i logged out because I was legit mad, then i logged back in because i cared about the conversation and clicked and old auto-login i don't use anymore. i know you won't believe me but whatever. i try to make a new one on here every year because opsec. whatever. have a nice evening. all i cared about was what duncan said in that episode. not the meaning of the word 'coverage'
Rhetorical question because I’m not going to read the reply: why are you still trying to bait me
I'm not baiting you. I'm directly responding to things you are actively saying to me.
after I’ve made it clear I’m not engaging?
You're responding to me right now. You're engaging in conversation with me right now. In fact, you began this entire exchange by claiming I "misremembered" something.
You also said you're "not going to read" and then edited that part out. Smug.
i'm the "debate bro" but you started the "debate" by claiming i "misremembered" something. I didn't. I proved I didn't, and instead of apologizing like an adult you felt the need to pivot the conversation from my memory to "coverage isn't coverage unless it's a certain length". What's your criteria for coverage? 4 paragraphs? 5? Does "brief coverage" not mean anything?
you said i misremembered. I proved he actually said what I said he said. then you split hairs. you need to desperately fuck off. next time get the transcript yourself before claiming i misremembered something.
that was one edit. then for half an hour you kept adding points on unrelated shit like India.
I said Holodomor is capitalists projecting about shit they actually did. Like Churchill starving India. I related it back to the main point.
No. He didn’t.
bringing something up just for a few minutes to regurgitate reactionary lies is covering it. :cope:
There’s a difference between covering something and mentioning it
me at the beginning of this thread: Mike Duncan says X about holodomor
you: no he didn't
me: produce quotes
you: well that's MENTIONING not COVERING
you are now being incredibly pedantic. I started off by saying what he said, and then I proved he said it by producing a transcript. You said I misremembered. I didn't. I produced the quotes. Just because you want to split hairs about "coverage" versus "mention" doesn't mean anything.
he summed it up based on what other people say instead of being able to offer his own take.
you can tell what his own liberal take was by the fact that he presented "either the soviets were neglectful or they were genocidal" as the only credible options and he omitted the possibility of them being neither of those things.
Therefore…?
you asked the following : What years did ‘dekulackification’ happen, and why are you blaming something that happened in 1933 on them? to which I responded
dekulakization ended in 1933.
Meaning kulaks were still around in 1933. Meaning they were still resisting collectivization in 1933. Meaning I can blame stuff that happened in 1933 on them.
Are you actually a person acting like this?
Yes I'm actually a human being. Mike Duncan covered holodomor by presenting the main two anti-communist interpretations of it. The communist interpretation of it wasn't worth mentioning in his opinion because he's obviously anti-communist. Just because you disagree on what the word "coverage" means doesn't mean I "misremembered" what he said. I produced the quotes to prove it. You had to pivot the goalposts to what the fucking meaning of the word "coverage" is because you lack the humility to say "thanks for doing that research for me."
a possibility he didn't allow. duncan either said it was soviet neglect (a failure of their economic system) or their deliberate genocide. He specifically said that these two options were the "ongoing debate." I.e. that a third option (drought and sabotage) were not options. It's either "soviets are genocidal" or "soviets are neglectful". That's it, as far as he is concerned.
You edited your comment a shitload between when I started replying and now.
yeah because I hunted down the transcript and then added my thoughts. that took time and effort. i'm not gonna apologize to you for putting in time and effort and finding sources for my claims.
He brought it up just to talk about how he wasn’t going to cover it.
Except he did cover it.
Not covering it, he relayed the major perspectives on it for like a sentence each.
he relayed major anticommunist perspectives on it for like a sentence each. That's covering it. And it's covering it with a specific reactionary ideological bent.
What years did ‘dekulackification’ happen, and why are you blaming something that happened in 1933 on them?
dekulakization ended in 1933.
I don’t really want to have a full fledged fight about this
then don't. you started off saying he didn't cover it. you were wrong. it's that simple. If you didn't want me to push back then don't reply to me saying things like "mike duncan never covered X" when he did. If I were in your position, btw, I would go "oh, thanks for finding that transcript. guess I was wrong and misremembered."
No. He absolutely talks about Holodomor in one of the final episodes. I remember it clear as day. He does the pseudo :both-sides: thing where he limits the possibilities to "deliberate genocide" or "soviet neglect." He ignores the possibility of natural disaster or petit bourgeois sabotage. If his historyofrome.typepad website was still up (that's where I got the episodes) I could point you to the precise one, but alas, it seems to be down.
EDIT: It's in episode 10.102 "Dizzy With Success". I was able to hunt down the transcript, here:
Now the famine of 1931 and 1932 was very bad, but it was particularly bad in two places of note: Ukraine, and what is today Kazakhstan. The total population of what was then the Kazakh Autonomous Republic was about 6.5 million people. And of those, somewhere between 1.2 and 1.4 million died. In a year. That is an appalling and grotesque percentage of the population. In Ukraine, the death toll was around 3 and a half or 4 million from a total population of 33 million. In Ukraine, this famine is referred to as Holodomor, derived from “to kill by famine” or “the terror famine.” The idea is that in Ukraine’s case, the famine was not just an accident or negligence, but a deliberate policy by Stalin’s government. It was meant as punishment to break the Ukrainians for their years of bucking Communist Party authority.
Now that historical question of whether it’s deliberate murder or negligent homicide is an ongoing debate, now more than ever. Some historians say Stalin screwed over everyone without any particular target, in mind. Others can point to a systematic tendency to deny aid to Ukraine, to blacklist certain areas from help, to export grain from Ukraine to other places, that all adds up to a pretty clear picture. Now it’s above my pay grade to render judgment on all this, but what is not up for debate is that Stalin’s policies killed a lot of Ukrainians. The only thing that’s up for debate is whether this was the result of stupid, indifferent cruelty from a stupid, indifferent, and cruel man, or deliberate and sadistic mass murder, committed by a sadistic mass murderer.
So there you have it. He pretends to "both sides" but leaves the "debate" options to "either Stalin was evil by being neglectful, or he was deliberately genociding Ukrainians by starving them to death." He also says that there was a "tendency to deny aid."
Anyway. Holodmor is pure projection. Brits deliberately starved India and Stalin sent them food aid. Holodomor is also a deliberate "double genocide" theory that attempts to downplay the holocaust by positing that the fascists and communists were equally genocidal. It also attempts to whitewash Ukrainian nazi-collaborators and pogromists as being motivated by "self defense" from the USSR.
Here's a list of popular authors (many of them even anti-communist) admitting there was no such thing as the Holodomor as it is presented by fascist think tanks
spoiler
Anne Applebaum, Red Famine:
"In practice, ‘genocide’, as defined by the UN documents, came to mean the physical elimination of an entire ethnic group, in a manner similar to the Holocaust. The Holodomor does not meet that criterion. The Ukrainian famine was not an attempt to eliminate every single living Ukrainian; it was also halted, in the summer of 1933, well before it could devastate the entire nation"
Stephane Courtois/Nicolas Werth, The Black Book of Communism:
"Should one see this famine as a genocide of the Ukrainian people, as a number of Ukrainian historians and researchers do today? It is undeniable that the Ukrainian peasantry were the principal victims in the famine of 1932-33 (…) But proportionally the famine was just as severe in the Cossack territories of the Kuban and the Don and in Kazakhstan"
Orlando Figes, Revolutionary Russia 1891-1991:
"No hard evidence has so far come to light of the regime's intention to kill millions through famine, let alone of a genocide campaign against the Ukrainians. Many parts of Ukraine were ethnically mixed. There is no data to suggest that there was a policy of taking more grain from Ukrainian villages than from the Russians or other ethnic groups in the famine area. And Ukraine was not the only region to suffer terribly from the famine, which was almost as bad in Kazakhstan."
Robert Service, Stalin - A Biography:
"Although Stalin did not seek the extermination of all Ukrainians and Kazakhs, he certainly aimed to extirpate all opposition real and potential from among them. The ultimate objective, though, was to turn Ukraine and Kazakhstan into economically efficient Soviet republics. He therefore allowed both peoples to retain their culture…"
Stephen Kotkin, Stalin - Waiting for Hitler 1929-1941:
This becomes “genocide” when the authors include the executions of Ukrainian intellectuals, writers, poets, musicians, artists, church officials. They offer no evidence of intentional starvation or of ethnic targeting. They do not dwell on the ethnic Ukrainian agency in the alleged genocide against Ukrainians (in regions where lots of Russians lived and died). They do not include the Volga Valley, Kazakhstan, the Urals, Western Siberia, and other famine-wracked regions where Ukrainians did not form a large percentage of the population.
Alexander Solshenistyn:
In 2008, he published an article on Izvestia calling the Holodomor a "provocatory cry about a 'genocide' that was started in the minds of Ukrainian chauvinists decades later" (Source: https://iz.ru/news/335020)
On Robert Conquest backpedaling:
"In 2003, Dr. Conquest wrote to us explaining that he does not hold the view 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. "Debate. Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932 - 33: A Reply to Ellman.")
"In June 2006 a Ukrainian delegation of experts on the Holocaust and the Golodomor met Robert Conquest in Stanford University and enquired about his views, and were told directly by him that he preferred not to use the term genocide (Kul’chitskii (2007), 176)" (From R.W. Davies / Stephen Wheatcroft, The Years of Hunger - Soviet Agriculture 1931-1933)
Grover Furr on the reaction of other historians (From Blood Lies):
"There is no evidence it was intentionally directed against Ukrainians," said Alexander Dallin of Stanford, the father of modern Sovietology. "That would be totally out of keeping with what we know — it makes no sense."
"This is crap, rubbish," said Moshe Lewin of the University of Pennsylvania, whose 'Russian Peasants and Soviet Power' broke new ground in social history. "I am an anti-Stalinist, but I don't see how this [genocide] campaign adds to our knowledge. It's adding horrors, adding horrors, until it becomes a pathology.
"I absolutely reject it," said Lynne Viola of SUNY-Binghamton, the first US historian to examine Moscow's Central State Archive on collectivization. "Why in god's name would this paranoid government consciously produce a famine when they were terrified of war [with Germany]?
"He's terrible at doing research," said veteran Sovietologist Roberta Manning of Boston College. "He misuses sources, he twists everything."
In a polite but firmly negative review of Conquest's book in the London Review of Books in 1987 American Soviet scholar J. Arch Getty wrote: Conquest's hypothesis, sources and evidence are not new. Indeed, he himself first put forward his view two years ago in a work sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute. The intentional famine story, however, has been an article of faith for Ukrainian émigrés in the West since the Cold War. Much of Conquest's most graphic description is taken from such period-pieces as The Golgoltha of the Ukraine (1953), The Black Deeds of the Kremlin (1953) and Communism the Enemy of Mankind (1955). Conquest's book will thus give a certain academic credibility to a theory which has not been generally accepted by non-partisan scholars outside the circles of exiled nationalities. In today's conservative political climate, with its 'evil empire' discourse, I am sure that the book will be very popular.
On the Russian release of archival documents:
“In the archives of Russia, in the archives of the republics of the former USSR, millions of documents have been preserved [of] the famine in the USSR at the beginning of the 1930s of the last century in various regions of the large country. Not a single document has been found confirming the conception of a ‘Holodomor-genocide’ in Ukraine or even a hint in the documents about ethnic motives of what occurred, including in Ukraine.” (Source: V. P. Kozlov, Golod v SSSR 1930-1934; Famine in the USSR 1930-1934 (2009)
TL;DR basically around 1931 a drought happened, and it destroyed grain not only on Ukraine, but on Kazakhstan and Poland. At that time it was not a famine but it became one when the Kulaks (farmers with medium and large patches of land who wanted to resist collectivization) destroyed most of their own food stores to resist the Soviets, thus creating the famine in the local. Petit-bourgeois who violently resisted sharing of their resources are to blame.
i logged out because I was legit mad, then i logged back in because i cared about the conversation and clicked and old auto-login i don't use anymore. i know you won't believe me but whatever. i try to make a new one on here every year because opsec. whatever. have a nice evening. all i cared about was what duncan said in that episode. not the meaning of the word 'coverage'