Holodomor denial thread

>4 million Ukrainians
Try more like 10, atleast. 12 million is most likely the number. Twice what is claimed for the Holocaust.

Where did you get this umber from? The whole famine killed some 7, maybe 8 million people (including Kazakhs and Russians).
>12 million is most likely the number
Ukrainian court disagrees with you.

>Try more like 10, atleast. 12 million is most likely the number.
No
Census, Ukraine
1926 29,018,187
1937 28 387 609

>Where did you get this number from?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
>Former Ukrainian president Yushchenko stated in a speech to the United States Congress that the Holodomor "took away 20 million lives of Ukrainians", while former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a public statement giving the death toll at about 10 million.

I hate communists but 20 million is just ridiculous. IIRC he was counting it as though the population had kept growing at the rate before the famine. In other words, Ukraine would have 20 million more people today if it hadn't lost 4 million in the famine.

>I hate communists but 20 million is just ridiculous.
No it isn't. Pic related explains.

>He trusts to politicians' speeches
What a moron

Population growth in USSR was 10% between censuses of 1926 and 1937.
So expected number of Ukrainians in 1937 was 31-32million. Real number is 28 millions.
Difference is 3-4 millions.

1) the 14 milions argument is autistic and has nothing to do with the Holodomor.
2) Anyway, we are far far far from 20 milions.
3) I know that wasn't your point, but the fact that these victims were intentionally starved is still to be proved.

People are born too, you know that right?

Are you retard?
Expected number includes people who were born between two censuses.

Reading stuff like this makes me glad I'm a neoliberal. Communists are brainwashed.

Horrible, awful mismanagement by the Soviets.

They'd starve the backwaters producing food, so the cities would remain calm. This, mind you, after they annihilated the top 20% of Russian farms, producing 80% of the food, calling them "enemies of the people" "Kulaks".

I've read that some cities also starved. According to supporters of the genocide theory Stalin wanted to destroy Ukrainian nationalist movement along with certain classes like kulaks.

>Ukrainian nationalist movement
was born in Western Ukraine which was not part of Soviet Union at that time.

Apparently it also existed in the East. I don't know about any organizations similar to OUN, though.

Did famines really happen all the Ines in the Ukraine? They supposedly had/have excellent topsoil, not that that would necessarily mean a famine was impossible or anything. Seems like classic socialist mismanagement due to pie in the sky ideas about equality and good farmers being greedy bastards instead of people who just happened to be better at farming

They should have frozen their seeds

Cool seed, Lysenko. Want to bring them to the Kremlin?

yes it did
people there still have ptsd about it from the grandparents of their grandparents

one way this manifests is when they see a foreigner throw away bread seeing it as very wasteful

It happened throughout the Soviet Union.

To claim it was a genocide is pure revisionism. There was famines all over the USSR. Commies were and still are cunts though.

>excellent topsoil
That's why the state expected more grain from them and had higher demands for them.
The regions of famine are grain producing regions of USSR.

retard

The famine happened. It was terrible. A lot of people suffered. One thing I've learned over the years is that history is complicated and anyone offering up simplistic and easy to digest explanations is usually attempting to mislead or manipulate. In the case of the Holodomor, liberals always try to blame everything on the Soviet Union, Russia in particular, and Stalin more so. If we look to the records of the event, we know the Ukrainian government mismanaged food-production and distribution and made other mistakes like pushing farmers to grow crops they'd never cultivated before.

The Holodomor was a total shit-show of kulaks being kulaks and the Ukraine setting itself up for failure. To the Soviet Unions credit, in the timespan of the Holodomor the Ukraine received more aid from Russia than any other country. It was horrible but the causes and the sequence of events are much more complicated than many commentators would like us to believe.

Stalins treatment of Kulaks in general might be discussed but Holodomor being a purposeful famine is retarded. It didnt only kill kulaks, it killed a lot of other people. Ukraine was in the USSR, what did they have to gain from indiscriminantly killing a portion of their population? To blame the kulaks for not helping enough? They could have done that without the starvation. There are no documents that indicate that it was a purposeful program agreed to by the gov. The soviets have tons of documents that have been declassified that implicate them in all sorts of shit. They own up to gulags, torture by the KGB/NKVD, and purges. It does not fit their MO.
You know what it does fit? Fervet commie haters who often also happen to be conspiracy theorists. Young historians who want to make a name for themselves over unearthing HOLOCAUST 2: BIGGER, SILENT, RUSSIAN. Its straight up retarded.

The UN definition of genocide, which is what most people use is "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious
group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part 1
; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

It can literally be applied to a cyberbully. I say that it is a bad definition as it is too broad and therefore innacurate. A shitposter is not commiting genocide on a daily basis, but according to this definition some are.

>is not genocide if you kill your own people.

Holomodor was more a democide then.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

I never said it wasnt genocide because it was against his own people. I said it wasnt genocide because the defenition of genocide is too braod as it stands. If we use it like most people think of it, ie exterminating or attempting to exterminate an ethnicity, then it still doesnt fit. I was just saying it doesnt fit the soviet MO to attack its own people and then deny it. They attacked their own people all the time, commited democide if you want to call it that, but it was always documented and admitted to. There is no documentation of holodomor and they dont own up to it. It doesnt make political, economic, or social sense for them to do it. So why you revisionists pushing for it?

But then, why you are implying kulaks deserved to be killed and persecuted?

>i-it wasnt genocide, just a simple mistake!

I love this pathetic excuse. It means communism is either as morally evil as nazism, or is unquestionably the WORST form of government possible. I swear to god, the more you actually talk to communist, the more you realize how justified Pinochet was

the most brainlet post i have ever seen this week

Because they refused to collectivize, sperged and destoyed or tried to hide their produce, grain, and cattle. In a commie society you gotta do whats for the greater good. They disagreed and in protest kamakazied the agriculture. Then cried when they were sent to the camps for being obstructionist capitalists. Like what did they expect?

Respect and dignity, but seems like this is too much for Stalin I suppose

Not picking a side on the debate here and I am not going to defend Russia but how do Russians (I don't mean Russoboos, ultranationalist creeps or denialists in Russia or abroad) how do they as well as the Russian government see the famine in Ukraine as? Incompetence of the government? Failure in Central Planning?

Honestly why would you think that? When George Washington impemented the Whiskey Tax and all those farmers in West virginia and Pennsylvania staged the Whiskey Rebellion. He rode down therewith federal forces, kicked the sht out of them, captured them, humilated them, then executed them. Why is it just a paragraph in a history book? Why arent you crying about the genocide of Pennsylvania Drunk? Because they did stupid shit after a gov mandate and paid the price. You are pretending like the world is made of gum drops and cotton candy farts. If you resist big gov, you get fucked.

They dont really talk about it in so much detail because famines were not uncommon in Russia. Two happening under the tsar not 30 years before that one. There was also major policy change at the time, which doe a lot to explain why it happened. It is generally seen as the failure of central planning in that collectivization of farms does not work. Russian often make fun of how useless collective farms are.

okay so there was a drought, which is a pretty common thing in those parts, so you would expect the regime to have been prepared, but basically a combination of poor agricultural yeilds due to inefficent policies and corruptioin and lieing about grain reserves meant they weren't.

Faced with the problem of drought, the regime specifically chose to scour the countryside for grain to keep the cities fed and happy and continue their urbanization plans, having seen how famine during the civil war had resulted in deurbanization. this came down especially hard on ukraine which had been showing signs of being headed for nationalist uprising, having tried to gain independence during teh civil war and also given its local communist party was not particularly loyal to stalin at all. Stalin thought he could kill two birds with one stone, starve the ukrainians to prevent uprising, and purge the leadership of the local party and replace them with loyal puppets for implementing such disastrous agricultural policy, obviously Stalin having ordered the policy in the first place.

the famine was then exacerbated when peasants hid, hoarded and even destroyed food to keep it safe from the authorities. one the one hand burning food only exacerbated a famine, but on the other hand the authorities certainly werent giving any food back to the peasants so the ones doing the burning didnt really stand to lose anything.

inb4
>collectives
they were inefficent, but only a small factor in the famine

>Stalin used dark commie magic to make the weather destroy crops in a deliberate attempt to murder people for no reason
>even though there was a famine in Eastern Europe about every other year for centuries ending in the early 20th century, communism still causes famines
makes you think

>weather disguised as communists and seized food from people, shot them and sent them to gulag
>famines engineered by communist governments to implement communism are somehow not to be blamed on communism because there were famines before
Really makes me think.

Also
>Pol Pot allegedly being backed by CIA would make him not a communist
Really makes me think x2.

WE'VE GOT A THINKER OVER HERE

>the government intentionally created a drought in order to "implement communism"
>droughts in other countries or even the same one under a previous government are just bad luck but when it happens in a socialist one it was caused by le ebul gommies

Oh, and
>Leningrad famine caused by "cappies" despite neither Germany being capitalist nor the war being about capitalism
>Assuming victims were communists just because it was Russia
Stay in /leftypol/

>Government forcibly seizing food and killing and imprisoning people to impose the "workers' paradise" is a "drought"
And yes, an actual drought is bad luck unlike a famine engineered by a regime to reach communism.

What is the point of revolutions then? Why did the founding fathers not simply obey the rules? many revolutions and rebellions occur to resist the government abuses, But I guess you think kulaks deserved it because they were evil landlords and not opressed farmers. right?

>Nazi Germany wasn't capitalist
That's why the strung up the capitalists like Hugo Boss and the Krupp family instead of relying on their support, huh?

>there wasn't an actual drought, the famine was engineered
Stay delusional

The point of revolutions is to overturn the gov. But these werent revolutions were they user? I struggle to even call them rebellion, it was just resistance to law, criminal action. I don't think kulaks were evil, but nor do I think they were oppressed. I already stated quite clearly that I think they disobeyed a direct mandate by their soveriegn, the gov of the USSR and were punished for it. I think that crop hording and destruction is a short sighted and stupid thing to do, which can aggrevate the already stressed agricultural situation. I dont have any sympathy for the kulak because they chose to act against the collective and did not want to sacrifice as everyone else had for the greater good.

>That's why the strung up the capitalists like Hugo Boss and the Krupp family instead of relying on their support, huh?
Bolsheviks were financed by bankers, so?

>Stay delusional
Says the one who insists with the drought narrative despite Soviet regime execuing people and imprisoning them and forcibly seizing food. Stay in /leftypol/.

>Bolsheviks were financed by bankers
"The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we'll hang them."

Once in power the hardly bent to the will of bankers, but regardless that's a bit off-topic. I know you really want to shift the discussion to safer territory for you but come on.

>so?
So the Nazis from the beginning were supported by capitalists and in return they supported them. When they came to power they murdered the legitimately left-wing elements of the party and never once stopped defending the institution of private property. The Nazi regime was capitalist as fuck and to suggest otherwise shows a stunning

>I already stated quite clearly that I think they disobeyed a direct mandate by their soveriegn

hmm... I see weird how someone can defend Stalin when he act like a tzar but still support revolutions to overthrow governments with similar characteristics. seems quite contradictory.

*a stunning lack of familiarity with the topic

>enforcing the law = acting like a tzar

>Oppressing and forcing farmers to give their produce and impose them high grain quotas = acting like a tzar

But I know, they deserve it, how they dared to challenge the authority of the "Gardener of Human Happiness" and "Father of Nations"

I see you are a sith that deals in absolutes.

> Stalin acting like a tzar.
Technically this was approved by the party and central committee. I am not a stalinist and don't particularly like Stalin as an individual. Altho it must be noted that his political ascension is quite note worth from a machiavellian perspective. Still in the realm of a radical government starting a bunch of new never before seen social programs I would expect the kulaks to pitch in like everyone else. You think the people in the cities who had their large apartments repurposed to fit 5 familes liked it? Did everyone burn Russia to the ground?
The difference is that all other aspects were settled during the civil war. Everyone knew that new policies and shit was gonna happen. Well when it came to collectivization of the farms, all of a sudden the kulaks dont wanna. Like my whiskey rebellion example demonstrates violation of federal mandates is unacceptable UNLESS you are in revolution. HOWEVER, the goal of revolution being to take down the gov is in itself treason and punishable in most places by death.
Any way you picture them they deserve what they got:
> Greedy capitalist obstructionists - deserved
> Dumbass peasants who sperged out and ruined sht for everyone - deserved
> Failed noble revolutionaries trying to be a symbol of the peasant class against tyrany despite a civil war that just indicated the oppositie - deserved

>Once in power the hardly bent to the will of bankers, but regardless that's a bit off-topic. I know you really want to shift the discussion to safer territory for you but come on.
Sorry, I know history is not safe territory for a marxist but revisionist claims incite a history discussion.

>So the Nazis from the beginning were supported by capitalists and in return they supported them. When they came to power they murdered the legitimately left-wing elements of the party and never once stopped defending the institution of private property. The Nazi regime was capitalist as fuck and to suggest otherwise shows a stunning
Soviets gave companies concessions (of course they hypocritically killed people who dared own some cows, evil kulaks!) so lending support to capitalists doesn't inherently make a regime capitalist.
Stalin (pretty much all communist regimes actually) also killed leftists, so again this doesn't inherently make a regime capitalist.
Regarding the status of private property in Nazi Germany, see pic related. Although actually about fascism, it applies.

>Failed noble revolutionaries (russian empire) vs Greedy capitalist obstructionists (USSR)

Wow I finally can see it, thanks comrade I NEVER will question the "will of the people" and revolutions again.

I meant to type "gave foreign companies concessions". Nazi regime, unlike Soviet regime, didn't oppose private property (people could own businesses) and that is a different situation to Soviets giving some foreign companies concessions and ideologically opposing private business, of course. My point is that a regime supporting a capitalist doesn't by itself mean there is capitalism.

>The Holodomor was a total shit-show of kulaks being kulaks and the Ukraine setting itself up for failure. To the Soviet Unions credit, in the timespan of the Holodomor the Ukraine received more aid from Russia than any other country.

THIS

> >Failed noble revolutionaries (russian empire) vs Greedy capitalist obstructionists (USSR)
That looks dumb to everyone, not just commies.

But still its good to see you;ve learned your lesson.

:^)

>Burns own grain supply
>Starves
>Gets mad at Stalin

The fact that liberals deny the fact that they were killing live stock and burning crops blows my mind.

>According to one estimate[78] about 81.3% of the famine victims in the Ukrainian SSR were ethnic Ukrainians, 4.5% Russians, 1.4% Jews and 1.1% were Poles.
>Stalin ordered that kulaks were "to be liquidated as a class" and this liquidation was considered by many historians to have resulted in the Soviet famine of 1932–33. The Soviet authorities labeled the richer peasants 'kulaks" and portrayed them as class enemies, which started a Soviet campaign of executions of millions of the better-off peasants and their families in 1929–1932. Attempts to identify the number of deaths arising from the executions of kulaks range from as many as 6 million suggested by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, whereas the much lower number of 700,000 deaths are estimated by Soviet sources.[11]
> there is evidence that Stalin used starvation as a weapon in his war against the peasantry. He analyses the actions of the Soviet authorities, two of commission and one of omission: (i) exporting 1.8 million tonnes of grain during the mass starvation (enough to feed more than five million people for one year), (ii) preventing migration from famine afflicted areas (which may have cost an estimated 150,000 lives) and (iii) making no effort to secure grain assistance from abroad (which caused an estimated 1.5 million excess deaths)
>[T]he way Stalin dealt with the Ukrainian countryside lifted the events out of the category of merely a famine and into the realm of genocide. In the fall of 1932, on orders from Moscow, government troops came to villages requisitioning grain to meet Stalin’s unrealistic quotas. At gunpoint they took away grain, even when peasants did not have enough for themselves. Those peasants who had no grain were deprived of other food stocks. Those who resisted were shot.
>"Grain supplies were sufficient enough to sustain everyone if properly distributed. People died mostly from terror-starvation, not poor harvests and routine administrative bungling."[64]

Really makes you think

Government policy saved lives during the famine. Without the seizure of crops and redistribution, entire cities would have starved to death, and without collectivization it would have been much more difficult to rebuild the nation after the famine. Anyone who tells you this was a 'genocide' of Ukrainians is completely full of shit and has nothing to back up their claims.

>you are murdered if you aren't born because your parents didn't have sex due to lack of food

Indeed :^)

..using numbers from a system which punished those who did not lie to meet insane expectations with death as proof of that system working.

Stalin would be proud comrade, then he would send your ass to the camps too.

The Putinbot continues to deny the Ukrainian Genocide. Of course a lot of people on hear including (you) deny the vicious crimes committed by the Russians and their Putin regime in the 1930s. It was deliberate genocide by the ethno nationalists that controlled the Kremlin in the 1930s.

"[...]The number of deaths arising from the executions of kulaks range from as many as 6 million suggested by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, whereas the much lower number of 700,000 deaths are estimated by Soviet sources.[11]"
>Executing millions saves lives
>Communist logic

Ukraine could be the breadbasket of europe, thanks to having 80% of the worlds black earth (hyperfertile soil) the soviets were too retarded to see this, instead stealing all of their food. On a side note, soviet agriculture was retarded as fuck, even later... they had a theory where no weeding, pesticides or even crop rotation was necessary, because mother nature is a communist and all plants live in harmony

That was my point fucktard. Russia admits to so many Soviet crimes and there is evidence of those crimes provided by gov documents. There is no evidence of intent with holodomor and everyone denies it, except for anticommie or stalin was worse than hitler revisionists. That is the only crime that I deny.

>500 rubles has been deposited in your account.
Okay Putinshill. Until Russia comes out and begs for forgiveness for the genocide against the Ukrainian people which by the way deserves more credentials because they literally are the birthplace of the Slavic people and Russia is just a place of Mongol and Asiatic hordes of people that try to call themselves European, kek.
But anyway, Putinshill Russia should be apologizing more right now and they should start tearing down all monuments of the soviet past then I will forgive them for what they did to Ukraine.

Any regime which defends private property is a capitalist regime. Nazi Germany defended private property, meaning it was a capitalist regime. It didn't have anything close to a planned economy and unlike what Rand says the militarists in control of Germany wouldn't have been able to maintain their power without the support of industry. Pretty straightforward.

For more info:
youtube.com/watch?v=Ic4Cq2-3QZc

>gave foreign companies concessions
You mean "traded with the outside world"? Wow, so that must be proof that they were controlled by Wall Street huh.

Regardless this entire discussion is just a tangent of the original point, which is that the "muh communist famine" bullshit is a very deliberately crafted myth.

stalin wasn't worse than hitler, but you can't deny both had common grounds in regards the purges.

>Any regime which defends private property is a capitalist regime.

So China and URSS are state capitalists regimes then.

It wasn't real but it should have been. Ukrainians are easily the worst European ethnicity.

This is the post you want, OP:
> there is evidence that Stalin used starvation as a weapon in his war against the peasantry. He analyses the actions of the Soviet authorities, two of commission and one of omission: (i) exporting 1.8 million tonnes of grain during the mass starvation (enough to feed more than five million people for one year), (ii) preventing migration from famine afflicted areas (which may have cost an estimated 150,000 lives) and (iii) making no effort to secure grain assistance from abroad (which caused an estimated 1.5 million excess deaths)

>[T]he way Stalin dealt with the Ukrainian countryside lifted the events out of the category of merely a famine and into the realm of genocide. In the fall of 1932, on orders from Moscow, government troops came to villages requisitioning grain to meet Stalin’s unrealistic quotas. At gunpoint they took away grain, even when peasants did not have enough for themselves. Those peasants who had no grain were deprived of other food stocks. Those who resisted were shot.

>"Grain supplies were sufficient enough to sustain everyone if properly distributed. People died mostly from terror-starvation, not poor harvests and routine administrative bungling."[64]

Stop denying the Holodomor you Russian shill.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism

>So China and URSS are state capitalists regimes then.
Well they were, yeah, but in a different sort of way than you might think.

The state owned all the property, meaning there wasn't really such a thing as "private property", but nonetheless the state acted as if it were a capitalist by paying wages in exchange for the extraction of surplus value from their populations.

Salty liberal rationalization is not an argument' to call the Soviet regime call it fascism is just ignorant. Yes it was repressive and totalitarian, but that doesn't mean its fascism.

Also I love how you've abandoned your original position. The "holodomor" famine was simply a famine caused by drought and all the salty Ukranian nationalists and neo-nazis who think it was a deliberate attempt to exterminate anyone are just fucking wrong.

Just a big reminder for people on this thread that are being paid by the Kremlin to deflect and blame it on economics instead of Moscow. Fuck you and fuck Russia. I

>Salty liberal rationalization

I bet the leftcoms are "salty liberals" for you tankie.

.
>but nonetheless the state acted as if it were a capitalist by paying wages in exchange for the extraction of surplus value from their populations.

So don't true capitalism

You know why the USSR was exporting grain abroad in exchange for machinery in the first place? Because Western Europe refused to accept payment in any other form. They imposed the requirement of using grain as currency in a deliberate attempt to create a famine in Soviet territory. Was Holodomor manmade? Yes, but not by Stalin.

>Ukranian nationalists and neo-nazis who think it was a deliberate attempt to exterminate anyone are just fucking wrong.
Add historians to that list.

There is literally NO proof that the Ukrainian famine was planned as a genocide. Pure fiction created by the CIA and post soviet Ukrainian politicians.

Stalin never planned to exterminate Ukrainians. I doubt there are any historians who disagree with me. I guess you can call it a class genocide.

>It wuz duh cia

I hate communism and the Soviet Union, but it can't be denied that holodomor is so well known largely thanks to Ukrainian diaspora (especially in Canada). Ukrainians weren't the only victims of this famine, but no one (except historians) knows or cares about others.

Meanwhile:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan_famine_of_1932-1933

>Kazakhs were most severely affected by the Soviet famine in terms of percentage of people who died (approximately 38%).[8] Around 1.5 million (or possibly as many as 2.0–2.3 million) people died in Kazakhstan of whom 1.3 million were ethnic Kazakhs.[1]

It's like with WW2. Some people are surprised the Nazis killed more than just the 6 million Jews.

Soviet historians wouldn't.

Not true. Historians recognize that 37% of the Kazakh population died in the famine, they were hit much harder than the Ukrainians.

Which is why you defend it. Also it's pretty well known Kazakhs were also affected. And even without diaspora it would've been well known in the west due to it being a Soviet atrocity.

>Ukrainians in Canada are CIA