Try reading the fufkkng post you stupid fuk. You get what you ask for and then you can't even reply to it. What a stunned **** you are lol
The Soviet Story - a must-see for all students of history
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Fuk you you little troll. You did everything but reply to the on topic part and then try to chastise me for being off topic. You really are fukking insane aren't you. lol Go ahead copy the words below and the expand on how it is 'right'.
1:18:40-1:19:00 for starters
40:00 Soviet help for the Nazi empire but not a peep about how the Western banks were financing them to the hilt
Still haven't answered the question. The small few seconds you mention in an hour and 20 min movie that you state is not true, without any proof to back up your assertion, then assertion is discounted and you still haven't answered the question.
I see, that once again, you are deflecting by bringing up what some other "organization" did. Doesn't matter what the western banks did or didn't do. This is about what the Soviets and Russians have done. Do try to keep that little pea brain of yours on track.
How's trying to minimize it, make sure you blame the right ones and so far the documentary is more than a little slanted.
Maybe you better investigate the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic as being the ones that caused the famine and deaths rather than it being a Russian inspired policy.
Collectivization in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your brain shoved up a gnats *** would be like putting a BB in a boxcar so my 'pea-sized brain' is functioning a lot better than you you fuking parrot. If Germany is buying lots of Soviet military equipment where did they get the money, the US and that would have been paid for via grain shipments to the West when their citizens would have been in line for that food. You think Stalin 'forced' those grain sales to the West? Prove it.
What'sthe matter Sparrow, don't like your established view of events to get questioned? You have my deepest sympathy for what you and yours went through, that doesn't mean you have the facts down pat.
Last edited:
There isn't a chance that it won't be a unique perspective, a very unique perspective.
(in part)
Let us leave to the future generations the answer to the question, whether the death of hundreds of thousands of people in various regions of the USSR, including Ukraine, as a result of compulsory deliveries of grain and selling it abroad, can be considered genocide
Until the last months of 1932 people in Ukraine, and in other regions, were dying because they were deprived of grain. In November 1932 they started dying because they were deprived of all other food. Our opponents usually give three arguments which disprove, as they believe, the thesis that Holodomor was a genocide. Firstly, people of all nationalities were dying of starvation in the Ukrainian countryside. Secondly, the Ukrainians were not persecuted because of their nationality. Thirdly, can famine be called genocide when Soviet authorities organized help on a large scale for the people of the Ukrainian SSR and Kuban in 1933?
The argument that people of different nationalities were dying in the Ukrainian countryside is not convincing. It does not answer the question why the number of famine victims in Ukraine and Kuban in 1933 was larger by an order of magnitude than in other regions of the European part of the USSR. The answer is simple: terror was aimed against rural areas of Ukraine in which not only Ukrainians lived. The fact that people of many nationalities were dying is understandable. Terror famine could not be targeted at specific people – it hit in a large area.
Other arguments have to be taken into consideration. Let us first focus on the thesis that the Ukrainians were not persecuted because of their nationality. In the United States congressional committee investigating the Holodomor witnesses were asked the same question: why was Stalin exterminating you? Because we are Ukrainian, they answered. How else could the peasants answer? This was the belief which became prevalent in the Ukrainian diaspora and which also became popular in Ukraine after 1991.
And who was Stalin really exterminating? American researcher of Ukrainian national communism, G. Meys, was the first scholar to say that Stalinist terror in Ukraine was targeted not against people of a certain nationality or a professional group but against the citizens of the Ukrainian State created in the period of the fall of the Russian Empire, which survived its own destruction and was revived as a Soviet state. The idea that Ukrainians were to be destroyed as a political factor and as a social organism and not an ethnic group was presented in Meys' report during the first scientific conference dedicated to the Holodomor organized in Montreal in 1983.[2]
As a result, in the early 1930 a colossal social outburst began to develop. Stalin was forced to give up the communes and restrict himself to artels, that is he allowed the peasants to have allotment gardens. Thinking that the kolkhozniks would make do with the crops from their allotment gardens he began taking practically all of the grain from the countryside. Peasants had no right to get any grain until they carried out the plan of compulsory deliveries, which were, in practice, unlimited. Grain found after the end of the purchase was considered hidden from record or stolen. Peasants did not want to work in the kolkhozes without pay and the state accused them of sabotage. Crisis of the kolkhoz system threatened to bring down the entire economy. In January 1933 the government was forced to change unlimited compulsory deliveries into flat-rate state purchase of grain on the conditions of a tax.
Our colleagues in the West understand the socio-economic causes of famine of 1932-1933 in the USSR, though not all of them, as we have already presented, understand the Stalinist politics of “rushing”. Most of them, however, underestimate the other side of the problem – the national one. For them a starving Ukrainian peasant is just a peasant and not a citizen of the Ukrainian Soviet state. They understand the Soviet Union as a union of lawless republics created by the so-called titular nation. But the USSR became such an entity only after the famine of 1932-1933 and the terror of 1937-1938. Before that the Soviet Union was a union of states.
Let us leave to the future generations the answer to the question, whether the death of hundreds of thousands of people in various regions of the USSR, including Ukraine, as a result of compulsory deliveries of grain and selling it abroad, can be considered genocide
Until the last months of 1932 people in Ukraine, and in other regions, were dying because they were deprived of grain. In November 1932 they started dying because they were deprived of all other food. Our opponents usually give three arguments which disprove, as they believe, the thesis that Holodomor was a genocide. Firstly, people of all nationalities were dying of starvation in the Ukrainian countryside. Secondly, the Ukrainians were not persecuted because of their nationality. Thirdly, can famine be called genocide when Soviet authorities organized help on a large scale for the people of the Ukrainian SSR and Kuban in 1933?
The argument that people of different nationalities were dying in the Ukrainian countryside is not convincing. It does not answer the question why the number of famine victims in Ukraine and Kuban in 1933 was larger by an order of magnitude than in other regions of the European part of the USSR. The answer is simple: terror was aimed against rural areas of Ukraine in which not only Ukrainians lived. The fact that people of many nationalities were dying is understandable. Terror famine could not be targeted at specific people – it hit in a large area.
Other arguments have to be taken into consideration. Let us first focus on the thesis that the Ukrainians were not persecuted because of their nationality. In the United States congressional committee investigating the Holodomor witnesses were asked the same question: why was Stalin exterminating you? Because we are Ukrainian, they answered. How else could the peasants answer? This was the belief which became prevalent in the Ukrainian diaspora and which also became popular in Ukraine after 1991.
And who was Stalin really exterminating? American researcher of Ukrainian national communism, G. Meys, was the first scholar to say that Stalinist terror in Ukraine was targeted not against people of a certain nationality or a professional group but against the citizens of the Ukrainian State created in the period of the fall of the Russian Empire, which survived its own destruction and was revived as a Soviet state. The idea that Ukrainians were to be destroyed as a political factor and as a social organism and not an ethnic group was presented in Meys' report during the first scientific conference dedicated to the Holodomor organized in Montreal in 1983.[2]
As a result, in the early 1930 a colossal social outburst began to develop. Stalin was forced to give up the communes and restrict himself to artels, that is he allowed the peasants to have allotment gardens. Thinking that the kolkhozniks would make do with the crops from their allotment gardens he began taking practically all of the grain from the countryside. Peasants had no right to get any grain until they carried out the plan of compulsory deliveries, which were, in practice, unlimited. Grain found after the end of the purchase was considered hidden from record or stolen. Peasants did not want to work in the kolkhozes without pay and the state accused them of sabotage. Crisis of the kolkhoz system threatened to bring down the entire economy. In January 1933 the government was forced to change unlimited compulsory deliveries into flat-rate state purchase of grain on the conditions of a tax.
Our colleagues in the West understand the socio-economic causes of famine of 1932-1933 in the USSR, though not all of them, as we have already presented, understand the Stalinist politics of “rushing”. Most of them, however, underestimate the other side of the problem – the national one. For them a starving Ukrainian peasant is just a peasant and not a citizen of the Ukrainian Soviet state. They understand the Soviet Union as a union of lawless republics created by the so-called titular nation. But the USSR became such an entity only after the famine of 1932-1933 and the terror of 1937-1938. Before that the Soviet Union was a union of states.
Nice start now kindly point them out.
Fuktard? I just watched the entire movie and there was absolutely no mention of Afghanistan or Iraq. The entire movie is about the USSR and Germany and their relationship during the 2nd world war.
You haven't watched this nor have you checked on any of the claims in it.
I don't give a crap about what you are saying about the US, Afghanistan, or Iraq. It has sweet fuk all to do with this film.
I repeat, where are the errors in the film? What mistakes have the producers made in claiming Soviet Russia as bad or worse than Nazi Germany?
I repeat my B. Bunny quote, "Ah, whatta maroon".
I was watching it again after skimming through it to find something about Afghanistan. If you want to comment then use the two time stamps I provided or did I just pull them out of thin air?
If they say the Soviets were selling arms to Germany how does that make them bad in that they weren't directing where Germany should use them. Not likely a nation is going to sell arms to a country so they cam be attacked by that same country.
If you don't like Russia go get Crimea back by way of a referendum, that'll show em who's the boss eh.
Why did the West get the grain, repayment for money lent? Who do you think will suffer again when the IMF wants the grain to pay the interest on the loan they float to what remains of the Ukraine? It certainly won't be the 3% that the West allows to live in luxury.
Let me guess, whatever I post from whatever source it is it is flawed if it doesn't jive with you conceived view of events. The last article isn't wiki related and it says the rulkers of the Ukraine gave the peasants a garden plot and that is how they were supposed to live, by growing their own food. When that wasn't enough they starved and died because all the grain that was grown was destined for the west by prearrangement. How did the west get the rights to the grain before the people of the Ukraine if it wasn't with the blessing of the Ukrainians who were the Government of the time? Were the people kept so poor that they couldn't buy any grain or was there no grain to buy at any price. If it is the latter then whoever was demanding the grain is the ones that caused the deaths, that isn't that hard to figure out. The question then becomes, why was the West entitled to the grain over the citizens?
Well, you are off topic. The film has fukall to do with Afghanistan or Iraq and everything to do with WW2.
Flatout bullsh|t. The film isn't about American, British, Chinese, Nigerian, or whatever other country had a hand in the relationship between the USSR and Germany in the few years before 1941. The film's about Soviet Communism and Soviet-German collaboration before 1941, so can your twists and contortions.
Then it is well short of a documentary about the USSR then.
The two timestamps, care to comment on the content or are rants all you know how to do?
I have no idea what film you are watching, but I checked your time stamps and Afghanistan and Iraq are not mentioned in the film shown in the OP.
And you call Gerry "insane". Unf'nreal.
Holy crap. WHat don't you get about the "Soviet Communism and Soviet-German collaboration before 1941" part.
WTF does that have to do with the discussion? I repeat, this is about the USSR and Germany in the few years before 1941.
That's immaterial to the topic.
Again, this is immaterial to the topic.
It's well short of a doc. about the entire history of the USSR but it doesn't claim to be. It claims to be about Soviet Communism and Soviet-German collaboration before 1941. Why the fuk can;t you get that through that f'n vacuum between your ears?
I did. Geeeez I've seen lead ingots less dense than you.
Don't be shy Gilbert just comment on what is in the film at those two mentioned times, not that hard of a task. (how many posts do you need to do before you latch onto that task? More like you never will, as usual with your troll like persona.)
I did.
Like I said a few times now, there is nothing in those time slots that has anything to do with what you were gibbering about.
The 40 minute mark commented upon the USSR supplying Hitler with oil, grain, construction supplies, and the like. Nothing about the USA, Iraq, or Afghanistan.
The period between 1:18 and 1:20 spoke of Russia applying the same actions to date that it practised pre 1941.
There's nothing there about Afghanistan or Iraq because they have dic kall to do with the topic film.
Last edited:
He can't. It's why he has continually avoided the original question I posed to him.
