Ukraine

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Jan 30, 2011
1,913
736
118
What ? Where did you get that idea ?
Where many other countries in Europe, among them some of our immediate neighbours, have openly socialist parties as members of parliament or government, the German left is mostly made up of very distinctly bourgeois Social Democratic parties, with actual worker parties being completely irrelevant. There's also just a general disregard for socialists and communists role both in terms of being victims in Nazi Germany as well as in terms of their role in the resistance against it. And the treatment of East Germany's history post annexation is a can of worms all on its own.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,661
633
118
The Left party has seen better and worse days. They also managed to nearly get into the gouvernment last election and have been gouverning in the Länder for decades.
But yes, they have many problems. Most of them from endless infighting. Surprisingly, now that Wagenknecht left to make her own thing, the membership number for the Left is on the rise again.
Still, looking at e.g. Britain, comparing Labor and SPD and Linke or CDU and Tories, i have a hard time coming to your conclusion.

But the most important thing is while the lefter parties are somewhat struggling, there is very little "dogmatic anticommunism" going around. Communists are not a boogie-man in Germany.

And not only did many Germans themself grow up in the Eastern block, they generally saw favorable towards the USSR for allowing the reunification and did regard the attempts to improve relations as very successful. They kinda even extended the sentiment to Russia later and defended Russia internationally for a long time. Of course now they feel betrayed.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,830
5,737
118
Country
United Kingdom
That the Sowjet Government deliberately denied aid to the Ukraine during the great famine to quell dissent there is a popular theory, but I don't think there's quite enough evidence to go on to tout it as fact. During that famine a lot of rural regions have been thrown under the bus to assure sufficient supplies for industrial centers, especially those deemed essential for defending the country against the imminent invasion. I know the German government has, fairly recently, acknowledged it as genocide but we're not exactly unbiased in that regard. Germany is probably still one of the most dogmatically anti-communist countries in the western hemisphere, next to the USA.
A lot of rural areas were indeed thrown under the bus at the time, but the fact remains that Ukraine was subject to stringent and extreme measures that other areas were not. It was uniquely targeted, and the distinctly enormous death toll there corresponds.

If not intentional, this would at the very least indicate a callous disregard for life in Ukraine that went far beyond elsewhere in the USSR.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,177
3,020
118
Country
United States of America
Are you denying that a famine occurred at all (as was the contemporary Soviet government line), or just that it was intentionally weaponised (the position the Soviets switched to after the outright denial became untenable)?
Motte

It did so on Holodomor Remembrance Day: marking the time the Soviet Union under Stalin weaponised mass starvation to crush Ukrainian aspirations of independence.
and Bailey.

The conflict in Ukraine at the time wasn't even about Ukrainian independence. It was about the wealthier owners of farms objecting to collectivization, and one way they did that was burning crops and slaughtering livestock. Whatever you believe happened, characterizing it as "weaponized mass starvation to crush Ukrainian aspirations of independence" is just eating the whole Nazi boot.
 
Last edited:

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,661
633
118
It was about the wealthier owners of farms objecting to collectivization, and one way they did that was burning crops and slaughtering livestock
The poorer farmers didn't like colllectivisation any better because they rightfully believed that just meant they basically lose everything and are at mercy of whoever eventually distributes or organizes the leftovers.
But overlall the "rich farmer" kulak thing was mostly for scapegoating. They never contributed in any significance to the problem.
 

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
1,946
1,407
118
Country
The Netherlands
Quite frankly I don't think it matters much whether the Holodomor was a genocide or an accident. The only reason Russia was even in a position to starve out Ukraine by design/incompetence was because they conquered it. Russia shouldn't have even been in a position to decide policy within Ukraine. The starvation was a direct result of the same deluded imperialism that still drives the Russian government to this day.

And generally speaking misrule, corruption and backwardness were hallmark of Russian governance in whatever region they conquered against the will of the people living there.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,376
2,033
118
The conflict in Ukraine at the time wasn't even about Ukrainian independence. It was about the wealthier owners of farms objecting to collectivization, and one way they did that was burning crops and slaughtering livestock. Whatever you believe happened, characterizing it as "weaponized mass starvation to crush Ukrainian aspirations of independence" is just eating the whole Nazi boot.
Well, no. The Ukrainian idea of independence was a thing, and the Soviet high command were well aware of that fact. After all, the Soviets spent several years violently removing Ukraine's independence around the end of WW1. Whilst you can fairly say that Ukrainian independence might not have been the top of Stalin's motivations at the time of the Holodomor, I don't think you can entirely ignore it either. For instance, in the 1930s the Soviets also became more repressive and restricted the local cultural activities of Soviet republics, plus purges, etc.

Thus the holodomor would be consistent with Stalin's other actions in the 1930s. This makes am accusation that the Holodomor was either deliberate, or that Stalin was in some way influenced to more readily let it happen, at minimum credible.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,830
5,737
118
Country
United Kingdom
The conflict in Ukraine at the time wasn't even about Ukrainian independence. It was about the wealthier owners of farms objecting to collectivization, and one way they did that was burning crops and slaughtering livestock. Whatever you believe happened, characterizing it as "weaponized mass starvation to crush Ukrainian aspirations of independence" is just eating the whole Nazi boot.
Ohhh, pretty interesting that you're including both the existence of the famine and the fact it was intentionally weaponised as the 'motte'-- easily defended and justified. Glad you agree on that point, and have at least not swallowed that particular Soviet denial.

FYI, if your sole gripe is the specific motivation for the government to intentionally drive 3+ million Ukrainians in starvation, that doesn't indicate a very morally robust position when leaping to their defence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CM156

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,177
3,020
118
Country
United States of America
Ohhh, pretty interesting that you're including both the existence of the famine and the fact it was intentionally weaponised as the 'motte'-- easily defended and justified. Glad you agree on that point
That is not how that works.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,830
5,737
118
Country
United Kingdom
That is not how that works.
Huh.

Stalin to Kaganovich said:
The main issue is now Ukraine. Matters in Ukraine are currently extremely bad. Bad from the standpoint of the Party line. [...] If we do not correct the situation in Ukraine immediately, we will lose Ukraine.
This followed those letters from Soviet officials in charge of Ukrainian collectivisation begging central leadership for famine relief. Looks like Stalin recognised there was a problem! So what was done? Something to relieve the mass starvation, surely?

...uhrm, an intensification of the transfer of food out of Ukraine, and a raft of repressive measures aimed at subsistence farmers (death penalty or 5-10 years incarceration for keeping small amounts of leftover grain after harvest, even if quotas were met), far beyond anything seen elsewhere in the USSR. Officials who had written to central leadership either transferred away, fired, or killed. Ukrainian language removed from public life by law.
 

Bedinsis

Elite Member
Legacy
Escapist +
May 29, 2014
1,392
676
118
Country
Sweden
Read an article today that argues it was Russia's fault that Nagorno-Karabakh experienced ethnic cleansing:


Also saw a YouTube video which was highly educational, at least to me, and which is looking ahead of what to expect once the war is over:

 

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
1,946
1,407
118
Country
The Netherlands
Somehow I think Seanchaidh would sing an entirely different tune had the US starved out Ukraine for the lulz.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,169
786
118
Country
United States



I am calling it. Ukraine has lost.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,830
5,737
118
Country
United Kingdom
I am calling it. Ukraine has lost.
What do you mean by 'losing' here? Full loss of the four districts claimed by Russia? Or inability to reclaim the territory currently occupied by the invader?

Dialling back offensive operations during winter just makes sense for both Russia and Ukraine because offensive operations become so much more costly and dangerous.
 
Last edited:

Elijin

Elite Muppet
Legacy
Feb 15, 2009
2,019
984
118
World History: engaging Russia in offensive combat during winter is a bad idea.

Ukraine shifts to a defensive position for winter: Oh no, they're on the defensive, they've lost!

🙄
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,169
786
118
Country
United States
What do you mean by 'losing' here? Full loss of the four districts claimed by Russia? Or inability to reclaim the territory currently occupied by the invader?

Dialling back offensive operations during winter just makes sense for both Russia and Ukraine because offensive operations become so much more costly and dangerous.
Ukraine has lost a lot of troops and the average age of their troops is around 40+.


We should have given them F-16Cs sooner.


Edit: I don't want to be right on this, but my brain is telling me that Ukraine has lost due to the 2024 elections likely stopping funding of their side of the war, and the high number of Ukrainian deaths from the conflict. We should have sent them F-15s and F-16s, and sooner.

Edit2:

 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,830
5,737
118
Country
United Kingdom