Did the holodomor actually happen? Or is it all western/hohol propaganda against Russia

that was probably partly true but Russia had famines for many many years before the reds

Pffff. The holocaust doesn't real.

No, it didn't happen. I don't have any sources or evidence to disprove the established version of history, but you should still believe me.

Moscow wasn't aware until it was too late: local morons went full retard with their reports of their success. Tout va très bien, Madame la Marquise.

Big Lie theory?

Funny fact: there also was pro-Soviet idea that famine was organized (at least partially), but it was Trotskyist faction that was trying to dislodge Stalin by discrediting his super-industrialization as impossible and too oppressive.

Yeah, it happened. People that deny otherwise can't into historical research.

It sucks that it's turned into a meme fashy bois use as "proof" of Jewish genocide against Christians, but you can't really control them

Trotsky pushed for centralisation and industrialization way before Stalin did it.

Come on. Stalin wasn't as big a monster as the West painted him, but he was truly monstrous.

There's plenty of evidence that a famine occurred in Ukraine (and elsewhere) at the time, but the evidence that it was a deliberately engineered event to kill off the Ukrainians by Stalin or anyone in the Soviet government is exceedingly thin. Even for Western bourgeois historians now that the Cold War is over.

lmao

TANKIE MODE ACTIVATE

I dont know enough about it but i dont trust fucking ukrops, their supremacist bullshit, or their crocodile tears. They are like vicious little children, their entire identity seems to be a farce designed by outsiders as well

These guys were so fucking murderous in ww2 even the nazis were a little afraid of them, it was great watching those larping faggots get slaughtered in donbass meat grinder, i feel bad for the conscripts and civvies but thats about it

why the fuck would you want to deliberately starve out 6 million people when your country is barely industrialized and have to deal with outside forces constantly?

bantz

He was a demon and wanted to prove how ruthless socialism could be.

Is there a source for this dumb stalinist theory?

Because even Stalin was taken in by the myth of brave Ukrainian resistance fighters or something.

Read Mark B Taugers book on this. He's a history professor at West Virginia who published a book that used primary resources that had never been used. Basically, Russia was undergoing drought, followed by heavy rains and infestations of rust and mut. This combined with the high amount of grain they sold those years led to a famine, but the idea that it was an intentional genocide to kill off the Ukranian nationalist movement is just not supported by what we know.

Also, the amount of people that died varies widely between historians. If you go on the Wikipedia page, the estimated dead Ukrainians goes from 2.5 million to 7 million. Where these 4.5 million people are coming from I don't know, but we don't have a lot of records to judge this off so it's mostly conjecture.

That said, Stalin did execute at least 1 million people and we know that for sure.

No. Two different approaches.

Trotsky's industrialization was limited to agrarian sector and weapons. He supported extensive trade with the West and development of light industry.

On the other hand, Stalin wanted independence in crucial areas from the West through extensive development of heavy industry (Trotsky called it "super-industrialization" and considered it impossible for Russia to industrialize Stalin's way).

Stalin's failure would've meant that Trotsky was right and Russia should concentrate on light industry instead, not that industrialization is general was wrong.

Big Lie theory. Do I really need to repeat it? You are even thinking that Stalin was in charge, despite there being no evidence in support of this idea. And don't point at his imagery. Elvis didn't run US.

Get your facts straight before going with the "monster". Because every politician was either a monster or a coward (often both).

No, we don't. Not unless by "Stalin" you mean special committees, generally not allied with Stalin and who got executed by the Stalinist faction later.

This sounds like a Holla Forumsack talking about the Holocaust.

Wasn't it basically a proto-Great Famine, i.e.

You are just guessing now. There had been statistics of grain production in Ukraine since forever. Numbers expected by Moscow were not outrageous in any way.

Moscow even realized that something wasn't going right and lowered expectations (they still had no idea how bad it was, though). I've had specifics numbers somewhere, but it would take time to find them.

My understanding is that several factors coincided. Perfect storm, if you wish. And - yes. There actually were saboteurs. I mean, you can pretend that reports of burned down fields were faked (what for, though? it's internal documentation), but I don't think you'll go as far as claiming that Bolsheviks were murdering other Bolsheviks simply to frame kulaks.

The book wasn't written by some David Iriving conspiracy theorist, it was written by a history professor.

You wouldn't take Irish nationalist literature about the potato famine deeming it as an intentional act by Britain seriously, so why Ukrainian?

West Virginia University professor Mark Tauger argued that the 1932 harvest was smaller than the official estimate, and smaller than the harvest of 1933, which would suggest the famine was not "man-made."[61] Tauger's evidence, methodologies and conclusions in regard to the famine were criticized by Robert Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft in their book The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931–33, published in 2004.[62][63] Tauger, however, maintains that his harvest estimates are supported by evidence, and his conclusions are shared by a number of other scholars.[62] Historian James Mace wrote that Mark Tauger's argument "is not taken seriously by either Russians or Ukrainians who have studied the topic."[64] 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."[65]

He responded to both of them twice.

Here you go:
as.wvu.edu/mtauger/Reply to Wheatcroft.htm

Try and do a bit more research past the wikipedia blurb.

If I'm going to read a book I'd like to know if I'm wasting my time before I start, that's all.

This reminds me of Ayn Rand's definition of Soviet propaganda.

Numbers about "wild harvest predictions" ( ) as promised.

May 6, 1932; Moscow's decision is to reduce "wild predictions" for 1932 harvest
1) Reduce kolkhoz (co-op farms) and private farm expected grain for 1932
- USSR in general: from 22.4 mil t -> 18.1 mil t
- Ukraine: from 7.1 mil t -> 5.8 mil t
- N.Caucasus: 2.5 mil t -> 2.2 mil t
2) Increase sovkhoz (state farms) expected grain
- USSR in general: 1.8 mil t => 2.5 mil t

From all sources: 24.2 mil t -> 20.5 mil t;

For comparison, actual totals 1930-1935:
- 1930: 22.1 mil t
- 1931: 22.8 mil t
- 1932: 18.5 mil t (additionally, 0.26 mil t of grain will be imported)
- 1933: 23.3 mil t
- 1934: 26.2 mil t
- 1935: 28.4 mil t

I.e. clearly not "wild predictions".

I'm not a tankie but this is nonsense, once you have a population dependent on farming and crops fail for whatever reason, you have famine

What famine? There's was more than enough food, too bad it was exported off the island by British capitalists. The potato "famine" is a great example of an actually man made famine.

Nevermind; not a book.

That and Bengal. The Brits sure love their starving of the lesser races.

Yes. I as an eternal anglo take great pleasure in seeing the lesser races starve.

kek

Not an argument.

Haha, of course. I'm sure this "theory" is based on proof, rather than the wishes of stalinists still mad at being outed as gravediggers of the revolution?

It's somewhat amusing to ask, but don't you think it is absolutely impossible to present to your unbiased self any proof that would convince you otherwise?

Do you honestly think anti-communists have ever, at any point, even remotely considered the possibility that the Stalin government was even slightly different than what Western Cold War propaganda told them? You know I myself had some market-socialist/anarchist leanings for a while, I bought into the whole state-capitalism meme and everything. But I was different in that I never took anti-Soviet sentiment to religious proportions like trots and left-coms do. I was always always willing to consider new views, and thus my conversion to ML was effectively inevitable. Actually reading Marx and understanding what relations of production really are was what sealed the deal on the whole Stalinist counter-revolution meme for me.

It's worth noting that while Davies and Wheatcroft do argue that the famine was more of a man-made phenomenon, they still reject the premise of the Holodomor itself as a deliberate famine and an active policy of the Soviet government. Their argument is more that it was a result of poorly planned and implemented policy. It is telling that "serious" Western bourgeois historians are rolling back from the famine-as-genocide line now that the Soviets are gone.

No, go ahead and try me.

It sounds pretty convenient though, don't you think? A famine blamed on Stalin is shifted onto the shoulders of his biggest enemy by Stalin's own supporters.

Yep. Pretty convenient.

Also, not shifted. I pointed out that it might've been a factor. Personally, I consider messing up free market to be a problem. When market-price of bread is seven times higher than the state would pay you for mandatory bread delivery, things tend to get wonky.

Yeah. The Holodomer was exacerbated by Soviet policy, but the whole Union was hit not just Ukraine. And regardless, that was the last one. After Stalin industrialized there was no more famines.

Yeah but even then, Tauger responded to them twice in "Arguing From Errors" and "Arguing From More Errors" which after they dropped his criticism of him.

Denying the Holocaust is like denying the Cambodian genocide, thinking the Holodomer was because of unfortunate circumstance( as well as poor policy) and not because Stalin liked to eat babies is different.

The Holohoax never happened. Stalin did nothing wrong.