Was it acceptable to ally with Uncle Joe in WWII?

[Patroklos]

Roosevelt must have missed all that.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

@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?

In part, yes. As Red Elk has already noted, forced collectivization in particular was driven by local party functionaries. Stalin gave the general go-ahead for the idea, but no one at the top laid out a comprehensive program of just how to do it, and what the goals were. I can't said about de-Kulakization, but I do know that the Kulaks were identified as enemies of the people from a very early time, possibly even pre-Soviet (remembering that the USSR was founded in 1922), because during the initial decrees of the Petrograd Soviet, the kulaks, who already possessed more than the average peasant, undertook to accumulate more for themselves from the great landlord estates that were being seized and divided up amongst the peasantry, such as the Soviet had decreed was legal. It was this that defined the Kulak, not any sort of ancestry or ethnicity. It was thus that they were identified at the end of the decade to be dealt with, since the economic/agricultural situation had exacerbated the plight of those who had less. So in many ways, dekulakization was driven not by political functionaries, but by peasants who were angry at the Kulaks for having more than they did, and being more financially secure than they. But that doesn't mean the upper party echelons didn't have the Kulaks already in their crosshairs. It's a complicated situation.

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.

I don't think that constitutes genocide, especially considering they shipped food into the Ukraine during that period.

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

Hardly the same thing. Forced collectivization was driven by the necessity of finding a solution to their growing food problem (lol unintentional play on words); for them to decide to slaughter their cattle rather than allow them to be used to help people other than themselves, during a time of hunger, is indeed quite the morally reprehensible act.

I object to that.

It's entirely possible I misremembered the exact numbers. I don't have time to research a thesis paper while I'm running out the door to work. But the numbers were startling large and the effect of their loss catastrophic.

Are you, essentially, saying that the peasants starved themselves rather then collectivize?

Yes. Dekulakization en masse began after forced collectivization, and in some ways as a response to it.

Or are you saying that the Kulaks were busy slaughtering the cattle of other peasants? Neither makes much sense.

See below:

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

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).

I would not entirely dismiss this observation. But I do not think much could be done to help the situation by the Soviet government. At the time of these famines, they had no way of obtaining substantial grain from overseas, because they possessed no significant currency reserves - something they built later in the decade - and many countries that might have helped them did not diplomatically recognize them.

 

[King Kalmah]

My opinion on this has been made....

We (allies) sold Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union for their manpower...

Like Patton said about Moscow is true...

we had the troops and the tanks in place...we should have finished the job....

 

[Lone Wolf]

See below:

Which has a convenient "citation needed" in wiki.

for them to decide to slaughter their cattle rather than allow them to be used to help people other than themselves, during a time of hunger, is indeed quite the morally reprehensible act.

Alternatively, during the times of hunger peasants slaughtered their livestock for lack of fodder. Frankly, that makes more sense then them slaughtering their own cattle to spite the government.

And the lack of fodder was exacerbated by the Soviet government's incompetent and brutish collectivization policies in the first place.

But the numbers were startling large and the effect of their loss catastrophic.

Which, considering my numbers, means that the Kulaks weren't such a narrow, widely hated caste. The higher strata slaughtering their cattle just would not result in such catastrophic numbers. In fact, there's an argument that the term "Kulak" during the collectivization campaign lost any real content and just meant "peasant who resisted collectivization".

But I do not think much could be done to help the situation by the Soviet government. At the time of these famines, they had no way of obtaining substantial grain from overseas, because they possessed no significant currency reserves - something they built later in the decade - and many countries that might have helped them did not diplomatically recognize them.

The government continued to export food. Mind you, during the hunger year of 1932 they exported less then in previous ones, and completely stopping the export would result in serious financial problems, undermining the Soviet government's financial credibility.

See here, page 88:

Reductions or cessations of Soviet exports would have serious consequences... Failure to export would have threatened Soviet industrialization plans, and, according to some observers, the stability of the regime.

Still, it's something to keep in mind.

 

[Arwon]

Alright, so it's been acknowledged by pretty much everyone that siding with evil to fight evil is acceptable.

So then, why are people constantly bringing up the fact that we armed some people, to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, who later under Pakistani guidance created the Taliban?

Or that we sided with Pinochet during the cold war?

Or blah blah.

Yes, this was the entire point of this thread. Everyone acknowledges up to this point, it seems, that it is acceptable to get in bed with some pretty damned bad people when your nation's interests are best served by doing so. So why the change of tone when it is anyone the US had any dealings with after WWII that is in any way questionable of character?

The problem with the analogy there is that anyone who thought what they were doing was the equivalent of siding with the USSR against Nazi Germany and that there were no other options was actually either delusional, a liar, or really stupid. Particularly in the case of Pinochet.

 

[red_elk]

Also, you guys all know that the Russians don't open archives if they can help it, especially ones that might provide something exceptionally critical of them.

Sure, declassified documents about Katyn and hundreds of thousands executions of 1937-1938 didn't provide anything critical about Stalin's regime.

 

[r16]

thread has moved ahead somewhat since last ı was here , but ...

one thing that must be stressed is that the British Empire was spectacular in historical experience of what it could do to its opponents and ı don't think any of the Axis countries were planning to replace it as the dominant power in the world -yet . Can't say anything about Italy and Duce but Hitler wanted to get his Lebensraum in the East to stand up to the British for a second round in unspecified future -if necessary- and the Japanese attitude was exactly the same when they sailed for the "biggest land grab in history" . Dreams of world domination were not there , at least for the 1940s .

in contrast , American "defensive" attitude seems to be more in line with PR , like avoiding too much opposition from political field . B-29 was developed as the Hemisphere Defence weapon or something like that . Starting from 1938 and not because America suddenly found itself opposed by a sneaky Japanese attack that knocked out any possible basing options for more conventional bombers . Indeed it is the B-29 itself that drew the Japanese to extend that far across the whole Pasific as this special load , the single bomb could be expected to do terribly bad things , but this is getting ahead of the story , especially when it is better PR to portray the Manhattan Project as one necessary ingeniuty instead of straight industrial capacity -with bone crushing superiority . There had to be no available strips for the yet unbuilt B-29 , until the Japanese could have some of their own , of both ...

and this whole America built up the Taliban argument ... It would have been nice to come up with a direct link but it would actually enter an area where one needs to prove what he says . America looked the other way as Pakistan created Taliban , provided no hints that the likes of Hikmetyar should actually resist Molla Ömer instead of make believe opposition and join a week later - though Hikmetyar personally is "spectacular", as already noted in the thread . America kept Turkic areas of Afghanistan unprepared through typical Turkish middlemen who get people confused on whom they actually serve , America kept Ahmed Şah Mesud at arms length as number one to be removed from the scene -on charges of Mesud being pro-French or something ... America even sent local militias to Tora Bora while it was known Usame was running away up North , 'cause the ineffective action by the locals would stress the need for continued presence of American forces , instead of this whole train Afghans and leave . America could have been leaving Afghanistan in 2008 , with a fully working and still totally pro-American Goverment and population in place . Condi talked of denying poppy production , what of it lately ? Or is it really real that whenever Americans go , heroin cultivation "in scale" follows ? How come number one economy of the world can not find money for spywork that "creative methods" have to be used ? Surrounding Iran , destablizing Pakistan (in part to get India onboard as a leverage against Beijing ) , denying rare earths to China and else , check ... Finding Chinese nukes in the Pamir Mountains or locating clones of Adolf Hitler , check ???

 

[Patroklos]

Sure, declassified documents about Katyn and hundreds of thousands executions of 1937-1938 didn't provide anything critical about Stalin's regime.

Give me a call when they crack upon the files about NKVD executions at Stalingrad. Yeah, those are still closed. Probably because the relatives are still alive.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Which has a convenient "citation needed" in wiki.

Given the strikingly similar nature of the wording to that which my memory reproduced in my earlier post, I would say it has to come from Another View of Stalin by Ludo Martens. If I cared more, I would search R.W. Davies' books about that period on my shelf, since Luiz was already kind enough to cite his expertise on the issue. But since I'm already being labeled a mindless apologist because I don't accept the pop history written about this stuff, I'll leave you with the Martens, since I'm sure his numbers are fine.

Alternatively, during the times of hunger peasants slaughtered their livestock for lack of fodder. Frankly, that makes more sense then them slaughtering their own cattle to spite the government.

And the lack of fodder was exacerbated by the Soviet government's incompetent and brutish collectivization policies in the first place.

And what was the cause of the hunger before forced collectivization? That program was undertaken in large part as a response to a series of consecutive bad harvests, so to point to the collectivization campaign and say "look at how bad this made stuff!" is disingenuous, because the private farming that happened immediately before that period produced similarly bad harvests.

One thing that's never been explained to me is how collectivization magically means there's less food. All I've ever gotten is that standard capitalist "no reason to work for other people's benefit" gibberish; but I repeat my sentiment that such people [the practitioners, not the analysts] exhibit the epitome of selfishness, which should be a capital crime in a time of hunger.

Which, considering my numbers, means that the Kulaks weren't such a narrow, widely hated caste.

My Russian is not strong enough to be able to read your chart.

The higher strata slaughtering their cattle just would not result in such catastrophic numbers. In fact, there's an argument that the term "Kulak" during the collectivization campaign lost any real content and just meant "peasant who resisted collectivization".

"There's an argument" is a weasel word.

And yes, it would result in such numbers. You severely underestimate how much nutritional food cattle and livestock can provide. Or haven't you heard the stories about those poor collective farmers who had to obtain 90% of their food from their private plots and single cow and chicken coop, despite the fact that they lived on an enormous grain-growing enterprise?

The government continued to export food. Mind you, during the hunger year of 1932 they exported less then in previous ones, and completely stopping the export would result in serious financial problems, undermining the Soviet government's financial credibility.

See here, page 88:

Still, it's something to keep in mind.

As I said, they lacked the required foreign currency reserves to undertake such large purchasing overseas, but obtained it later in the decade. They obtained it by selling the only thing overseas markets would buy from them: food. It sucks, and it's a heart-rending decision to make, but industrialization was more important. Without it, they never would have withstood the imminent Second Foreign Intervention, and the revolution would be dead, along with probably far more of them than died in those years of hunger.

 

[Crezth]

we had the troops and the tanks in place...we should have finished the job....

Weren't US troops in Europe on the brink of mutiny at the war's end? Something tells me renewed hostilities would not go over so great, either at home or with the men on the ground.

 

[kochman]

You think that when the USSR allied with Nazi Germany and then divided and invaded Poland it would have sent a clear signal.

Then there was the invasion of the Baltic states by the USSR

Then there was the invasion of Finland by the USSR

Hint: The soviets like to invade and then annex countries.

What you are posting now (facts) is very inconvenient to the USSR/Stalin apologists... They were explaining the rainbows and butterflies that were in place.

 

[Lone Wolf]

My Russian is not strong enough to be able to read your chart.

I've translated them to rough percentages above in the thread. Too lazy to translate the table itself, though I will do it if you or someone else requests it.

And yes, it would result in such numbers. You severely underestimate how much nutritional food cattle and livestock can provide.

I meant "numbers of lost livestock", not hunger mortality of people.

because the private farming that happened immediately before that period produced similarly bad harvests.

Uhm? There were similar famines "immediately before" the collectivization drive? Or do you mean the famine of 1921 that was not immediately before collectivization and which was the result of wartime economic collapse (WWI + civil war)?

Or so you also mean that while the harvests were similarly bad, they didn't result in famine?

"There's an argument" is a weasel word.

So, who were the kulaks, then?

One thing that's never been explained to me is how collectivization magically means there's less food. All I've ever gotten is that standard capitalist "no reason to work for other people's benefit" gibberish;

Collectivization itself doesn't, but too much grain confiscation by the state in order to finance industrialization by selling that grain abroad (to which both you and me allude) does. The more food goes abroad, the less remains for the peasants and the cattle.

And if too much surplus grain collected by the peasantry is taken away and goes abroad - well, the peasants have no economic incentive to collect it.

Add to it undue haste, poor management, some over-optimistic Soviet estimation of mechanization (introducing of tractors to the kolkhozy) rates - and you have some problems on your hands.

They obtained it by selling the only thing overseas markets would buy from them: food. It sucks, and it's a heart-rending decision to make, but industrialization was more important.

The first sentence is true. I doubt that Stalin or some other Soviet bureaucrat was busy rending his heart over it, though.

 

[amadeus]

At the time of these famines, they had no way of obtaining substantial grain from overseas, because they possessed no significant currency reserves - something they built later in the decade - and many countries that might have helped them did not diplomatically recognize them.

Except the USSR in 1932 and 1933 was still a net exporter of food, most notably grain.

 

[kochman]

Except the USSR in 1932 and 1933 was still a net exporter of food, most notably grain.

More facts about the barbarous CCCP... this is tough for some to follow.

I guess they were still in the, "you want to make an omelette you have to crack a few million eggs mindset".

 

[Lone Wolf]

Except the USSR in 1932 and 1933 was still a net exporter of food, most notably grain.

Yes; see my link for reasons food export continued, though it was cut down as compared to previous years.

More facts about the barbarous CCCP... this is tough for some to follow.

However, net export of food during famine was not unique to USSR. See Civilized Capitalistic Britain.

 

[red_elk]

Give me a call when they crack upon the files about NKVD executions at Stalingrad. Yeah, those are still closed. Probably because the relatives are still alive.

I thought the documents on Katyn case and mass executions during purges were enough to disprove your thesis that "the Russians don't open archives if they can help it".

But ok. I honestly have no idea what "NKVD executions at Stalingrad" you are talking about. Can you give details about when it happened (year), who were executed, and for what reason, for me to find out something about it? About NKVD at Stalingrad, I know that NKVD battalion was the only military force in the city, when Germans broke through to it (along with air defense detachment, which was quickly crushed), and this battalion had to hold on until main Soviet forces arrived.

Or it is too much to ask, like for Kochman the question about historical books which he read on Winter War topic?

 

[kochman]

However, net export of food during famine was not unique to USSR. See Civilized Capitalistic Britain.

How many millions of people in the UK starved to death in the 20th century due to food exportation?

 

[tonberry]

Alright, so it's been acknowledged by pretty much everyone that siding with evil to fight evil is acceptable.

So then, why are people constantly bringing up the fact that we armed some people, to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, who later under Pakistani guidance created the Taliban?

Or that we sided with Pinochet during the cold war?

Or blah blah.

Yes, this was the entire point of this thread. Everyone acknowledges up to this point, it seems, that it is acceptable to get in bed with some pretty damned bad people when your nation's interests are best served by doing so. So why the change of tone when it is anyone the US had any dealings with after WWII that is in any way questionable of character?

Siding with the Soviet Union against the Axis is viewed as acceptable because the alternative could lead to a very dangerous situation (domination of Europe by Germany for example).

Siding with Pinochet is viewed as unacceptable, by some at least, because the alternative would not lead to a very dangerous situation.

Very few people justify the alliance with the Soviet Union by saying that Stalin wasn't so bad. They justify it by saying that Germany needed to be vanquished.

In order to justify the alliance with Pinochet using the same reasonning, you need to argue that the democratic governement of Allende was a mortal threat to the US.

 

[kochman]

Or it is too much to ask, like for Kochman the question about historical books which he read on Winter War topic?

Several books touch on this subject because of it's impact on WW2.
I really don't remember exactly which ones I read in the course of my decades of life...

 

[red_elk]

How many millions of people in the UK starved to death in the 20th century due to food exportation?

How many revolutions, civil wars and foreign invasions happened in UK in XX century?