If I recall correctly, you posted this exact answer some months ago and I criticized it on a number of points, but you reposted it again exactly the same way, down to the repeated description of Ukraine being in Central Asia. The affected areas, once again, were (in order of magnitude), Ukraine, Southern Russia, the Volga region (all in geographic Europe), and lastly Kazakhstan (the only one in Central Asia).
The whole "it was all just the kulaks" angle is counter-propaganda. The dekulakization program began in 1929, the famine happened in 1932-33. The focus on disempowering and dispossessing the kulaks (which was done overly harshly and affected poor peasants as well) contributed to the government missing the signs of the famine - they thought the kulaks were withholding grain on purpose, and reacted by requisitioning it more ruthlessly, which made the famine worse. Maybe the kulaks made some contribution to the famine, but putting most of the blame on them is wishful thinking. The government was exporting grain during a famine - they were hurrying to industrialize and prepare for war and didn't understand the scope of the famine - but they were still calling the shots.
Your post is mostly well-researched in other ways, like on the number of dead. But please do take care to amend and expand your knowledge on the topic instead of reposting the same flawed thing.
There's another post above they quotes an essay that says the exported amount was around 1% of the harvested total, and probably wasn't a major contributor to the situation. Is this incorrect?
Haha, that's my own post too. Yeah, I wish I understood that detail in greater depth. "Grain was exported during the famine" is something that's present in all detailed accounts I've read of the famine. This source says 'exported in the first half of 1933', which was later in the crisis, so more could have been exported earlier. (The low 1932 harvest would have been collected in late 1932 and exported then.)
Plus, export refers to international trade only and thus does not capture grain being moved from the country to the cities. The peasants were the ones starving - and fleeing for the cities despite growing the food. One of my ancestors tried to escape the countryside (Volga region, RSFSR) and find food working in the city, but froze to death on the way.
Maybe that factoid incorrectly reflects the overall story - but it's not the only flaw in the government response to the famine. Take the famous prohibition on gleaning - prison and death as punishment for starving peasants picking up leftover grain that would otherwise rot.
Ah! How funny! In the excerpt you posted it's a bit of an offhand remark, but it would be interesting to investigate the export aspect in greater detail. Like you mentioned, "when" is as important as "how much".
This is what's frustrating about talking to you. I'm giving you 10 points, you laugh at 1 that contradicts what you've clearly rote-memorized as dogmatic fact and then you lol and then you move on like you're right and need to change nothing about what you believe.
If I recall correctly, you posted this exact answer some months ago and I criticized it on a number of points, but you reposted it again exactly the same way, down to the repeated description of Ukraine being in Central Asia. The affected areas, once again, were (in order of magnitude), Ukraine, Southern Russia, the Volga region (all in geographic Europe), and lastly Kazakhstan (the only one in Central Asia).
The whole "it was all just the kulaks" angle is counter-propaganda. The dekulakization program began in 1929, the famine happened in 1932-33. The focus on disempowering and dispossessing the kulaks (which was done overly harshly and affected poor peasants as well) contributed to the government missing the signs of the famine - they thought the kulaks were withholding grain on purpose, and reacted by requisitioning it more ruthlessly, which made the famine worse. Maybe the kulaks made some contribution to the famine, but putting most of the blame on them is wishful thinking. The government was exporting grain during a famine - they were hurrying to industrialize and prepare for war and didn't understand the scope of the famine - but they were still calling the shots.
Your post is mostly well-researched in other ways, like on the number of dead. But please do take care to amend and expand your knowledge on the topic instead of reposting the same flawed thing.
There's another post above they quotes an essay that says the exported amount was around 1% of the harvested total, and probably wasn't a major contributor to the situation. Is this incorrect?
Haha, that's my own post too. Yeah, I wish I understood that detail in greater depth. "Grain was exported during the famine" is something that's present in all detailed accounts I've read of the famine. This source says 'exported in the first half of 1933', which was later in the crisis, so more could have been exported earlier. (The low 1932 harvest would have been collected in late 1932 and exported then.)
Plus, export refers to international trade only and thus does not capture grain being moved from the country to the cities. The peasants were the ones starving - and fleeing for the cities despite growing the food. One of my ancestors tried to escape the countryside (Volga region, RSFSR) and find food working in the city, but froze to death on the way.
Maybe that factoid incorrectly reflects the overall story - but it's not the only flaw in the government response to the famine. Take the famous prohibition on gleaning - prison and death as punishment for starving peasants picking up leftover grain that would otherwise rot.
Ah! How funny! In the excerpt you posted it's a bit of an offhand remark, but it would be interesting to investigate the export aspect in greater detail. Like you mentioned, "when" is as important as "how much".
lol
This is what's frustrating about talking to you. I'm giving you 10 points, you laugh at 1 that contradicts what you've clearly rote-memorized as dogmatic fact and then you lol and then you move on like you're right and need to change nothing about what you believe.
this poster is really toxic. I've seen them shit all over multiple threads like this.