[Darth Tanner]

I wish people would stop interjecting their stupid opinions.

Why are you on a forum?

the Gestapo's huge public opinions data base proves this

Or perhaps it proves that Hitler and his gestapo were concerned with crushing people who had opinions against his will.

and his policy changes show that he was listening.

Such as?

[SPQR]

Such as Hitler's economic policies regarding socialization or non-socialization of various industrial sectors. Come-on you're asking for a run-down of 3,000 pages of material if not more. Just go read a book or something that is actually involved in understanding Nazi Germany and not just some history text book that doesn't get past "Hitler was a bad guy".

Regarding Smilin' Dave...there's actually substantial information regarding what Hitler knew. Not only from letters he received directly (over 20,000) but just from reports. Most records are in Soviet Archives which is why the material is mostly in rarer but extensive books on the subject. The West - left with little information - just invented their views of Nazi Germany from what they got from government sources of the time (such as US sources or British sources) which have turned out to be vastly incorrect.

A great example is understanding German inflation through-out 1930s...the West got it all wrong but since 1990 after the Soviet Union began to release such doccuments a better understanding of the Reichsbank and inflation controls through the 1930s has come about.

I also never gave a theory of why he listened to public opionion merely that he did. My point was that he was a responsive leader; he was not isolated from reality and that is important in understanding the German politic.

Negative feelings that arose during the war were impossible to change the course of events; the nation was at war...find me a nation that changed course during war...oh how about the Russian Empire (destroyed)...the US in Vietnam? Lost...

Nations just have to go with what they were going with at all costs and hope they make it through...you settle disagreements and unhappiness after wars.

And why should policy be created by opinion polls? Hasn't the US failure in Rwanda proven that opinion polls leading government is bullshit?

Hypothetically; if Hitler were in charge...and humane instead of nationalistic...he'd have said "fuck our failures in Somalia...kick Rwanda's ass" and people would hate him for it because they would never know he saved 800,000 people...

The Nazis had a rather open government (as far as dictatorships go)...they hid what they knew people wouldn't favor...such as Germany's inflation in the late 1930s. A large sector of historians now believe that war happened in 1939 because they could no longer hide inflation from the German people; the problems inflation was causing was too sever.

And if inflation persisted the Nazi regime would lose legitimacy...

So they pushed their war in 1939 instead of 1944 as intended.

[Smilin' Dave]

Banning as a form of censorship.

We let the denialists have free reign once upon a time. Nothing you have said so far hasn't been dealt with on this forum, let alone by me. The fact that Holocaust denial ultimately can't survive without anti-semitic assumptions is the real nail in the coffin.

But, since you chose martyrdom, cya.

Smilin' Dave...there's actually substantial information regarding what Hitler knew.

I'm aware of that, hence why I've made reference to this body of work in my answers...

Most records are in Soviet Archives which is why the material is mostly in rarer but extensive books on the subject.

Actually the bulk of it was still in Germany, and hence the west did have access to this material before the opening of the archives (which did contain some interesting material, but not the total rewrite you propose).

A great example is understanding German inflation through-out 1930s...the West got it all wrong but since 1990 after the Soviet Union began to release such doccuments a better understanding of the Reichsbank and inflation controls through the 1930s has come about.

I would like to see you go into more detail about this, since you haven't stated the orthodox or new view. Since you apparently know the 'new' material better than the rest of us, let's hear where you get this information from.

I also never gave a theory of why he listened to public opionion merely that he did.

First, it's only theory till proven. Second, you still seem to be missing something important: Was Hitler acting on behalf of the people's wishes, or was he only reacting based on the reception of his own initiatives?

he was not isolated from reality

Once Martin Borrman was in place, he was. Hitler barely visited Berlin once the war started, how could he truely have been in contact with reality if he didn't experience it first hand?

Negative feelings that arose during the war were impossible to change the course of events; the nation was at war...find me a nation that changed course during war...oh how about the Russian Empire (destroyed)...the US in Vietnam? Lost...

Nazi Germany and Imperial Germany 'stayed the course'. Lost. You also seem to skip how Hitler started the war in the first place, against general public opinion.

And why should policy be created by opinion polls?

And it seems you still haven't clarified why Hitler being representative of the whole population (ignoring the electoral failure) is good and 'rule by the mob' is bad.

The Nazis had a rather open government

Night of the Long Knives suggests that even within the party, difference was not tolerated.

they hid what they knew people wouldn't favor...such as Germany's inflation in the late 1930s. A large sector of historians now believe that war happened in 1939 because they could no longer hide inflation from the German people; the problems inflation was causing was too sever.

So where is the representative Fuhrer here? Looks to me like the Nazis were playing their own game, and fixing the rules to get away with it.

[Far-Right Sage]

The 15-20 million figure includes famines, which are functionally different from purges.

Predator beat me to it.

Famines are only in a different league if they are not orchestrated by the government. The famine throughout Red China, for example, was not orchestrated or desired by Mao; it was simply a matter of irresponsibility and honest failure.

The Holodomor was a different animal.

[Smilin' Dave]

Famines are only in a different league if they are not orchestrated by the government. The famine throughout Red China, for example, was not orchestrated or desired by Mao; it was simply a matter of irresponsibility and honest failure.

The Holodomor was a different animal.

PredatorOC may have beaten you to this, but I've already beaten myself to this response.

Despite the opening of the archives, there hasn't been any suggestion that the wheat procurement plans were cooked up to punish the Ukraine. Now, unlike the Nazis the major players of the Politburo were quite open in what they were doing, in private. Thus, the famine is mentioned. But reading correspondance between Stalin, Molotov and Kaganovich, the impression you get is not that Stalin is relishing every detail, but in denial. First he refuses to acknowledge the famine is taking place, then he seems to question the extent (comparing to earlier, milder, shortages). When the reports get more serious still, action was taken.

The famine was thus a case of criminal negligence rather than a deliberate plan for destruction. It was still a crime, but it wasn't the same as the purges. Those were quite clearly aimed at destroying their targets, Stalin even signed off on it.

As for Mao, consider this: Unlike Stalin, he actually had a case study from which to judge the likely effects of his policy. Mao, or at least those around him, must have known what would follow. They did it anyway. Mao is probably the worst of the two on this point.

[PredatorOC]

How would a famine achieve this?

A nation of starving peasants and dead intellectuals is unlikely to revolt.

Again, political independance wasn't linked to the harvest.

Of course it was. The Ukrainian 'intellectuals' were wiped out in 1932-33.

Nazism was an ideology that glorified homocide. Stalinism merely treated it as 'necessary'. Which do you think is worse?

I'm dead tired of rationalizations like these. The only difference between Stalin and Hitler was who they killed. Hitler was paranoid about Jews, so he had them killed. Stalin was paranoid about Trotskyists and national independence movements, so he had them killed. I can't even begin to comprehend the mental processes needed to see these things as 'necessary'.

Tauger and Wheatcroft both point out that the Soviet government did respond (late, but not as late as previously portrayed) to the famine as it became increasingly obvious.

The Ukrainian Secret Service declassified in 2006 documents that show Ukraine didn't receive aid while nearby regions did. Even Russia has admitted that the famine was caused by Stalin.

The famine was still his fault, it just wasn't equivilent to the say, the Holocaust.

So it was his fault? I thought the 'manmade famine' line had been totally exploded?

As for comparing one genocide to another. It is rather pointless. When you go past the one million mark, they are pretty equal atrocities.

The famine was thus a case of criminal negligence rather than a deliberate plan for destruction.

You are disconnecting the cause from all of this. Collectivization was the root of the problem. This was done by Stalin.

Tauger and the few who agree with him are reaching in their agruments. While I applaud criticism on any subject, it is kind of tiring in case of genocides. You end up with rationalizations like Stalin had to save the urban population, or Hitler didn't know about the mass killings. The end result remains that Stalin initiated the famine, Stalin had Molotov confiscate grain, Stalin implemented travel restrictions (I understand he even had army troops on the border to implement the restrictions) from the area and Stalin systematically repressed information about the famine. You can draw two conclusions from this. Either Stalin was hellbent on implementing his own ideal system, regardless of the lives lost. Or Stalin simply wanted to get rid of the clergy and break the spirit of Ukraine. Or maybe a bit of both. But saying that the whole thing was an innocent mistake is absolutely groundless.

[Smilin' Dave]

A nation of starving peasants and dead intellectuals is unlikely to revolt.

They were not in a near state of revolt to begin with. In fact, the people running the Ukraine at the time were hand picked by the Politburo for their reliability. In fact, the famines prompted a number of minor rebelions, which the Red Army had to put down. That the Red Army could put them down also suggests famine wasn't the obvious tool for repression.

The Ukrainian 'intellectuals' were wiped out in 1932-33.

But there is nothing to link these two events. Our kitchen caught fire while I was watching T.V... does watching T.V cause kitchen fires?

I'm dead tired of rationalizations like these. The only difference between Stalin and Hitler was who they killed. Hitler was paranoid about Jews, so he had them killed. Stalin was paranoid about Trotskyists and national independence movements, so he had them killed. I can't even begin to comprehend the mental processes needed to see these things as 'necessary'.

You seem to miss my point. Nazis were all about killing, they encouraged a virtual cult of death in society as a whole. They probably never would have stopped. Stalinism does't even come close to this description.

I'm not even sure how you can compare killing people for how they are born, with killing people for (alleged) ideological deviancy.

The Ukrainian Secret Service declassified in 2006 documents that show Ukraine didn't receive aid while nearby regions did.

Tauger and Wheatcroft's work also made extensive use of Soviet archival materials. The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933, by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies addresses aid levels, down to the amounts and the date. You can even find it on Amazon.

Even Russia has admitted that the famine was caused by Stalin.

Correction, the Yeltsin administration had admitted this. Yeltsin's whole political agenda was to violently cut off all remaining Soviet ties, no matter what. You also have to consider the realpolitik element. If the Russian government were seen to be denying something that has been held as common knowledge in the west for decades, it would struggle in its attempts build connections with the west. Never mind that much of the common knowledge comes from problematic sources.

So it was his fault

I've been fairly clear on that since the beginning...

I thought the 'manmade famine' line had been totally exploded?

Not what I said at all. What I said was it was not a 'terror famine' or 'to inflict death by hunger' aka Holodomor didn't happen. I believe that bad policy decisions, exacerbated by exterior influences (like crop diseases) created the famine. This is totally different you your line, of some ridiculous conspiracy to crush and already quite crushed Ukraine.

As for comparing one genocide to another.

How the heck is the famine genocide? By your own statements, the famine effected many regions. It didn't target specific races or ethnicities. I think you will find Russians living in the Ukraine would have suffered equally to their Ukranian neighbours.

You are disconnecting the cause from all of this. Collectivization was the root of the problem. This was done by Stalin.

No, you are trying to play both arguments. At the beginning of the post, it was a deliberate policy to starve the Ukranians. Now you are trying to co-opt the negligence theory.

Tauger and the few who agree with him

Numbers are largely irrelevant in academic questions. Considering how few active academics there are in Soviet studies, Tauger (who actually specialises in famines, not Soviet history) and Wheatcroft's supporters constitute a significant slice of opinion.

You end up with rationalizations like Stalin had to save the urban population

Did I say this?

or Hitler didn't know about the mass killings

Total rubbish, as I have demonstrated on this forum in the past.

The end result remains that Stalin initiated the famine, Stalin had Molotov confiscate grain, Stalin implemented travel restrictions (I understand he even had army troops on the border to implement the restrictions) from the area and Stalin systematically repressed information about the famine.

None of these things tie into a terror famine thesis, without some additional evidence. Grain confiscation would have been pretty standard for the policy initiated at the time. Travel restrictions had been in place for years by 1932 unless I am mistaken, and once the famine was officially recognised, might have been mistaken as a containment measure. And course it was covered up, it was a massive policy disaster, and didn't do the economy much good to boot.

Either Stalin was hellbent on implementing his own ideal system, regardless of the lives lost.

Considering subsequent liberalisations of agricultural policy that followed the famines, hellbent seems unlikely. I agree that Stalin was proligate with the lives of his population, but I suspect a disaster on this scale was not what he had in mind at all.

Or Stalin simply wanted to get rid of the clergy and break the spirit of Ukraine.

Which, as I have pointed out repeatedly, can, and was, done via other means.

But saying that the whole thing was an innocent mistake is absolutely groundless.

Indeed, it was criminal, but it was nothing like the systematic repression of Nazi Germany. Stalin is not short of other examples of similar oppressions, like mass deportations of certain nationalities or the aforementioned purges. But the famine does not fall into this bracket.

There was, in fact, a plan cooked up to deliberately starve to death the population of the Soviet Union. It was part of Generalplan Ost, it was a Nazi policy.

[PredatorOC]

They were not in a near state of revolt to begin with.

The desire for Ukrainian national self-determination was significant. Not an open revolt, but a serious threat to Stalin.

But there is nothing to link these two events. Our kitchen caught fire while I was watching T.V... does watching T.V cause kitchen fires?

Of course in this case you have a guy with a big moustache standing next to the kitchen and a box of matches on the floor... But I'm sure it is all a freaky coincidence.

Nazis were all about killing, they encouraged a virtual cult of death in society as a whole.

Yeah, I'm gonna call bullshit on this one. National socialism operated in very much the same manner as Communism did. The killing was done mainly behind the scenes. In fact, Stalin probably killed more openly than Hitler did, especially during the purges.

I'm not even sure how you can compare killing people for how they are born, with killing people for (alleged) ideological deviancy.

Please, not this crap again. So all the murders in Nazi Germany over political affiliation were not as condemnable as the racial motivated ones were?

And you are forgetting what Stalin did to the Chechens and other national minorities. But, hey, I'm sure those deeds were 'necessary' and thus kind of ok.

The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933, by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies addresses aid levels, down to the amounts and the date.

Which was published in 2004 and thus doesn't address the SBU documents, which were declassified in 2006.

Correction, the Yeltsin administration had admitted this.

Wrong. Russia signed the Joint Statement on the Great Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine (Holodomor) on Monday, November 10, 2003 at the United Nations in New York. Putin was in charge then.

Some quotes from the joint statement:

"In the former Soviet Union millions of men, women and children fell victims to the cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime. The Great Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine (Holodomor), which took from 7 million to 10 million innocent lives and became a national tragedy for the Ukrainian people. In this regard we note activities in observance of the seventieth anniversary of this Famine, in particular organized by the Government of Ukraine."

"Recognizing the importance of raising public awareness on the tragic events in the history of mankind for their prevention in future, we deplore the acts and policies that brought about mass starvation and death of millions of people."

Never mind that much of the common knowledge comes from problematic sources.

Yeah. The world's historians are really a part of a world wide conspiracy to smear Stalin's image.

Just like the they are a part of the world wide Zionist conspiracy to smear Hitler's image...

I've been fairly clear on that since the beginning...

Not really. You are trying to make a turd look like a rose.

Not what I said at all.

You are correct. I confused PatrickSMcNally's post as yours.

By your own statements, the famine effected many regions. It didn't target specific races or ethnicities. I think you will find Russians living in the Ukraine would have suffered equally to their Ukranian neighbours.

The effects of crop failures simply don't explain the severity of the famine. Why was the famine so severe in Ukraine, if other areas were afflicted with the same kind of crop failures?

No, you are trying to play both arguments. At the beginning of the post, it was a deliberate policy to starve the Ukranians. Now you are trying to co-opt the negligence theory.

No. I am pointing out a flaw in your arguments. You claim that it was a unfortunate side-effect of collectivization and Stalin is only to be blamed with 'negligence'. Well these side-effects were known, but Stalin still pushed through with collectivization. So even if we assume that the famine wasn't deliberately made worse to break Ukraine, we are still left with the reality that Stalin pushed through the reforms completely without regard to human life. That is more than 'negligence'.

Numbers are largely irrelevant in academic questions.

Umm... stuff needs to be peer reviewed, doesn't it? So a few guys claiming one thing does not equal truth if the vast majority on the same field is still opposed to the 'truth'.

[Smilin' Dave]

The desire for Ukrainian national self-determination was significant. Not an open revolt, but a serious threat to Stalin.

Sure, but that doesn't call for drastic measures. It still doesn't explain why such a blunt and ineffective instrument like a terror famine would be favoured.

Of course in this case you have a guy with a big moustache standing next to the kitchen and a box of matches on the floor... But I'm sure it is all a freaky coincidence.

In your case you saw the guy with the moustache holding a skillet with oil in it, and accused him of starting the fire on purpose. You have shown me no 'matches' (our old stove had to be lit with matches anyway ).

National socialism operated in very much the same manner as Communism did.

No it didn't, and you even go on to provide an example of how they differed:

In fact, Stalin probably killed more openly than Hitler did, especially during the purges.

But we are talking about the famines. As you stated in your last post, that was covered up. You also haven't actually dealt with my basic point, which is that Nazis killed because that was what their whole ideology was about. Nazism will always seek to harm others.

So all the murders in Nazi Germany over political affiliation were not as condemnable as the racial motivated ones were?

Welcome to the world, where not everything is black and white. Both are condemnable, one is in fact worse than the other. In Nazi eyes, you can't stop being Jewish, and hence you could not ever hope to escape death. The purges on the other hand at least carried the chance for imprisonment instead.

And you are forgetting what Stalin did to the Chechens and other national minorities.

I mentioned them later in my post, so that's just outright fraud on your part. Further, the mass deportations were not purges and not even remotely similar to the Holocaust in method.

Which was published in 2004 and thus doesn't address the SBU documents, which were declassified in 2006.

Do you really think food aid information was limited to the SBU offices? The book I refered you to is a much broader study. What dates for aid is given in the aforementioned documents?

we deplore the acts and policies that brought about mass starvation and death of millions of people.

This isn't exactly the admission to genocide you claimed. As I keep bloody pointing out to you, I fully acknowledge the key role played by Soviet government policy in creating the famine. But, unlike you, I don't keep implying that it was a deliberate terror famine.

Yeah. The world's historians are really a part of a world wide conspiracy to smear Stalin's image.

You just love putting words in my mouth.

By problematic sources I refer to the limited information that was available during the Cold War and what little information coming from exiles. Some of these exiles were in fact former members of the OUN, which during the 30s and 50s was carrying out terrorism in the Soviet Union and Poland.

Not really. You are trying to make a turd look like a rose.

Childish, and evasion to boot.

The effects of crop failures simply don't explain the severity of the famine.

As I pointed out to you AND PatrickSMcNally. Will pointing out what is on record prompt you to resort to further references to excrement?

Why was the famine so severe in Ukraine, if other areas were afflicted with the same kind of crop failures?

Because grain seizures in the Ukraine had been larger to begin with. This was the result of bad government statistic models, coupled with a record harvest in 1931. As even Robert Conquest acknowledges, this fooled the government into think that Ukranian grain output would remain consistantly high. Once the famine broke out, authorities assumed the official figures couldn't be wrong, hence why even in private, hoarding was blamed.

So, no defence of your genocide comparison? I thought all killing was the same to you anyway...

we are still left with the reality that Stalin pushed through the reforms completely without regard to human life. That is more than 'negligence'.

It wasn't completely without regard for human life. As I have already pointed out, the collectivisation plan was stalled once the famine was officially acknowledged. Aid was released to the Ukraine, even though this endangered the plan. Even the final implementation was toned down, with significantly more emphasis on the peasant's private farming plots, which while not terrible socialist, was quietly acknowledged as vital to actually feeding the population.

The case I have put forward easily meets the criteria for criminal negligence:
"careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or in the case of gross negligence what would have been reckless in any other defendant"

Umm... stuff needs to be peer reviewed, doesn't it? So a few guys claiming one thing does not equal truth if the vast majority on the same field is still opposed to the 'truth'.

Peer review isn't a case on numbers either. That these works have passed a number of peer reviews actually contradicts your own logic.

Now, at this stage we are both just repeating ourselves. Unless you have anything new you wish to add, I think it better to just leave it at that.

[PredatorOC]

It still doesn't explain why such a blunt and ineffective instrument like a terror famine would be favoured.

Because Stalin was known for his finesse when taking out competition?

No it didn't, and you even go on to provide an example of how they differed:

Does this mean that you are backing down from your claim that National Socialism was a virtual cult of death?

But we are talking about the famines.

You are the one who brought up the 'cult of death' business. I'm just pointing out that it's something you probably picked up from an old pulp magazine. The purges were pretty public affairs. Why doesn't the 'cult of death' apply to them?

You also haven't actually dealt with my basic point, which is that Nazis killed because that was what their whole ideology was about. Nazism will always seek to harm others.

Please present your evidence that National Socialism was sold as a 'cult of death' to the people.

In Nazi eyes, you can't stop being Jewish, and hence you could not ever hope to escape death. The purges on the other hand at least carried the chance for imprisonment instead.

That is a pretty stinky line of bullshit right there. Murder is murder. I don't give a fuck how you try to dress it up. If someone kills your family over politics, will you shed less tears than if they had been killed over race? Would you want a lesser punishment on the murderer if the motive was politics?

Further, the mass deportations were not purges and not even remotely similar to the Holocaust in method.

Alright, so the Armenian Genocide was just really a 'mass deportation'? Because the methods of extermination weren't the same as in the Holocaust. This is getting pretty damn confusing. Or is it just that crimes of leftist authoritarians are not quite as severe as the crimes of the rightist authoritarian. Hmm... which way might you swing, eh?

This isn't exactly the admission to genocide you claimed.

'We deplore the acts and policies that brought about mass starvation and death of millions of people.'

How fucking clearly do you need it? Acts and policies! Not drought. Not innocent mistakes. Acts and policies. That is about as close as it gets in world politics.

But, unlike you, I don't keep implying that it was a deliberate terror famine.

Ok... then why did the USSR keep exporting grain during the famine? And why didn't the drought of 1936, which was supposed to be worse, cause a famine? You keep dancing around and calling it negligence. Well, whether he exploited the drought to break the rural population or pushed his policies with absolute disregard for human life, you still get to the same conclusion. Genocide (or Democide, if that is what you prefer).

Will pointing out what is on record prompt you to resort to further references to excrement?

Just calling it like I smell it.

It wasn't completely without regard for human life.

The kink with this argument, of course, are the 1929 mass deportations and the preceding Stalin's paranoia about grain hoarding. I don't know the exact figure, but I remember a few million dead being mentioned. This is the main reason for the later resistance to collectivization. This probably is the reason Stalin was so paranoid about the 'kulaks' and was resolved to break them. So the events of 1932-33 weren't exactly something new.

And of course there was the cutting off of rations to those opposed to collectivization. And of course there were all those executions. But I'm sure those were all unintened side-effects.

Aid was released to the Ukraine, even though this endangered the plan.

Of course the aid was insufficient to relieve the famine. It was mainly used to maintain a minimally working economy in the region. And all the while grain was being exported...

[Smilin' Dave]

Last one. This thread has gone thoroughly off track, and amusingly the original poster is unpersoned.

Because Stalin was known for his finesse when taking out competition?

Considering the methodical and systematic manner in which the purges of the party centre were conducted, yes I would say he had a bit more finesse.

Does this mean that you are backing down from your claim that National Socialism was a virtual cult of death?

Really reaching for straws arn't we. How did you even draw this conclusion from the passage you quoted?

You are the one who brought up the 'cult of death' business.

Why has it taken you so long to notice and respond to this? It smells of yet another misdirection.

I'm just pointing out that it's something you probably picked up from an old pulp magazine.

When in doubt, people like you always insult my credentials. But here's the punchline, I have an honours in history, I studied Nazi Germany in university. If it hasn't sunk in by now let me be blunt: I'm much better read on these issues than you.

The purges were pretty public affairs. Why doesn't the 'cult of death' apply to them?

Because they were not configured to encourage the general public to go out and physically attack people? The public rhetoric of the purges doesn't not convey that the purges were somehow desirable.

Please present your evidence that National Socialism was sold as a 'cult of death' to the people.

Everything in Nazi world thought boils down to life or death struggles. The struggle to preserve civilisations. Living space that supposedly needed to be acquired by force. Near constant public calls for the physical destruction of enemies. As early an Mein Kampf Hitler was promoting the idea of gassing Jews. The glorification of war, particularly the front line soldier. The glorification of fallen comrades. The glorification of street fighting.

It goes on and on.

Murder is murder.

Actually, no it isn't. Legally, there is for example a differentiation between manslaughter and murder one. I'm guessing you live in a country whose legal system makes such distinctions?

I don't give a fuck how you try to dress it up.

If you don't want to listen to logic, what are you actually discussing this for in the first place?

If someone kills your family over politics, will you shed less tears than if they had been killed over race? Would you want a lesser punishment on the murderer if the motive was politics?

Yes, and the legal precedent is again set by hate crime laws. I think the overwhelming pointlessness and primitive savagery or racist thinking would probably make me much sadder.

Alright, so the Armenian Genocide was just really a 'mass deportation'?

First, why is response to a quote on the Holocaust to you go to a different event?

The deportation of nationalities wasn't really anything like the Armenian genocide. The pogroms are missing. The build up of anti-Armenian laws is missing. The death marches are largely missing. The wanton murder by guards (and it was hatred of Armenians for which the guards were chosen) on said marches are missing. The attacks by local populations against the deported Armenians is missing. Finally I would argue that the end destination of the Chechens, Volga Germans etc. was slightly more hospitable than the desert the Armenians were to be dumped in (which unlike Central Asia, was not populated at all due to lack of water etc.).

You should be ashamed of your ignorance of these events you try to exploit for political capital.

Or is it just that crimes of leftist authoritarians are not quite as severe as the crimes of the rightist authoritarian.

Straw man. Where have I said this? Want me to go on record? Mussolini was far more mild an autocrat that Stalin.

How fucking clearly do you need it? Acts and policies![/quote]
There is clutching at straws, and wilful blindness. From the fucking beginning I have stated that policy was the cause of the famine. You seem to be totally unable to come to grips with this, no matter how many times it is repeated to you.

Not drought.

Once again when it suits you, you confuse me with another person. Perhaps for amusement value I can pretend you are Ixabert?

Not innocent mistakes. Acts and policies.

First, these two arn't even seperate. They were policy mistakes. Second, I didn't say they were innocent, in fact I have repeatedly called them criminal.

Ok... then why did the USSR keep exporting grain during the famine?

Combination of ignorance of the full extent of the disaster and Stalin's willingness to cause some harm to the people to achieve his ends. BOTH of which I have already stated.

And why didn't the drought of 1936, which was supposed to be worse, cause a famine?

Changes in policy (which I have already outlined...) and the release of aid. Maybe this is actually evidence that the Soviets learnt from a mistake?

Genocide (or Democide, if that is what you prefer).

At least your rubbery use of language is starting to clear up.

...the 1929 mass deportations and the preceding Stalin's paranoia about grain hoarding. I don't know the exact figure, but I remember a few million dead being mentioned. This is the main reason for the later resistance to collectivization.

Your chronology is wrong. The deportations of kulaks was undertaking during collectivisation, and related to resistance to it.

The figure of 'a few million' is also impressive since less that two million were deported in 1929. But then, all murder is the same to you... so why are you arguing the scale?

So the events of 1932-33 weren't exactly something new.

You talk about a series of deportations in 1929, then compare it to an agricultural famine in 1932-33 as if they were the same thing. In fact the relative 'success' of collectivisation went some way to distorting reality in the minds of government officals.

But I'm sure those were all unintened side-effects.

Once again, did not say. It is pretty much impossible to debate with you, since you seem to have simply made up your own fantasy version of my arguments.

Of course the aid was insufficient to relieve the famine.

For christ's sake. How do you think the famine ended then? Why were you even arguing about the release of aid (as part of your terror famine theory) in the first place if it didn't achieve anything anyhow?

I'm done. You can keep posting, since you didn't really read what I had to say anyway. You can battle your straw men for all eternity.

[PredatorOC]

Considering the methodical and systematic manner in which the purges of the party centre were conducted, yes I would say he had a bit more finesse.

You are using the purges as an example in this case? I'm guessing you read different history books than I do. The purges were like trying to kill a fly with a sledge hammer. Take, for example, the execution quotas.

Really reaching for straws arn't we. How did you even draw this conclusion from the passage you quoted?

Just trying to make sense of your argument. You claimed that Nazism was a 'cult of death'. I argued that Nazism and Communism both killed mainly secretly (no 'cult of death'), and in the case of public killings, Communism had the lead (purges and whatnot). You indicated that I somehow proved your point. How?

Why has it taken you so long to notice and respond to this? It smells of yet another misdirection.

Huh? You are not making much sense. I responded when you mentioned the 'cult of death' thing a few posts back.

When in doubt, people like you always insult my credentials. But here's the punchline, I have an honours in history, I studied Nazi Germany in university.

And a credible university taught the 'cult of death' line to you?

The public rhetoric of the purges doesn't not convey that the purges were somehow desirable.

So the USSR didn't have public rhetoric against 'counter-revolutionaries', enemies of the people and other undesirable elements in society?

Everything in Nazi world thought boils down to life or death struggles. The struggle to preserve civilisations.

And the Communist world view didn't boil down to class struggle and world revolution? That the communist system in the USSR had to be preserved? That the capitalist world wasn't out to get them?

Near constant public calls for the physical destruction of enemies.

And the destruction of the capitalist system was never called for in the USSR? And in case you try to nitpick, the Nazis rarely called publicly for the destruction of individuals. They fostered the the idea of the 'world Jewry' as an organization, which is about as ambiguous and all-encompassing as the soviet idea of 'capitalism' was.

As early an Mein Kampf Hitler was promoting the idea of gassing Jews.

But you are claiming that Nazism was a 'cult of death'. Hitler was genocidal, but you are calling the whole movement as a 'cult of death'. This is wholly wrong and down right sensationalist. Nazism existed before Hitler and had deeper roots than the NSDAP. It was an idiotic mystics society that had circle-jerk meetings over their presumed racial superiority. And this is essentially the way it remained until the end of the war. Genocide was never a part of it and in fact the killings were carried out with as much secrecy as possible.

The glorification of war, particularly the front line soldier. The glorification of fallen comrades. The glorification of street fighting.

The glorification of world revolution. The glorification of the fallen in the civil war. Etc. Etc. You are really grasping at straws with all this.

Actually, no it isn't. Legally, there is for example a differentiation between manslaughter and murder one. I'm guessing you live in a country whose legal system makes such distinctions?

So are you arguing that all the killings in the USSR were manslaughter?

I think the overwhelming pointlessness and primitive savagery or racist thinking would probably make me much sadder.

Yes. Dying in a gulag in Siberia has such a refined quality to it.

The deportation of nationalities wasn't really anything like the Armenian genocide

You are quite intent on exonerating Stalin's regime, aren't you? The whole point of the mass deportations was to wipe out the national minorities. Either as revenge (like in the case of the Chechens) or simply out of political reasons (russification). Beyond a few details, the deportations were very similar to what the Armenians were subjected to. The methods differed, but the end result was designed to be the same.

Now all of this of course depends on your definition of genocide. But even if you insist on the killing being very straightforward (like shooting or gassing), the mass deportations and the Holodomor still qualify as genocides. For example by UN standards (which Stalin actually insisted on being changed in 1948).

You should be ashamed of your ignorance of these events you try to exploit for political capital.

Now how is insulting who? And how am I trying to exploit this for political capital? I have very little interest in this issue. I am just sick of apologists on both the nazi and communist side.

Second, I didn't say they were innocent, in fact I have repeatedly called them criminal.

But that is the thing. You call the Holodomor 'criminal negligence', correct? This paints the picture of the events as a series of bad policy decisions, which is absolutely misleading. Everything points to Stalin acting with absolutely no regard for human life and knowledge of the consequences of his actions. He only acted to save his precious grain production.

Stalin's willingness to cause some harm to the people to achieve his ends

Doesn't this kind of defeat your 'criminal negligence' argument?

Maybe this is actually evidence that the Soviets learnt from a mistake?

There is that 'maybe' you have chastised me about. Maybe the 1932-33 genocide/democide had met its goal and Stalin didn't need to repeat it?

At least your rubbery use of language is starting to clear up.

It's not rubbery, since Ukraine was demographically quite diverse. So calling it genocide is technically incorrect and the democide term is more accurate. I use the term genocide, since it is more often used in reference to the Holodomr. As you can note, I have not argued that is was a racial issue, but a political one. Nazis killed based on race, communists killed based on class.

Your chronology is wrong. The deportations of kulaks was undertaking during collectivisation, and related to resistance to it.

Wrong. Forced collectivization was started in 1929. This is also when the dekulakization started. In fact, the collectivization lead to a famine in 1930-31, which shows that Stalin was quite aware of the effects of forced collectivization.

The figure of 'a few million' is also impressive since less that two million were deported in 1929. But then, all murder is the same to you... so why are you arguing the scale?

Well I am not quite sure about the figure, which I quite clearly mentioned. And please stop this childish 'all murder is the same to you' whining. Of course it is and should be to any sane man. Most people don't say "thank God this isn't racially motivated" when they witness a politically motivated execution.

In fact the relative 'success' of collectivisation went some way to distorting reality in the minds of government officals.

One could say that they were 'dizzy with success'?

The results of forced collectivization were clear. Famine, death, etc. Stalin et al still chose to restart the process.

Once again, did not say. It is pretty much impossible to debate with you, since you seem to have simply made up your own fantasy version of my arguments.

I didn't claim you said. I was pointing out the fallacy of your naive assumption that Stalin wasn't fully aware of the consequences of his actions.

For christ's sake. How do you think the famine ended then? Why were you even arguing about the release of aid (as part of your terror famine theory) in the first place if it didn't achieve anything anyhow?

It is two different things to give aid when it is needed and giving it later. Stalin opted for the latter, which is what I have been trying to point to.

I'm done. You can keep posting, since you didn't really read what I had to say anyway. You can battle your straw men for all eternity.

No need to get angry, just because someone doesn't buy your 'criminal negligence' line.

[useless]

Though it is very true that Hitler was legally elected he was very quick in dismantling the democratic system through emergency decree and relied upon dictatorial rule to actually stay in power. The skill of Hitler as a demagogue should not be underestimated, the Nazis actually weren't very popular, it was Hitler that the people supported.

Often heard, and unfortunately often wrong.
In March 1933, after the annihilation of communist and anarchist groups and parties, new election were held. The NSDAP was the strongest party, but that was not enough. It needed another national-chauvinistic Party to rule. The state of emergency was declared by all parties expect the SPD (social-democrats, similar to Labour in England). The seats of the communist didn't count, which was the reason for the passing of this edict. The state of emergency was declared by all conserservative, nationalist and liberal parties, thus enabling Hitler to break social demands.
The Republic collapsed, cause the elites didn't want it. They were still monarchist and/or religious oriented. Especially the religious bound parties (Zentrum = Centre, predominantly protestant, BVP - Bayrische Volkspartei = Bavarian People's Party, regional and catholic) appreciated Hitler and of course Antisemitism.
But the elites thought they could control Hitler and the NSDAP (so called "Querfront-Strategie", "quer" does not mean queer, but in this context "beyond" party lines). This is the reason why they declared the state of emergency and abolished the federal and the parliamentarial system. And after that, they couldn't control Hitler.

His rising to power by the conditions of Versailles, France trying to press on German nation, which has one of the most strongest national identity in World, was natural.

This also often heard, but else wrong. The Treaty of Versailles was not much in discussion in Germany. Only two issues were acclaimed: the French influence of the indusitralized Ruhr-Region and the debts. But the debts were soon reduced to minimal costs, and after all the Weimarer Republic suceeded in attracting foreign investment and capital, especially from US (This was the reason for the conservatives and big entrepreneurs to speak of "Jewish Yankee-Imperialism").
Other issues often highlighted were the "lost regions" (not the population, the region concerned, which is for example far away from Atatürks ideas), especially in Eastern Europe and France. In the population this was not of a big interest. In 1919 the Bavarian State (federal part of Germany) under Kurt Eisner tried to develop a union with Austria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, the so called Danube-Union. Unfortunately Eiser was killed by conservatives. Even in Austria, Bohemia and Hungary the NSDAP was not welcomed and had to force the countries to merge with Germany.

[independent_turkiye]

:
This also often heard, but else wrong. The Treaty of Versailles was not much in discussion in Germany. Only two issues were acclaimed: the French influence of the indusitralized Ruhr-Region and the debts. But the debts were soon reduced to minimal costs, and after all the Weimarer Republic suceeded in attracting foreign investment and capital, especially from US (This was the reason for the conservatives and big entrepreneurs to speak of "Jewish Yankee-Imperialism").

So it is the conditions of Versialles, you are talking about. These are the details of Versailles, the only thing you say it is not about Versialles, in these sentences, the debts were soon reduced but you are talking about a debt paying to one country, in long term a country would never accept, so your way of thinking politics surprised me.

:
Other issues often highlighted were the "lost regions" (not the population, the region concerned, which is for example far away from Atatürks ideas), especially in Eastern Europe and France

What's Atatürk's ideas about that subject? There was İsmet İnönü in those years, I think you have better be informed better without making that comment.

Greetings from Turkiye, Istanbul

[useless]

So it is the conditions of Versialles, you are talking about. These are the details of Versailles, the only thing you say it is not about Versialles, in these sentences, the debts were soon reduced but you are talking about a debt paying to one country, in long term a country would never accept, so your way of thinking politics surprised me.

I was talking in which way the treaty of Versailles was seen at that day Germany. The Treaty of Versailles was not that important, the war was considered important. In conservatice circles the idea of an attack from the inside was developed, blaming the Jews and the democrats - from Socialdemocrats (somehow like your CHP) to liberals to religious groups. Of course they have blamed them, because the parties signed the cease-fire and the treaty. In fact, it was the German fieldmarshall Hindenburg who has adivsed them to do so, clearly knowing the German army is no match anymore to the Entente.
If it's about debts paying, there is the example of France. In 1871 they lost the war to Prussia and its allies and have more payed back than did Germany after the I.WW.

What's Atatürk's ideas about that subject? There was İsmet İnönü in those years, I think you have better be informed better without making that comment.

It's Atatürks idea of nation and nationalism I was talking about. While it was more important for the NSDAP to regain the "lost territories" and not the people, Atatürk assembled the Turks. In the NS-propaganda they showed maps of the extent of the former Reich, but there was no allusion to the German people living there. With the exception of Western Czechoslovakia even in these territories the NSDAP played a minor role.
The concept of nationalism of the NSDAP and most other nationalist-chauvinists in Germany was territory-bound and not bound on the people. This is quite far away from Atatürks idea of nation consisting of people. For this reason there was an exchange of population between Greece and Turkey. Of course in Turkish nationalsm there were these Panturanist around Zia Gökalp and later on Alp Arslan Türkes. Of course the MHP influence in the state and the people is increasing, which is shown to the world by the Susurlak-incidence.

And as far as I know, in 1933 - the time the NSDAP was ruling - Atatürk was still alive.

[independent_turkiye]

We are talking about the same thing, Versailles Treaty is the reason of war, and Treaty was signed after the war, and it was the reason of losing the War. The things you talk about is the bad economical conditions which comes after losing a war in a country so I really don't see too much different point than what I wrote before. We can only argue which conditions were primary for Hitler rising and I woud choose the bad economy and a place where Germany has to give France, one of the most important industrial place of a country. It breaks the pride of a nation, and makes economy worse and dependent to winners of the war.

:
somehow like your CHP

That's really a good example about the conditions even if the measure of threat isn't the same. Liberals and religious parties are both cooperating with USA and England somehow and that makes Kemalist elits in Turkiye to blame them. Fethullah Gulen, who is seen as the "canditate of "Cooperation Of Civilisations", playing the reverse side of Huntington's imperialist "Clash of Civilisation" theory. You have to accept thet theory to make a theory of cooperation of civilisations and I never believed there is a clash in the base of religion in World. These can be used as arguments for the wars and struggles on economic interests but it is nothing more than a propaganda for nations.

Prime minister is the co-president od Middle East Project what makes him an illegal prime minister who swore for American interests in front of his masters in Pentagon. So he is not legitimate, we don't accept him. A prime minister is the head of a country, not a colonial governor. And also we can understand how Islamic he is, supporting to "democratise" Islamic regions with USA weapon. What he has to do with Islamic idea in that sense, he is also the enemy of Islam.

Liberals are a little minority, intellectuals who are getting money from American schools in Turkiye so their interests are to play balance role between state and USA's interests, what makes them half-American in their way of thinking. Some of them now play the role to theorise religious views in modern sense as the liberal Islam party has no idea about this modern view of thinking and modern literature of politics.

So in these conditions, we refuse the politics they are doing and find it against the independency of our country. If these people are supporting their interests against national interests, they can support it but we will do everything in democratic ways to to make them uneffective. Some European and USA kind of psychological war against Turkish Army wont be effectful in long term.

:
It's Atatürks idea of nation and nationalism I was talking about.

I dont agree that is a good comparision this time, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was establishing a nation from the "sick man of Europe" what imperialist European countries had shared in the secret meetings. So, this was an independence war, a democratic revolution and a light for other colonies in Asia. So sociology of the Anatolia, was totally different, Islam had a strong effect on fighting with imperialists, not nationalism so he wanted to create the citizens from Islamic people. Pan-Turks lost their affect after 1910's but they still had an effect on policies. There is even a try of murder attempt to Atatürk, after Rebuplic was established by Pan-Turkist İttihat ve Terakki. They were an organisation who was inspired by Narodniks in Russia, which first tried to sneak in Char's secret agency and killed a Char. Lenin's brother was in that organisation and was assasinated cause of a murder attempt also.

So, you are wrong Atatürk collobrated with Pan-Turks, they were effective and interested in politics but conflicts were much more than collobarating with Atatürk.

:
Of course the MHP influence in the state and the people is increasing, which is shown to the world by the Susurlak-incidence.

MHP isnt a party anymore to strengthen nationalistic ideas, but you are right there is now an uncontrolled nationalist moves in Turkiye but I believe they have connections with mafia and secret agencies. So I am not sure if we can say they are political moves or some kind of mafia.

Greetings from Turkiye, Istanbul