I've recently visited Kiev and saw this memorial. I've spoken to people that deny the Holodomor & the food shortages and defend the slaughter of the kulaks.
Why do they believe this? Where do they get their information from? And have you ever debated somebody like that?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
web.archive.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>I've spoken to people that deny the Holodomor
You did not.
I do not think anyone denies this, but perhaps kulaks should not have hoarded grain during a famine. It was simply proper punishment and to say that they were innocent victims is very dubious.
>Why do they believe this?
The same reason people deny genocides: it makes their ethnic group or ideology look bad.
>Where do they get their information from?
Communist propaganda. Not even meming.
>And have you ever debated somebody like that?
They pop up on Veeky Forums all the time.
They got brainwashed by Stalin/communists.
Not face to face, I admit, but I've seen their posts on various facebook groups. The point that they exist and believe this still stands.
> kulaks should not have hoarded grain during a famine
I admit I have not heard this before. I knew famine struck the USSR only AFTER the imprisonment of the kulaks and that they lost their property just like everybody else - bankers, factory owners etc. Could you please elaborate on the accusations brought upon them?
There is literally no proof of Holodomor being "ordered by Stalin", Soviet government or anyone else. Famines were common in Russia every 10-15 years due to weather problems. Kulaks just made it worse.
>people still believe Goebbels' little Ukrainian tale
Sad!
The general consensus is that the Holodomor was Yagoda's doing, the head of the NKVD at the time.
>kulaks just made it worse
Please elaborate.
>Not face to face, I admit, but I've seen their posts on various facebook groups. The point that they exist and believe this still stands.
You can see small groups of people on facebook claiming practically everything possible. Why does this particular one triggers you so much?
> Solzhenitsyn
> Orwell
> Personal accounts
It's definitely more sources than Goebbels. Millions have died of starvation in India at the hands of the British so it's not like it is such a tall tale.
> triggers
Just trying to understand different points of view. Maybe I'm missing something in my own understanding of events.
>Solzhenitsyn
>Orwell
Those people unnironicaly bealived and said stuff like this.
As i said, there is literally no proof of that. When we talk about purges, we can at least see lists that were signed by people
You can safely ignore this view. Neither Russian or Ukrainian side denies there was a terrible famine during the era. Only "various groups on facebook" do that.
>Why do they believe this?
Edgy contrarianism or a fetish for totalitarianism
>Where do they get their information from?
Debunked Soviet propaganda still being perpetuated by Russian nationalists or lefties who eat it up because it's anti-Western
>And have you ever debated somebody like that?
No, they're usually retarded communist LARPers and you will never change their "Stalin dindu nuffin" views.
You don't have to take to heart everything he said. Hell, even Nietzsche was pretty misogynistic by today's standards. But even if only 10% of what Solzhenitsyn wrote is true it's still one of the most horrible fucking things I've ever read.
I somehow doubt this is a real quote.
You say there's no proof. Just the census numbers should be enough to prove that it happened. Recommended reading:
en.wikipedia.org
I've argued with a Russian here, not on the Holodomor but on the famine in general. He pulled some Soviet statistics about caloric intake that rose after 1917 and argued that the famines were mostly western propaganda. I said the stats were not reliable. He said The Gulag Archipelago was not reliable. Kind of ended there but it was interesting to hear his side.
>Solzhenitsyn
He's against the Ukrainian view of the story.
200 years together has no official translation yet so take that as you will.
Doesnt changes the fact that he claimed 60 milion people died in GULAGs or were executed in SU,
There is no proof of that it was ordered by anyone from the Soviet government.
It's not exaggerated if you account for the fact that the USSR lasted from 70 years and many people got life sentences. So yes, they actually died INSIDE the Gulag though maybe not directly killed by it.
There are numerous people on Veeky Forums who deny Holodomor, usually tankies or jews.
>Muh 66 gorillion
No Soviet official said "How does starving a few million Ukrainians sound, comrades? It'll be a jolly good time."
What really happened though was that the Soviet authorities decided to concentrate on feeding the cities and the peasants did not have enough food. So yeah, there was no direct killing order, but their decisions still led to the deaths.
Read Tauger
>He pulled some Soviet statistics about caloric intake that rose after 1917
After end of the war? Gee...
>I said the stats were not reliable. He said The Gulag Archipelago was not reliable.
Sounds to me like you were both correct. Soviets stats should indeed be taken with a grain of salt and so should be rumours heard by a GULAG paperpusher.
>"You are starving? This is not famine yet! When your women start eating their children then you may come and say we are starving”.
-Leon Trotsky regarding the Russians demanding food
>destroying the peasant economy and driving the peasant from the country to the town, the famine creates a proletariat…”
>"It is precisely now and only now, when in the starving regions people are eating human flesh, and hundreds if not thousands of corpses are littering the roads, that we can (and therefore must) carry out the confiscation of church valuables with the most savage and merciless energy, not stopping (short of) crushing any resistance.” He continued, ”The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoisie we succeed in executing for this reason, the better”.
-Vladimir Lenin
Good quotes
It's not the general consensus. It's literally a Veeky Forums meme. Yagoda had nothing to do with the famine.
>Yagoda had nothing to do with the famine.
Can you provide a sauce or an explanation instead of shitting out a statement and expecting everyone to just eat it up?
This is a fucking meme, there were 12-13 milions people in Gulags and less than 2 milions died here, most of them were Axis prissoners that died due to food shortages in 1942-1943 winter. For example in 41 years communists in Czechoslovakia killed about 130 people, a lot of them in Jewish purges in early 50´s
I dont realy undertand reason to genocide Ukrainians by killing 1(3 of them and letting rest of them live + killing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Kazachs.
12-13 million in Gulags is still an insanely high number and 2 million dead is no laughing matter. Your argument is basically "It wasn't as bad as Solzhenitzin said". I get it but it's still really bad.
If you read Lenin/Stalin you'll see they had a perverse obsession with hunger - a population too scared and too hungry will not have the energy to revolt. They should always be missing something, be it sugar or razors. I don't think they wanted the Ukrainians genocided, just subdued. Their deaths were however the result of their sick policies.
>The court charged Joseph Stalin, Vyacheslav Molotov, Lazar Kaganovich, Stanislav Kosior, Pavel Postyshev, Vlas Chubar and Mendel Khatayevich with genocide, but, due to their deaths, quashed proceedings against them launched by the Security Service in May 2009.
I don't "deny" Holodomor, I just think (know) that it was something other than genocide of Ukrainians.
The story starts with Great Depression. Soviet Communists believed that the capitalist world is at its last breath and that it will try to solve its "contradictions" by military means before dying, that is, capitalist countries will gang up and invade Soviet Union. Backward Russia couldn't defend against Germany alone in the "Imperialist War" of 1914-17, how can it be possible to defend against the combined forces of the capitalist countries? So CPSU leadership was eager to industrialise as soon as possible. To industrialise, you have to buy a lot of machines from the West, as we know during the Great Depression, cost of agricultural commodities like grain plummeted. Grain was also the main export of the USSR, so USSR had to sell a lot of grain to buy machines. To sell a lot of grain, you have to get it from peasantry via some means, in industrialised countries you sell them factory-produced goods, but Soviet Union wasn't an industrialised country. So, another option: collectivisation, that is, bringing all of the peasants into kolkhoz. They peasantry would resist, especially the kulaks who are thought of as objective class enemies of the Soviet power. Soviet activists would be killed, rural schools and other government buildings would be burned, kulak families would be disenfranchised and deported, plenty would flee to the cities to work in all those new industrial establishments and pretend to have always been poor peasants. Now, what is a kolkhoz?
>For example in 41 years communists in Czechoslovakia killed about 130 people, a lot of them in Jewish purges in early 50´s
Wrong. It was about 8-10k (7k being victims of labour camps).
Now, what is a kolkhoz? A village community working as a single economic unit, the goods it produces are sold to the state, and all the profits are split evenly by the farmers without having to pay rents, tithes, taxes etc. Great arrangement on the surface, but the catch is that the price of the agricultural commodities is set by the state, and it is deliberately made so low that in the end of the day peasants get next to nothing – essentially they are engaged in subsistence farming. State also sets the quotes of grain that it wants delivered, its agents go around the main grain producing areas confiscating grain from peasants, and so it takes only one bad harvest for all grain producing areas of the USSR for major famine to begin. Soviet leaders do not immediately notice that something terrible is going on, because everyone from top to bottom is more afraid to deliver less grain than to starve more peasants. Eventually the policy is reversed and relief comes in, but it's much too late for a lot of people. This famine affected all of the grain-producing regions of the Soviet Union: the Ukraine, Southern Russia, North Caucasus and Southern Siberia.
Framing the famine of 1933-34 as genocide of Ukrainians is akin to denying holocaust because it denies and devalues death and suffering outside of the Ukraine.
You can debate me if you want, but I admit my understanding of this issue is not very detailed (still better than most posts ITT).
>"Nowhere else did repressions, purges, suppressions, and all other kinds of bureaucratic hooliganism in general acquire such horrifying scope as in Ukraine, in the struggle against powerful forces concealed in the Ukrainian masses that desired more freedom and independence."
-Leon Trotsky
>[this will be a]"revolution from above” as “the greatest revolution which human history has known, a revolution which smashed the old economic structure and created a new KOLKHOZ system on the base of the socialist industrialization of the country.”
-Lazar Kaganovich
Question time Veeky Forums- why hasn't there been a single major motion picture about Holodomor despite it being on par with the Holocaust?
Because as a Westerner (and probably a kid) you have no idea how powerful totalitarian propaganda is. It's literally, and I do mean literally, only one version of history you hear since the moment you're born. There's no discussion, no alternative media, no opposition. You're told something and that's it. That's how you brainwash millions.
Gee, goy, I really don't know...
Do you mean to claim first-hand experience with totalitarian propaganda?
Fucking kek
280 people executed
374 killed when crossing the border
death in prison including regular criminals and collborants 4500, mostly caused by life sentence, so its not "killed by X"
Are you realy autistic enough to count criminals and nazis as "victims of communism"?
>Question time Veeky Forums- why hasn't there been a single major motion picture about Holodomor despite it being on par with the Holocaust?
So this was the point of the thread all the time? Firstly it is not on par, one was delibarate, violent genocide. Second:
>Russians don't want to medialize it
>Americans don't know what's Ukraine
>Euros don't want to push the war
>Ukrainians don't know how to motion picture (see Bitter harvest)
I grew up in a post-totalitarian country. Although I was born in its last years I've spend enough time reading about it and observing the results.
> implying I'm a westerner
> implying I'm a kid
> he knows what is like to live under communism
The TV show Dallas and pirated VHS fucked up the communist idea in my country. Most people don't eat that bullshit with a spoon like the western countries think. Get off your high horse.
You mean you've spent enough time reading contemporary political commentary that exploits history to get you think certain things about contemporary events.
No, I don't.
Also 108 deaths during the 1968 intervention, where Soviets saved Czechoslovak people from fascistic reaction.
>Are you realy autistic enough to count criminals and nazis as "victims of communism"?
Yes, since as you may know communists had an interesting definition of "criminal". Something along the lines "Who's not with us...".
>I dont realy undertand reason to genocide Ukrainians by killing 1/3 of them and letting rest of them live + killing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Kazachs.
There was a burgeoning nationalist movement in Ukraine. Stalin suppressed it through the normal purges and the orders of collectivization disproportionately targeting Ukraine. People couldn't move from famine stricken areas, grain was shipped out of the area, you couldn't list starvation as an offcial cause of death, etc. The Soviets knew what they were doing.
It's also kinda the reason Tankies and leftists deny Holodomor so vehemently. Denying an ethnic group it's independent nation by literally genocideing them is imperialist and facist as fuck in it's nature and they lose most of the supposed "high ground" they think they hold over the west and their other opponents.
...
Good explanation, thanks user.
I would add that Genocide is deliberate while the Holodomor seems to have been collateral damage of Soviet policies. Still, if you make a bad decision that results in deaths you didn't intend you will still be held responsible for them.
One question though - wasn't Ukraine MOST affected by the famine, even though there was suffering elsewhere?
>It's also kinda the reason Tankies and leftists deny Holodomor so vehemently.
>Tankies and leftists
You forgot the main group, Russian nationalists (like Solzhenitsin).
Never forget victims of communism, #neveragain
en.wikipedia.org
Soviet indoctrination
The man-made famines were real and well-documented but the term "Holodomor" implies a deliberate targeting of ethnic Ukrainians, which was not the case. Crime against humanity, but not genocide.
Yes you have, you are literally retransmitting the dominant narrative in Eastern Europe right now. If you had actually lived through the 20 century, you would've been the one writing denunciations and cheering for show trials, because you are incapable of critical thought.
kewl, how she's related? She was not counted in the number?
Nationalists are a given though. Any Nationalists will deny the crime their country commited. You can usually ignore them because they argue full of flaws like retards. (see /pol/). Commies and such think they're out to save the world though.
t. Tankie
Neck yourself
>collectivization is the most efficient way to solve anything
If I had to sell my 10 tons of grain to the Soviet State for like 5$ you bet your fucking ass I would set it on fire too. Also - the left can't meme.
>There was a burgeoning nationalist movement in Ukraine. Stalin suppressed it through the normal purges and the orders of collectivization disproportionately targeting Ukraine.
Is there any proof of this? It kinda sounds like Soviet propaganda. I know about very strong anti-Polish and anti-Russian nationalist movements in Western Ukraine, but I don't think anything similar to OUN existed in the East.
>If you had actually lived through the 20 century
I already said I've had, you idiot. Have you?
>Still, if you make a bad decision that results in deaths you didn't intend you will still be held responsible for them.
So who should be held responsible and how?
>One question though - wasn't Ukraine MOST affected by the famine, even though there was suffering elsewhere?
It was also the most important grain-producing area in the country and the one closest to the ports. Doesn't mean they get to appropriate the whole event.
Kulak is just a catch-all term for peasant who weren't super poor...thats like saying the economy is bad because the middle class isn't spending money and then killing them for it
keep in mind that Ukraine was an independent country that was internationally recognized from 1917-1921 before it's annexation by the Soviets. The West lived on longer but the east was subjugated by the Russians first. They carried out their pogroms similar to what they did to the Polish to make sure something like the OUN didn't gain ground. Also kind of why so many Russians live there today.
Don't even get me started on the literal mass killings that were performed on the Polish as well.
Also to add
Until the early-1930s, Ukrainian culture enjoyed a widespread revival due to Bolshevik concessions known as the policy of Korenization ("indigenization"). In these years an impressive Ukrainization program was implemented throughout the republic. In such conditions, the Ukrainian national idea initially continued to develop and even spread to a large territory with traditionally mixed population in the east and south that became part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.
At the same time, despite the ongoing Soviet-wide anti-religious campaign, the Ukrainian national Orthodox Church was created, the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. The church was initially seen by the Bolshevik government as a tool in their goal to suppress the Russian Orthodox Church, always viewed with great suspicion by the regime for its being the cornerstone of the defunct Russian Empire and the initially strong opposition it took towards the regime change. Therefore, the government tolerated the new Ukrainian national church for some time and the UAOC gained a wide following among the Ukrainian peasantry.
These events greatly raised the national consciousness among the Ukrainians and brought about the development of a new generation of Ukrainian cultural and political elite. This in turn raised the concerns of Joseph Stalin, who saw danger in the Ukrainians' loyalty towards their nation competing with their loyalty to the Soviet State and in early 1930s the "Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism" was declared to be the primary problem in Ukraine. The Ukrainization policies were abruptly and bloodily reversed, most of the Ukrainian cultural and political elite was arrested and executed, and the nation was decimated with the famine called the Holodomor.
>So who should be held responsible and how?
Right now it's obviously too late but just as we hold the Nazi Party responsible for the jewish deaths, the communists ought to be held responsible for the Ukrainian deaths
> appropriate the whole event
You couldn't have had a poorer choice of SJW-tier words.
You said you were born in 1980 something.
The only people who think the "Holodomor" is real are Ukrainian nationalists and raging antisemites.
Why Communists (after all, VKP(b) was just one Communist party of many)? Why not Russians? Why not Georgians (Stalin was Georgian) or city dwellers? And who gets to decide? Once you start to draw this kind of conclusions, it stops being history and becomes politics.
It's obvious that Soviet politics and economy of the 1930s have literally nothing to do with your crusade against Muslims and "SJW"s.
>Russians don't want to medialize it
How foes that affect Western awareness?
>Americans don't know what's Ukraine
It's been all over our news for almost a decade now. And yes most do. Then that bega the question- how do Americans know so much of the homicaust- but not Holodomor? You still fail to make a point.
>Euros don't want to push the war
This happened decades prior to the war during a period of anti-Soviet sentiment that existed until Perestroika. Why didn't the West use Holodomor as a propaganda tool AT LEAST against a very dangerous and alive enemy but instead beat the dead horse that is the holocaust?
>Ukrainians don't know how to motion picture (see Bitter harvest)
But who does then? That is to ask, who does who keeps making holocaust movies?
Say it user,
SAY IT.
Did I say anything about muslims, user? Or that I want to take back the holy land or some shit?
Cultural Appropriation is SJW jargon, that was the point but it went right over your head.
The Ukrainians are in their rights to mourn their dead from the famine, just like each country is in their rights to mourn their own dead from WW2. They are not appropriating anything.
Never met some one who denied the Holodomor, but one I talked to a representative from the US Communist party who essentially said it was a necessary evil and wasn't so bad as it furthered Marxism.
Gotta love those commies and their "necessary evils".
if your ideology needs the murder of millions to succeed then it's a shit ideology
there are 7 billion people living on this planet.
you think 10 billion is sustainable? I think it could be.
>Question time Veeky Forums- why hasn't there been a single major motion picture about Holodomor despite it being on par with the Holocaust?
Because Ukraine was not the only one affected by the famine, millions of other Soviet Citizens and a third of Kazakhs died.
(In fact, this famine and the one before reduce the Kazakhs population to a third making them a minority in their own country, in which it took until 1980's to make them a majority, but you will never know because of those poor Ukrainians were the only ones to be afflicted..)
if we lived in an alternate reality where the holomodor did happen, the kulaks would have had it coming
...
>if your ideology needs the murder of millions to succeed then it's a shit ideology
Oh, the irony!
It really is, the Bolsheviks (and previous Mensheviks) had overthrown the Russian monarchy and then Whites supposedly to free the proletariat only to then enslave and genocide them. Then again it really wasn't Russians doing this to other ethnic Russians, Ukrainians, Kazaks, Cossacks, etc.
At least the Germans were interring people who they claimed as enemies.
Could you source these quotes, please?
Totsky's Diary in Exile, Leon Trotsky, 1935
>"Actually, the decision was not only expedient but necessary. The severity of this summary justice showed the world that we would continue to fight mercilessly, stopping at nothing.
>The execution of the Tsar’s family was needed not only in order to frighten, horrify, and dishearten the enemy but also in order to shake up our own ranks, to show them that there was no turning back, that ahead lay either complete victory or complete ruin.”
-Leon Trotsky
Holodomor is the best thing the USSR has ever done
I don't no why Russians deny it. Killing ukrainian neonazi sons of bitches is a favour for the world
internment camps invariably have high death tolls, just look at the camps for japanese americans in the USA
this death toll is often aggravated by the fact that people are interened indiscriminate of their age or their health but only on the basis of their percieved politcal beliefs
during war there are always going to be shortages of basic nessecities like food and medicine which weakens the weak and kills the sick and this is heightened in camps because the "enemy" has a lower priority
Im not sure if this excuses the horrific death toll of these camps but I would be interested to see how much a diet of meager rations would increase the death rate of a whole city and how it would compare (taking into account the higher rate of disease in these camps)
>lidl spacing
>try reading a block of text you joyless cunts
So he admitted to saying that in his diary?
>camps for japanese americans
this is a shit example barely any of them died, america had enough food to spare
hastily made POW by both sides and transit camps are closer
>If I had to sell my 10 tons of grain to the Soviet State for like 5$ you bet your fucking ass I would set it on fire too
You wonder why many don't feel bad about liquidating your kind.
>Also - the left can't meme.
The right can't meme well either. It's those who value lulz most of all that create the best memes.
Why don't you recognize that when power mongers peddling obvious lies shut down a free market to insert themselves as the arbiters of distribution and skim as much as they want off the top that they must be resisted?
Why are you so fucking retarded?
The decision to set fire to the grain seems to be more temper-tantrum than an action based on principle.
Stalin used his evil weather machines to literally murder 9 trillion people!
Why wouldn't he? He didn't give 2 fucks user.
>Russian professor teaches Soviet history
>outright tells the class that the Holodomor was not genocide
>butthurt Ukrainian girl leaves
>question in exam has us explain why it isn't genocide
lmao where are you located
>She complains to the Dean of Students
>Her meal plan gets revoked
...
Is Holodomor new liberal forced meme?
It sounds like pc indocrination in american colleges. Same shit.
Liberals hate it, since the Gommies did it.