Ukraine Megathread: Crimea River Build a Bridge, Get Over It

[Jinwoy]

You only need to look at the financial crisis.

Which didn't affect Estonia because their debt was largely repaid and composes a very tiny amount of GDP. Not to mention that Estonians today have a much higher quality of life than they did under the Soviets, with higher wages, better healthcare and better education. Estonia is no longer considered a "second world" country and is the only former Soviet state to be considered a First World country.

Which is a very fair point to make, and I may have mixed up my Baltic States, so conceded.
But moving back to the original point, to ignore all the benefits that Soviet occupation had would be an egregious error to make. Both sides have had appalling or negative aspects about them, to only focus on the negative of one side and positive of the other is a dangerous mistake to make as it allows history to repeat itself.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Which didn't affect Estonia because their debt was largely repaid and composes a very tiny amount of GDP. Not to mention that Estonians today have a much higher quality of life than they did under the Soviets, with higher wages, better healthcare and better education. Estonia is no longer considered a "second world" country and is the only former Soviet state to be considered a First World country.

Which is a very fair point to make, and I may have mixed up my Baltic States, so conceded.
But moving back to the original point, to ignore all the benefits that Soviet occupation had would be an egregious error to make. Both sides have had appalling or negative aspects about them, to only focus on the negative of one side and positive of the other is a dangerous mistake to make as it allows history to repeat itself.

Does this feeling of yours for a 'fair and balanced perspective' hold true for other historical dictatorships, or just the Soviet Union?

[Imperial City-States]

Which is a very fair point to make, and I may have mixed up my Baltic States, so conceded.
But moving back to the original point, to ignore all the benefits that Soviet occupation had would be an egregious error to make. Both sides have had appalling or negative aspects about them, to only focus on the negative of one side and positive of the other is a dangerous mistake to make as it allows history to repeat itself.

Does this feeling of yours for a 'fair and balanced perspective' hold true for other historical dictatorships, or just the Soviet Union?

What are you taking about ?! The Soviet Union was infallible, all else is propaganda of Capitalist Pigdogs, long live Iosef Stalin!

[Jinwoy]

Which is a very fair point to make, and I may have mixed up my Baltic States, so conceded.
But moving back to the original point, to ignore all the benefits that Soviet occupation had would be an egregious error to make. Both sides have had appalling or negative aspects about them, to only focus on the negative of one side and positive of the other is a dangerous mistake to make as it allows history to repeat itself.

Does this feeling of yours for a 'fair and balanced perspective' hold true for other historical dictatorships, or just the Soviet Union?

All of them, from Augusto Pinochet to Hitler, although the later might actually be outright evil, there was a fair amount of massive economic development in Germany during the war period (which was kinda destroyed during the war), etc.
I'm more critical of Stalin than I am of Hitler, mostly because I expected better from a Socialist dictator than a non-Socialist one.

[Jinwoy]

Russian Submarine spotted in Sweden was a civilian craft, says Swedish Admiral

[Shofercia]

The Hapsburgs were imperialists. Are you arguing that they're not Imperialists?.

Alii bella gerunt, tu felix Austria nube

You should use a history book and learn about the marriage policies of the Habsburg. All kingdom that they have manage to conquer is through marriages (like the throne of Hungary and Czechia which Ferdinand I. got it as inheritance or in case of Croatia where their parliament voted him as the ruling monarchs). Conquering territories millitarly was rarely and it was not part of the marriage policies of the Habsburgs.

I'm well aware of the Hapsburg marital policies; I'm also aware that when Ferdinand and Isabella wed, Spain didn't suddenly stop being an Empire. You're essentially arguing that the Austro-Hungarian Empire wasn't an empire because people married. And you're telling others to read. Do you really not see the irony there? It's extremely bright!

Also, after Napoleon got pwnd at Berezina, a lot of countries began to switch sides

Actually it is that most people were inspired by the revolutionary things like abolishion of serfdom or civil rights that made people join Napoleon. Also, Napoleon and Europe was just trying to liberate Russia from the old aristocratic regime and give Russians civil rights.

Sorry Busen, you're a century early there with that propaganda. See, that's the propaganda used by Lenin, a century later. Around the early nineteenth century, no one particularly gave a fuck about the nauseating hypocrisy of utilizing "Human Rights" as a way to bullshit people into a war, like Dubya did with Iraq, that and the WMDs. Napoleon invaded Russia after Russia either withdrew, or threatened to withdraw, from the Continental System. Even Wikidorkia, generally filled with anti-Russia crap, admits this, because the fact is do damn well known, that anyone who remotely studied any aspect of Napoleon's Invasion, know that Russia's attitude towards the Continental System was a huge chunk of it. Liberation of serfs wasn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Russia

Napoleon hoped to compel Tsar Alexander I of Russia to cease trading with British merchants through proxies in an effort to pressure the United Kingdom to sue for peace.[9]

This historical revisionism on your part is just plain idiotic. Stop it.

And you defeated Russia in WWI all by yourselves? Really now? Cause History says that Germany saved A-H's buttocks after the Brusilov Offensive launched by the Russians.

And you got loans from French and the British. I really dont see what is your point. What only matters is how the war ended (thank you Lenin you were indeed a helpfull spy). And indeed you seem to suggest as if A-H only fought against Russia, you know there was a lot of efforts against the Italians which French and British soldier landed there to not let Italy capitulate.

No, you don't see my point. My point was that A-H didn't defeat Russia by itself. That's also well established by History, since Russia's defeat in WWI was the result of the Russian Revolution, not super-duper military strategy on A-H's behalf.

[Shofercia]

the Communist Party is still a thing?

One would assume that after being rump royalled by the 'Communist' that Ukraine (and really all Eastern Europe) would want nothing to do with them.

Why? At least people had Social Rights under Commies. Under the Liberals of the 1990s there were neither Civil Rights nor Social Rights. During Commie periods, politicians hired the Party to intimidate you. In the 1990s, that role was carried on by the mafia. People still didn't have Civil Rights. Do you really care who shoots you for speaking your mind?

the Communist Party is still a thing?

One would assume that after being rump royalled by the 'Communist' that Ukraine (and really all Eastern Europe) would want nothing to do with them.

AFAIK 1990s neoliberal "shock therapy" wasn't exactly a barrel of laughs either.

It was worse than Communism. Much worse.

Second question, Did they have a gun pointed to their heads during the questionnaire?

I find it highly unlikely that people would want to be brutalized by their governing body.

Most of the polling was done by American companies.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/12/05/con ... iet-union/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166538/forme ... eakup.aspx


And it's easy to see why. Even today, the economy of the former Soviet Union hasn't recovered. In many countries, life expectancy is still lower than it was (IIRC, when the Soviet Union fell, Russia's life expectancy for males declined from 68 to 42, but I could be wrong on that one). For most people, the USSR wasn't too bad, especially when some of the democratic reforms were being made (not the economic ones).

Even this guy who got shot protesting against the 1991 coup wishes the USSR hadn't collapsed, and a mother whose sons were killed by Soviet troops during the protests even said the same: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/world ... ussia.html

According to that NYT article, only 10% said the fall of the USSR was "a victory for democracy".

And most wanted it to stay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Uni ... ndum,_1991

EDIT: I'm sure Shof can add some stuff later.

I'll only add this tidbit:

Under Commies: Generous Social Rights, barely any Civil Rights
Under Yeltsin: mediocre Civil Rights and Social Rights, in some areas practically nonexistent
Under Putin: growing Civil Rights, (usually despite government's legislation,) growing Social Rights, (usually because of government legislation)

"Brutalized"? Ha. If anything, for most people it was the precise opposite.

Consider the fact that everyone used to have a guaranteed job, everyone could retire at a relatively young age (usually 60) and received a full state pension, there was free education at all levels (including university and graduate school), and free health care, and government-provided low-cost housing for everyone.

Simply put, it was a type of society where you didn't have to struggle in life if you didn't want to. You could live almost entirely free of worry as long as you followed a few simple rules. That's why people miss it.

Of course, one of those simple rules was "don't criticize the government in public". But most people in Eastern Europe and the USSR, like most people in almost every country on Earth, didn't really care about politics and didn't have any strong opinions in favour of any particular ideology. So the general popular reaction to not being able to openly support political ideas opposed to the government was a resounding "meh, whatever".

The lack of freedom of political speech generally only bothered the intellectuals, not the population at large.

Lot of good that free education does if you can't speak.

You can, if you utilize Izotov's Tongue.

Uh, you could speak freely about most topics. Just not political ones and a few related things.

But the main point of free education, in any case, is that you don't have to pay lots of money to have a chance at a good career.

Which doesn't matter because apparently society provides everything. I'm sure Poland, E- Germany and the Czech Republic loved the Soviet Union because everyone loves the KGB and Wach Regiment kicking down your door when you're not a good little Socialist.

If Russia cured World Hunger, Poland would find a way to blame Russia for it. East Germany was viewed as conquered land until Brezhnev's rule, so there was some discontent. And we foolishly crushed Czech's 1968 government. That was stupid. If we didn't do that, then yes, Czechs would've loved us. And Stalin/Khrushchev didn't treat East Germany as conquered nation, they wouldn't hate us too. And Poland will be Poland.

Cite your bullshit.

Which part of my text is bullshit? You didn't cite anything you said but just spread Soviet propaganda.

And you said Soviet Union had it's benefits?
It's hard for me to hold back my anger when somebody says it. Soviet Union was pure evil!!! Soviet Union deported Estonians, executed Estonians, took away land, farms and animals from Estonian farmers, tried to russificate Estonia, forced Estonians to serve in the Red Army, sercret services made people live in constant fear and the list goes on and on.

I grew up in the USSR. I didn't think that it was evil, much less pure evil. After the Great Patriotic War, (started by Hitler, no matter what Baltic Shitstory books actually say, WWII was started by Hitler,) USSR started to improve. Massively. It wasn't easy, but it ain't easy improving after wars from 1914-1921, repression from 1921-1941, and a completely brutal, all out war, from 1941-1945. And you're talking about how mean the USSR was to you? Crimea fucking river.

Since the fall of the USSR Estonia have had an average 10% GDP growth, so yes it is better off now than 25 years ago. It would be interesting to see the opinion of Russians in Estonia whether they would be honest or follow their selfish etnic pride.

And Ukraine didn't, so according to your logic, Ukraine would be better off in the USSR, yes?

honestly, i dont know much about estonian laws, but according latvian laws, russian minority is oppressed with no doubt. Basically, if they refuse to be assimilated 'loyal latvians', theyre second class cizizens, and EU did nothing to help them. Perhaps if they were africans or arabs, someone in west would care. And latvian ministers who publicly supports ww2 members of SS troops, thats just disgusting.

Russian minority is not oppresed in Estonia. This is just something that Russian media claims. This is just part of the Russian propaganda and you're beliving it.

Russians with Estonian passport can vote in Estonian parliamentary elections. Russians with Russian passport can't vote in parliamentary elections because they decided to become citizens of Russia. That's the only difference. Ethnicity doesn't matter. If Estonian decides to become citizen of Finland he can't vote in Estonian parliamentary elections either.

Really? Not oppressed? Is that why a fourth of Russians living in Estonia, left Estonia in the 1990s? Cause there certainly wasn't a lot of economic opportunity around that time.

"Hey, Russia's having a major economic depression!"
"Well this country's GDP's growing, and I'm totally not oppressed, lemme head back to Russia!"

Really Teemant? Is that how you think Russians spoke?

Russian Submarine spotted in Sweden was a civilian craft, says Swedish Admiral

honestly, i dont know much about estonian laws, but according latvian laws, russian minority is oppressed with no doubt. Basically, if they refuse to be assimilated 'loyal latvians', theyre second class cizizens, and EU did nothing to help them. Perhaps if they were africans or arabs, someone in west would care. And latvian ministers who publicly supports ww2 members of SS troops, thats just disgusting.

Hmmm... Do you think that a person can have Czech citizenship if lives there but refused to learn the Czech language? Just a hypotetical situation if some migrant came to the Czech Republic and after leaving there he starts to demand thatthe second official language should be the native one of his home country? Although I am not fan of muslims in the West even they did not go so far to demand Arabic as a official language in France but instead they learn the french language in order to get french citizenship.

The point is that the people in question didn't immigrate into the Baltics. They lived there for their entire lives. And it's a bit hard to learn new languages after a certain age. And to answer your question, if someone lives in Russia or the US during their entire lives, I would have no issues accommodating them on a linguistical basis. When you declare independence, you get the populace that you get. And that's the populace that you must accommodate. It's not the populace's job to accommodate the government. It's the other way around. Don't like it? Don't declare independence.

[Kibbehstan]

Does this feeling of yours for a 'fair and balanced perspective' hold true for other historical dictatorships, or just the Soviet Union?

All of them, from Augusto Pinochet to Hitler, although the later might actually be outright evil, there was a fair amount of massive economic development in Germany during the war period (which was kinda destroyed during the war), etc.
I'm more critical of Stalin than I am of Hitler, mostly because I expected better from a Socialist dictator than a non-Socialist one.

If I recall correctly, the economic improvements which occurred in Germany after Adolf Hitler and his party rose to power was primarily caused by the ridiculous amounts of money they destined to the military; Germany's economic ''development'' in the 1930s depended on some sort of war since the vast investment in the armed forces wasn't sustainable.

[Jinwoy]

All of them, from Augusto Pinochet to Hitler, although the later might actually be outright evil, there was a fair amount of massive economic development in Germany during the war period (which was kinda destroyed during the war), etc.
I'm more critical of Stalin than I am of Hitler, mostly because I expected better from a Socialist dictator than a non-Socialist one.

If I recall correctly, the economic improvements which occurred in Germany after Adolf Hitler and his party rose to power was primarily caused by the ridiculous amounts of money they destined to the military; Germany's economic ''development'' in the 1930s depended on some sort of war since the vast investment in the armed forces wasn't sustainable.

Of course it wasn't sustainable, doesn't mean it didn't occur or had lower significance (like the unsustainable growth in China).
Even at that, Hitler had created a military machine that even he didn't know how to handle. Germany's might in its prime during the war hasn't been seen since. But ultimately, Nazi Germany's contribution to science (like rockets) are often overshadowed by its 'domestic' policies, which were all-round despicable if not outright satanic.

[West Aurelia]

Accurate: https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/stat ... 9155627009.

Interfax reports that Russian ships will conduct drills in the English Channel.

Does anyone know if the line "It is not unusual to have Russian warships in the Channel" means that it is not unusual since Russian ships have always been present in the Channel or that it is not unusual due to the Ukraine crisis?

[Teemant]

the Communist Party is still a thing?

One would assume that after being rump royalled by the 'Communist' that Ukraine (and really all Eastern Europe) would want nothing to do with them.

Why? At least people had Social Rights under Commies. Under the Liberals of the 1990s there were neither Civil Rights nor Social Rights. During Commie periods, politicians hired the Party to intimidate you. In the 1990s, that role was carried on by the mafia. People still didn't have Civil Rights. Do you really care who shoots you for speaking your mind?

AFAIK 1990s neoliberal "shock therapy" wasn't exactly a barrel of laughs either.

It was worse than Communism. Much worse.

Most of the polling was done by American companies.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/12/05/con ... iet-union/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166538/forme ... eakup.aspx
(Image)

And it's easy to see why. Even today, the economy of the former Soviet Union hasn't recovered. In many countries, life expectancy is still lower than it was (IIRC, when the Soviet Union fell, Russia's life expectancy for males declined from 68 to 42, but I could be wrong on that one). For most people, the USSR wasn't too bad, especially when some of the democratic reforms were being made (not the economic ones).

Even this guy who got shot protesting against the 1991 coup wishes the USSR hadn't collapsed, and a mother whose sons were killed by Soviet troops during the protests even said the same: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/world ... ussia.html

According to that NYT article, only 10% said the fall of the USSR was "a victory for democracy".

And most wanted it to stay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Uni ... ndum,_1991

EDIT: I'm sure Shof can add some stuff later.

I'll only add this tidbit:

Under Commies: Generous Social Rights, barely any Civil Rights
Under Yeltsin: mediocre Civil Rights and Social Rights, in some areas practically nonexistent
Under Putin: growing Civil Rights, (usually despite government's legislation,) growing Social Rights, (usually because of government legislation)

Lot of good that free education does if you can't speak.

You can, if you utilize Izotov's Tongue.

Which doesn't matter because apparently society provides everything. I'm sure Poland, E- Germany and the Czech Republic loved the Soviet Union because everyone loves the KGB and Wach Regiment kicking down your door when you're not a good little Socialist.

If Russia cured World Hunger, Poland would find a way to blame Russia for it. East Germany was viewed as conquered land until Brezhnev's rule, so there was some discontent. And we foolishly crushed Czech's 1968 government. That was stupid. If we didn't do that, then yes, Czechs would've loved us. And Stalin/Khrushchev didn't treat East Germany as conquered nation, they wouldn't hate us too. And Poland will be Poland.

Which part of my text is bullshit? You didn't cite anything you said but just spread Soviet propaganda.

And you said Soviet Union had it's benefits?
It's hard for me to hold back my anger when somebody says it. Soviet Union was pure evil!!! Soviet Union deported Estonians, executed Estonians, took away land, farms and animals from Estonian farmers, tried to russificate Estonia, forced Estonians to serve in the Red Army, sercret services made people live in constant fear and the list goes on and on.

I grew up in the USSR. I didn't think that it was evil, much less pure evil. After the Great Patriotic War, (started by Hitler, no matter what Baltic Shitstory books actually say, WWII was started by Hitler,) USSR started to improve. Massively. It wasn't easy, but it ain't easy improving after wars from 1914-1921, repression from 1921-1941, and a completely brutal, all out war, from 1941-1945. And you're talking about how mean the USSR was to you? Crimea fucking river.

Since the fall of the USSR Estonia have had an average 10% GDP growth, so yes it is better off now than 25 years ago. It would be interesting to see the opinion of Russians in Estonia whether they would be honest or follow their selfish etnic pride.

And Ukraine didn't, so according to your logic, Ukraine would be better off in the USSR, yes?

Russian minority is not oppresed in Estonia. This is just something that Russian media claims. This is just part of the Russian propaganda and you're beliving it.

Russians with Estonian passport can vote in Estonian parliamentary elections. Russians with Russian passport can't vote in parliamentary elections because they decided to become citizens of Russia. That's the only difference. Ethnicity doesn't matter. If Estonian decides to become citizen of Finland he can't vote in Estonian parliamentary elections either.

Really? Not oppressed? Is that why a fourth of Russians living in Estonia, left Estonia in the 1990s? Cause there certainly wasn't a lot of economic opportunity around that time.

"Hey, Russia's having a major economic depression!"
"Well this country's GDP's growing, and I'm totally not oppressed, lemme head back to Russia!"

Really Teemant? Is that how you think Russians spoke?

Russian Submarine spotted in Sweden was a civilian craft, says Swedish Admiral

Hmmm... Do you think that a person can have Czech citizenship if lives there but refused to learn the Czech language? Just a hypotetical situation if some migrant came to the Czech Republic and after leaving there he starts to demand thatthe second official language should be the native one of his home country? Although I am not fan of muslims in the West even they did not go so far to demand Arabic as a official language in France but instead they learn the french language in order to get french citizenship.

The point is that the people in question didn't immigrate into the Baltics. They lived there for their entire lives. And it's a bit hard to learn new languages after a certain age. And to answer your question, if someone lives in Russia or the US during their entire lives, I would have no issues accommodating them on a linguistical basis. When you declare independence, you get the populace that you get. And that's the populace that you must accommodate. It's not the populace's job to accommodate the government. It's the other way around. Don't like it? Don't declare independence.

Most of the people who left Estonia during the 1990s were Russian military personel (that were previously stationed in Estonia) and their families.

[Geilinor]

I grew up in the USSR. I didn't think that it was evil, much less pure evil. After the Great Patriotic War, (started by Hitler, no matter what Baltic Shitstory books actually say, WWII was started by Hitler,) USSR started to improve. Massively. It wasn't easy, but it ain't easy improving after wars from 1914-1921, repression from 1921-1941, and a completely brutal, all out war, from 1941-1945. And you're talking about how mean the USSR was to you? Crimea fucking river.

You're attempting to justify the USSR's repression because it was victimized by Hitler? Hah. Crimea fucking river.

[United Marxist Nations]

I grew up in the USSR. I didn't think that it was evil, much less pure evil. After the Great Patriotic War, (started by Hitler, no matter what Baltic Shitstory books actually say, WWII was started by Hitler,) USSR started to improve. Massively. It wasn't easy, but it ain't easy improving after wars from 1914-1921, repression from 1921-1941, and a completely brutal, all out war, from 1941-1945. And you're talking about how mean the USSR was to you? Crimea fucking river.

You're attempting to justify the USSR's repression because it was victimized by Hitler? Hah. Crimea fucking river.

Actually, a lot of the USSR's repressions were quite necessary for war preparation. Not anything like the ethnic cleansings, but a whole lot of the rest was necessary.

As Stalin said, "We are fifty or one hundred years behind the advanced countries, we must make good this gap in ten years, or we will be crushed."

[Imperial City-States]

You're attempting to justify the USSR's repression because it was victimized by Hitler? Hah. Crimea fucking river.

Actually, a lot of the USSR's repressions were quite necessary for war preparation. Not anything like the ethnic cleansings, but a whole lot of the rest was necessary.

As Stalin said, "We are fifty or one hundred years behind the advanced countries, we must make good this gap in ten years, or we will be crushed."

That was before World War 2 and that was what he said to justify starving Millions of Ukrainians.

[Jinwoy]

Actually, a lot of the USSR's repressions were quite necessary for war preparation. Not anything like the ethnic cleansings, but a whole lot of the rest was necessary.

As Stalin said, "We are fifty or one hundred years behind the advanced countries, we must make good this gap in ten years, or we will be crushed."

That was before World War 2 and that was what he said to justify starving Millions of Ukrainians.

I love how people pretend that it was a deliberate famine, and that it only affected Ukraine. Its almost too funny to watch.

[United Marxist Nations]

Actually, a lot of the USSR's repressions were quite necessary for war preparation. Not anything like the ethnic cleansings, but a whole lot of the rest was necessary.

As Stalin said, "We are fifty or one hundred years behind the advanced countries, we must make good this gap in ten years, or we will be crushed."

That was before World War 2 and that was what he said to justify starving Millions of Ukrainians.

Do I have to get my giant text wall about the Holodomor again?

The first reports regarding malnutrition and hunger in rural areas and towns (which were undersupplied through the recently introduced rationing system) to the Ukrainian GPU and oblast authorities are dated to mid-January 1933. However, the first food aid sent by Central Soviet authorities for the Odessa and Dnepropetrovsk regions 400 thousand poods (6600 tonnes, 200 thousand poods or 3300 tonnes for each) appeared as early as February 7, 1933.[37] Measures were introduced to localize these cases using locally available resources. While the numbers of such reports increased, the Central Committee of the Communist Party (Bolshevik) of Ukraine issued a decree on February 8, 1933, that urged every “hunger case” to be treated without delay and with a maximum mobilization of resources by kolkhozes, raions, towns, and oblasts. The decree set a seven-day term for food aid which was to be provided from “central sources”. On February 20, 1933, the Dnipropetrovsk oblast received 1.2 million poods of food aid, Odessa received 800 thousand, and Kharkiv received 300 thousand. The Kiev oblast was allocated 6 million poods by March 18. The Ukrainian authorities also provided aid, but it was limited by available resources. In order to assist orphaned children, the Ukrainian GPU and People's Commissariat for Health created a special commission, which established a network of kindergartens where children could get food. Urban areas affected by food shortage adhered to a rationing system. On March 20, 1933, Stalin signed a decree which lowered the monthly milling levy in Ukraine by 14 thousand tons, which was to be redistributed as an additional bread supply “for students, small towns and small enterprises in large cities and specially in Kiev”. However, food aid distribution was not managed effectively and was poorly redistributed by regional and local authorities.

After the first wave of hunger in February and March, Ukrainian authorities met with a second wave of hunger and starvation in April and May, specifically in the Kiev and Kharkiv oblasts. The situation was aggravated by the extended winter.

Between February and June 1933, thirty-five Politburo decisions and Sovnarkom decrees authorized the issue of a total of 35.19 million poods (576,400 tonnes),[38] or more than half of total aid to Soviet agriculture as a whole. 1.1 million tonnes were provided by Central Soviet authorities in winter and spring 1933 — grain and seeds for Ukrainian SSR peasants, kolhozes and sovhozes. Such figures did not include grain and flour aid provided for the urban population and children, or aid from local sources. In Russia, Stalin personally authorized distribution of aid in answer to a request by Sholokhov, whose own district was stricken.[39] However, Stalin also later reprimanded Sholokhov for failing to recognize "sabotage" within his district. This was the only instance that a specific amount of aid was given to a specific district.[39] Other appeals were not successful, and many desperate pleas were cut back or rejected.[40]

Documents from Soviet archives indicate that the aid distribution was made selectively to the most affected areas, and during the spring months, such assistance was the goal of the relief effort. A special resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (Bolshevik) of Ukraine for the Kiev Oblast, from March 31, 1933, ordered peasants to be hospitalized with either ailing or recovering patients. The resolution ordered improved nutrition within the limits of available resources so that they could be sent out into the fields to sow the new crop as soon as possible.[41] The food was dispensed according to special resolutions from government bodies, and additional food was given in the field where the laborers worked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_ ... r_starving

After grain collection difficulties in 1927 and 1928, Stalin ordered the creation of state grain and meat enterprises — sovkhozes — which, according to his initial vision, should deliver more than 100 million poods of grain in 1932. However, in 1932 their production results were disastrous due to poor general and agricultural management and planning, despite the significant (as compared to kolkhozes) amount of modern agricultural mechanisms (agricultural tractors, harvesters, etc.) employed.[87] The main reason for low output was that wheat was continually sown, beginning in 1929, on the same areas without fertilizers. Sovkhozes also suffered from a lack of manpower and infrastructure (roads, elevators etc.). Losses during harvesting were extremely high.[78] Thus instead of the expected 290 millions of poods (more than 5 million tons) in 1932, sovkhozes produced 5 time less, while the situation with livestock was even worse.[76] As of 20 July 1932 sovhozes of the Ukrainian SRR had logged 16% of the defined sowing area.

Another factor in the decline of the harvests was that the shortage of draft power for plowing and reaping was even more acute in 1932 than in the previous year. The number of working horses declined from 19.5 million on July 1, 1931 to 16.2 million on July 1, 1932. The efforts to replace horses by tractors failed to compensate for this loss. In 1931, the total supply of tractors for agriculture amounted to 578,000 hp (431 MW), with 393,000 hp (293 MW) produced at home and 578,000 hp (431 MW) imported. But in 1932, because of the foreign trade crisis and home producing establishing, no tractors were imported.[88] In the whole of 1932, tractors supplied 679,000 hp (506 MW) to agriculture, considerably less than in 1931. Only about half became available in time for the harvest, and even less in time for the spring sowing. Animal draft power deteriorated in quality. Horses were fed and maintained even more inadequately than in the previous year.[88] The acute shortage of horses led to the decision to employ cows as working animals. According to the speech of one Soviet official at one of the most affected by famine region, the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, "in 1932 we employ only 9000 cows, but in 1933 we involve at least 3/4 of their total number; 57000 employed at sowing."[89] On February 23, the Lower Volga party bureau decided to use 200,000 cows for special field work.

[Imperial City-States]

That was before World War 2 and that was what he said to justify starving Millions of Ukrainians.

I love how people pretend that it was a deliberate famine, and that it only affected Ukraine. Its almost too funny to watch.

Well considering that the vast majority of them were indeed Ukrainian, not to mention that Soviet government was directly responsible for it.

[United Marxist Nations]

I love how people pretend that it was a deliberate famine, and that it only affected Ukraine. Its almost too funny to watch.

Well considering that the vast majority of them were indeed Ukrainian, not to mention that Soviet government was directly responsible for it.

Is that why the Soviet government sent literally millions of tons of grain to aid the Ukraine, more than half of all aid?

[Imperial City-States]

snip

From your own source

Some sources claim that, despite the pleas for assistance and the acknowledged famine situation, the Moscow authorities refused to provide aid; some researchers state that aid was provided only during the summer

Love how you leave off that first sentence.


Again from your same source:

Deliberate targeting of Ukrainians

Although famine, caused by collectivization, raged in many parts of the Soviet Union in 1932, special and particularly lethal policies, described by Yale historian Timothy Snyder in his book Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (2010), were adopted in and largely limited to Ukraine at the end of 1932 and 1933.[53] Snyder lists seven crucial policies that applied only, or mainly, to Soviet Ukraine. He states: "Each of them may seem like an anodyne administrative measure, and each of them was certainly presented as such at the time, and yet each had to kill":[53]

From 18 November 1932 peasants from Ukraine were required to return extra grain they had previously earned for meeting their targets. State police and party brigades were sent into these regions to root out any food they could find.
Two days later, a law was passed forcing peasants who could not meet their grain quotas to surrender any livestock they had.
Eight days later, collective farms that failed to meet their quotas were placed on "blacklists" in which they were forced to surrender 15 times their quota. These farms were picked apart for any possible food by party activists. Blacklisted communes had no right to trade or to receive deliveries of any kind, and became death zones.
On 5 December 1932, Stalin's security chief presented the justification for terrorizing Ukrainian party officials to collect the grain. It was considered treason if anyone refused to do their part in grain requisitions for the state.
In November 1932 Ukraine was required to provide 1/3 of the grain collection of the entire Soviet Union. As Lazar Kaganovich put it, the Soviet state would fight "ferociously" to fulfill the plan.
In January 1933 Ukraine's borders were sealed in order to prevent Ukrainian peasants from fleeing to other republics. By the end of February 1933 approximately 190,000 Ukrainian peasants had been caught trying to flee Ukraine and were forced to return to their villages to starve.
The collection of grain continued even after the annual requisition target for 1932 was met in late January 1933.[53]
The recent award-winning documentary Genocide Revealed (2011),[54] by Canadian-Ukrainian director Yurij Luhovy, presents evidence for the view that Stalin and his cohorts in the Communist regime (not necessarily the Russian people as a whole) deliberately targeted Ukrainians in the mass starvation of 1932–1933. Stalin's regime proceeded to eliminate the intelligentsia of Ukraine[citation needed], to forcibly deport Ukrainian Kulaks who opposed its collectivization policies, and to orchestrate a deliberate mass starvation by hunger of Ukrainians, wherever they were found throughout the Soviet Empire.[55] This documentary reinforces the view that the Holodomor was indeed an act of genocide

[United Marxist Nations]

snip

From your own source

Some sources claim that, despite the pleas for assistance and the acknowledged famine situation, the Moscow authorities refused to provide aid; some researchers state that aid was provided only during the summer

Love how you leave off that first sentence.


Again from your same source:

Deliberate targeting of Ukrainians

Although famine, caused by collectivization, raged in many parts of the Soviet Union in 1932, special and particularly lethal policies, described by Yale historian Timothy Snyder in his book Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (2010), were adopted in and largely limited to Ukraine at the end of 1932 and 1933.[53] Snyder lists seven crucial policies that applied only, or mainly, to Soviet Ukraine. He states: "Each of them may seem like an anodyne administrative measure, and each of them was certainly presented as such at the time, and yet each had to kill":[53]

From 18 November 1932 peasants from Ukraine were required to return extra grain they had previously earned for meeting their targets. State police and party brigades were sent into these regions to root out any food they could find.
Two days later, a law was passed forcing peasants who could not meet their grain quotas to surrender any livestock they had.
Eight days later, collective farms that failed to meet their quotas were placed on "blacklists" in which they were forced to surrender 15 times their quota. These farms were picked apart for any possible food by party activists. Blacklisted communes had no right to trade or to receive deliveries of any kind, and became death zones.
On 5 December 1932, Stalin's security chief presented the justification for terrorizing Ukrainian party officials to collect the grain. It was considered treason if anyone refused to do their part in grain requisitions for the state.
In November 1932 Ukraine was required to provide 1/3 of the grain collection of the entire Soviet Union. As Lazar Kaganovich put it, the Soviet state would fight "ferociously" to fulfill the plan.
In January 1933 Ukraine's borders were sealed in order to prevent Ukrainian peasants from fleeing to other republics. By the end of February 1933 approximately 190,000 Ukrainian peasants had been caught trying to flee Ukraine and were forced to return to their villages to starve.
The collection of grain continued even after the annual requisition target for 1932 was met in late January 1933.[53]
The recent award-winning documentary Genocide Revealed (2011),[54] by Canadian-Ukrainian director Yurij Luhovy, presents evidence for the view that Stalin and his cohorts in the Communist regime (not necessarily the Russian people as a whole) deliberately targeted Ukrainians in the mass starvation of 1932–1933. Stalin's regime proceeded to eliminate the intelligentsia of Ukraine[citation needed], to forcibly deport Ukrainian Kulaks who opposed its collectivization policies, and to orchestrate a deliberate mass starvation by hunger of Ukrainians, wherever they were found throughout the Soviet Empire.[55] This documentary reinforces the view that the Holodomor was indeed an act of genocide

1) I didn't include that first sentence because the later information refutes the assertions of those scholars. Aid was provided by 7 February, certainly not "only in summer".


2) These were mostly actions taken before the famine, and before the Soviet government had comprehended the meaning of the warning signs.

Moreover, the Soviet government exported (significantly) less grain than in previous years:

Some publications claim that after recognition of the famine situation in Ukraine during the drought and poor harvests, the Soviet government in Moscow continued to export grain rather than retain its crop to feed the people,[43] though at a significantly lower rate than in previous years. In 1930–31, there had been 5,832,000 metric tons of grains exported. In 1931–32, grain exports declined to 4,786,000 metric tons. In 1932–33, grain exports were just 1,607,000 metric tons, and in 1933–34, this further declined to 1,441,000 metric tons.[44] Officially published data [45] differed slightly:

Cereals (in tonnes):

1930 – 4,846,024
1931 – 5,182,835
1932 – 1,819,114 (~750,000 during the first half of 1932; from late April ~157,000 tonnes of grain was also imported)
1933 – 1,771,364 (~220,000 during the first half of 1933;[46] from late March grain was also imported[47])
Only wheat (in tonnes):

1930 – 2,530,953
1931 – 2,498,958
1932 – 550,917
1933 – 748,248
In 1932, via Ukrainian commercial ports the following amounts were exported: 988,300 tons of grains and 16,500 tons of other types of cereals. In 1933, the totals were: 809,600 tons of grains, 2,600 tons of other cereals, 3,500 tons of meat, 400 tons of butter, and 2,500 tons of fish. Those same ports imported the following amounts: less than 67,200 tons of grains and cereals in 1932, and 8,600 tons of grains in 1933.

The following amounts were received from other Soviet ports: in 1932, 164,000 tons of grains, 7,300 tons of other cereals, 31,500 tons of, and no more than 177,000 tons of meat and butter; in 1933, 230,000 tons of grains, 15,300 tons if other cereals, 100 tons of meat, 900 tons of butter, and 34,300 tons of fish.

Michael Ellman states that the 1932–33 grain exports amounted to 1.8 million tonnes, which would have been enough to feed 5 million people for one year.[30]

As for preventing peasants from leaving: yes, when you are trying to get the next season's crop into the soil before a catastrophic famine sets in, you tend to prevent farmers from not farming. How this isn't simply standard reaction to a famine, I don't know.

[Teemant]

I grew up in the USSR. I didn't think that it was evil, much less pure evil. After the Great Patriotic War, (started by Hitler, no matter what Baltic Shitstory books actually say, WWII was started by Hitler,) USSR started to improve. Massively. It wasn't easy, but it ain't easy improving after wars from 1914-1921, repression from 1921-1941, and a completely brutal, all out war, from 1941-1945. And you're talking about how mean the USSR was to you? Crimea fucking river.

You're attempting to justify the USSR's repression because it was victimized by Hitler? Hah. Crimea fucking river.

It's pointless to debate with Shoefercia because he's just full of sh*t.

[Constantinopolis]

Not to mention that Estonians today have a much higher quality of life than they did under the Soviets, with higher wages, better healthcare and better education. Estonia is no longer considered a "second world" country and is the only former Soviet state to be considered a First World country.

Yes, and the Estonians represent a whopping 0.31% of the population of the former USSR.

To point out that the collapse of the USSR was good for Estonia is like saying that it was good for one neighborhood in Moscow. That is the scale we're talking about.

Of course a few people benefited from the fall of the USSR. Estonians were among those few. Some Moscow residents were also among those few, since Moscow has become one of the wealthiest cities in Europe (and also one of the most unequal). But for the vast majority of former Soviet citizens, it's a very different story.

[Teemant]

Not to mention that Estonians today have a much higher quality of life than they did under the Soviets, with higher wages, better healthcare and better education. Estonia is no longer considered a "second world" country and is the only former Soviet state to be considered a First World country.

Yes, and the Estonians represent a whopping 0.31% of the population of the former USSR.

To point out that the collapse of the USSR was good for Estonia is like saying that it was good for one neighborhood in Moscow. That is the scale we're talking about.

Of course a few people benefited from the fall of the USSR. Estonians were among those few. Some Moscow residents were also among those few, since Moscow has become one of the wealthiest cities in Europe (and also one of the most unequal). But for the vast majority of former Soviet citizens, it's a very different story.

I couldn't care less how Russians in Russia live. Just leave Estonia alone.

Actually standard of living has gone up in Russia too compared to Soviet Union times.

[Jinwoy]

Yes, and the Estonians represent a whopping 0.31% of the population of the former USSR.

To point out that the collapse of the USSR was good for Estonia is like saying that it was good for one neighborhood in Moscow. That is the scale we're talking about.

Of course a few people benefited from the fall of the USSR. Estonians were among those few. Some Moscow residents were also among those few, since Moscow has become one of the wealthiest cities in Europe (and also one of the most unequal). But for the vast majority of former Soviet citizens, it's a very different story.

Actually standard of living has gone up in Russia too compared to Soviet Union times.

Lol

[Teemant]

Actually standard of living has gone up in Russia too compared to Soviet Union times.

Lol

Do you ever have anything reasonable to say?

I find funny how most of the Soviet Union/Russian fanboys live nowhere near Russia.