• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Was Stalin really that bad

jimbob

Uncritical "thinker"
Staff member
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
36,706
Location
UK
To avoid derailing discussion about North Korea....

I'm with Craig B on this one

It is beyond all doubt that millions of people died of hunger and disease in Ukraine alone (and other huge numbers elsewhere in the USSR) in the famine that followed the collectivisation of Agriculture by Stalin in and after 1929. The questions at issue are

How many millions?

Was there any specific use of famine to destroy Ukrainians as an ethnic group, or did the victims die because they were peasants in a grain exporting region, and so suffered the results of collectivisation in their most extreme form?

Only in the first case would the crime (because it was a crime) have been genocide as such. I think it probably wasn't. It was a dispossession of a peasant class, comparable with the Enclosures in England, the Highland Clearences in Scotland, and the Famine-Emigration in Ireland; however it was not the same sort of crime as the Holocaust.

But it was not a Nazi propagandist invention, alas. It was real.
 
Yes. Yes he was.

No. No. No he wasn't. Do I win (for now)?

I am interested in how this thread proceeds, in that I certainly have been told of many instances in which Stalin is presented as an extraordinarily evil man. I would like to see this discussed. But it would be nice if posters provide evidence, or at least a narrative for their conclusions.
 
He was awesome, as evidenced by his rockin' mustache. I bet that 'stache could strain krill better than a humpback whale. Also, in his youth he was a very good looking young rogue. I don't understand why images of young Che are all the rage, but images of young Stalin are not.

More serously, in response to Giordano's request, a few discussion points:

The Holodomor
The Gulags
The Purges

In another thread, a forum member has been engaging in Holodomor denialism, which might be the genesis of this thread.


ETA: I don't think he was any worse than Mao, or Pol Pot, or Hitler. During Mao's reign, China probably killed of at least as much of its population as the USSR did under Stalin. There were some very bad leaders during the 20th Century.
 
Last edited:
What a pathetic display of intellectual dishonesty. I have never argued that people didn't die in the Ukrainian SSR because of famine and disease.[*] And I have never argued that the famine was Nazi propaganda. Yet you of course see no problem in pulling that post, which was in response to me, out of context (ie obvious straw-manning) into a new thread.

* and you even got your timeline wrong, the famine under consideration was 1932-33. But then I'd not expect you to be able to point to Ukraine on a map to be honest, so whatever.
 
Last edited:
He was awesome, as evidenced by his rockin' mustache. I bet that 'stache could strain krill better than a humpback whale. Also, in his youth he was a very good looking young rogue. I don't understand why images of young Che are all the rage, but images of young Stalin are not.

More serously, in response to Giordano's request, a few discussion points:

The Holodomor
The Gulags
The Purges

In another thread, a forum member has been engaging in Holodomor denialism, which might be the genesis of this thread.

It is indeed the genesis of this thread - and where Craig B's quote came from
 
What a pathetic display of intellectual dishonesty. I have never argued that people didn't die in the Ukrainian SSR because of famine and disease.[*] And I have never argued that the famine was Nazi propaganda. Yet you of course see no problem in pulling that post, which was in response to me, out of context (ie obvious straw-manning) into a new thread.

* and you even got your timeline wrong, the famine under consideration was 1932-33. But then I'd not expect you to be able to point to Ukraine on a map to be honest, so whatever.
What I stated was
the famine that followed the collectivisation of Agriculture by Stalin in and after 1929.​
which is consistent with the date. I was dating the cause, which was collectivisation. The famine followed once the effect of reduced sowing by the dispossessed farmers had had time to pass through the food distribution system. By the way, I am used to your insults and provocation, and as I have stated before, in previous similar discussions where you have resorted to these malpractices, I'm immune to them.

But you will achieve your desired effect; your post and my response will be AAH'd.
 
Or Genghis Khan. Guiness listed his domination of northern China at 80 million deaths, basically the worst disaster for humanity, natural or otherwise. I'm not sure what the currently-accepted number is, but it is many tens of millions from what I can see.
 
What a pathetic display of intellectual dishonesty. I have never argued that people didn't die in the Ukrainian SSR because of famine and disease.[*] And I have never argued that the famine was Nazi propaganda. Yet you of course see no problem in pulling that post, which was in response to me, out of context (ie obvious straw-manning) into a new thread.

* and you even got your timeline wrong, the famine under consideration was 1932-33. But then I'd not expect you to be able to point to Ukraine on a map to be honest, so whatever.

Wow. So Stalin's butchery was A-OK in your view. Good luck with that.
 
If we are taking Pot shots at worst historical figure, then don't forget Pol!

In terms of percentages, Pol Pot was clearly the worst.

In terms of the total number murdered, then Stalin was much more of a killer than Pot.
 
What I stated was
the famine that followed the collectivisation of Agriculture by Stalin in and after 1929.​
which is consistent with the date.

So is the one of 1946. You haven't established that this was the cause, by any standard. Have you ever heard of a thing called post hoc ergo propter hoc?

More importantly, your bolded statement is clearly something which was not in contention, yet you present it as if it was. Furthermore, the following
But it was not a Nazi propagandist invention, alas. It was real.
clearly implies that the further contention is whether your previous claim (ie people died in the Ukrainian SSR because of starvation and disease) is Nazi propaganda or not.

By the way, I am used to your insults and provocation, and as I have stated before, in previous similar discussions where you have resorted to these malpractices, I'm immune to them.

Oh please...

But you will achieve your desired effect; your post and my response will be AAH'd.

Why would it be AAH'd? Because you were caught straw-manning?
 
Last edited:
What a pathetic display of intellectual dishonesty. I have never argued that people didn't die in the Ukrainian SSR because of famine and disease.[*] And I have never argued that the famine was Nazi propaganda. Yet you of course see no problem in pulling that post, which was in response to me, out of context (ie obvious straw-manning) into a new thread.

* and you even got your timeline wrong, the famine under consideration was 1932-33. But then I'd not expect you to be able to point to Ukraine on a map to be honest, so whatever.

No, you *seem to have been arguing* that it wasn't Stalin's responsibility. Personally, I think Craig B is possibly giving Stalin the benefit of the doubt, but I'm willing to accept incompetently being responsible for killing millions, and deliberately killing hundreds of thousands in the Gulags.

Stalinist and Maoist agricultural reforms have killed tens of millions of people, and the DPRK is repeating this. There seems to be a bit of a theme.



:rolleyes:

ETA: and there's no such thing as the Holodomor. Just because such claims were published in Völkischer Beobachter, at a time when it was well-respected among liberal intelligentsia in the West, doesn't mean it's true.
The famine was real, but the "Holodomor" (hunger-genocide, ie Stalin engineered it as some Evil Plan against the Ukrainian Nation) is nothing more than a Nazi propagandist invention.
 
"Was the Holodomor intentional genocide, or merely an unintentional side effect of Stalin's policies" could have led to an interesting historical discussion.

"Was Stalin really that bad" was not a good way to lead to that conversation, IMO.
 
I'm afraid that was deliberate. I thought it had been uncontroversial since the 1950s when the Soviet regime denounced him.
 
Germany and Romania suffered between 40% and 80% of harvest losses due to plant disease, for example.[*] I have no idea about the mortality, and I don't particularly care.



Yes, without backing it up.

* see page 14 here for an overview of references for harvest yields in the rest of Eastern Europe.

You are missing a key thing: crop losses alone are rarely ever enough to cause famine. Governments cause famine.

Three Causes of Famine in Africa

Drought doesn't cause famine. People do.

We've had the ability to ship large amounts of food from one part of the world to another at least since Roman times. Crop failures can cause food shortages, but in the modern era, it has almost exclusively been warfare, government mismanagement, deliberate action, or various combinations of those that pushed things from food shortage into outright famine.

The potato blight caused food shortages in Ireland, but the actions of the British government pushed it into famine; the British government is also widely blamed for the 1943 Bengal famine. The Cambodian famine in the 1970's was caused by the warfare in the country.

If you look at most any famine of the last 200 years, you'll see that crop failures are only one out of many contributing factors; often not the largest factor.
 

Back
Top Bottom