Red pill me on holodomor leftypol

This is what I have summed up from wikipedia. How much of it is true? Did the Soviet Union really starve the Ukranians? Did Stalin really want to starve the Ukranian population? I need the facts about this because I know somebody is going to bring it up in a discussion about this and its something I don't know enough about. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Attached: 220px-Slayer_-_Christ_Illusion.jpg (220x220, 24.54K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
b-ok.cc/book/1173369/1dd4cf

The thing to note about the Holomemedor is that out of all the communist "mass killings" it's the least important but Zig Forums spins it as "Jews killing whites."

Whats generally considered worse than holodomor? Gulags? The purges?

Big conspiracy that right wingers like to push when it gets pointed out that exactly 6 million died in the holocaust.

Like a small amount of people starving (Stupid,Illiterate prole farmers) is worse than an actual well documented tragedy (like the holocaust) and people should talk about that instead.

Really gets the niggin joggin.

Niggins inherently jog as they have better legs than whites where as whites have better upper bodies.

You might wanna redirect this question to Zig Forums. They are the Stalin apologists, not us. Both Holodomor and the Holocaust happened because both Stalin and Hitler were psychotic autocrats. If both the Soviet Union and Germany were governed by direct democracy of the working class, none of that would've happened.

Hitler and Stalin were both fascists, only disagreeing on economic planning. Some kulaks deserved it, of course, but it's absurd to think that millions of people were kulaks. Stalin was as bourgeois as it comes, merely LARPing as a hero of the proletariat.

Why would the Soviet state deliberately starve rural Ukrainians and not include urban Ukrainians? Why would the Soviet state continue to allow the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic to function? Why wouldn't it close down the Ukrainian-language press and universities? Why would the "genocide" of Ukrainian peasants stop around the same time as collectivization itself was complete, rather than continue on indefinitely until everyone was dead? Why would the Soviet state ten years later call on the Ukrainians to rise up in defense of their motherland against the fascist invaders? Where was the demonization of Ukrainians as subhuman or otherwise worthy of extermination?

In correspondence Dr [Robert] Conquest has stated that it is not his opinion that 'Stalin purposely inflicted the 1933 famine. No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it but put 'Soviet interest' other than feeding the starving first—thus consciously abetting it.'"

(R.W. Davies & Stephen G. Wheatcroft. The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 2004. p. 441.)

If the most famous anti-communist historian of the USSR says the famine wasn't intentional, that's a pretty big deal. When one can also note that Orlando Figes, J. Arch Getty, Stephen Kotkin, Moshe Lewin, Sheila Fitzpatrick, Terry Martin, Michael Ellman and Hiroaki Kuromiya (among other well-known historians of the USSR) argue the famine wasn't intentional, it's safe to say it wasn't intentional.

Literal nazi propaganda to justify invasion.
There was a famine, but it was obviously not some deliberate attempt by the communist party to kill farmers.

Then why does most of the world still recognize it as a genocide according to wikipedia?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Because wikipedia is owned and controlled by liberals.

What is a liberal? And why would them owning wikipedia invalidate the word of most of the western hemisphere?

The basis of liberalism is that private property is the foundation of human happiness and liberty.
The same way the USSR would divert any criticism with "and the US lynchs negroes" omitting historical facts in history books. For example studies of the Comintern couldn't really mention Zinoviev and Bukharin (the first and second leaders of the Comintern), Trotsky's role in the events of 1917 was practically ignored except to criticize him on certain points, Stalin himself was mentioned infrequently in Soviet histories after 1964, Khrushchev was almost written out of history after that same date, etc.

the eternal tankie strikes again

The worst conclusion we can draw from the evidence is that the famine happened naturally and the USSR failed to provide relief, in doing so they exacerbated a natural disaster with poor management. This is certainly bad and should be condemned, but it's a different beast than genocides with clear attempts to destroy a population.

Kulak sabotage certainly played a part (along with sabotage by ordinary peasants.) Another factor was that officials, eager to meet quotas, kept obtaining as much grain as possible and downplaying reports of famine conditions, which led to… famine conditions.

The best account of the "Holodomor" is "The Years of Hunger" by Davies and Wheatcroft: b-ok.cc/book/1173369/1dd4cf

The Bolsheviks were swarming with Jews who whipped up the passions of the masses and enacted a campaign of state-terrorism against the inhabitants with Ukraine as their crowning achievemnt. It’s no surprise many Slavs welcomed Hitler’s liberation

The "over-representation" of Jews in the ranks of the Bolsheviks is irrelevant unless you can provide evidence of Jewish discrimination against non-Jews within the party. The Bolsheviks were multinational; there was also an "over-representation" of Georgians, Armenians and Latvians.

Lol look at this nigger using his arguments gleamed straight from the king ki.ke Redditor Ismail himself. The Jews are the leading minds of the Marxist doctrine of nation-destruction. They destroy the economies and sell them out to international finance

So you have no evidence.

Yeah, he doesn't even know how cucked he is by logic and facts. Can you imagine being so blue pilled by jewish reason that you can't accept claims without evidence?

Attached: Infographic.png (634x571, 18.45K)

( ((evidence)) ) is for the weak willed

Nazis are so retarded I'm not even sure if this is a shitpost.

Is there any right-winger anywhere in the world that actually challenges the ideas of Marxism without just saying "jews bad"? I'm sick of this Marxism will go one completely unchallenged intellectually from the right forever.

Nice anti-right wing idpol faggot

Ah! you've used the word faggot, how idpol-y of you. All of your arguments have been discarded.

Wow, nice anti-solipsistic idpol

It was either a deliberate attempt to punish Ukrainians for their resistance to Soviet annexation and their resistance to the agricultural expropriation the Soviets were pursuing as part of their industrialization plan, or a result of bad policy decisions.

There existed a means, motive, and opportunity for the Soviets to have done it deliberately, hence why many think it was intentional. The controversy exists because of a lack of documentation by the Soviets about the Ukrainian famine, and the issue will simply never be settled as a result.


Most of the world was opposed to the Soviet Union and communism and therefore had a political motive to attack it.


Jews were an unambiguous minority among the Bolsheviks. Whining about Jewish over-representation is literally no different than liberals complaining about the majority of business executives being men.


Political views are not identities no matter what millennials and zoomers claim.

Why would a deliberate man-made famine-genocide intended to crush Ukrainian nationalism affect other regions like southern Russia and Kazakhstan? Why would it affect Kazakhstan worse than Ukraine? Why would it have worse effects on Eastern Ukraine which had a significant Russian minority and lower presence of Ukrainian nationalism compared to Western Ukraine? Even rabid anti-communists like Solzhenitsyn of all people said that it wasn't a genocide.
Not to mention there is no evidence at all from any Soviet archive that there was such a plan to deliberately inflict a famine-genocide, in stark contrast to Nazi documents about the Holocaust.
Nobody denies the role of kulak sabotage contributing to the famine. Ukrainian nationalists like Issac Mazepa even bragged about it.

Attached: 540706b74f55711ef7a0b48ec93d6e248c48a1d6.png (1024x610 979.21 KB, 785.58K)

the holodomor and holocaust were accidents, done by nature.

Nice generational idpol. Reported

The correct way to phrase this is the following:

It was just banter

Kulaks deserved it, but weren't the ones who took the brunt of it.

But why don't liberals ever whine about over-representation (which according to them, is evidential of "systematic institutionalized supremacy) when it comes to jews in the places where they are vastly over-represented?

Because anti-racism and minority pandering is pretty much the central liberal political position now and anything that could even be slightly construed as critical of minorities gives them collective visions of the holocaust and the African slave trade, almost always when that's completely irrational, just look at how Corbyn is being slandered as an antisemitie for things as stupid as just being in the presence of the graves of Palestinian militants.

Complaining about demographic representation is stupid no matter what because there's no end to the arbitrarily chosen demographic categorizations you could complain are over or under represented in some arbitrary position in society.

HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES

HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES

HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES

HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES

Solipsism is awesome

Both them and capitalism are bad so I dunno

All genocides were crisis actors

Isn't the central argument that, even if it wasn't intentional, that the economic policies of the SU caused the famine?
All because the "holodomor" or the "Ukrainian genocide" didn't happen, that doesn't mean that the most disastrous example of criminal mismanagement and neglect was okay because some kulaks hid grain to feed their starving children.

Burning grain, killing and burning livestock, leaving whole tracts of land unsown, and attacking collective farms will hardly feed your children. Especially during a drought which is compunded by a crop disease epidemic.

Attached: kulaks eliminated.webm (1067x800 1.44 MB, 672.51K)

The Soviets requisitioned grain from famine-afflicted areas to prioritize feeding the industrial workforce in the cities. It was effectively the same as what was done in colonial India by the British, just without the utilitarian "free market" rhetoric to back it up.

Screaming "kulak!" was an ex post way to justify the peasants dying for refusing to give up their food and livestock at gunpoint to feed people thousands of miles away.

Clearly it was their right to hoard and/or destroy their private property granted to them by the invisible hand of the free market.
Collectivizing and modernizing agriculture while ending a cycle of famines in a region previously prone to them is the opposite of what the British did.

Attached: liquidation of kulaks.png (360x294, 145.21K)

As though the actions of the kulaks in any way justifies or explains the famine. Or that we should take Soviet sources of the kulaks' actions at face value.

If anything, the economic policies of the SU mitigated the effects of the famine. Famines due to weather and droughts were not historically uncommon in lower Russia and it's surrounding regions, and the famine that started in 1932 was no exception. The reason the yield fell so low below expectations was that there was an unusual enviormental disaster in which the region received three times the regular rainfall than usual. This extremely wet and humid weather led to the outbreak of several severe plant disease infestations, including an outbreak of wheat rust. This and other fungal diseases devasted the crop yield of critically important agricultural regions and caused a loss of about nine million tons of potential harvest, the largest documented harvest loss from any single cause in Soviet history. This of course caused extreme issues which reverberated within the entire Soviet economy. Now, if the farms had not been collectivised the government would have had to scramble even more than it did to seize grain and redistribute it as you would in any national crisis. But due to the prior collectivisation of the Kulak farms the Soviets were able to at the very least move grain into the cities and urban areas, who in famines before would simply be left to their own devices. If you're still sceptical of collectivisation, know that in the Russian famine of 1891–92 the Tzar had to request people to form "voluntary relief groups" and had to raise funds through charity pay the Kulaks and other countries for food to mitigate the famine. Even the money the government lent out (about 150 million roubles) was required to go only to those who could repay them (so only the Kulaks), which left the majority of the peasants to starve. The later collectivisation efforts under the Soviets was done to prevent such a situation fro ever occurring again.

Hurr Durr: GOMMUNISM IS EBIL! MUH GORLLIONS! FREE ENTERPRISE FOR LIFE! WHERE DID UR IPHONES CUM FRUM!
Small Brain: Holodomor is natural, Stalin is right on everything
Normal Brain: Holodomor is a deliberate genocide against Ukrainians
Large Brain: Holodomor is not genocidal, but is still democide against the Russian and Ukrainian peasantry
Galaxy Brain: Holodomor is the natural consequence of Soviet crash industrialization. Crash industrialization, as shown by Britain, leads to great misery. This crash industrialization is due to the Marxist dogma of the Bolshevik leadership about the path of history, completely ignoring societies of smallholders. 'Kulaks' barely existed and Russian agriculture was just fine. The Bolsheviks destroyed agricultural Russia to create an industrialized Soviet Union.

Replace genocide with ethnic cleansing. If they said it's actually genocide, then it'd be small brain tier.

Even capitalist anti-Soviet sources mention the role of the kulak sabotage, with some even justifying it as a glorious act of resistance against the evil bolshevists. And of course the actions of a group who controlled a significant percentage of the food production would have effects on food supply.

This.

This board is a shithole.

...

same shit as ☘️holohoax☘️ and same writers
malorossian=small russia( ☘️ukraine'☘️ ) yids concoct it
hunger was all over the country, somewhere more somewhere less
fuck yids fables
fuck ☘️ukrainians☘️

HAIL MALOROSSIA

You do realize that the Holodomor myth is pushed by Ukrainian fascists and Neo-Nazis, many of whom blame "the Jews" as the perpetrator of that so-called genocide.

Attached: nazis on “holodomor”.png (935x1118, 678.28K)

it's jews all the way down

HOLOHOAX=HOHLOHOAX

yeah the holodomor was fake.

You know, the Chinese famine during the Great Leap Forward had far greater loss of life, had no 'kulak' excuses to pull, and was clearly exacerbated by CPC economic policies and mismanagement, compared to the effective and efficient famine relief of the Qing empire 200 years prior.

And yet it doesn't get brought up nearly as much, by the left or the right, compared to muh Ukrainian Holololomor. Why is that?

where are all the graves

My point is that the role of the kulaks is overemphasised, in the same way supposed "anti-Ukrainian" intentions are overemphasised. I don't like how arguments of both distract that the famine was mainly caused by criminal economic mismanagement and not by 'muh kulaks' or 'muh Russians'.

nobody cares about chink bugmen, and rightly so, they are like locust in human form