Perhaps you're being downvoted for claiming it was a "forced famine", a claim not supported by either your own link or the submission link itself.
Let's see a link to a credible source that states it was a forced famine then.
Edit: The only sites I can find that share your view are anti-Semitic neo-Nazi blogs like:
zionistreport.com/2016/08/video-terror-under-the-jewish-bolshevik-forced-famine-in-russia-1921-1923/
holodomorinfo.com/glossery/bolshevik-atrocities/russian-forced-famine/
Is that where you're getting your "historical knowledge"?
> Of course the link does not talk of it because is is about entirely different thing.
What is it you think the submitted link is about then?
If you were googling for it, maybe Google knows something interesting about you that it redirects you to nazi sites?
Just because some nazis might want to blame only Jews for forced Soviet famines it does not mean that Soviets did not exterminate millions of their own citizens, often by forced starvation.
> If you were googling for it, maybe Google knows something interesting about you that it redirects you to nazi sites?
Then, as I asked, show me site that isn't an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi blog that agrees with you that this was a "forced famine".
Your claim that it was a "forced famine" doesn't appear anywhere on that page. On the contrary, it states:
The famine's primary causes were due to severe flooding
in the Volga region in 1921, as well as the exacerbation
of the Russian Civil War.
> it is still surprising that the only links you can find are from some fringe sites
Then again, for the third time of asking, provide some non-"fringe" links that claim, as you do, that it was a "forced famine".
"According to the official Bolshevik position, which is still maintained by some modern Marxists, the rich peasants (kulaks) withheld their surplus grain to preserve their lives;[2] statistics indicate that most of the grain and the other food supplies passed through the black market.[3][4][5] The Bolsheviks believed peasants were actively trying to undermine the war effort. The Black Book of Communism asserts that Lenin ordered the seizure of the food peasants had grown for their own subsistence and their seed grain in retaliation for this "sabotage", leading to widespread peasant revolts.[6] In 1920, Lenin ordered increased emphasis on food requisitioning from the peasantry."
Still not seeing any fringe sources.
All your quote says is that some people claim one side was to blame and some people claim another side was to blame.
More interesting is that you don't consider to be a "fringe source" the far-right bible The Black Book of Communism - a publication discredited and disowned even by its main authors - which in order to fabricate a high enough death count to paint the Nazis as not so bad after all and the Holocaust as nothing special, classifies as victims the likes of Nazi/SS military personnel and anti-Semitic Ukrainian nationalist militias who murdered thousands of Jews in countless pogroms.
And seriously, if the best criticism of The Black Book is that it compares Nazis and communists, I do not see what the problem is... other than that communists are quite a bit worse. Criticism of "Death camps did not exist in the Soviet Union" is laughable on its face.
Good luck finding sympathy, outside neo-Nazi circles, for actual Nazis and Ukrainian militias who mass murdered Jews.
> if the best criticism of The Black Book is
The best criticism is that it was discredited and disowned even by its own authors.
Exact numbers in the Black Book might be inaccurate -- unlike Germans, Soviets did not keep precise accouinting, but even the alleged discrediting by its authors boils down to quibbling over whether it was the exact 100 million (a suspicious number indeed), or 93 million, or maybe only 67 million. Other criticism is just pathetic bleatinbgs from fellow travellers who have as much credibility on crimes of communists as David Irving has on the Holocaust.
As a little amusing fact, Roland Freisler was one of those people taking last grain away from Russian peasants. But then the revolving door betweem commies and nazis was wide open back then https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%80...
Anti-Semitic Ukrainian mass murderers don't count, no. Nor do Ukrainians, Russians, Kazakhs or any other useful idiots (that the Nazis considered untermenschen) who signed up to help Germany carry out the Final Solution and Generalplan Ost (until it was their turn).
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that if the vast majority of people, communist or not, disagree with your belief that Nazi Germany wasn't as bad as the USSR, then you might be wrong.
As a former citizen of the USSR, as you seem to claim in another post, how much better do you seriously imagine your life would have been, assuming you even made it to conception, under Nazi rule?
> Exact numbers in the Black Book might be inaccurate -- unlike Germans, Soviets did not keep precise accouinting,
So because it's not possible to know the true number it's okay to just make one (or several) up and act like it's historical fact?
> quibbling over whether it was the exact 100 million or 93 million, or maybe only 67
If a difference of 33 million doesn't matter, and is mere quibbling, what's the motivation for even bothering to come up with a number at all?
Answer: to make the argument that the Nazis and the Holocaust weren't uniquely bad.
What kind of person, do you think, would bother making the effort to do that?
What does Kazakh famine of 1919 [0] has to do with Germans??!!Maybe you should not be the one talking about useful idiots. Really, Ukrainians (and Jews) killed by MGB troops operating under OUN-UPA flag have nothing to do with Germans either. And how about the famine that this thread is about? How many Russians could have possibly cooperated with Germans 20 years before the war even started?
I guess, not being a former Soviet citizen you have no idea what it was. And how good Jews had it there. You could try asking Solomon Mikhoels [1]. Oh, wait, Stalin had him killed. Maybe check with some prominent Soviet Jewish doctors? Oh, they got wrapped up in the Doctor's Plot [2] and barely survived (some of them, anyway) because Stalin croaked before Jews, as was the plan, could have been loaded in railroad cars (for their own protection against the just wrath of the Soviet people, of course) and sent to camps in Siberia.
Just because Soviets didn't use poison gas on Jews (and those Russian peasants who did get gassed in the Tambov rebellion [3] obviously did deserve it, after all some of them may not have liked Jews and would have cooperated with Germans, have they lived another 20 years!) does not, by any stretch of imagination mean that communists were an iota better than Nazis. They just slaughtered people (far more people than Nazis ever managed) by a different criteria.
Your insistence on excusing mass murder because some of those murdered might have, at some point in the future, possibly, had they survived, killed someone else isn't much different from what Holocaust deniers do. Does show where antisemites come from, though.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_famine_of_1919%E2%80%93... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Mikhoels [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_plot [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambov_Rebellion
You didn't mention "Kazakh famine of 1919", you mentioned "Russians, Ukrainians and Kazakhs" in reply to my posts about Nazis being classed as victims by the The Black Book Of Communism.
> I guess, not being a former Soviet citizen you have no idea what it was.
You were a Soviet citizen in 1919? Because that's the only way you know any better than I do.
What part of the USSR are you from anyway? You seem quite cagey about it, despite thinking being born in some corner of the largest state on Earth 27+ years ago somehow wins you an argument by default.
> And how good Jews had it there.
So you want to make treatment of Jews part of your Naziism is better than Communism argument too?
> does not, by any stretch of imagination mean that communists were an iota better than Nazis
Then, for the second time of asking, explain how your life would have been improved by your country being under Nazi occupation rather than living under Communism.
> Your insistence on excusing mass murder because some of those murdered might have, at some point in the future, possibly, had they survived, killed someone else
Feel free to quote anything I've written that's even remotely close to the ballpark of anything even approaching that.
> isn't much different from what Holocaust deniers do.
This from someone who could be doing literally anything on the internet, and chooses to spend time minimizing the number of people killed by the Nazis - direct quote from you: "[the Nazis] killed far fewer people" - which is exactly what Holocaust deniers do.
> Does show where antisemites come from, though.
You should probably clarify this statement, because it sounds like you're justifying people becoming anti-Semites. Are you?
And you replied with "they deserved it". Obviously, noone can expect a commie sympathiser to actually know, or care, who was slaughtered by commies and when. But people who do not want to end up at the next Nuremberg trial consder collective responsibility to be a little bit out of fashion these days.
> You were a Soviet citizen in 1919? Because that's the only way you know any better than I do.
There was no Soviet Union in 1919. It would logically follow, though, that there are some Russian citizens who were alive in 1919 among my ancestors. They told stories.
> What part of the USSR are you from anyway? You seem quite cagey about it, despite thinking being born in some corner of the largest state on Earth 27+ years ago somehow wins you an argument by default.
I didn't know thjat not answering a question that was never asked is being cagey. Why don't you straight out asdk what my ethnicity is?
Also, yes, having first-hand experience does win some arguments with ignorant kids easily.
> So you want to make treatment of Jews part of your Naziism is better than Communism argument too?
It is you who reduces everything to treatment of Jews.
> Then, for the second time of asking, explain how your life would have been improved by your country being under Nazi occupation rather than living under Communism.
Not everything in life is about you.
> Feel free to quote anything I've written that's even remotely close to the ballpark of anything even approaching that.
Umm, any of your messages in this thread? Because that's exactly what you have been writing.
> This from someone who could be doing literally anything on the internet, and chooses to spend time minimizing the number of people killed by the Nazis - direct quote from you: "[the Nazis] killed far fewer people" - which is exactly what Holocaust deniers do.
Actually, Holocaust deniers go on and on that nothing happened, and if something happened it was very minor, and if anyone got killed, they surely deserved it. Which is exactly your line ofd reasoning here. Even applied to at least hundreds of thuosands of people killed before there even were any nazis in existence.
Also, apparently sometimes one does need to point out obvious and commonly accepted truths. Like how even the low-end estimate from those critics of The Black Book that you mention put the number of victims of communism at ~3 times that of nazis. Granbted, commies had more time to go at it.
> You should probably clarify this statement, because it sounds like you're justifying people becoming anti-Semites. Are you?
As nicely as it wuild've fed your persecution complex, no, they would not take me, if you knowq what I mean.
The only person who has said "deserved it" in this discussion is you, so I don't know why you're pretending to be quoting me.
I said they - people who fought on the side of the Nazis, particularly against their own country, in order to enable Nazi genocide programs - don't count as victims of Communism.
> There was no Soviet Union in 1919.
I didn't say there was a Soviet Union in 1919. There was Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in 1919, which as a "Soviet citizen" I assumed you would be aware of.
> It would logically follow, though, that there are some Russian citizens who were alive in 1919 among my ancestors.
How would that logically follow? You haven't said that you're Russian, despite me asking where you're from multiple times.
> I didn't know thjat not answering a question that was never asked is being cagey.
I literally just asked you - again - what part of the USSR you are from and again you didn't answer.
> Also, yes, having first-hand experience does win some arguments with ignorant kids easily.
To have even first hand memories, let alone experience, of even the most recent subjects you've talked about you'd have to be about 75 years old. Are you?
> It is you who reduces everything to treatment of Jews.
Nice to know that you think the topic of the treatment of Jews constitutes reducing an argument, even in a reply where you were criticizing the anti-Semitism of Stalin (the same Stalin who set up a Jewish homeland on Soviet soil, and was the first person in the world to recognize Israel).
Ah wait, I forgot, you're arguing the Nazis were better than Communists, aren't you. And the only way to do that is attribute all deaths on Communist soil to malice on the part of Communism (then add whatever it takes to reach "100 million") while ignoring deliberate, systematic and industrial-scale human extermination programs and policies - absolutely unheard of anywhere else in history, before or since - enacted by the Nazis.
> Not everything in life is about you.
No, the question was about you. Specifically how your life would have been improved had you lived under Nazi occupation, since you argue that what you lived under - Communism - is "quite a bit worse" (your words) than Nazism.
> Actually, Holocaust deniers go on and on that nothing happened, and if something happened it was very minor
As I said, like spending their time arguing that what the Nazis did was very minor - "they killed far fewer people" - compared to something else.
Again, what kind of person would even think of bothering to exonerate or rehabilitate the Nazis in such a way?
> Like how even the low-end estimate from those critics of The Black Book that you mention put the number of victims of communism at ~3 times that of nazis.
Hah, "those critics"? You mean the actual authors of the book.
Let's repeat how absolutely inane and insane this is:
The authors of the book could not even decide amongst themselves on which imaginary - but definitely Worse Than The Nazis(tm) - number was historically factual, to the point where they themselves denounced their own book as fictitious.
Meanwhile MAGA-heads, up to and including the White House itself, cite the number that even the authors - even you - think is going too far (not because it's made up, but because it looks made up).
So which number, from the several provided by this fine example of historical research, do you think is true?
Since only one number can be true, we know for a certain fact that most of the numbers given have to be false. So why believe any of them?
> As nicely as it wuild've fed your persecution complex, no, they would not take me, if you knowq what I mean.
I don't. What, specifically, do you mean?
You wrote this, not me. Collective responsibility went out of fashion long time ago.
>I said they - people who fought on the side of the Nazis, particularly against their own country, in order to enable Nazi genocide programs - don't count as victims of Communism.
How many people helped by ARA fought for nazis?
> I literally just asked you - again - what part of the USSR you are from and again you didn't answer.
Moscow. Do you need a street address as well?
> To have even first hand memories, let alone experience, of even the most recent subjects you've talked about you'd have to be about 75 years old. Are you?
You do not need to be anywhere near that old to have experience with, for example, Soviet antisemitism.
> Nice to know that you think the topic of the treatment of Jews constitutes reducing an argument, even in a reply where you were criticizing the anti-Semitism of Stalin (the same Stalin who set up a Jewish homeland on Soviet soil, and was the first person in the world to recognize Israel).
Yeah. I heard there were even a few Jews who went there without being forcibly put into railcars.
> hile ignoring deliberate, systematic and industrial-scale human extermination programs and policies - absolutely unheard of anywhere else in history, before or since - enacted by the Nazis.
Actually, well-heard of, if you care to listen, in every country where communists came to power. You may want to look up one Asian politician with potential. He was really good at making sure his citizens would never engage in any atrocities you would not6 approve of.
> No, the question was about you. Specifically how your life would have been improved had you lived under Nazi occupation, since you argue that what you lived under - Communism - is "quite a bit worse" (your words) than Nazism.
Yes, I noticed, you seem to think that as long as you and yours are fine, it does not matter if millions of other people are killed.
> As I said, like spending their time arguing that what the Nazis did was very minor - "they killed far fewer people" - compared to something else.
Are you saying that those who had killed more people are perfectly fine, as long as they were killing people you do not particularly approve of?
> Again, what kind of person would even think of bothering to exonerate or rehabilitate the Nazis in such a way?
Does not seem to stop you from exonerating communists, who did kill more people.
> The authors of the book could not even decide amongst themselves on which imaginary - but definitely Worse Than The Nazis(tm) - number
Yes, I did notice, you do not consider those killed to be people (hmm, what does it remind one of?), certainly not worth counting.
> Meanwhile MAGA-heads, up to and including the White House itself, cite the number that even the authors - even you - think is going too far (not because it's made up, but because it looks made up).
What does it have to do with anything?
> Since only one number can be true, we know for a certain fact that most of the numbers given have to be false. So why believe any of them?
Yeah, I have heard there are quite a few people who do not think that many Jews were killed by nazis. And there are different numbers, too. Are you sure this is the direction you want to go in?
> I don't. What, specifically, do you mean?
Who, do you think, those people really do not like to associate with?
I'm not sure what point you're missing here. If you invade another country, particularly with the intention of commiting genocide there, and you get killed for doing so, you are not a victim of the country you were trying to wipe out, or its ideology, you're a victim of your own actions.
> Yes, I noticed, you seem to think that as long as you and yours are fine, it does not matter if millions of other people are killed.
Okay, explain how the lives of the majority of people in Russia would have been improved under Nazi occupation than under Communism.
> Are you saying that those who had killed more people are perfectly fine, as long as they were killing people you do not particularly approve of?
"Communism" has not killed more people. That's simply a fantasy based on an absurd publication denounced as fictitious even by its own authors.
> communists, who did kill more people
So you keep insisting. Who are you trying to convince, me or you?
> you do not consider those killed to be people [...] worth counting.
I don't believe people who were not killed by Communism should be counted as being killed by Communism.
> What does it have to do with anything?
What does any of this thread have to do with your incorrect insistence, supported by no credible source, that the famine of 1921 was a "forced famine"?
> I have heard there are quite a few people who do not think that many Jews were killed by nazis. And there are different numbers, too
And do you accept any of their different numbers?
> Who, do you think, those people really do not like to associate with?
This is you being not cagey again, I presume.
You do realize that it was the USSR (or Soviet Russia, depends on timing) that invaded Baltics, Western Ukraine, Central Asia, etc. etc. You may want to stop arguing about your fantasies and try talking about something that has basis in actual history.
> Okay, explain how the lives of the majority of people in Russia would have been improved under Nazi occupation than under Communism.
Ethnic makeup of survivors would be different. It is very much uncertain if the numbers would be much different. You do realize that mortality in Soviet prison camps during peace time was same or higher than in German labor camps (obviously not extermination camps) during the war?
> "Communism" has not killed more people. That's simply a fantasy based on an absurd publication denounced as fictitious even by its own authors.
Sadly, it is a basic fact, arguments are only about by how much exactly. Saloth Sar alone did ~1/10th of what Nazis did, and that without even invading anyone.
Bleatings of "Marxist historians" or useful idiots like Chomsky do not qualify as valid criticism anywhere.
> So you keep insisting. Who are you trying to convince, me or you?
I am just stating an obvious, well-attested fact.
> I don't believe people who were not killed by Communism should be counted as being killed by Communism.
Are you going to play the well-tired card of "but Stalin (Mao, etc. etc.) were not real, proper communists?
> What does any of this thread have to do with your incorrect insistence, supported by no credible source, that the famine of 1921 was a "forced famine"?
Taking the last grain, including seed grain, from, peasants (e.g. Prodrazverstka; you may want to look in Lenin's collected works for details) is exactly that -- forced famine.
> And do you accept any of their different numbers?
No, should I? You seem to be perfectly happy to take any number that makes your murderous heroes look good.
> This is you being not cagey again, I presume.
(sigh)
You may want to start taking your own advice. Try here first:
https://www.google.com/search?q=operation+barbarossa
> It is very much uncertain if the numbers would be much different.
No, it's extremely certain the numbers would be very different, since we know what the Nazis had planned for Eastern and Central Europe. So when you've finished with the above link, move on to this one:
https://www.google.com/search?q=generalplan+ost
> arguments are only about by how much exactly
Each author, by pulling a different number out of thin air, is saying the other author of the same book is wrong. Which would be laughable if some people didn't pretend take such nonsense seriously.
I say "pretend" because I don't believe for one second anyone using those numbers sincerely believes them, any more than they sincerely care about any of the actual, genuine victims beyond using them to score political points.
> Are you going to play the well-tired card of "but Stalin (Mao, etc. etc.) were not real, proper communists?
No, I'm going to say, again, that if someone wasn't killed by Communism they should not be counted as being killed by Communism.
What's interesting is that most of the victims of Stalin's purges were "proper Communists", a fact that right-wingers who cry crocodile tears over them always forget to mention for some reason.
> Taking the last grain, including seed grain, from, peasants (e.g. Prodrazverstka [...] is exactly that -- forced famine.
Prodrazverstka is not at all that:
Bolsheviks borrowed the idea from the grain razvyorstka
introduced in the Russian Empire during World War I, in 1916.
[In 1918] the reserves of grain ran low, causing hunger among
the urban population [...] In order to satisfy minimal food
needs, the Soviet government introduced strict control over the
food surpluses of the prosperous rural households.
Lenin believed that prodrazvyorstka was the only possible way
to procure sufficient amounts of grain and other agricultural
products for the population of the cities during the civil war.
Prodrazvyorstka allowed the Soviet government to solve the
important problem of supplying the [...] urban population
> No, should I?
Then why accept any of the different numbers, that the authors themselves can't even agree are accurate, in the Black Book of Communism?
> (sigh)
If you're Jewish then just say so; don't imply it, whether it's true or not, to try and score points in an argument.
2. It should not matter. And really, I just do not want to associate with people who think it should.