Missing Posters Bulletin Board

[jwb]

He didn't cause the droughts... Nobody literally ever argued he caused the droughts, dummy

He collectivized agriculture and used the crop yields to rapidly industrialize... And when famine conditions arose he continued to export the crop yields to pay for industrialization. The fact that you might've had a much smaller famine anyway based on natural factors doesn't erase the extra millions of lives that were intentionally sacrificed for the"greater good" of the states objectives

It wasn't racism that drove the policy either. It was simply the pragmatic circumstances of the fact that ukraine was the bread basket of the soviet empire.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by jwb

He didn't cause the droughts... Nobody literally ever argued he caused the droughts, dummy

He collectivized agriculture and used the crop yields to rapidly industrialize... And when famine conditions arose he continued to export the crop yields to pay for industrialization. The fact that you might've had a much smaller famine anyway based on natural factors doesn't erase the extra millions of lives that were intentionally sacrificed for the"greater good" of the states objectives

It wasn't racism that drove the policy either. It was simply the pragmatic circumstances of the fact that ukraine was the bread basket of the soviet empire.

Alright you don't know what the Holodomor is. It was racism against the Ukrainians and Stalin was intentionally starving them, not for the purpose of industrialization, but for the purpose of starving them so they wouldn't resist the Soviets.

[jwb]

Scholars continue to debate "whether the man-made Soviet famine was a central act in a campaign of genocide, or whether it was designed to simply cow Ukrainian peasants into submission, drive them into the collectives and ensure a steady supply of grain for Soviet industrialization."[94

From wiki

[SGR]

It is debated, but my understanding of it (forced collectivization policies in the five year plan) was that it was more motivated by class (Dekulakization) than by race/ethnicity. Which isn't to say there weren't plenty of examples racism and ethnic prejudice throughout Stalin's tenure. Regardless, the result was in effect genocide regardless of the motivations.

[jwb]

Actually my understanding is that the kulaks were largely sent to gulags and the like where as entire regions of the ukraine and russia were systematically starved under the industrialization efforts. Most of those people weren't kulaks. Kulaks were essentially the economic upper crust of the peasant population.

And there might certainly be ethnic aspects to it as well but again I think that's down more to the circumstances that certain ethnicities inhabited the majority of the farmland where the crops were grown. Stalin himself wasn't even ethnically russian, he was from Georgia.

There were other ethnic persecutions as well such as against Catholics and poles but that largely comes down to a suspicion over where their true loyalty lies... A lot of the seeming nationalism the soviets displayed was strictly strategic and about wielding and preserving power imo.

[Lucem Ferre]

Whether the Holodomor was a genocide or ethnicity-blind, was man-made or natural, and was intentional or unintentional are issues of significant modern debate.

Also from Wiki.

It's almost as if there are huge political biases that try to obscure facts to fit their agenda.

I also found out

A big notoriety was gained by a story that took place in 2006 under President Yushchenko: in the Sevastopol Holodomor Museum were exhibited photographs, which allegedly showed the victims of the famine in Ukraine, but later it turned out that the pictures were taken during the famine in the Russian Volga region in the early 1920s and in the United States during the Great Depression.

So the meme is ****ing real. LMAO

But anyways, as far as I understand the grander famine was caused more by the drought than policy and people like to blame policy for political reasons. You know, we live in a country that literally installs dictators where ever any hint of socialism crops up and spreads the most anticommunist propaganda in the world. Of course there's going to be people that say it was collectivization that caused the famine but to me it seems obvious that collectivization doesn't cause a lack of resources especially when the USSR had to go to the US to save them from starvation.

And it's also obvious that deprioritizing Ukrainians when it came to feeding people was also intentional and any contention comes from the fact that the USSR tried to cover it up as much as possible.

[Lucem Ferre]

And OH is not wrong when saying that it's mostly due to the fact that Ukraine wouldn't give up private ownership so Stalin was trying to make an example of them.

[jwb]

The initial cause of the famine was natural. Famines had been happening in that region periodically since long before 1917. It was the scale of the famine which was caused by policy.

You don't think collectivization leads to a lack of resources.... Well first of all the collectivization efforts were largely a failure. They expected to increase the crop u yields drastically and that didn't happen. They were going to use the surplus from the increased yields to export and use that money to buy machinery necessary for industrialization. Due to mitigating factors like the droughts as well as peasant resistance they actually saw a marked decrease in the crop yields. That didn't stop them from seizing said crops and exporting them any way in order to buy industrial machinery. If you don't see why that leads to more people starving then I dunno what to tell you pal. Additionally china had the largest famine in human history when they tried to mimick the soviet 5 year plan. Just a coincidence, I'm sure...

[jwb]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

And OH is not wrong when saying that it's mostly due to the fact that Ukraine wouldn't give up private ownership so Stalin was trying to make an example of them.

You're talking about peasants that had lived in small agrarian communities for centuries. Is it hard to understand why they weren't eager to hand over the food that kept them alive for the good of a state that didn't give two ****s whether they live or die?

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by jwb

The initial cause of the famine was natural. Famines had been happening in that region periodically since long before 1917. It was the scale of the famine which was caused by policy.

You don't think collectivization leads to a lack of resources.... Well first of all the collectivization efforts were largely a failure. They expected to increase the crop u yields drastically and that didn't happen. They were going to use the surplus from the increased yields to export and use that money to buy machinery necessary for industrialization. Due to mitigating factors like the droughts as well as peasant resistance they actually saw a marked decrease in the crop yields. That didn't stop them from seizing said crops and exporting them any way in order to buy industrial machinery. If you don't see why that leads to more people starving then I dunno what to tell you pal. Additionally china had the largest famine in human history when they tried to mimick the soviet 5 year plan. Just a coincidence, I'm sure...

Okay, that actually makes sense. And the Lenin quote about prioritizing industry over the peasants or what ever he said makes more sense. Which is ironically fairly antisocialist imo.

And no, I don't think collectivization on it's own leads to a lack of resources.