Was it acceptable to ally with Uncle Joe in WWII?

[Zelig]

Name one.

Saudi Arabia is pretty awful.

I wouldn't make the claim that it's worse than the USSR, but I suspect an informed person could make a good case for it.

 

[Murky]

It was a strategic necessity at the time. It couldn't have been won without the alliance. I also think the American propaganda towards the USSR made them out to be viewed much worse than they really were after WWII. True, there were stark differences but they were not out to get us so much as we were out to defeat communism at whatever costs.

 

[Borachio]

I'm not so sure. I think the Soviets would cheerfully have invaded the rest of Europe, if they thought they could get away with it.

Equally, I think the Americans and British would have pushed the Soviets back from Central Europe, if they thought they could get away with it.

Pragmatism all round.

 

[luiz]

So you think it was actually a nationwide-organized famine, designed to get rid of the Ukrainians before everyone else, through attrition?

Stalin didn't want to wipe out the Ukrainians, but he probably did use repressive tactics to exacerbate the famine as part of his war on Ukrainian peasantry, and at the very least he knew full well he was undertaking policies that would result in an entirely preventable mass famine. So under modern definition he is indeed guilty of genocide. That's the consensus opinion among scholars (see below), as opposed to the fringe minority of Stalin apologists.

Besides the fact that 1/3 of cultivated farm land was destroyed by the Civil War, along with most of its farmers, there were also droughts and famines before the implementation of either of those policies.

As for the Kulaks, it was they, not Stalin, who dealt the most decisive blow to agriculture: rather than surrender their cattle to be collectivized, they undertook to slaughter 2/3 of the entire cattle head count in the Soviet Union; a number that would not even reach pre-World War I levels again until the 1950s.

Blame the victim much?
"Rather than peacefully surrender to the rapist, the woman insisted on fighting. She had to be killed!"

The Soviets dealt with grain-hoarders as grain-hoarders are always dealt with in times of hunger: expropriation. Who should starve, a family of farmers, or a small city? Clearly the lesser evil is what the Soviets chose.

Lets not waste time arguing over something we will never agree. Lets rather point to what most serious scholars say about the subject:

R.W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft have interacted with Conquest and note that he no longer considers "that Stalin purposely inflicted the 1933 famine". They quoted the Conquest words where he argued "that with resulting famine imminent, he [Stalin] could have prevented it, but put 'Soviet interest' other than feeding the starving first – thus consciously abetting it."[86]:629 Conquest—and, by extension, Davies and Wheatcroft—believe that, had industrialization been abandoned, the famine would have been "prevented" (Conquest),[87] or at least significantly alleviated:
[W]e regard the policy of rapid industrialization as an underlying cause of the agricultural troubles of the early 1930s, and we do not believe that the Chinese or NEP versions of industrialization were viable in Soviet national and international circumstances.[86]:626
They see the leadership under Stalin as making significant errors in planning for the industrialization of agriculture.
This retraction by Conquest is also noted by Kulchytsky.[22]
Dr. Michael Ellman of the University of Amsterdam argues that, in addition to deportations, internment in the Gulag and shootings (See: Law of Spikelets), there is some evidence that Stalin used starvation as a weapon in his war against the peasantry.[88] He analyses the actions of the Soviet authorities, two of commission and one of omission: (i) exporting 1.8 million tonnes of grain during the mass starvation (enough to feed more than five million people for one year), (ii) preventing migration from famine afflicted areas (which may have cost an estimated 150,000 lives) and (iii) making no effort to secure grain assistance from abroad (which caused an estimated 1.5 million excess deaths), as well as the attitude of the Stalinist regime in 1932–33 (that many of those starving to death were "counterrevolutionaries", "idlers" or "thieves" who fully deserved their fate). Based on this analysis he concludes, however, that the actions of Stalin's authorities against Ukrainians do not meet the standards of specific intent required to proof genocide as defined by the UN convention (the notable exception is the case of Kuban Ukrainians).[89] Ellman further concluded that if the relaxed definition of genocide is used, the actions of Stalin's authorities do fit such a definition of genocide.[89] However, this more relaxed definition of genocide makes the latter the common historical event, according to Ellman.[89]
Regarding the aforementioned actions taken by Stalin in the early 1930s, Ellman unambiguously states that, from the standpoint of contemporary international criminal law, Stalin is "clearly guilty" of "a series of crimes against humanity" and that, from the standpoint of national criminal law, the only way to defend Stalin from a charge of mass murder is "to argue he was ignorant of the consequences of his actions." He also rebukes Davies and Wheatcroft for, among other things, their "very narrow understanding" of intent. He states:
According to them, only taking an action whose sole objective is to cause deaths among the peasantry counts as intent. Taking an action with some other goal (e.g. exporting grain to import machinery) but which the actor certainly knows will also cause peasants to starve does not count as intentionally starving the peasants. However, this is an interpretation of 'intent' which flies in the face of the general legal interpretation.[89]
Genocide scholar Adam Jones stresses that, while controversial, some of the actions of the Soviet leadership during 1931-32 should be considered genocidal. Not only did the famine kill millions, it took place against "a backdrop of persecution, mass execution, and incarceration clearly aimed at undermining Ukrainians as a national group."[90] Norman Naimark, a historian at Stanford University who specializes in modern East European history, genocide and ethnic cleansing, argues that some of the actions of Stalin's regime, not only those during the Holodomor but also Dekulakization and targeted campaigns against particular ethnic groups, can be looked at as genocidal.[91] In 2006, the Security Service of Ukraine declassified more than 5 thousand pages of Holodomor archives.[92] These documents suggest that the Soviet regime singled out Ukraine by not giving it the same humanitarian aid given to regions outside it.[93]
Some historians maintain that the famine was an unintentional consequence of collectivization, and that the associated resistance to it by the Ukrainian peasantry exacerbated an already-poor harvest.[94][95] Some researchers state that while the term Ukrainian Genocide is often used in application to the event, technically, the use of the term "genocide" is inapplicable.[21]
The statistical distribution of famine's victims among the ethnicities closely reflects the ethnic distribution of the rural population of Ukraine[96] Moldavian, Polish, German and Bulgarian population that mostly resided in the rural communities of Ukraine suffered in the same proportion as the rural Ukrainian population.[96] While ethnic Russians in Ukraine lived mostly in urban areas and the cities were affected little by the famine, the rural Russian population was affected the same way as the rural population of any other ethnicity.[96]
West Virginia University professor Dr Mark Tauger claims that any analysis that asserts that the harvests of 1931 and 1932 were not extraordinarily low and that the famine was a political measure intentionally imposed through excessive procurements is based on an insufficient source base and an uncritical approach to the official sources.[94] Other scholars, such as Dr. David Marples, professor of history at the University of Alberta, have been critical of Tauger's claims.[97] Wheatcroft states Tauger's view represents the opposite extreme in arguing the famine was totally accidental.[98]
Author James Mace was one of the first to claim that the famine constituted genocide. But British economist Stephen Wheatcroft, who studied the famine, believed that Mace's work debased the field of Russian studies.[99] However, Wheatcroft's characterization of the famine deaths as largely excusable, negligent homicide has been challenged by economist Steven Rosefielde, who states:
Grain supplies were sufficient to sustain everyone if properly distributed. People died mostly of terror-starvation (excess grain exports, seizure of edibles from the starving, state refusal to provide emergency relief, bans on outmigration, and forced deportation to food-deficit locales), not poor harvests and routine administrative bungling.[100]
Timothy Snyder, Professor of History at Yale University, asserts that in 1933 "Joseph Stalin was deliberately starving Ukraine" through a "heartless campaign of requisitions that began Europe's era of mass killing."[101] He argues the Soviets themselves "made sure that the term genocide, contrary to Lemkin's intentions, excluded political and economic groups." Thus the Ukrainian famine can be presented as "somehow less genocidal because it targeted a class, kulaks, as well as a nation, Ukraine."[102]
In his 1953 speech the "father of the [UN] Genocide Convention," Dr Raphael Lemkin described "the destruction of the Ukrainian nation" as the "classic example of genocide," for "...the Ukrainian is not and never has been a Russian. His culture, his temperament, his language, his religion, are all different...to eliminate (Ukrainian) nationalism...the Ukrainian peasantry was sacrificed...a famine was necessary for the Soviet and so they got one to order...if the Soviet program succeeds completely, if the intelligentsia, the priest, and the peasant can be eliminated [then] Ukraine will be as dead as if every Ukrainian were killed, for it will have lost that part of it which has kept and developed its culture, its beliefs, its common ideas, which have guided it and given it a soul, which, in short, made it a nation...This is not simply a case of mass murder. It is a case of genocide, of the destruction, not of individuals only, but of a culture and a nation."[103][104]:555–6
[T]he evidence of a large-scale famine was so overwhelming, was so unanimously confirmed by the peasants that the most "hard-boiled" local officials could say nothing in denial.
—William Henry Chamberlin, Christian Science Monitor, 29 May 1934[105]
Mr. Chamberlin was a Moscow correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor for 10 years. In 1934 he was reassigned to the Far East. After he left the Soviet Union he wrote his account of the situation in Ukraine and North Caucasus (Poltava, Bila Tserkva, and Kropotkin). Chamberlin later published a couple of books: Russia's Iron Age and The Ukraine: A Submerged Nation.[106][107]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#Genocide_question

I believe this settles it.

 

[red_elk]

@Cheezy/red_elk: My history prof last semester talked about new documents from the Soviet records indicates that much of the de-Kulakization and collectivization was begun by the local Soviet officials, and the the Soviet leadership simply approved something that was already occuring. Is this actualy true or was she just nutty?

As far as I know, the reform was started by leadership because of necessity to modernize Soviet agriculture, when rapid industrialization was ongoing and the country needed lots of workers. As for local officials, they indeed often worked with ... unnecessary fervor, which needed to be cooled down. That was the reason of appearance of famous article in Pravda:
"Dizzy with success", by J. Stalin.

 

[red_elk]

delete

 

[Lone Wolf]

As for the Kulaks, it was they, not Stalin, who dealt the most decisive blow to agriculture: rather than surrender their cattle to be collectivized, they undertook to slaughter 2/3 of the entire cattle head count in the Soviet Union

I object to that. Are you, essentially, saying that the peasants starved themselves rather then collectivize? Or are you saying that the Kulaks were busy slaughtering the cattle of other peasants? Neither makes much sense.

The comparison between the Soviet famine of 1930'ies and the Irish famine of 1840'ies is fitting here. Both were exacerbated by government policies (same thing about Russian famines of the second half of XIX centuty, BTW).

The "deliberate genocide of Ukrainians" thesis is indeed bogus.

 

[warpus]

Stalin didn't want to wipe out the Ukrainians, but he probably did use repressive tactics to exacerbate the famine as part of his war on Ukrainian peasantry, and at the very least he knew full well he was undertaking policies that would result in an entirely preventable mass famine. So under modern definition he is indeed guilty of genocide. That's the consensus opinion among scholars (see below), as opposed to the fringe minority of Stalin apologists.

He wiped out as many members of the Polish intelligentia as he could, so wiping out other groups is not really that far fetched in terms of the desire or the means to do so..

 

[red_elk]

I object to that. Are you, essentially, saying that the peasants starved themselves rather then collectivize? Or are you saying that the Kulaks were busy slaughtering the cattle of other peasants? Neither makes much sense.

IIRC, many of them slaughtered their own cattle, instead of transferring it to kolkhozes. Thus they could get more meat and money for themselves, but such a massive slaughter country-wide was a disaster.

 

[Borachio]

He wiped out as many members of the Polish intelligentia as he could, so wiping out other groups is not really that far fetched in terms of the desire or the means to do so..

Let's not forget the Polish officer class.

 

[warpus]

Let's not forget the Polish officer class.

Oh, definitely.

Rebuilding Polish society in a way that would best benefit the Soviet Union was his main goal, really. That meant murdering those people who might be in a position to organize some sort of resistance, in this particular case...

 

[Lone Wolf]

IIRC, many of them slaughtered their own cattle, instead of transferring it to kolkhozes. Thus they could get more meat and money for themselves, but such a massive slaughter country-wide was a disaster.

Didn't they realize that they'll starve after the meat of the slaughtered cattle ends? They were certainly very silly!

He wiped out as many members of the Polish intelligentia as he could, so wiping out other groups is not really that far fetched in terms of the desire or the means to do so..

No more then the British desired to "wipe out" the Irish and the Indians. And that would require for Stalin to also decide to exterminate a large number of Russians as well.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Difference: Stalin didn't implement policies designed exclusively to exterminate an entire group of individuals.

Purge against the Jews he was planning before he died?

First, the number of deaths under Stalin were likely greatly exaggerated by at least an order of magnitude.

By whom? Khrushchev?

The US was hardly allied with the Khmer Rouge though.

After the Khmer Rouge was deposed by Vietnam in 1979, the US actually was allied to it, in the sense that it recognized it as the legal government of Cambodia, and not the non-socialist democratic government which replaced it.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Purge against the Jews he was planning before he died?

A myth based on rumours.
Mind you, late Stalinism was anti-semitic, it's just that there's no real evidence of a planned Jewish deportation.

The USSR, however, did engage in ethnic deportations against Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars etc.

By whom? Khrushchev?

Probably by Cold War propagandists.

 

[red_elk]

Didn't they realize that they'll starve after the meat of the slaughtered cattle ends? They were certainly very silly!

I guess they didn't. If one family decide to slaughter their cow, nothing bad usually happen, but if million of families do the same, there might be a trouble with agricultural sector after in a few years.

By whom? Khrushchev?

Khruschev, Western historians of Cold War time (they didn't have access to Soviet archives), dissent writers such as Solzhenitsyn.

 

[Virote_Considon]

A myth based on rumours.
Mind you, late Stalinism was anti-semitic, it's just that there's no real evidence of a planned Jewish deportation.

The USSR, however, did engage in ethnic deportations against Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars etc.

I'll take your word for it, though with the examples of the Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars etc, I still think it wasn't particularly unlikely.

We can all agree that he was murdered on the orders of the one man in the history of the Soviet Union who was worse than him, the monster serial rapist Beria, right?

Probably by Cold War propagandists.

Ah. So it was Khrushchev.

 

[luiz]

Ah. So it was Khrushchev.

Kruschev, Stanford historians, Amsterdam University historians, Cambridge historians, Russian historians, pretty much all serious historians / academics of the field...

It's all a great conspiracy!

 

[Lone Wolf]

I guess they didn't. If one family decide to slaughter their cow, nothing bad usually happen, but if million of families do the same, there might be a trouble with agricultural sector after in a few years.

So, 2/3 of Soviet cattle (Cheezy's number) was slaughtered that way? Sounds like something more widespread then the actions of a narrow, widely-hated caste the Kulaks are supposed to be, unless you're saying that the Kulaks possessed 2/3 of Soviet cattle in the end of 1920'ies. Which they didn't - see p. 145.

 

[Borachio]

I don't know whether this is true or not:

Other peasants were outraged by the idea that other people would use their tools/animals as common property; they often retaliated against the state by destroying their tools and killing the livestock. They would have to give their animals to the collectives, but the people could eat the meat; they could also conceal or sell both meat and hides. Many peasants chose to slaughter livestock rather than allow them to become common property. In the first two months of 1930, peasants killed millions of cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, and goats. Through this and a severe winter, a quarter of the nation’s livestock died. It was a greater loss than during the Civil War, and herds did not reach previous levels until the 1950s

link

 

[dutchfire]

Kruschev, Stanford historians, Amsterdam University historians, Cambridge historians, Russian historians, pretty much all serious historians / academics of the field...

It's all a great conspiracy!

Meh, the only good thing ever to come out of Amsterdam is the intercity train to Rotterdam.