• halvar@lemm.ee
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well then you tell me what did, I'm intrested to hear "both sides of the story".

    • LemmeAtEm@lemmy.ml
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ok here's what happened: Nazis made propaganda to discredit their enemies and you believed that propaganda. Then you went on a website and showed everyone there what an idiot you are, not just because you believe the propaganda and take it as the default, but also because what you're asking for someone else to explain to you has already been discussed at length in this same thread.

      • halvar@lemm.ee
        ·
        1 year ago

        Alright let's say I know that, now what is it that made the people die in Ukraine?

        • Awoo [she/her]
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          A famine in a region where regular famines occurred every 5 years or so for the last 500 years. Avoidable, had mistakes not been made by central planning in that they trusted what kulaks were reporting as their grain figures and yields when the reality was that they were hoarding for private profit while reporting false figures. This error in oversight meant fields were assigned under yield and not enough was produced. Upon discovering this error was occurring it was swiftly and harshly stamped on by the deployment of the red army to seize hoarded grain, hoarders were executed.

          It was the last famine the region ever had after hundreds of years of regular famines, with errors in the system being stamped out simply by having extra checks on numbers instead of trusting the farms in future.

          It also did not solely occur in Ukraine. It occurred across the Soviet Union, heavily affecting Poland and Kazakh too, but is not the subject of a persistent campaign to label it genocide propaganda there by literal actual nazis spreading the double genocide myth.

          • halvar@lemm.ee
            ·
            1 year ago

            This indeed sounds intresting, I might look into it. In the meantime thank you for your answer.

            • Awoo [she/her]
              ·
              1 year ago

              The primary thing to keep in mind here is that nobody denies that a famine occurred. The region was plagued with them for hundreds of years and the socialists were implementing a new method of production that was ultimately experimental and without any historic precedent from which to learn from. The mistakes that were made in its implementation did lead to an avoidable famine had those mistakes not been made. The question at hand is truly just whether this famine was intentional or not. Very little evidence for its intent exists, both in the soviet archives and in any outside evidence.

              I strongly recommend reading the Preface to the Revised Edition of The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933 by RW Davies and Wheatcroft, two extremely well regarded academic historians. It is a good insight into how this was regarded as absurd by academia, and has been manufactured for political purposes over time. I will quote some of this preface below:

              PREFACE TO REVISED EDITION

              Since this book was completed, the Soviet famine of 1931–33 has become an international political issue. Following a number of preliminary declarations and a vigorous campaign among Ukrainians in Canada, in November 2006 a bill approved by the Ukrainian parliament (Verkhovna rada) stated that the famine was ‘an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people’. In the following year a three-day event commemorating the famine in Ukraine was held in its capital, Kiev, and at the same time Yushchenko, the president, called on the Ukrainian parliament to approve ‘a new law criminalising Holodomor denial’ – so far without success.1 Then on May 28, 2008, the Canadian parliament passed a bill that recognised the Holodomor as a genocide and established a Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (‘Holodomor’) Memorial Day. Later in the year, on October 23, 2008, the European parliament, without committing itself to the view of the Ukrainian and Canadian parliament that the famine was an act of genocide, declared it was ‘cynically and cruelly planned by Stalin’s regime in order to force through the Soviet Union’s policy of collectivization of agriculture’. In the following month, on the 75th anniversary of what it described as ‘the famine-genocide in Ukraine’, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress held a widely publicised National Holodomor Awareness Week.

              This campaign is reinforced by extremely high estimates of Ukrainian deaths from famine. On November 7, 2003, a statement to the United Nations General Assembly by 25 member-countries declared that ‘the Great Famine of 1932–1933 in Ukraine (Holodomor) took from 7 million to 10 million innocent lives’. According to Yushchenko, Ukraine ‘lost about ten million people as a direct result of the Holodomor-genocide’. The President of the Ukrainian World Congress insisted in a statement to the United Nations that ‘a seven–ten million estimate appears to present an accurate picture of the number of deaths suffered by the Ukrainian nation from the Great Famine (Holodomor) of 1932–33’.2 In contrast, the Russian government has consistently objected to the Ukrainian view. On April 2, 2008, a statement was approved by the Russian State Duma declaring that there was no evidence that the 1933 famine was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people. The statement condemned the Soviet regime’s ‘disregard for the lives of people in the attainment of economic and political goals’, but also declared that ‘there is no historic evidence that the famine was organized on ethnic grounds’. The official view was endorsed by the Russian archives, and by Russian historians. In 2009 the Russian Federal Archive Agency published a large handsome book reproducing photographically 188 documents from the archives, to be followed by several further volumes.3 In the preface the director of the Russian archives, V. P. Kozlov, criticises the ‘politicisation’ of the famine:

              Not even one document has been found confirming the concept of a ‘golodomor-genocide’ in Ukraine, nor even a hint in the documents of ethnic motives for what happened, in Ukraine and elsewhere. Absolutely the whole mass of documents testify that the main enemy of Soviet power at that time was not an enemy based on ethnicity, but an enemy based on class.4

              In our own work we, like V. P. Kozlov, have found no evidence that the Soviet authorities undertook a programme of genocide against Ukraine. It is also certain that the statements by Ukrainian politicians and publicists about the deaths from famine in Ukraine are greatly exaggerated. A prominent Ukrainian historian, Stanislas Kul’chitskii, estimated deaths from famine in Ukraine at 3–3.5 million;5 and Ukrainian demographers estimate that excess deaths in Ukraine in the whole period 1926–39 (most of them during the famine) amounted to 31⁄2 million.6 Nevertheless, Ukrainian organisations continue, with some success, to urge Canadian schools to teach as a fact that excess deaths were 10 million during the 1932–33 famine.7 This does not mean that Ukraine did not suffer greatly during the famine. It is certainly the case that most of the famine deaths took place in Ukraine, and that the grain collection campaign was associated with the reversal of the previous policy of Ukrainisation.8 In this context Russian interpretations of the famine differ greatly. At one extreme doughty supporters of the Stalinist regime claim that the famine was an act of nature for which Stalin and the Soviet government were not responsible. Thus in his recent book on the famine a Russian publicist, a certain Sigizmund Mironin, argued that the very poor harvest of 1932 was the main cause of the famine:

              Using the articles of M.Tauger and other English-language sources, I seek to prove: 1) there was a very bad harvest in 1932, which led to the famine; 2) the bad harvest was caused by an unusual combination of causes, among which drought played a minimum role, the main role was played by plant diseases, unusually widespread pests, and the lack of grain connected with the drought of 1931, and rain during the sowing and harvesting; 3) the bad harvest led to a severe famine ... 4) the Soviet leadership, and Stalin in particular, did not succeed in receiving information about the scale of the famine; 5) Stalin and the Politburo, as a result of the drought in 1931, did not have grain stocks, but did everything they could to reduce human losses from the famine, and took every measure to prevent famine from recurring.9

              This view of the famine is emphatically and justifiably rejected by most Russian historians. We show in the following pages that there were two bad harvests in 1931 and 1932, largely but not wholly a result of natural conditions. But the 1932 harvest was not as bad as Mark Tauger has concluded (see pp. xix–xx below). Stalin was certainly fully informed about the scale of the famine. Moreover, Mironin’s account neglects the obvious fact that the famine was also to a considerable extent a result of the previous actions of Stalin and the Soviet leadership. Mironin’s book is Stalinist apologetics, not history. Unfortunately this approach to the Stalin era is increasingly publicised in contemporary Russia.

                • Awoo [she/her]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Attempts at historical revisionism will never stop. Being aware of and keeping track of them over time is half the battle in preventing them.

          • duderium [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            “But this would mean that I was wrong, and I, the main character of the universe, cannot be wrong. What do you think about that, tankie?”

    • gregheffley [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, that’s not how it works. You were the one that made the claim Stalin “exported all of his bread to other parts of his empire”, so the burden of proof is on you. Show us.

      • halvar@lemm.ee
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don't intend to prove it as I'm not here to convince you. I just have a certain point of view, which I shared as it seemed as an apptopriate comment on the post. Now that you present me an alternative narrative, I'm intrested to learn what it is, and as I do not intend to prove mine, you don't have to prove your's either. We just have to converse, and that too only if you want to.

        • RuthlessCriticism [comrade/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Your 'view' is just wrong though. The opening of the Soviet archives has confirmed that the USSR sent significant aid to the famine stricken areas.

          https://old.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/Publicat/Fam-Pyrig-1933.php#nom-159

          `№ 159 RESOLUTION OF THE PYATYKHATSK SOWING COMMITTEE OF THE DNIPROPETROV Oblast ON PROVIDING FOOD AID TO THOSE IN ACUTE NEED TO KOLHOSPAM AND KOLHOSPNIK

          February 7, 1933

          1. Instruct the district department and district supply department to distribute the food loan in relation to the number of people and crops on collective farms in such a way that the sowing committee has at its disposal a reserve of 10% of this amount, and this 10% will also have to be distributed among collective farms, based on the needs of individual collective farms and collective farmers.
          1. From the available loan of 12 thousand pounds of corn in grain, it is considered necessary to provide urgent assistance to the following collective farms:

          Moreover, the indicated 8.3 tons are not taken into account in the calculation of these collective farms in the overall distribution of food loans.

          1. Due to the fact that there is a large number of detected cases of swelling in the area, that the area was not sufficiently informed about this and that the assistance provided is insufficient, instruct Comr. Kudrinsky and Salip should write a memorandum to the regional CP(b)U about the current situation and ask the regional sowing committee to provide additional food assistance.

          The chairman of the sowing committee Hryshchenko

          Partarch of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine. F. 19. Op. 1. Ref. 874. Ark. AND. `

        • Goadstool
          ·
          edit-2
          26 days ago

          deleted by creator

          • ThomasMuentzner [he/him, comrade/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            the proplem with the metaphorical 'small people' is that they are in denial about beeing small people , so a obstacle that a tall person can easly cross ("Oh so i have been bambozzeled to a degree") appears daunting and endless to them ... for us it is easy because we are "tall" , for @halvar@lemm.ee it is daunting because he entered the dark site of town riding his high horse ,the horse then instantly died and the now obviously pretty small and helpless Halvar is running out of here it as fast as his littl legs can carry him .. maybe he will return someday .. humble and interested. Or will he preach of our barbarism in polite Society? - "Can you belive it ? they mistrust our exaclted Majestic Patron there ? !

            to return , he obviously needs to grow , how do we messure that ... Obviously by his ability to cross without the help of a high horse , lifting him from the ground.. and then we can all be like ..

            "look how much youve grown ! we proud of you!" Care-Comrade

        • JeffBozo [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          You don't intend to prove it as you literally can't because you didn't plan on being expected to. Don't try to pull bs on people here. This isn't Reddit where people with the same viewpoint will updoot you anyway no matter what the facts say.

          If you're actually interested in knowing the full story of this western narrative then you're free to ask but when you make a snarky remark like that you'll be confronted about your standpoint and expected to back it up, and trust me when I say we have enough liberals coming in here dropping some regurgitated talking point thinking it's a mic drop moment only to falter when confronted.

          • halvar@lemm.ee
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don't intend to do so, because even if I wanted I couldn't convince you, because you clearly made up your mind, and I don't have the time or indeed the knowladge to do so. I left a comment with what I consider my best knowladge, you guys took it as an invitation to battle. I then asked you what is your viewpoint, knowing that I can't change it, just like you most likely can't change mine, but regardless I was still intrested. Then somehow I'm a lib who shall be burned at stake.

            • Dessa [she/her]
              ·
              1 year ago

              I haven't made up my mind, but someone up above commented that theres no evidence that grain distribution was coordinated along ethnic lines, and the longer that thought sits with me, the more and more I'm convinced that this wasn't a genocide.

              You've been presented with a falsifiable statement. If it is indeed false, it will be trivial to win this argument now. Is it?

        • ThomasMuentzner [he/him, comrade/them]
          ·
          1 year ago

          oh , so suddenly all your Thunder is gone .. Damn .. howdid that happen.. ? Not that you build your identiy on "repeating uncriticly what authority tells me about their enemies "

          because this worldview/ Identiy will run into obvious limitations .. I advise against it.. its detremetal to your Social Standing .. next time do

          "I heard that he did X , whats up with that accusation"