Why did the Ukrainian famine happen?

Why did the Ukrainian famine happen?

Other urls found in this thread:


As best I can tell some bad decisions, some of which were only really bad in retrospect, led to a grain shortage, and then Stalin decided if there's a grain shortage anyway he'd really prefer Ukrainians starved rather than anyone else.


It wasn't "muh collectivization", it was that neofeudalist policies acquired grain from Ukraine to sell elsewhere even as Ukrainians starved

Stalin was going for the 10 gorgilion achievement.

It's didn't. That's propaganda invented by the west

Ukrainians deserved it

tankies will still defend this


Because several reasons overlapped:
- two bad years in a row (supplies got exhausted during 1931)
- external sabotage by kulaks and internal by Trotskyists (yes, I'm serious; both were quite real)
- refusal of the West to sell grain to Soviets
- no previous experience of managing economy on this level
- low farming productivity in general

Bullshit. Everyone was sending grain to Ukraine and North Caucasus.

Grain shortage was real. But the extent certainly is greatly exaggerated.

This is what I'm talking about

So … not claiming that it was Stalin's personal vendetta again Aryan Nation of Ukraine, automatically means Soviet propaganda?


Ukrainians were the biggest fucking crypto-fascists that ever existed - this can still be observed today.

Ukrainians were probably responsible for most of the death toll of the "Holocaust" - even the SS was freaked out by how crazy they were. Deserved it 100%.

I think I'll find i made no moral judgements in , I only went through my understanding of the cause and effect involved.

so all those men, women and children who had nothing to do with anything deserved to die because… why exactly?

Nobody killed women and children intentionally.

The Ukrainians as a community still deserved it.

this is ancap-tier argument comrade

Top idpol comrade


You have to be tinfoil paranoid to think that Soviets falsified all of their internal documentation, bribed/threatened every witness into lying, and then kept on fudging statistics for decades.

At this point you can just collapse the whole argument into the solipsism and pretend that the whole world doesn't exist.

I've literally heard this said about people who fled north korea/china/soviet bloc

So … each and every said one and the same thing? Because that's bullshit.

What you actually heard were the testimonies of pre-selected "witnesses". It's not like pro-Soviet testimonies had a chance of reaching the general public.

Then we have a minor problem of expats being inherently disappointed with their previous residence - they wouldn't have left otherwise. Therefore they could not represent actual general population, even if you somehow manage to get unbiased access to all of their testimonies.

Finally, none of the expats had access to the actual data. I.e. all they can - theoretically - present is anecdotal experience.

That's three filters, each of those three provides a reason to call you a retard for using "testimonies" as a comparable argument.

socialism was still in early construction
kulaks being kulaks
nazi propaganda in collusion with US press
tsarist argiculture constantly threatened the people with starvation, famines were common
if you want to talk about really forced starvation look at what the brits did to the indian people during ww2
in the end it was the soviet union that ended famines in all soviet peoples history

Dorothea Jauernig (D.J.): They lived with your family in the country at the time of collectivization. How did you experience collectivization? How do you judge them today?

Alexander Zinoviev (A.S.): One must distinguish two different sides in my position. My personal attitude to different events and the results of my scientific work. Our village has completely disappeared. If we look at collectivization only from this standpoint, then one can say that collectivization was a crime or a mistake. But you have to consider the whole situation in the country. The industry needed workers. The country needed not only workers, doctors, teachers, engineers, officers, etc. Without collectivization it would have been impossible to get so many people for the development of the country. We have lost everything in the country. And our family has left the country. But I became a professor. My brother became colonel. My older brother's director of a factory. Other of my brothers were engineers, etc. Many millions of Russian families have undergone such a development. For many millions of families, therefore, revolution was our revolution. Stalin's time was, of course, a great tragedy. But at the same time these years were the best years in Soviet history. They can not understand in what living conditions we lived. Our family lived in a room of 10 sqm. And in this room we lived to eight, sometimes to ten. And we were happy. Why? We visited the school. Everything was for us, the whole culture was open to us.
On the other hand, all claim that the productivity of the collective farms was very low, and that private farm production was much higher. That's a lie. All those who say that make a wrong comparison. They take e.g. A small parcel and say: Look, on this parcel works a woman or two and they sell so and so much vegetables etc. But on the collective farm work 300 humans. Now they are investigating how these people work on the small parcel, how many forces they need on the small parcel. In the kolkhoz, living conditions were much easier, shorter working hours and, above all, the main result: the state has got enough bread. Without collective farms this would be impossible.

D.J .: Collectivization is often referred to as a crime of Stalin.

A. I am against collectivization. My family suffered from it. But as a scientist I must say, this was the only way for the country to survive. If Stalin had not done this policy, the country would have been destroyed immediately during the war. And industrialization and even these repressions were inevitable.

See today's situation in the Soviet Union, try to restore order, without arrests, which is impossible. Now many are arrested and become more and more. At Stalin's time the situation in Russia was even worse.

It is a false ideology to assert: All the people were innocent, and only the evil man Stalin and some evil people have raped all men. This is a lie, an ideological lie. It was a struggle for survival, life and death.

It is perhaps the greatest injustice in history when Stalin is so slandered - it is particularly bad when Soviet people forget their own great story. In Russian history these years were the greatest years ever

I repeat, I am not a Communist. I criticized Communism since my youth. I was always an antistallist. But now I am an old man, I do not want to lie during my life.

Why do so many people hate Stalin and the Soviet Union at all? Because the development of this country was immeasurably fast, incomparably fast. All the capitalist countries were afraid. They were convinced that this system could be fought everywhere. And then began the war against communism. The Second World War was against the Soviet Union. The West has directed Hitler against the Soviet Union. This was not Hitler alone. Now everyone says Stalin is to blame. This is also an ideological lie. Practically the West was to blame for this war. The West has done everything to direct Hitler against the Soviet Union. Before the war, after the war and in the war.

The development of the Soviet Union today is the result not only of internal development, but also a result of the relations between the Soviet Union and the West. The cold war was a real war, no less than World War II. The Soviet Union was defeated. This situation is not simply the crisis of communism. This is the destruction of communism, from within, but from the outside as well.

I think the main reason is the treason of the bureaucrats under Khrushchev's leadership. It destroyed the ideology and gradually also the economy of socialism. There was a change of rule, from the domination of the working class to the rule of the bureaucracy as a new capitalist class.

D.J .: But another question: they worked for a long time at the University of Moscow. How was teaching at the universities in the 1950s and how was that later? Is it true that the Marxist-Leninists were thrown out of the universities in the 1970s, as we were told in Moscow?

A.S .: The development was complex. On the one hand, the ideological work under Suslow (under Breschnew for ideology, the Red) was immensely strong. But at the same time the Soviet ideology, the Marxist basis, was abandoned. Formally, the Soviet ideology was Marxist-Leninist. Only in words, assertions, etc. But, indeed, the Soviet ideology had already lost its Marxist-Leninist foundation. And that was one of the conditions of today's crisis.

How do you understand this - one of the conditions of today's crisis?

A.S .: The crisis existed in the 1960s. It did not begin in business, but first in the ideology and in the moral state of the higher classes. How to say in Russian: A fish starts to stink at the head.

But in the present situation in the Soviet Union, the people like Gorbachev, Shevardnadze, Yeltsin, Yakovlev, Sobchak, etc., are guilty. This is a result of their activity. They are criminals. I am sure that future generations will condemn these people mercilessly.

These perestroika people now have only fear for their own skin. They have betrayed our country and our people. If it is possible to keep their position, they are ready to sell the land. Practically they play the role of a 5th column of the West.

I am not a communist. I say this only as a scientist. This is the result of my scientific research.

D.J .: Thank you for the interview
Interview in 1991 in Munich by the "Rote Fahne", paper of the MLPD
Translation via google

I don't think there is a single community on this earth that deserves to die by millions from starvation.



ITT: Lots and lots of 'staches

The irony is that Ukrainians were actually for the most part pro-socialist and populist and were amongst the most ardent revolutionaries back in 1918. Most of the Kronstadt sailors, even back in 1905, were rowdy Ukrainian peasants and the SRs, especially Left SRs, had their biggest support in the Ukraine. Most Ukrainian nationalists were from the socialist parties, and most Ukrainian nationalist parties at the time were at least social democratic. This is why Makhno had the most support in Ukraine.

Maybe Stalin hated the Ukrainians because they rebelled too much against serfdom? And, they would see collectivization as the return of serfdom? (Most peasants actually saw the Russian Revolution more as an event that allowed them to own small plots of land instead of a revolution for collectivist economics.)

No they don't. Maybe if you actually read books instead of LARPing to Soviet imagery Jason-Unruhe style, you wouldn't such an annoying callous cunt.

Now, go fap to Stalin's mustache somewhere else, faggot.

And what would the Trotskyists gain from sabotage exactly? I bet you are the guy who thinks Grover Furr is a great source on Soviet history