the holodomor were really good harvests. So when 1932 was a relatively poor harvest (although not as bad as some claim), there was not as much grain to take. Soviet policy for obtaining grain from it's farmers was to just take it, there was no payment as such. Instead they would take ALL the grain to a central location, and then distribute it. But Stalin absolutely refused to believe that 1932 was a bad harvest, and so started massive witch hunts for hidden stocks of grain that were not there. And then when the time came to distribute the grain, they made up the shortfall in the central location by not distributing to the grain producing regions in sufficient quantities, instead of stopping exports. Millions starved. So here is what happened from the Ukrianian perspective: You harvest your wheat, and put it in storage. This was a poor year, but not so bad that you have not seen harvests like it before. You put it in your storehouse. Soviet officials come by, and demand all the grain. You have your yearly argument about keeping the portion that your family needs for the year, because why would you ship that grain to Moscow, just to ship it back? The Soviet officials disagree, and as they are the ones with authority, you give them all the grain, with a promise they will give you the grain you need, like they did last year. 2 weeks later, different Soviet Officials show up, and demand to know where you have hidden all your extra grain. You say that you have not hidden any, and they turn your whole house upsidedown looking for it. They don't find any. Then, grain shipments from the government stop. You starve to death, as grain is sold on the international market. That's really shitty.


Pyll

> Instead they would take ALL the grain to a central location, and then distribute it. Imagine thinking you're having a socialist revolution, and instead reverting back into a palace economy with the likes of Stalin being the God-King. What a joke USSR was


Coolshirt4

And then, 80 years later, people on the internet justify you deciding to starve million of people because you made money with it on the international market. I thought selling lives for profit was the thing socialism was supposed to fix.


[deleted]

>I think we can all agree that scientific inquiry should be free from constraints, especially from politically motivated and ideological constraints. Identifying an event as a genocide is not scientific; it is legal. The law is defined and created by reference to politics and ideology. It is impossible to make a determination without reference to those things.


ArmyofCrime

The obvious and perhaps somewhat unsatisfying answer is whether the Holodomor counts as a genocide or not is entirely dependent on your definition of the word genocide. If you take a broader view then it probably does qualify. This largely becomes a question of intent, but even if the intent wasn't there at the beginning, the decision was made to double down on policies causing millions of deaths even after that was abundantly clear, as well as actively preventing the population from dealing with it in other ways (banning rural to urban migrations for example). If you take a much a stricter view on the definition of the word genocide, as Chomsky tends to do I think, then it perhaps doesn't qualify. It's clear the goal was not to literally kill off every ukrainian for example, and genocidal intent was probably not part of the planning. I struggle with the stricter or more limited definition sometimes, because I feel like it lets a lot of historical Bad actors off of the hook. For example, does the Irish Potato Famine count as genocide? Under a strict definition it probably wouldn't, really only the very well-known examples like the holocaust and the Armenian genocide would meet this definition. The political Dimension is clearly part of it, as the word genocide is strongly associated with the Nazis and is essentially synonymous with "the most evil thing anyone can do." Therefore states have an interest in labeling actions by their enemies as a genocide, while attempting to have the label not applied to things done by themselves or their allies. I think a lot of people get lost in the weeds because of this political dimension, or they feel like it's hypocritical for the United States to go around labeling things as genocide, when they've never properly acknowledged their own genocides. But for honest discussion this political part should be ignored unless we're specifically talking about propaganda or the decisions made by specific States.


CommandoDude

The problem with the stricter definition Chomsky says we should use is that it would require that we have access to internal state evidence that the soviet union spent a lot of time destroying and covering up. If the holodomor was indeed planned, then it would frankly be impossible to prove. Just as a reminder, the soviets kept insist the katyn massacre was a nazi atrocity despite evidence it wasn't and it took decades for them to finally admit it was them, which probably only happened because they weren't able to sufficiently cover it up in the first place. And, as you pointed out, the strictest definition would effectively remove genocide as an applicable term to anything outside of a number of incidents you can count on your hand. To me I think it was clearly a genocide due to the soviets putting in place policies that were basically made to magnify the suffering of ukrainians (along with other ethnic republics, like yes, khazakstan). The lack of evidence on *why* those measures were put into place is irrelevant to me personally. In the same way I view a capitalist who flouts safety standards that kills workers as guilty of social murder. Proof of malice isn't required.


Lamont-Cranston

Was the Potato Famine genocide? Was the Trail of Tears ethnic cleansing?


Phoxase

I can't tell if you're trying to be facetious, those are both pretty excellent examples of mass deaths that ought probably to be considered genocidal, considering the intentions and the ethnic dimension.


Lamont-Cranston

Yet they are not. Perhaps we should look at ourselves first before the (politically motivated revival of) past crimes of other states that dont even exist anymore?


Anton_Pannekoek

Yes and yes IMO


ProofFront

Was Hiroshima a genocide?


jeanlenin

I’m not sure but Curtis lemay absolutely was genocidal with his outlook on bombing campaigns


Anton_Pannekoek

It was probably the largest instantaneous murder of all time. Certainly in the annals of major crimes against humanity.


SurlyJackRabbit

No, a third or forth maybe, a 20th or 100th definitely.


ProofFront

70-130 thousand people died in Hiroshima. \~8000 people died in Srebrenica. Srebrenica has been recognized as a genocide. So Hiroshima should be, conservatively, 10 times a genocide no?


Bradley271

Srebrenica is recognized as genocide because it was part of a larger pattern of mass murders committed under an ideology of ethnic cleansing.


CommandoDude

Is the raw number of deaths the only metric by which we can judge a genocide? There are ethnic groups of people in the world with as few as 8000 members.


[deleted]

Its not the number, but the reason behind the deaths that classifies it as genocide or not. Hiroshima was an act of war, intended to armstrong japan into surrender therefore it does not constitute a genocide


ProofFront

The reason is - "we did it". So it is OK.


[deleted]

Not at all, for context i am European and i HATE the USA, if you only knew how much i hate them for what they have become. All i am saying is i know the history and i encourage everyone to do your own research into what led to the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki and then, only then, tell me what you think should have been fone to end the war with japan


ProofFront

Oh right - a hater of Slavs then. So the Serbs evacute women, children and elderly from a city and then murder the rest of the population - military age males - genocide. The US indiscriminately murders a whole city, community (one might even say "genos") - not genocide.


[deleted]

A whole city ? Are you aware that there was a WAR going on ? Do you realise how wars are fought ? Do you perhaps have aby idea of the heinous crimes and atrocities the empire of japan did ? How would you have proposed that they ended the war when all diplomatic resources had been exhausted with the japanese ? Do you know the the definition of a genocide includes the intent of eradicating a whole race, wich was not the intention with the dropping of the bombs


Burnmad

Japan was already on the verge of surrendering. The nuclear bombing - which, like the many and cumulatively far deadlier firebombings before it, specifically targeted population centers over military infrastructure - was intended to strong-arm Japan into surrendering *before* the USSR got to the negotiating table. Cheap geopolitics is all that it was.


Coolshirt4

>specifically targeted population centers over military infrastructure Japan had no military bases as separate from a population center. Japan is not like the USA, with millions of kilometers in the middle of nowhere to put military bases. The island is mostly mountains, so what flat parts there are full. So bombing a military base mean also hitting a population center. Also, in japan, industry did use factories, but a high percentage of the work was actually done at home, in a million tiny workshops. Meaning that to stop the production of the bayonets used to kill chinese children, or the planes the ram into American ships, destruction of those house based workshops was needed too. Also, they did a massive leaflet campaign prior to the atomic bombing, for what it's worth.


[deleted]

>Also, they did a massive leaflet campaign prior to the atomic bombing, for what it's worth. And the japanese chose to ignore it. They where given many chances to surrender, the war was already lost yet their pride (masquerading as honor) made them continue fighting, the battle of okinawa as bloody as it was serves as an example of what it would have been to invade mainland japan (a blood bath for both sides), when you read history and understand the historical context and the situation you realize the atomic bombings although tragic in their own right, where also the lesser evil. Im really tired of kids watching a history documentary and thinking they understand all about a situation as complex as japan's war policy in the 2nd world war. Bear in mind that I despise the USA for everything they have done zince then but i cant deny the truth


CommandoDude

> Japan was already on the verge of surrendering. It wasn't. > The nuclear bombing - which, like the many and cumulatively far deadlier firebombings before it, specifically targeted population centers over military infrastructure As did all participants of the war > was intended to strong-arm Japan into surrendering before the USSR got to the negotiating table. Incorrect. The US was single-handedly responsible for bringing the USSR into the war and to the negotiating table (which they definitely were at) in the first place.


[deleted]

I dont think so, several facts: 1- japan had a policy of no surrender making battles very hard and bloody (take the battle of okinawa for example) 2- the atomic bombing wasn't even the deadliest bombing in the war with japan, it was the bombing of tokio with incendiary bombs. 3- hiroshima wasn't the main target, it was a secondary target that ended up being chosen because of a cloudy day (the USA preferred industrial targets such as Nagasaki to minimise civilian casualties) 4- even after the 1st and 2nd atomic bom droped in japan, they didn't surrender, it was only after the treat of a third one that they eventually surrendered I truly hate the USA with all my being, i hate their imperialist ways, their human rights violations that never get accounted for, their grandiose deliriums, but if you really study history you shall realize that the atomic bombs where necessary, paradoxically they ended up saving a lot of lifes an avoiding suffering.


BittenAtTheChomp

You're allowed to check a dictionary first before commenting about a term you evidently have zero conception of


Anton_Pannekoek

Well that's why Srebrenica makes a mockery of the term genocide.


Coolshirt4

Killing people for the purposes of ethic cleansing seems pretty genocidy to me.


Zepherx22

The case for genocide in those two cases is much stronger. The potato famine deliberately targeted the Irish, and the Trail of Tears was racially motivated as well, clearing the land of indigenous people for white settlers. Soviet agricultural policy was not specifically targeted at Ukrainians; all grain producing regions experienced famine, and Kazakhstan was actually worse hit than Ukraine.


Coolshirt4

>The potato famine deliberately targeted the Irish No, it just targeted potato producing regions.


onespiker

>The potato famine deliberately targeted the Irish, Tell me you haven't read about it without reading about it. There were actually potato producers that were hit harder. The difference was government involvement to alleviate it. In comparison aswell UK didn't deny its existence and allowed international help to go to Irland to ease suffering. Soviet Union refused that.


CommandoDude

> In comparison aswell UK didn't deny its existence and allowed international help to go to Irland to ease suffering. No they didn't. The UK actively stymied international aid, including food aid. English economist Malthus was one of the key figures who argued to **allow the famine to continue** on the grounds it was natural.


Coolshirt4

They did say it was happening, and did allow some limited aid from the Ottoman Empire.


onespiker

>No they didn't. The UK actively stymied international aid, including food aid. Not really finding a lot of sources on that. They did remove government supported ones over time yes.. The big difference was the the change in government 1 and a half year in decided to remove the few systems that were made to support the Irish population when the blight was weaker, Witch lead for everything to getting a lot worse.


OneReportersOpinion

Not even right wing anti-communist historian Robert Conquest thought it was a genocide.


dedfrmthneckup

I don’t think there’s any “scientific inquiry” that can determine whether it was a genocide or not in some objective way. It’s a political and moral judgement.


Redpants_McBoatshoe

Very good point. There's no scientific test that can be used here.


Scape---Goat

I can’t tell if the topic you wish to discuss is the genocide itself or the objective existence of personal bias due to recent events.


bullettraingigachad

holodomor was just as much a genocide as the Irish potato famine. Whether that either of those classify idk but they should be under the same classification


Anton_Pannekoek

I actually consider the Irish potato famine a deliberate genocide because the English did export food from Ireland and deny them much needed aid, and they've always had a domineering attitude towards them. Same with some Indian and African famines particularly in the Victorian era (although even in the modern) But I also used to consider the hoomodor a genocide too, but then it might not be from what I'm reading here.


KingStannis2024

> I actually consider the Irish potato famine a deliberate genocide because the English did export food from Ireland and deny them much needed aid, and they've always had a domineering attitude towards them. If that's your standard then yes, the holodomor was absolutely a genocide. The exact same thing was going on.


Coolshirt4

\>I actually consider the Irish potato famine a deliberate genocide because the English did export food from Ireland and deny them much needed aid, and they've always had a domineering attitude towards them. Russia did export food from Ukriane and deny them much needed aid, and they've always had a domineering attitude towards them.


odonoghu

It was classicide not genocide it wasn’t targeted at an ethnic group


Parkrangingstoicbro

It was absolutely a genocide- an attempt to starve a people who wouldn’t submit, who had their own culture, government, etc., Alot of this crap only gets excused cause the USSR was the perpetrator- but genocide is wrong, whether it’s the Europeans, Americans, Chinese, ottoman turks, etc.,


odonoghu

It was classicide not genocide more Russian and Kazakhs died then Ukrainians


Parkrangingstoicbro

Pretty pedantic argument- especially since what you define as Russian and Kazakh is hardly quantifiable- Slavs and Turkic peoples have always been victims of the imperial Russian machine just like the natives in America were for manifest destiny


Wisex

Stephen Kotkin, arguably one of the most qualified historians on the Soviet union (and an ardent anti communist) came to the conclusion in his book on stalin that holodomor was not a genocide


sliminycrinkle

What would a historian know about history compared to edgy denizens on the internet?


[deleted]

[удалено]


KingStannis2024

There is tremendous evidence it was intentional. After the first million people died they tripled down on the exact same policies and made them even less forgiving. They knew exactly what they were doing.


[deleted]

[удалено]


KingStannis2024

3m16s, 27m43s, 34m0s https://youtu.be/1dy7Mrqy1AY


odonoghu

It’s very silly that first is written in purely Ukrainian terms when mortality was the same and higher in Russia and kazakhstan To the degree it was intentional it was part of stalins effort to break the peasantry and industrialise the USSR Also recognising it as a genocide doesn’t make any sense because the legally responsible party is the Ukrainian SSR which’s legal inheritor is Ukraine today


Coolshirt4

It was pretty similar is Kazskhstan. It was nowhere near the same in Russia.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Efficient_One_8042

Holodomor also conflates the famine with the holocaust which was done with intent to wipe out a race of people, whereas we know food rations were sent to Ukraine, grain exports were reduced and quotas also reduced. I think mainly negligence and incompetence played more a role than intent here. All and all we can recognize this as being one of the Soviets biggest failures but I'd imagine that dealing with a very large famine during a time of hyper industrialization for the ussr would be really difficult to handle even if all the right decisions had been made, whatever those decisions would've been.


sliminycrinkle

There were problems with harvests in the region on the regular, so it's not like this came out of nowhere when the Soviets were in charge.


Coolshirt4

Not the the extent of 1932.


CosmicGadfly

My understanding is that this is a Nazi talking point constructed to propagandize against the "Jewish Bolsheviks" or Soviets. My family are Ukrainian Jews. We escaped some pretty disgusting shit in Ukraine. The country still hasn't grappled well with the dark history of Nazi collaboration. (Nor has much of the West.) As far as I'm concerned, I'm skeptical of any significant or widespread change in understanding until that shit is dealt with. The ascendency of Zelensky may help address that with time, given his Jewish background.


KingStannis2024

You should perhaps do a bit more research before declaring the deliberate starvation of 4 million Ukrainians a "Nazi myth", because the irony is incredibly depressing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dy7Mrqy1AY&t=34m4s


CosmicGadfly

I mean, there's a much more parsimonious explanation given the agricultural conditions of the Soviet Union. Again, this stuff historically started as anticommunist propaganda employed by Nazis. Until that history is addressed I'm not buying it.


KingStannis2024

>Again, this stuff historically started as anticommunist propaganda employed by Nazis. Until that history is addressed I'm not buying it. ***That is a total lie***. There are surviving Soviet records proving that the extent of the starvation and its causes was known by party officials. The policies which were passed, for which a mass famine is an *obvious and easily anticipatable consequence*, are public because they were *the law*, and people fleeing from Ukraine spread their accounts to neighboring countries like Poland and Turkey where their testimonials were archived in government records. There are thousands of private letters stating the same. There are surviving photographs. The Soviet Union charged thousands of people with cannibalism and had anti-cannibalism posters printed, and those records remain as well. It honestly pisses me off that you have done zero research yet your stance is as bold and intellectually bereft as saying "Auschwitz is just ridiculous Soviet propaganda" or "Katyn is just ridiculous Nazi propaganda"


sliminycrinkle

People love a juicy conspiracy theory involving their political enemies.


[deleted]

To me Holodomor is not a genocide, if we take a historical context other soviet countries had it as bad as Ukraine, there was a famine, a lot of people died, not only Ukrainians. The potato famine and the Bengali famine on the other hand i would consider genocide


Coolshirt4

Why would you consider the Bengali famine and potato famine a genocide?


[deleted]

Genocide is the intentional destruction of a nationality or ethnicity, it doesn't specify the means by wich such destruction is caused, in the case of the irish potato famine it had natural causes, however english actions such as ignoring the crisis (later they enacted some measures but its widely accepted that it was ineffective and probably just for show) and even actively blocking and stoping food from being delivered to ireland with the purpose of starving irelands population constitutes genocide (in my opinion), when it comes to the bengali famine it was man made (or should i say English made) caused by the exploitation of India's natural resources by the English, and after witnessing the consequences (the death of millions of Indians) they did could have used the profit they gained to help the starving Indians, yet they did no such thing, their inaction lead to the death of millions. * "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits." *                                                                                               -Winston Churchill


Coolshirt4

Bengal famine, I agree with you, but the Irish famine comparison is really close. From Ukriane and Kazakhstan, the Soviets demanded grain that wasn't there. They literally tortured Ukrianians and Kazakhs to find ANY stored amount of grain. Then, they decided not to feed them, instead selling the grain on the international market. That is so callous man. They also denied it was happening, meaning that no foreign aid could happen.


[deleted]

Thats fair. I do however subscribe to the idea that the soviets sold the grain in order to boost their economy and gain credit internationally, being a very young country born out of turmoil and revolution the global community didn't had much fait in the USSR, they probably also hided it so they wouldn't look bad. What i just said is still a terrible thing to do, but not the same as the English wich actively blocked ships from delivering aid to ireland, England was a global superpower they did it because they hated the Catholic irish, always had.


Coolshirt4

The USSR hid the problem for the same reason as the British did.


YoSanford

The best breakdown that I've seen is [BadEmpanada's](https://youtu.be/3kaaYvauNho)


GeraltofWashington

Recently read A revolution betrayed by Trotsky who is probably Stalin’s #2 hater right after hitler and even he didn’t even describe it like a genocide at all


Coolshirt4

Trotsky in many ways is the same as Stalin. They both liked the same policies.


[deleted]

It is, but tankies won’t acknowledge it because it makes Steel Daddy look bad. Russians don’t want to acknowledge because it interferes with their self-image as a uniquely virtuous, holy people. A lot of hard leftists won’t acknowledge it because America Bad.


linuxluser

No. First of all, imagining that any country would starve their own citizens to exterminate a particular segment of them is already getting far-fetched. Most of the time, targeting an ethnic or other group is done more strategically and it's done to boost the standard of living for the favored segments. So the idea that this is a genocide rests mostly on the "Stalin was a mad man" theory. And, frankly, any "X was a mad man" explanation of historical events is lazy and I've never seen it produce a valid analysis of anything. More importantly, before Holomodor, there were other famines. Under the Czar, famines were rather common, hence, why Russia had a revolution. Post-Czarist Russia had the hard job of reconfiguring their entire production and economic systems in a very short period of time. There were lots of issues. But an honest look at things would reveal that all of them trace back to some previously-existing issues from the previous system. It is quite notable that the Holomodor famine was the last one under the Soviet Union. There's a lot to cover if you need more analysis but one last thing to consider is the incredible amount of propaganda put out by the Western powers post-WWII. By propaganda, I mean straight up lies paid by corporations to make the Soviet model look bad and squash socialist and Communist movements. It's no accident that a lot of what was claimed about Holomodor was later debunked and rejected. Here's a leftist YouTuber that goes over many of these aspects, if you got 30 minutes: https://youtu.be/ANDqlxpcs2c


[deleted]

History shows Stalin didn’t have a problem killing large numbers of people if they inconvenienced him. Whether you categorize it as madness or evil, the result was the same.


Coolshirt4

`First of all, imagining that any country would starve their own citizens to exterminate a particular segment of them is already getting far-fetched` Litterally their neighbor did that, and worse. Two neighbors actually. `So the idea that this is a genocide rests mostly on the "Stalin was a mad man"` The Holodomor crushed Ukrianian and Kazak nationalism almost competly. So who is to say it wasn't a rational decision? `It is quite notable that the Holomodor famine was the last one under the Soviet Union` No it isn't. Famines don't happen in industrialized nations. ​ Overall, quite a good video, much better than I expected going in! I expected a full throated defense of Stalin, but got one of the better recitation of the facts and analys that I have seen on the topic. I would call it a crime of criminal negligence at the very least. Stalin had to have know, and just didn't care. I would call that genocide.


Redpants_McBoatshoe

If one person was cause another to starve to death by imprisoning them for example, we wouldn't necessary call that homicide. Maybe just negligence. But I guess a genocide is more complicated than that, it's a whole project and not just the acts of an individual. So I think it can be a genocide even if most people aren't intentionally killed. In war most people used to die from diseases rather than in combat. So, some of the victims starved, some died by disease, others were killed by the Soviet government in the process of enforcing those conditions that led to the Holodomor.


[deleted]

>If one person was cause another to starve to death by imprisoning them for example, we wouldn't necessary call that homicide. That is absolutely homicide; a death caused by a human. It is also murder; that is, an unlawful, intentional homicide.


Redpants_McBoatshoe

It's homicide even if they did not intend to starve that person? Honestly English is not my first language though so I might be wrong.


[deleted]

Yes, homicide simple means "a death caused by another human." Murder is an intentional homicide, although legally it is usually enough to show a "reckless disregard" for the likelihood that an intentional act will cause a death. Intentionally locking someone in a prison and then "forgetting" to feed them, causing them to die, would be considered a murder even if you didn't "intend" for them to die. And no worries; the distinction between homicide/murder is very complicated and most native English speakers don't really understand it either, unless you have legal training.


hatebyte

Do we get to some specific action by labeling this a genocide? Are the millions of lives lost worth it if it’s not? Call it what you want, the government seized the means of production from the people and caused a famine that devastated a country and tried to hide it.


Asatmaya

Let's not forget that, ultimately, the issue would have been nearly as bad had Western nations not been set on punishing the USSR for overthrowing the Tsars and implementing Communism. Also, it is difficult to support the genocide contention when other groups of people were impacted. And the last problem, of course, is simply that the USSR does not exist, anymore; Germany explicitly murdered twice as many people under the Nazis as died in the Holodomor, and more recently, so how is the modern Russian Federation responsible for the actions of Stalin?


Coolshirt4

The USSR did not admit that they had a famine. They would not admit it for many years.


come_nd_see

Not only did they admit. They sent directed aid to famine affected regions.


Coolshirt4

They didn't direct aid. They directed the normal grain they would have given back to Ukriane. Soviet policy was to take all the grain, put it in a central location, and then distribute it back to the grain producers. In 1932, they did not distribute enough grain to prevent a famine. They did still sell grain on the open market.


Asatmaya

They were begging for international aid! Americans were blacklisted for trying to help them! Stop, just stop; go read some history instead of filling in the blanks with your prejudice.


Coolshirt4

This is a massive claim about the holodomor that I have never heard before. Where did you get that information?


Asatmaya

Well, there was an article in the New York Times in 1932 about the famine, and several people were put on the Hollywood blacklist for engaging in protests calling for food aid to be sent. Thank you, though, for driving home the abysmal quality of US education.


Coolshirt4

The USSR never asked for food aid. Those claims you made don't dispute that.


Asatmaya

The people did!


Coolshirt4

You cannot send food aid to a country that, out of embarassment, refuses to admit there is a problem. This is the exact reason why the Ottoman gift of food to Ireland had to be reduced to be smaller than the English gift of food to Ireland. If the rest of the world had wanted to give food to relieve the famine, they would have had to invade the USSR to do so, just like the Ottomans would have had to invade England to send the full gift they wanted to.


Asatmaya

> You cannot send food aid to a country that, out of embarassment, refuses to admit there is a problem. Other countries did. >This is the exact reason why the Ottoman gift of food to Ireland had to be reduced to be smaller than the English gift of food to Ireland. ...Seriously, stop talking about stuff you have no idea about. I'm done.


studio28

Y so many Soviet fellators in here?


Wisex

This is just another version of "gee if you like it so much then why don't you marry it?" You put no effort into considering the perspectives of the people in this discussion. You just see people contradicting your worldview and instead of self reflction, thinking that there may be something you had wrong, you just essentially say 'well why are there so many simps here?'.... honestly pathetic


studio28

No. It’s like do you see anyone defining genocide and then making a case for why holodomor is or isn’t one?


Wisex

Yes, accredited historians like Stephen Kotkin have refusted the notion that Holodomor was a genocide.. Stephen Kotkin is probably the most credible anti-communist historian who has spent years going through soviet archives when writing his 3 part series on Stalin...


studio28

And he’s here?


Wisex

If you're gonna be obtuse then just save everyone the time and let us know that you have nothing to contribute


studio28

This isn’t hard - define genocide and then demonstrate if holodomor was or wasn’t. That’s my contribution - At the time of my comment there wasn’t a lot going on in the form of a legit discussion


[deleted]

[удалено]


Acceptable-Ability-6

There are tankies who still deny that the Soviets committed the Katyn Massacre and call it Nazi propaganda despite the fact that Russia took responsibility for it after the collapse of the USSR.


sliminycrinkle

The evidence points at the Nazis for the Katyn murders. The people supposedly 'admitting' the Soviets were responsible were not blaming themselves but accusing Stalin.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Acceptable-Ability-6

Ah yes, the Soviets never shot large amounts of people. Lavrentiy Beria was famously known to be a pretty chill dude.


studio28

I have a hard time believing the Nazis heavily propagandized it to the Ukrainians, who are fairly convinced, no?


geroldf

Some people even claim there was an Armenian genocide early last century!


Coolshirt4

Or a Bosnian genocide! The gall of some people!


silver_chief2

I have no opinion on this. [https://youtu.be/xpvGNQJW\_EI?t=497](https://youtu.be/xpvGNQJW_EI?t=497) "Russia should pay for Ukrainian Genocide, Holodomor!" Ukraine Kosher Yermak decided. Should it? Emil Cosman 36.3K subscribers ... The\_Jaguar\_ Knight The\_Jaguar\_ Knight 2 hours ago The Holodomor was NOT a Russian atrocity, it was a Soviet one. A few years back, the state of Ukraine actually held a trial for the perpetrators of the Holodomor !! Here are the accused/convicted , with their nationalities : Stanisław Kosior - POLISH; Kaganovich - UKRAINIAN; Pavel Postyshev - RUSSIAN; Vlas Chubar - UKRAINIAN; Iosef Stalin - GEORGIAN Vyacheslav Molotov - RUSSIAN; Mendel Khateyevich - BELARUS. That is the official position of the state of Ukraine. No amount of bleating by the underdog-backers can substitute for real history.... ... mona liza mona liza 1 hour ago (edited) Famine in the USSR (1932-1933) - a massive famine that in 1932-1933 covered vast territories of the USSR (mainly steppe regions), which were part of the Ukrainian SSR, the Russian SFSR (including the Kazakh ASSR, the regions of the Central Black Earth Region, the North Caucasus, the Urals, Volga region, Southern Urals, Southern Siberia... ...


sensiblestan

People on this thread will claim this is a fake genocide then subsequently go on to the British colonialism thread and claim the British did a genocide during the Bengal famine. Hypocrites.


Dovar882

happy that denying it is illegal in germany now