Was Stalin really that bad

[caveman1917]

If you want to spend time doing that rather than reading the exhaustive literature on the subject already composed by scholars, who have in the past performed such exercises, go ahead. Or read the works of these scholars.

What makes you think I haven't?

Why don't you do that?

If you got a case to prove it's up to you to prove it, not up to me to prove you wrong. But since this concept seems so terribly hard for you to grasp:

1. Harvest failure affects countries differently depending on a whole range of factors, from available reserves, to trade opportunities, and so on.

2. While Germany was well-equipped to handle the food deficit, even in Romania the situation was much more close, they barely got by until the next harvest.

3. I already asked about the other countries in the region, which you conveniently ignored. For example in Poland peasants were starving. If you want to make this argument you actually have to exclude all of the other places which were hit by these harvest failures.

4. And even if you manage to show that the USSR was unique in its failure to deal with the crisis leading to starvation, then you'd still have to show that, out of all possible causes for this, it was specifically the "economic system introduced by Stalin" which caused it. You still have to argue your case on its own terms.

5. Of course you could also simply start by arguing your case on its own terms, since it's where your current line of argument would lead you anyway, rather than this bizarre non-sequitur you're employing about there being no famine in Germany. It appears that, for some reason, you're just "sticking onto" my argument about harvest-reducing plant disease without realizing that for my argument I merely needed to show the existence of an unpredictable and uncontrollable harvest failure in the USSR, since being unpredictable it refuted the "premeditated Evil Plan" hypothesis.

6. Regarding your methodology based on nothing but "there exists a journalist which says X about a famine somwhere" - well, I've got you an article series by Walter Duranty to sell.

Because the scholars are more or less unanimous that Stalin's economic reforms were the prime cause of the disaster.

And?

I have set down my reasoning. Over to you.

Your reasoning is a non-sequitur. Find better reasoning.

 

[Craig B]

What makes you think I haven't?

If you got a case to prove it's up to you to prove it, not up to me to prove you wrong. But since this concept seems so terribly hard for you to grasp, I'll throw you another bone:
... For example in Poland peasants were starving.

You need to give me a source of data on this Polish famine; with mortality figures etc. Here's what I've found so far, which doesn't seem to establish your case.

But give me the data on these non-USSR famines in 1932-33. If you assert that they happened it's up to you to prove it. You will perhaps say again that you don't care, and that will put an end to this fascinating conversation.

 

[ahhell]

So the discussion is really, "which is worse, killing 10 million people on purpose or killing 30 million accidentally?" and "Did Stalin kill those People on purpose or not?"

 

[jimbob]

So the discussion is really, "which is worse, killing 10 million people on purpose or killing 30 million accidentally?" and "Did Stalin kill those People on purpose or not?"

I think Caveman1917 is disputing whether Stalin was responsible for any mass killing.

(Spoiler alert, he was - and given his use of hunger as a weapon in the gulags, I think that Craig B is probably erring on the side of caution in saying that he thinks it was probably a side-effect rather than an intended effect of collectivisation)

 

[caveman1917]

You need to give me a source of data on this Polish famine; with mortality figures etc.

I need do no such thing. Again, it's up to you to prove your case, and if that case includes all sorts of assertions about conditions in the countries in the rest of Eastern Europe, then it's up to you to provide evidence for the existence of such conditions.

Here's what I've found so far, which doesn't seem to establish your case.

This proves what exactly?

But give me the data on these non-USSR famines in 1932-33. If you assert that they happened it's up to you to prove it.

My argument requires no assertion at all about the conditions in the rest of Eastern Europe other than that there was an unpredictable and uncontrollable harvest failure with properties such that we'd have to also conclude it to have existed within the USSR.

If you mean the "in Poland peasants were starving", consider it just one example of many things which you need to exclude for your case. Not that, even if you were to succeed in excluding all that, you'd be much closer to supporting that it was, specifically, the economic policy which caused it. But who am I to judge what you waste your time on...

You will perhaps say again that you don't care, and that will put an end to this fascinating conversation.

Yet I really don't care indeed, because it's irrelevant to my argument as well as to the conclusion of yours (ie "Stalin's economic system caused a famine").

 

[jimbob]

I need do no such thing. Again, it's up to you to prove your case, and if that case includes all sorts of assertions about conditions in the countries in the rest of Eastern Europe, then it's up to you to provide evidence for the existence of such conditions.



This proves what exactly?



My argument requires no assertion at all about the conditions in the rest of Eastern Europe other than that there was an unpredictable and uncontrollable harvest failure with properties such that we'd have to also conclude it to have existed within the USSR.

If you mean the "in Poland peasants were starving", consider it just one example of many things which you need to exclude for your case. Not that, even if you were to succeed in excluding all that, you'd be much closer to supporting that it was, specifically, the economic policy which caused it. But who am I to judge what you waste your time on...



Yet I really don't care indeed, because it's irrelevant to my argument as well as to the conclusion of yours (ie "Stalin's economic system caused a famine").

What this shows is that famine was not reported in countries bordering the Soviet Union, despite similar climatic conditions.

As Ahel said, it's either killing millions by malice or incompetence.

 

[caveman1917]

What this shows is that famine was not reported in countries bordering the Soviet Union, despite similar climatic conditions.

Can you explain what exactly "this" is, which is supposed to prove that conclusion?

As Ahel said, it's either killing millions by malice or incompetence.

And as I said, that's called a false dilemma.

ETA: Interestingly, your false dilemma is about the sequence of events and decisions by which the particular people which starved ended up starving, yet none of you seem even remotely interested in the wealth of documentation regarding this (such as in the archives). At least none of you bothered so far to bring any of it up.

 

[Craig B]

Can you explain what exactly "this" is, which is supposed to prove that conclusion?



And as I said, that's called a false dilemma.

ETA: Interestingly, your false dilemma is about the sequence of events and decisions by which the particular people which starved ended up starving, yet none of you seem even remotely interested in the wealth of documentation regarding this (such as in the archives). At least none of you bothered so far to bring any of it up.

Don't take us for simpletons with your nonsense. You have stated that famines occurred in countries other than the USSR. Source and data please. Give us a "wealth of documentation". Or that's an end of our conversation, fascinating as it has been.

 

[jimbob]

Craig B linked to a document showing that the Polish government was discussing what to do about the famine in Ukraine. They were not discussing what to do about a famine in Poland, and the paper discusses the Polish government's view of the factors in the artificially-created famine.

It is evidence that Poland was not suffering a famine at this time.

 

[caveman1917]

Don't take us for simpletons

Why not?

You have stated that famines occurred in countries other than the USSR. Source and data please.

The irony.

Give us a "wealth of documentation".

Why should I? I took just as much out of it as I needed to make my case, feel free to delve into it yourself and take out whatever you need to make yours.

Or that's an end of our conversation, fascinating as it has been.

I'm fine with that. So we can conclude the following?

- Evil Plan^TM: refuted
- "Stalin's economic system": unevidenced

 

[caveman1917]

They were not discussing what to do about a famine in Poland

Any evidence for that?

It is evidence that Poland was not suffering a famine at this time.

Well then I have evidence that nobody was starving in the USSR at the time, because I can give you a document wherein the government was not discussing what to do about the famine in the USSR.

 

[Craig B]

Why not?



The irony.



Why should I? I took just as much out of it as I needed to make my case, feel free to delve into it yourself and take out whatever you need to make yours.



I'm fine with that. So we can conclude the following?

- Evil Plan^TM: refuted
- "Stalin's economic system": unevidenced

I knew you'd start being a cheeky boy again as soon as you thought you had nothing more to lose by it. The repetition thing you were doing can't have been much fun.

 

[caveman1917]

I knew you'd start being a cheeky boy again as soon as you thought you had nothing more to lose by it. The repetition thing you were doing can't have been much fun.

It's rather that I concluded that I have nothing to gain from this, as I've concluded you'll probably never back up your claim to any sort of reasonable standard.

 

[caveman1917]

It is quite remarkable how profoundly you have missed the point that was made.

The point that was made was that the communists were (partially) blamed for the rise of the NSDAP because they didn't support the liberals, who were in turn supporting the NSDAP in the repression of the communists and other leftists.

Liberals before WW2: "**** the working class" -> get into trouble with the left -> "please save me, Hitler".

Liberals after WW2: "the communists made me vote for the Enabling Act".

 

[Craig B]

I think Caveman1917 is disputing whether Stalin was responsible for any mass killing.

(Spoiler alert, he was - and given his use of hunger as a weapon in the gulags, I think that Craig B is probably erring on the side of caution in saying that he thinks it was probably a side-effect rather than an intended effect of collectivisation)

I would like to make my position clear again. I think that if Stalin could have taken over the peasants' land, harvests, grain stores and livestock without causing mass mortality, he would have done so. I brlieve that, because he committed himself to various population figures which turned out to be hopelessly optimistic when the 1937 census returns were analysed.

But he was willing to dispossess the peasants even at the cost of millions of lives, if that was the price he had to pay, so he is unquestionably guilty of this crime of mass murder. I also think that Ukrainians suffered disproportionately because their Republic was the main breadgrain-cultivating region, and therefore the most ruthlessly plundered by Stalin's grain procurement agencies; not primarily because Stalin wished to destroy the Ukrainians as an ethnic group.

The worst sufferers were the Kazhaks, who were nomadic pastoralists. Their herds and flocks simply vanished, and they had effectively no grain reserves at all.

 

[Belz...]

Considering the documented willingness of the political commissars to summarily execute Russian soldiers and civilians during and immediately after WWII, I don't see much of a case for any benevolence on the part of the Soviet central government.

Well, you see, they did it for the greater good.

 

[Nick Terry]

Well, you see, they did it for the greater good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUpbOliTHJY

 

[caveman1917]

But he was willing to dispossess the peasants even at the cost of millions of lives, if that was the price he had to pay, so he is unquestionably guilty of this crime of mass murder. I also think that Ukrainians suffered disproportionately because their Republic was the main breadgrain-cultivating region, and therefore the most ruthlessly plundered by Stalin's grain procurement agencies; not primarily because Stalin wished to destroy the Ukrainians as an ethnic group.

If only you could back up your "thoughts" with evidence.

The worst sufferers were the Kazhaks, who were nomadic pastoralists.

The worst sufferers were the people who starved or died due to famine-induced disease or something. I'm assuming this pathological need to define groups of sufferers by their nationality, even as inaccurate as it is (plenty of Kazakhs survived just fine as well, as did plenty of Ukrainians), is related to this pathological anti-communist need to simply assume that everything that goes wrong is to blame on communists/Bolsheviks/Stalin/generic leftists/etc. Next thing they'll be blamed for the weather even. Oh wait

Their herds and flocks simply vanished, and they had effectively no grain reserves at all.

Simply vanished? That doesn't seem consistent with basic physics.

 

[Craig B]

If only you could back up your "thoughts" with evidence.

I see that because I referred to your repetition as being disagreeable, you're going to use it as your major trolling methodology.

The worst sufferers were the people who starved or died due to famine-induced disease or something. I'm assuming this pathological need to define groups of sufferers by their nationality, even as inaccurate as it is (plenty of Kazakhs survived just fine as well, as did plenty of Ukrainians), is related to this pathological anti-communist need to simply assume that everything that goes wrong is to blame on communists/Bolsheviks/Stalin/generic leftists/etc. Next thing they'll be blamed for the weather even. Oh wait

About half the Kazakhs survived the two famines, of 1921 and 1932, and about half were lost. Just under 40% died in the collectivisation famine. Russians living in Kazakhstan did better, if this table is accurate. But perhaps it has been fabricated by fascists to discredit generic leftists. Who knows? I refer to the nationality of Kazakhs in 1932 for the same reason that I refer to the nationality of Irish in 1845. The famine seemed to affect them with particular severity. I think I can explain that, but doing so involves me in defining the USSR as (among other things) an imperial state.

Simply vanished? That doesn't seem consistent with basic physics.

It is consistent with the basic behaviour of imperial states, believe you me.

I will not respond to any more of these foolish posts from you, as I don't want to be further distracted from rational thinking about important historical issues.

 

[jimbob]

I would like to make my position clear again. I think that if Stalin could have taken over the peasants' land, harvests, grain stores and livestock without causing mass mortality, he would have done so. I brlieve that, because he committed himself to various population figures which turned out to be hopelessly optimistic when the 1937 census returns were analysed.

But he was willing to dispossess the peasants even at the cost of millions of lives, if that was the price he had to pay, so he is unquestionably guilty of this crime of mass murder. I also think that Ukrainians suffered disproportionately because their Republic was the main breadgrain-cultivating region, and therefore the most ruthlessly plundered by Stalin's grain procurement agencies; not primarily because Stalin wished to destroy the Ukrainians as an ethnic group.

The worst sufferers were the Kazhaks, who were nomadic pastoralists. Their herds and flocks simply vanished, and they had effectively no grain reserves at all.

It's only a matter of degree, and you may well be right, I tend to think that he wanted to destroy the Kulaks as a group, and the destruction of them as a group was more important than their survival as slaves, whilst my understanding of your view is that he merely wanted to take over their only means of support and would have preferred to have them as living slaves although without doing anything to help them.

Either way, given the 1,803,392 people deported to the labour colonies between 1930-31 (according to Soviet archives) I think we both agree that it is a bit of a moot point as to Stalin's motives.