Holodomor

>those fucking Russians
The one that created Ucraine in the first place?

No, not really. The event isn't talked about enough to draw attention of retards like 11/9 or holocaust did.

Exactly. Ukrainians are fucking babies, none of the other victims of the famine do this whole "IT WAS DA JOOS" bullshit either they try to pull.

Russians didn't create Ukraine.

Stalin did nothing wrong

That's stormfags, not Ukrainians. Ukrainians complain about soviet policies, which is completely legit.

True, I just see so many "REAL HOLOCAUST" memes talking about the Genocide of the UKRAINIAN PEOPLE so it seemed that way

Are you talking how They keep insisting the Jews Cause Holodomor even though Stalin had already dealt with them?

They are like Jews. Remember the holodomor/holocaust! But what about other millions killed by Stalin/Hitler? WTF don't you care about our suffering?!

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic

The causes of the Holodomor can be broken down into 3 parts.

1. Natural Disaster

There was actually a drought during 1932-1933. However, drought alone does not come close to explaining the famine that followed.

2. Collectivization

Collectivization was not popular among the farmers, especially the more affluent "Kulaks". Collectivization overall lowered the output per acre due to inefficiency and poor management. When the government formed the Kulaks to collectivize, rather than handing their livestock over to the government, the Kulaks killed and ate them instead. This would reduce the amount of farm animals available in 32-33, most critically horses and oxen that could be yoked to a plow. Furthermore, the Kulaks were the equivalent of agricultural skilled labor, with more expertise/management skills than the poorer peasants.

3. Food confiscation

This is where most of the controversy is, and this is where I also think the Soviets were the single most responsible party for the Holodomor.

Remember the earlier bit about "production goals". Well the Soviets collected food from the farms based on the production goal that was set, rather than the actually achieved production. The double whammy of absurdly inflated production goals and a poor harvest meant that the Soviets collected basically everything, and left little to the farmers themselves. Farmers who could not give the state as much grain as was expected were accused of hoarding and subject to severe punishment.

>I'm sell OATS nao
>nope

pls

>""""""affluent""" "Kulaks""""

...

...

Lastly, the response of the Soviet government is where the genocide accusations come in.

By early 33, signs of famine were already showing. It's clear the Soviets realized this, since they cut down on their grain exports in 32. However, millions of tons of grain were still being exported, rather than being distributed as aid to the famine victims. What aid that did arrive was concentrated in the cities rather than reaching the peasants.

The Soviet government also restricted internal movement, so famine victims could not go to areas where there was more food available.

Note that during the Holodomor, the population of the Belorussian and Russian SFSR's continued to grow. Food was available, but the Soviets were simply not distributing it to the famine areas.

stormfags are such crocodile tear faggots. They will bring up holodomor, yet praise Hitler for his wanton slaughter of slavs.

sending it to countryside would result in strvation in cities tho

-incompetence
-bad harvest
not a genocide tho

The point is that there would be enough food for both the cities and the countrysides if the Soviets stopped exporting food during the famine, or even bought some from outside.

The Soviets could also have slightly reduced the rations in the Russian and Belorussian republics in order to prevent famine in Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

>don cossacks and Austrian counter agents don't exist

That cartoon is made funnier by the fact hurler wished for De-urbanisation so the villagers are the ubermesnch

Agriculture in Russian Empire and Early Soviet Union was low efficient.
Poor farmers didn't use mechanization, fertilizers and breeding.
They produced enough to feed themselves, a little extra to feed small population of cities and a very little for export.
So collectivization was the only option for Soviet government to increase the productivity while city population grew and required more food.
Peasant opposed the collectivization at first as it looked like they have work for landlord again like in old times, only Kolkhoz was instead of landlord.
With time peasants adopted to this new system, but in first few years it caused mass sabotage.
Some peasants decided to produce the minimum of food only to feed themselves or hide the grain, they killed cows and horses for meat to not give them away to Kolkhoz.
Unfortunately all these measure backfired to peasants, because the government didn't lower the quotas for them.
Even if they didn't produce enough they still had to provide the government with expected amount of grain.
So it caused mass famine which didn't happen only in Ukraine, it happened in all grain producing regions of Soviet Union.
Those regions produced the surplus of grain in previous years when had profit from it did not produce in bad years as they lost the motivation.
The government still took by force what it needed, lives of workers in cities had priority before lives of peasants.

>Stalin genocided asiatic subhumans and made them minorities in their own countries
WTF? I'm a #tankieshell now!

Why do you hipsters think that the world we live in is ''true'' capitalism and that the communism that was back then wasn't ''true communism''?

The perfect capitalism puts the people where they belong as well. You can work, produce, gain and grow if you want. Of course, there are artist that have to be bus drivers. But then again, there were artists in the communistic states that wanted to be so and not work in a factory. Why do you compare the worst in one thing (the realization) with the best of the other thing (the utopical idea)?

No hipster has ever answered this question. You can't either.

Words don't have an inherent meaning, we just use commonly accepted definitions. Under the commonly accepted definitions, most countries today are capitalist and the soviet union wasn't communist.

Litteraly pic related

I would tap that in a zero-g hyperloop to mars (fully electric)

But, user, what did i just said... Why do you compare the pure realization of the one idea with the pure idealistic idea of the other one, which actually could be also via versa?

Soviets, by most commonly accepted definitions, were exactly communistic. Central state, central business, central military, central justice system, central media, central industry. What else do you need for your comministic state?

Yeah like this one

>After making this poster the Stormfags then celebrated the death of many Slavs by the Wehrmacht.
German Extinction will be the best day of my life.

that photo is from 1921-1922 famine that was directly caused by a fucking war

>But, user, what did i just said... Why do you compare the pure realization of the one idea with the pure idealistic idea of the other one, which actually could be also via versa?
There isn't a practical and an idealistic version of communism or capitalism. You have an idealistic conception of language. Read popper on nominalism vs essentialism.
>Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.
Does a country fit this definition?
>communism [...] is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.
Does a country fit this definition?
If you want to use a different definition for "communism" because regimes that called themselves "communists" didn't fit said definition you are free to do so, but disagreements will arise with communists based on purely linguistic differences and you will be unable to communicate properly without straw men. For example, it's obvious that you last sentence is using another definition:
>Soviets, by most commonly accepted definitions, were exactly communistic. Central state, central business, central military, central justice system, central media, central industry. What else do you need for your comministic state?
If we replace "communism" with the previous definition, we get "What else do you need for your stateless state?", which means nothing.

Here is objectively what happened

During the 1930s Stalin embarked on a ridiculously over-ambitious industrialization program. This demanded massive food exports abroad to fund it, so grain quotas in the USSR became extreme. However due to the forced collectivization of agriculture and the mass movement of farmers onto massive collective farms, the entire agricultural system was in disarray and the quotas could not be realistically met. The peasants often refused to give up their grain so it had to be forcibly requisitioned. The result of all this was a massive nation-wide famine.

The regime was very unsympathetic to the plight of peasants, basically saying they were being greedy and counter-revolutionary. Stalin even increased the quotas in retaliation, making the situation worse.

In Ukraine the famine was particularly bad, in large part because the grain quotas were disproportionately heavy here and the local ruling triumvirate (vlas chubar, stanislav koisor, and lazar kaganovich) were particularly hardcore stalinists who refused any compromise or slow-down of grain requisitioning.

Ultimately about 7 million people died nation wide, of which about 3-5 million were in Ukraine (the large majority). This had led to accusations of artificial famine and deliberate genocide. The famine was certainly artificial (i.e. if the party didn't initiate these programs, it would not have happened) but there's no real evidence for a deliberate, planned genocide against the Ukrainian people. However many scholars maintain that Stalin calculated the whole thing as a way to combat Ukrainian nationalism, which was strong in the 1920s.

The Holodomor certainly happened, and it was certainly the fault of the regime, but the argument is wether it was a deliberate act by the regime or just an end-result of their recklessness. Regardless of the answer here, when moscow heard of the situation in Ukraine they refused to change any course and made the situation worse

edgier than a dodecahedron lad.

>Ultimately about 7 million people died nation wide, of which about 3-5 million were in Ukraine
All numbers are taken from ass.

>Encyclopædia Britannica estimates that 6 to 8 million people died from hunger in the Soviet Union during this period, of whom 4 to 5 million were Ukrainians

The "Jews did Holodomor" thing is largely a post-WW2 revisionism to try and distract from Nazi-related warcrimes.

It plays on the "Jewish Bolshevik" myth (despite the fact that Jews were a small minority within the ruling central committee in the 1920s/early 30s).

The main "evidence" used that it was a "Jewish" genocide is that one of the 3 main people responsible for overseeing operations in Ukraine (Lazar Kaganovich) was ethnically Jewish, the only Jew in top Soviet leadership at the time.

Pic related however is the actual politburo at the time of the Holodomor and you see that there weren't many Jews. There's also the issue that many Jews died in the famine. Making the "Jews caused Holodomor" accusations a bit ridiculous.

Though the idea itself is pretty stupid. Stalin was Georgian as was much of his inner circle but nobody claims Georgians caused the Holodomor. It's just a logical leap used to support an intellectually hollow argument

Yes unlike the number of Holocaust victims which is all things considered fairly well-determined due to preserved records, the USSR had decades to cover up the famine deaths and as a result we know little of the death toll.

It's pretty much determined by taking the 1937 Soviet census (itself manipulated by Stalin) and trying to deduce how many deaths were from 1932-33

It's a reason the holodomor is so difficult to talk about.

>Austrian counter agents
Not the user from before, but please elaborate. I am interested.

The Judeobolsheviks did it, untermensch!

>It's pretty much determined by taking the 1937 Soviet census (itself manipulated by Stalin) and trying to deduce how many deaths were from 1932-33

I know i'm of the belief the current estimates of the Holodomor are accurate but it is hard to tell. The Nazis made it easy for the Jews.

>Stalin calculated the whole thing as a way to combat Ukrainian nationalism, which was strong in the 1920s.

Bullshit. Ukrainian nationalism was only centered around catholic galicia which was under control of Poland. In fact the portrayal of this famine as a method to combat Ukrainians was created by the Polish Pilsudski regime as a form of propaganda to shift the hate of galicians against Russians instead of Poles. Now that galicians control the entire Ukraine, we see this shitty story brainwashed into other inhabitants of the Ukraine.

>The famine was certainly artificial (i.e. if the party didn't initiate these programs, it would not have happened)

It happened because it was natural. There were dozens of famine throughout Russia throughout the 19th and early 20th century, but the czarists never cared about it and since the Russian Empire was an ally of the Western Empires during WW1, these famines were not used as a propaganda tool as the one during soviet times

There were almost no Ukrainians where the famine happened. Just southern Russians who happened to live in the artificial territorial entity known as the Ukrianian SSR.

USSR had continuous famine during 1922-1950 years.
Its main reason was because USSR was spending most of resources for wars.
Leadership of USSR and moreover of Ukrainian Repbulic was full of Ukrainians.

Read Mark Tauger
newcoldwar.org/archive-of-writings-of-professor-mark-tauger-on-the-famine-scourges-of-the-early-years-of-the-soviet-union/

It should be also added that the absurdly height production quotas stemmed from overreporting by Soviet officials.

The Great Purge was still to come, but state security was already there sniffing for enemies of the state. On the other hand, successes like exceeding production goals was rewarded in the Soviet system. The local officials were therefore incentivised to report every harvest higher than it actually was. With lack of any effective supervision, the only thing that the officials had to do in order to have the scheme going was to collect as much grain from the peasants as would be collected had the numbers were real.

Now Moscow, seeing the reports of amazing harvests, increased the production quotas. Which again increased the amount of grain the peasants were ordered to give away.

Unsurprisingly, China had the same problem during the great leap forward. This unsuprisingly had the same effect of the government taking everything the farmers had and leaving them to starve.

However, China was able to reform it's agriculture far more effectively than the Soviet Union. China de-collectivized after 1976, when private lots were "sold" to farmers. The government still owns the land long term, and demanded food from the private lots. However the quotas were set based on the output level of the collectivized farms, while the output from the private lots was far higher due to the farmers actually giving a shit about maximizing productivity.

>hoard grain and exploit starving people during a famine for profit
>years later claim you were actually the victims and were being unfairly persecuted and genocided

Nothing of value was lost. A bunch of third world subhumans against the inevitable philosophy died and the Union was all the better because of it

WINRAR
/thread

...