Was the Holodomor a genocide?

Was the Holodomor a genocide?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>CAPITALISM caused native American extermination
>but HOLODOMOR was a complete accident
Explain yourself commies.

>CAPITALISM caused native American extermination

Commies says capitalism and 15th-19th century imperialism and monarchism are the same thing. So yes people are saying that.

you want a good example of communism?
North Korea who have ruthless dictatorism and total fascist and superiority views.
Stalinist Russia which have slaughtered and forcibly moved around millions of minorities in the ussr

Fiction

North Korea is only communist in rhetoric, and even then they're more Juche than anything else.
Stalinist Russia wasn't communist, but did commit a ton of atrocities in the name of achieving communism.
But my question remains, was the Holodomor a genocide?

please, their space and rocket achievements / technology was done on the back of former nazi scientists which they captured.
The best missile the commies had was katyusha missile.
As soon as Stalin died the real ussr became visible for the people of Russia since there was nobody at the top who was crazy enough the kill all opposition and silence any divergent voice.
communism if flawed completely who wants to work all his life and not get anything in return.
Stalin is much worse then Trump, Stalin was a total crazy dictator much like Kim Jong Un who killed millions because he felt like it.

...

Never forget about the 100 gorillion Indians killed by capitalism, user.

stalinist Russia was not communist? are you retarded? this is as pure communism as can be this is the leader which rose to power directly after lenin, how can this not be communism?

I don't get how to refute these meme pictures when commies show me them.

It wasn't a stateless, moneyless, classless society.

The problem with people who say that murderer was not a communist, that dictator was not communist is:
Communism can not be achieved without killing everybody/ without keeping everybody down to keep them on thesame level, this is why communism is a flawed system and will never work.
Communism is a system of pure violence and oppresion

You have no idea what communism is

It's not genocide if you kill your own people

I agree with that because in communism there will Always be two classes:
1. the 'ruling class' the people in power, the dictators the generals the oppressors.
2. the 'people' the people who stand in line for bread 4 hours a day, who get killed for wanting to have something to eat.

...

I agree with Mark Tauger. It wasn't intentional (doesn't mean their was no culpability) the Soviets spent huge sums of money trying to modernize their agriculture. IIFC Stalin even allowed collective farms to sell their surplus grain on the market as part of a mini-NEP.

I agree that this will always be the case in practice, but if you talk to some lefty retard they will deflect everything to "that wasn't real communism" for the reasons I stated.

Right before that quote
>The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
Marx does not imply that all societies without private property in the modern sense (ex. feudalism) are communist nor did he mean that capital and the law of value can remain in place.

Explain what private property is in your own words

because they're true

>no discernible difference between Ukrainians and Russians other than language
>Soviet leader at the time wasn't even Russian but an ethnic minority himself that wrote in favor of ethnic nationalism and had no grudge against Ukrainians
>no history of anti-Ukrainian sentiment by Russians before (unlike say the English and the Irish)
>next head of Soviet Union and successful underling to Stalin was in fact Ukrainian
>USSR built free hospitals, schools, roads in Ukraine. Gave Ukrainians guaranteed jobs and housing
>life expectancy went up dramatically during USSR rule. Population grew significantly

If it were it must be one of the world's shittiest genocides. But it wasn't. It only gets called that because genocide is such a political word. Cold warriors like to invoke it because it makes the commies seem that much more evil.

It's the modern day equivalent of excommunication. Ostensibly it's about morals and the accusers treat such a serious accusation with the upmost seriousness, but really it's a political tool.

>Stalin even allowed collective farms to sell their surplus grain on the market as part of a mini-NEP.

That was Lenin idiot, stalin actually abolished the NEP and replaced it with five-year plans.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy

Karl Marx was living in a different time.
When people were freezing and starving on the Streets by the thousands the leading noble class was building palaces which costed as much as the people of the land could pay taxes.
Anybody who would want to go to such a system in the western world in this day is a fool.

the means of production, what do you expect? your toothbrush?

...

see

nigga leftypol blames hurricane katrina on capitalism

So capitalism is at fault because niggers dont know shit?
fuck off, we dont need more niggers to overpopulate the world and destroy what nature remains in africa.

>yes people died, but at least they had healthcare in the end, so it was worth it.

Hmm... makes sense to me comrade.

No you're the retard here. According to the Tauger's "The 1932 Harvest" Stalin did in fact allow collective farms to sell some of their grain on the market.

Capitalism didn't cause the hurricane but it is arguably responsible for the lack of preparation for flooding :^)

yeah, thats retarded.

>>USSR built free hospitals, schools, roads in Ukraine. Gave Ukrainians guaranteed jobs and housing

What a dumb non-argument. This is what any country that governs a territory should do, it's a bare minimum not some exceptional gift.
It's like apologists of colonialism saying "sure we took their resources and killed some of them, but we build some schools and roads so it was good, right".

>inadequate planning because nobody cares about the poor living in flood zones
>inadequate funding/labor for flood prevention measures like jetties because retarded southerners and muh taxes; people preferring profit motive over their own houses and lives

Wow this is magic of stalinism

>According a holodomor denial researcher the holodomor wasn't a genocide.

This is /pol/ tier arguments

He's not Grover Furr. Tauger actually researches famines in general. Holodomor is not the only subject he's ever written on

>Leopold II built schools and hospitals in the Congo
>therefore no genocide happened

You're attacking his weakest point

Man, there is no such thing as a 'natural' famine, no matter the size of the harvest. A famine requires some form of state or human input. in this case malicious incompetence.

I'd agree. And the question we're debating is whether or not the famine was intentional and thus constitutes genocide. I said in my first post that I'm not denying there was any fault on the part of the Soviet government. In fact I think collectivization as a whole was awful.

Yes.
Both of those are genocides but the NA one is a little different because it was more obviously intentional. They gave infected blankets to them.
it was Socialist which is a stage on the way to Communism.

You're not doing anything.

>MUH BLANKETS
Biggest meme of this millennium. There's been exactly one documented case of that blanket shit, during some siege in the late 18th century, at a time when vast majority of Indians were already extinct.

>it was Socialist which is a stage on the way to Communism.

>We will reach communist one day comrade, trust me I'm expert in dialectics.

yes, an unending stage.

>it was Socialist which is a stage on the way to Communism.
>I can imagine with what noble indignation some people will recoil from these words. . . . What! The transition to state capitalism in the Soviet Socialist Republic would be a step forward?
>the nature of the transition from capitalism to socialism that gives us the right and the grounds to call our country a Socialist Republic of Soviets
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm

>kulaks burn their crops and slaughter their animals so they won't have to share
>millions starve


It was a genocide, but people conflate the perpetrators (kulaks) with the victims (Soviet government and citizens). Luckily dekulakization prevented this from ever happening again.

Stalin did away with the NEP and state capitalism.

Yawn.

>Stalin did away with the NEP
Yes
>and state capitalism.
>The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm

...

Holodomor, in the most commonly accepted (Ukrainian nationalist) version never happened.
You could argue peasants were targeted and thus it's still a genocide, but literally nothing indicates that. They forced collectivism, peasants resisted, they started forcing peasants to surrender food in order to feed cities, and famine happened.
Famine happened in Southern Russia and Kazakhstan too for that matter.
So claiming it was ''Russian'' plot to kill ''Ukrainians'' is absolutely idiotic and nothing but shitty propaganda.
Yes it happened, and Stalin and his cronies are criminals who caused the death of millions, but it wasn't a genocide because it wasn't directed against a specific group, there was no special intent which is necessary in order to qualify an action as genocide.
It's really fucking disgusting how there are many countries that aren't Ukraine that recognize this as a genocide against Ukrainians. Just shows you that political pragmatism trumps international law and history even in Western democracies.

>yfw your average kulak could be a farmer with a single cow

so the russian famine can be clasified how democide.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

There are many books or articles that refute the "Holodomor" myth that was chiefly concocted by Ukrainian nationalists. The most prominent refutation is perhaps Davies/Wheatcroft (2004): "The Years of Hunger". Read it.

But also other articles by these authors and others, such as Stephan Merl (Germany) and, most of all, famine expert Mark Tauger. See Tauger (1991): "The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933" as well as Tauger (2001): "Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Famine of 1931-33"

Generally, the Holodomor myth is rejected by most (I'd say all) serious historians. But of course there are the few authors that continue to peddle it: Already in the 80s, when Robert Conquest first published his book "Harvest of Sorrow", he was met with a broad alliance of almost universal rejection by most established historians such as: Getty, Manning, Viola, Dallinn and others.

And yet, a quarter of a century later, Timothy Snyder comes around with the same crap again in his "Badlands" book, without naming a single (!) new argument and expects us to believe him!

Of course there are still people who prove rather resistant to facts, like Snyder. Of course, there are powerful interests behind them (including hardcore Anti-Communists), which is why they will never stop telling us otherwise, but this does not change the fact, that there is absolutely NO historiographic evidence for any "holodomor" in terms of deliberate genocidal intent. Nobody denies that there was a severe famine in Ukraine in 1932-33 that cost millions of human lives. Funny thing is, there were at this time famines in other parts of the Soviet Union as well (but they conveniently don't get much mention by the revisionists who cry holodomor all the time).

And why did this man-made famine happen? Because of the forced collectivization and de-kulakization that the Soviet government did in its attempt to wrest away power from land owners (who were disowned, had their property and grain seized, and sent en masse to gulags and worked to death). The key here, though, is that this was not limited to one particular ethnicity and therefore cannot be deemed as a genocide of the Ukrainians in particular.

But let's just for the sake of argument go with the crazy idea that this (collectivization, de-kulakization) was indeed a plan to genocide none other than the Ukrainian people. If so, last time I checked, the key figures involved in, and tasked, with undertaking "the holodomor" were Vyacheslav Molotov, Lazar Kaganovitch, Pavel Postyshev, Stanislav Kosior and Vlas Chubar. And now guess their ethnicities. Kaganovich is the only Jew, everyone else isn't. Therefore, the majority of those that were responsible for any holodomor would be non-Jews. But that doesn't fit all too well into the revisionist narrative, does it?

tl;dr: yes there were terrible famines, no they were not for any genocidal purposes, there is zero proof (plans, documents, testimonies) to label these as such and mold them into a single evil event and then blame the Jews (lol).

see

This is an "Allied bombing of the supply lines caused the deaths in the camps" tier explanation.

It was possible

How do you know this are direct consecuence of capitalism exactly. I don't like capitalism but a lot of these fucking numbers seem to be altered to made some sort of propaganda given less information as possible

Yes.

You couldn't even attribute most of them to capitalism, it's just a dumb meme lefty/pol/ shat out to make themselves feel better

One mechanic starts rebuilding your engine.

He dies, and another takes over, saying he's rebuilding your engine, but instead sets your car on fire.

You ask: "How can this not be rebuilding my engine?"

No, 7 million Ukrainians just starved by accident while less than 1 million Russians whose country couldn't feed itself before the famine died, clearly there was no policy of targeted starvation going on

>Native Americans
>European disease is a form of capitalism

...

See also both regimes (mao and stalin) use the "advanced" agricultural techniques of this guy, add this with a high Politicized bureaucracy, some (((sparrows))) and you get a perfect preventable disaster.

>Mark Tauger
Of course it's a fucking jew. And furthermore:
>Historian James Mace wrote that Mark Tauger's argument "is not taken seriously by either Russians or Ukrainians who have studied the topic." David Marples, professor of history at the University of Alberta, was critical of Tauger's claims, stating "Dr. Tauger and other scholars fail to distinguish between shortages, droughts and outright famine. There is no such thing as a 'natural' famine, no matter the size of the harvest. A famine requires some form of state or human input."

What are you even talking about?
I already said Stalin and his henchmen were responsible.
But the narrative about how "Russians" starved Ukrainians is absolute and retarded bullshit that offends reason.
If USSR was guided by Russian nationalist goals Ukraine and Ukrainians wouldn't exist in the first place. Kinda seems odd to push Ukrainian identity in the first place and even enlarge Ukraine and then try to exterminate them.
And why try? Stalin and his crew were absolute rulers. If they wanted to they could've destroyed Ukrainian identity easily. It was always shaky as fuck concept.

>Kinda seems odd to push Ukrainian identity in the first place
Because Soviets never do 180s in their policies, right?

>Democide can also include deaths arising from "intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life"; this brings into account many deaths arising through various neglects and abuses, such as forced mass starvation.

Molotov had a Jew wife.

Ukrainian identity was pushed by Lenin. When Stalin took power he ended korenizatsiya pretty much instantly.

Therefore...?

>da joos

yes

>Who needs to refute evidence when you can just screeam JO000000Z

I would point the to the deaths from the dutch and english whose colonial efforts where mostly the origins of modern day capitalism

>potatoes go bad
CAPITALISM REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Yup, they targeted Ukrainian farmers and Germans in Volga region i.e. potentially reactionary power.

>almost all the states in the union and a ton of countries recognize the holodomor as genocide
>but hurrdurr its not because of some shitty tankie apologetics

this is holocaust denial tier

And yet they dont see it.
It amazes me how people can be this fucking dumb or better put, naive.

WW2 was basically the fights between two retarded totalitarian systems at its core.
One wasnt worse or better than the other, they were both shit for the people in the long run. Or in any run when we talk about communism.