Alexander Finnegan J.D. Law, Marxist-LeninistUpdated Feb 20 Why does my friend of Ukrainian descent try to make me feel bad about the "Holodomor"? He even claims his grandparents almost starved to death under the order of Comrade Joseph Stalin.


1. First, be sympathetic. There was a Ukrainian Famine. It was bad. People did go hungry because food was scarce. These people did suffer. It makes no sense to say they didn’t.

2. From their perspective, they saw Soviet workers collecting all the grain, every drop. They were hungry and grain was being taken from them. Naturally they are going to wonder why. And there are kulaks telling them it is because Stalin is trying to starve them.

Some of the officials who collected the grain were acting under extreme stress given the conditions and could be brutal, sort of like American cops.

3. Ukrainian nationalists hate communism. There are even thousands who form militias to fight beside the Nazis.

4. The Ukraine and Russia have a long history of famines going back millennia. Under the Tsar, famines were a regular occurrence.

5. So why was the grain taken? Why every last drop? Because the famine extended far beyond the Ukraine. The grain was collected and centrally sorted to be rationed for all people, including those in cities and for the Red Army. Stalin faced a dilemma—the U.S. would not accept gold or currency for payment. It insisted on receiving grain as payment. Originally Stalin was for keeping the NEP, kulak based farming system of private production. But it became clear that this wouldn’t produce enough grain. So Stalin switched and endorsed the collectivization of agriculture. This was to be a more efficient system utilizing economies of scale and modern farming tractors and techniques. Stalin needed all the farmers he could get to produce grain, but at the same time needed people to move to the cities to work in the factories. Starving millions of people while he was desperately trying to collectivize and industrialize would be suicidal. Of course he wouldn’t do that, even from a selfish perspective. The kulaks who owned the land were hoarding grain and selling it on the black market while people were hungry. They intentionally left the grain to rot in the fields and sabotaged the harvest out of spite against the collectivization plans. They slaughtered half the livestock needed to farm.

6. So why industrialize so quickly? Because it became obvious to Stalin and others that another war was inevitable with Germany given the political conditions of the day. Stalin predicted another war in 1929, and he was absolutely correct. Had the Soviet Union not industrialized so quickly, the Germans would have won. And their plans were total extermination of the Soviet populace to make room for Aryans. The Hunger Plan was no joke. This was a war of survival, and Stalin had no time to play games.

Measures were taken to alleviate the famine by the government, and the relief measures were very serious:

This is a letter written by Stalin translated into English:

DOCUMENT 177

Letter from Stalin to Mikhail Sholokhov, May 3, I933, on sabotage by the grain growers of the Veshenskii raion

[HandwrittenI

Dear Comrade Sholokhov:

As you already know, all of your letters have been received. The help for which you are asking has been approved. To investigate the matter, I am sending Mr. Shkiriatov to the Veshenskii mion to see you. I earnestly request you to render him assistance. So that's that. But not all, Comrade Sholokhov. The problem is that your letters create a somewhat one-sided impression. I would like to write you a few words about that. I am thankful to you for your letters, as they reveal the open sores in party and Soviet work; they reveal how our officials, in their ardent desire to restrain the enemy, sometimes inadvertently beat up their friends and sink to the point of sadism.

Collectivization 397

But this does not mean, that I completely agree with you on everything. You see one side of the situation, and you do not see it too badly. But this is only one side of the matter. In order not to make political mistakes (your letters are not fiction, but outright politics), you must observe widely; you must be able to see things from both sides. The other side is that the esteemed grain growers of your region (and not only from your region) have conducted a "sit-down strike" (sabotage!) and were not against leaving workers and the Red Army without bread. The fact that this sabotage was peaceful and outwardly harmless (bloodless) does not change the fact that the esteemed grain growers actually carried on a "quiet" war against Soviet authority. A war of starvation, dear Comrade Sholokhov. Of course, this circumstance cannot to any degree justify those terrible acts that were allowed to happen, as you are convinced, by our officials. Those guilty of these terrible acts should be punished accordingly. But it is clear as day that these esteemed grain growers are not as innocent as they appear to be from a distance. Well, so long, shaking your hand

Yours

< J. Stalin May 5,1933[1]

Another is a resolution passed by the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Ukrainian Communist Party, November 27, 1932 concerning the harvest and measures to combat sabotage.

What does this mean? Does it mean I literally believe the standard narrative of: Joseph Stalin was a paranoid dictator who killed all of his enemies, engaged in Purges, killed the Old Bolsheviks to maintain his own power, purged the military, did show trials based on lies, and killed Trotsky because he was a genocidal maniac? Is that what I believe? Many think I operate based on the assumption of all the above, and that I agree with it. After all I have written and said, how could I believe that? It makes no sense. So either I am a troll or crazy. Could it be something else? Could it be that the above assumptions are untrue? Could it be that history is weaponized as propaganda for political purposes? Or is everything you read true? That is probably why we still believe Christopher Columbus was a great guy who never did anything wrong and discovered the New World, right? OK. If you believe that, there is a Ghost of Kiev I would like to sell you. Further Reading: Icon for Alexander Finnegan Alexander Finnegan How to NOT study history 1. History is not properly understood by grabbing one textbook, reading it, and then assuming you know what happened. Even worse, reading a Wikipedia article. Terrible idea. If you double check the citations on Wikipedia, you will find biases. This should not be surprising, considering Wikipedia is lit… Read more Read the above link first. Icon for Alexander Finnegan Alexander Finnegan Profile photo for Alexander Finnegan Alexander Finnegan · Wed What do you think of the ongoing Quora drama and outrage towards a prominent Quoran who calls himself a Marxist over his pro-Russia views in the Ukraine? I’m not as cartoonishly one dimensional as my detractors would suggest. Perhaps it is because English isn’t everyone’s first language, I often write answers where I have fun with the question asker, or I write things tongue-in-cheek. The one about the Butcher of Syria and my gleeful enthusiasm was done in a satirical manner. The whole “salt the fields” part should have tipped you off. Who does that? The playful nature of it should have been obvious. Or the “Atrocities monstrosities.” That was hilarious! Being playful with answers and language is what makes writing fun. Many of you ninnies are too easily offended. We live in apocalyptic times. If you cannot enjoy some dark humor, then what can you do? As for the Pol Pot one, I have explained it too many times. You simply aren’t engaging that in good faith or have poor reading comprehension. Sorry. There is one where I have Putin holding a sword, and you idiots screenshotted that one as serious, too. LOL. I laugh reading these, because I find it humorous that you are reading these and gloating about how insane I am. The thought of being incinerated makes me a bit nervous, so joking about it helps. If you think I want my children to be incinerated, you fools are really too full of yourselves to see past your own noses. Profile photo for Alexander Finnegan Alexander Finnegan · 10h What is your opinion of Alexander Finnegan? Some of you seem disappointed that I have chosen to critically support Russia over Ukraine. It’s okay. I forgive you for making the wrong choice. Nobody is perfect. You can still switch to Team Russia and support the elder statesman at the top of his game, Mr. Putin. Those who don’t like my sense of… drought according to productive areas vulnerable to droughts: Central (the Volga basin, North Caucasus and the Central Chernozem Region), Southern (Volga and Volga-Vyatka area, the Ural region, and Ukraine), and Eastern (steppe and forest-steppe belts in Western and Eastern Siberia, and Kazakhstan).” Source: Droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union - Wikipedia “Pre-1900 droughts and famines In the 17th century, Russia experienced the famine of 1601–1603, believed to be its worst as it may have killed 2 million people (1/3 of the population). Major famines include the Great Famine of 1315–17, which affected much of Europe including part of Russia as well as the Baltic states. The Nikonian chronicle, written between 1127 and 1303, recorded no less than eleven famine years during that period. One of the most serious crises before 1900 was the famine of 1891–92, which killed between 375,000 and 500,000 people, mainly due to famine-related diseases. Causes included a large Autumn drought resulting in crop failures. Attempts by the government to alleviate the situation generally failed which may have contributed to a lack of faith in the Czarist regime and later political instability. [List of post-1900 droughts and famines Starving woman, c. 1921 Three children who are dead from starvation, 1921 Starving children in 1922 The Golubev and Dronin report gives the following table of the major droughts in Russia between 1900 and 2000. Central: 1920, 1924, 1936, 1946, 1972, 1979, 1981, 1984. Southern: 1901, 1906, 1921, 1939, 1948, 1951, 1957, 1975, 1995. Eastern: 1911, 1931, 1963, 1965, 1991. 1900s The failed Revolution of 1905 likely distorted output and restricted food availability. 1910s During the Russian Revolution and following civil war there was a decline in total agricultural output. Measured in millions of tons the 1920 grain harvest was only 46.1, compared to 80.1 in 1913. By 1926 it had almost returned to pre-war levels reaching 76.8. 1920s The early 1920s saw a series of famines. The first famine in the USSR happened in 1921–1923 and garnered wide international attention. The most affected area being the Southeastern areas of European Russia (including Volga region, especially national republics of Idel-Ural, see 1921–22 famine in Tatarstan) and Ukraine. An estimated 16 million people may have been affected and up to 5 million died. Fridtjof Nansen was honored with the 1922 Nobel Peace Prize, in part for his work as High Commissioner for Relief In Russia. Other organizations that helped to combat the Soviet famine were International Save the Children Union and the International Committee of the Red Cross. When the Russian famine of 1921 broke out, the American Relief Administration's director in Europe, Walter Lyman Brown, began negotiating with Soviet deputy People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Maxim Litvinov, in Riga, Latvia. An agreement was reached on August 21, 1921, and an additional implementation agreement was signed by Brown and People's Commisar for Foreign Trade Leonid Krasin on December 30, 1921. The U.S. Congress appropriated $20,000,000 for relief under the Russian Famine Relief Act of late 1921. At its peak, the ARA employed 300 Americans, more than 120,000 Russians and fed 10.5 million people daily. Its Russian operations were headed by Col. William N. Haskell. The Medical Division of the ARA functioned from November 1921 to June 1923 and helped overcome the typhus epidemic then ravaging Russia. The ARA's famine relief operations ran in parallel with much smaller Mennonite, Jewish and Quaker famine relief operations in Russia. The ARA's operations in Russia were shut down on June 15, 1923, after it was discovered that Russia renewed the export of grain.” Source: Droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union - Wikipedia The famine in the Ukraine in 1932–1933 was caused by drought, higher birth rates prior to it, the urbanization of the population, deliberate sabotage, and other factors. In this photograph Soviet workers found grain hidden by kulaks. Many hid the grain to speculate on the grain market or to hold out for higher requisition prices. Meanwhile people in the cities were starving. “The Famine of 1932–33 affected population of at least three Soviet republics, not just Ukraine, and in the areas predominantly populated by ethnic Russians: Southern Russia North Kazakhstan (primarily populated by ethnic Russians) Central and Eastern Ukraine (primarily populated by ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking population).” Source: Serge Mavrodis Goebbels blamed Stalin for the famine, which was untrue. In fact Stalin ordered grain to be sent to alleviate the famine: “It is a matter of some significance that Cardinal Innitzer’s allegations of famine-genocide were widely promoted throughout the 1930s, not only by Hitler’s chief propagandist Goebbels, but also by American Fascists as well. It will be recalled that Hearst kicked off his famine campaign with a radio broadcast based mainly on material from Cardinal Innitzer’s “aid committee.” In Organized Anti-Semitism in America, the 1941 book exposing Nazi groups and activities in the pre-war United States, Donald Strong notes that American fascist leader Father Coughlin used Nazi propaganda material extensively. This included Nazi charges of “atrocities by Jew Communists” and verbatim portions of a Goebbels speech referring to Innitzer’s “appeal of July 1934, that millions of people were dying of hunger throughout the Soviet Union.” Tottle, Douglas. Fraud, Famine, and Fascism. Toronto: Progress Books,1987, p. 49-51″ Stop Spreading Nazi Propaganda: on Holodomor “This is Stalin urging the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine to take appropriate measures to prevent a crop failure. The Political Bureau believes that shortage of seed grain in Ukraine is many times worse than what was described in comrade Kosior’s telegram; therefore, the Political Bureau recommends the Central Committee of the Communist party of Ukraine to take all measures within its reach to prevent the threat of failing to sow [field crops] in Ukraine. Signed: Secretary of the Central Committee – J. STALIN From the Archive of the President of the Russian Federation. Fond 3, Record Series 40, File 80, Page 58. Excerpt from the protocol number of the meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party (Bolsheviks) “Regarding Measures to Prevent Failure to Sow in Ukraine, March 16th, 1932.” Stop Spreading Nazi Propaganda: on Holodomor “This is the response of Anna Louise Strong, an American journalist famous for reporting on the Soviet Union, to a question about the supposed genocide. QUESTION: Is it true that during 1932-33 several million people were allowed to starve to death in the Ukraine and North Caucasus because they were politically hostile to the Soviets? ANSWER: Not true. I visited several places in those regions during that period. There was a serious grain shortage in the 1932 harvest due chiefly to inefficiencies of the organizational period of the new large-scale mechanized farming among peasants unaccustomed to machines. To this was added sabotage by dispossessed kulaks, the leaving of the farms by 11 million workers who went to new industries, the cumulative effect of the world crisis in depressing the value of Soviet farm exports, and a drought in five basic grain regions in 1931. The harvest of 1932 was better than that of 1931 but was not all gathered; on account of overoptimistic promises from rural districts, Moscow discovered the actual situation only in December when a considerable amount of grain was under snow. Strong, Anna Louise. Searching Out the Soviets. New Republic: August 7, 1935, p. 356 Here is Strong again on the harvest of 1933. The conquest of bread was achieved that summer, a victory snatched from a great disaster. The 1933 harvest surpassed that of 1930, which till then had held the record. This time, the new record was made not by a burst of half-organized enthusiasm, but by growing efficiency and permanent organization … This nationwide cooperation beat the 1934 drought, securing a total crop for the USSR equal to the all-time high of 1933. Strong, Anna Louise. The Stalin Era. New York: Mainstream, 1956, p. 44-45 This is what a study of the Russian Archives led to. Recent evidence has indicated that part of the cause of the famine was an exceptionally low harvest in 1932, much lower than incorrect Soviet methods of calculation had suggested. The documents included here or published elsewhere do not yet support the claim that the famine was deliberately produced by confiscating the harvest, or that it was directed especially against the peasants of the Ukraine. Koenker and Bachman, Eds. Revelations from the Russian Archives. Washington: Library of Congress, 1997, p. 401 Another confirmation after a search of the Russian archives. In view of the importance of grain stocks to understanding the famine, we have searched Russian archives for evidence of Soviet planned and actual grain stocks in the early 1930s. Our main sources were the Politburo protocols, including the (“special files,” the highest secrecy level), and the papers of the agricultural collections committee Komzag, of the committee on commodity funds, and of Sovnarkom. The Sovnarkom records include telegrams and correspondence of Kuibyshev, who was head of Gosplan, head of Komzag and the committee on reserves, and one of the deputy chairs of Komzag at that time. We have not obtained access to the Politburo working papers in the Presidential Archive, to the files of the committee on reserves or to the relevant files in military archives. But we have found enough information to be confident that this very a high figure for grain stocks is wrong and that Stalin did not have under his control huge amounts of grain, which could easily have been used to eliminate the famine. Stalin, Grain Stocks and the Famine of 1932-1933 by R. W. Davies, M. B. Tauger, S.G. Wheatcroft.Slavic Review, Volume 54, Issue 3 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 642-657.” Stop Spreading Nazi Propaganda: on Holodomor The Holodomor Hoax: Joseph Stalin’s Crime That Never Took Place This newspaper was published by Hearst as part of his deal with Goebbels to promote the Nazis. Hearst was also a Nazi supporter. The photos were found to be from other famines, one of them 10 years earlier. The “reporting” was fabrication. Other reporters that actually looked into it report that while there was a famine it was not intentional. “The CIA believed that Ukrainian nationalism could be used as an efficient cold war weapon. While the Ukrainian nationalists provided Washington with valuable information about its Cold War rivals, the CIA in return was placing the nationalist veterans into positions of influence and authority, helping them to create semi-academic institutions or academic positions in existing universities. By using these formal and informal academic networks, the Ukrainian nationalists had been disseminating anti-Russian propaganda, creating myths and re-writing history at the same time whitewashing the wartime crimes of OUN-UPA. “In 1987 the film “Harvest of Despair” was made. It was the beginning of the ‘Holodomor’ movement. The film was entirely funded by Ukrainian nationalists, mainly in Canada. A Canadian scholar, Douglas Tottle(1), exposed the fact that the film took photographs from the 1921-22 ‘Volga famine’ and used them to illustrate the 1932-33 famine. Tottle later wrote a book, ‘Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard,‘ about the phony ‘Holodomor’ issue,” Professor Furr elaborated. “ The Holodomor Hoax: Joseph Stalin’s Crime That Never Took Place “In the last 15 years or so an enormous amount of new material on Stalin … has become available from Russian archives. I should make clear that as a historian I have a strong orientation to telling the truth about the past, no matter how uncomfortable or unpalatable the conclusions may be. … I don’t think there is a dilemma: you just tell the truth as you see it. (“Stalin’s Wars”, FPM February 12, 2007. At http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/35305.html ) The common or “mainstream” view of Stalin as a bloodthirsty tyrant is a product of two sources: Trotsky’s writings of the 1930s and Nikita Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech” to the XX Party Congress in February, 1956. This canonical history of the Stalin period – the version we have all learned — is completely false. We can see this now thanks mainly to two sets of archival discoveries: the gradual publication of thousands of archival documents from formerly secret Soviet archives since the end of the USSR in 1991; and the opening of the Leon Trotsky Archive at Harvard in 1980 and, secondarily, of the Trotsky Archive at the Hoover Institution (from where I have just returned). Khrushchev Lied In its impact on world history Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech” is the most influential speech of the 20th century. In it Khrushchev painted Stalin as a bloodthirsty tyrant guilty of a reign of terror lasting more than two decades. After the 22nd Party Congress of 1961, where Khrushchev and his men attacked Stalin with even more venom, many Soviet historians elaborated Khrushchev’s lies. These falsehoods were repeated by Cold War anticommunists like Robert Conquest. They also entered “left” discourse through the works of Trotskyists and anarchists and of “pro-Moscow” communists. Khrushchev’s lies were amplified during Mikhail Gorbachev’s and Boris Eltsin’s time by professional Soviet, then Russian, historians. Gorbachev orchestrated an avalanche of anticommunist falsehoods that provided the ideological smokescreen for the return to exploitative practices within the USSR and ultimately for the abandonment of socialist reforms and a return to predatory capitalism. During 2005-2006 I researched and wrote the book Khrushchev Lied. In my book I identify 61 accusations that Khrushchev made against either Stalin or, in a few cases, Beria. I then studied each one of them in the light of evidence available from former Soviet archives. To my own surprise I found that 60 of the 61 accusations are provably, demonstrably false. The fact that Khrushchev could falsify everything and get away with it for over 50 years suggests that we should look carefully at other supposed “crimes” of Stalin and of the USSR during his time. Trotsky’s ‘Amalgams’ From 1980 till the early 1990s Pierre Broué, the foremost Trotskyist historian of his day, and Arch Getty, a prominent American expert in Soviet history, discovered that Trotsky had lied, repeatedly and about many issues, in his public statements and writings in the 1930s. In my book Trotsky’s ‘Amalgams’ (2015) I discussed the implications of these lies by Trotsky and of some additional lies of his that I discovered myself. They completely invalidate the “Dewey Commission,” to whom Trotsky lied shamelessly and repeatedly, as well as Trotsky’s denials in the Red Book and elsewhere of the charges leveled against him in the First and Second Moscow Trials. Challenging the “Anti-Stalin Paradigm” I have not reached these conclusions out of any desire to “apologize” for – let alone “celebrate” — the policies of Stalin or the Soviet government. I believe these to be the only objective conclusions possible based on the available evidence. The conclusions I have reached about the history of the Soviet Union during the Stalin period are unacceptable to people who, like Proyect, are motivated by prior ideological commitments rather than by a determination to discover the truth “and let the chips fall where they will.” The “anti-Stalin paradigm” is hegemonic in the field of Soviet history, where it is literally “taboo” to question, let alone disprove as I do, the Trotsky-Khrushchev-Cold War falsehoods about Stalin and the Stalin period. Those in this field who do not cut their research to fit the Procrustean bed of the “anti-Stalin paradigm” will find it hard if not impossible to publish in “mainstream” journals and by academic publishers. I am fortunate: I teach English literature and do not need to publish in these “authoritative” but ideologically compromised vehicles. Those who, like Proyect, are motivated not to discover the truth but to shore up their ideological prejudices think that everybody must be doing likewise. Therefore Proyect argues not from evidence, but by guilt by association, name-dropping, insult, and lies. A few examples: Guilt by association: Proyect claims that I am “like” Roland Boer, Roger Annis, and Sigizmund Mironin. Name-dropping: Davies and Wheatcroft are well-known and disagree with Tauger, so – somehow – they are “the most authoritative,” “right” while Tauger is “wrong.” Insult: Tauger is complicit in “turning a victim into a criminal.” Proyect: “…it seems reasonable that Stalin was forced to unleash a brutal repression in the early 30s to prevent Hitler from invading Russia—or something like that.” In reality neither I nor Tauger say anything of the kind. Lies: Proyect quotes a passage from Tauger’s research about the Irish potato famine and then accuses Tauger of wanting to exculpate the British: “The British government responsible? No, we can’t have that.” But the very next sentence in Tauger’s article reads: “Without denying that the British government mishandled the crisis…” Proyect is a prisoner of the historical paradigm that controls his view of Soviet history. A few examples: * Proyect persists in using the term “Holodomor.” He does not inform Cp readers that Davies and Wheatcroft, whose work he recommends, reject both the term “Holodomor” and the concept in the very book Proyect recommends! * Proyect: “…no matter that Lenin called for his [Stalin’s] removal from party leadership from his death-bed.” But, thanks to careful research by Valentin Sakharov of Moscow State University, even “mainstream” researchers know that this note, like “Lenin’s Testament,” is probably a forgery: There is no stenographic original of the “Ilich letter about the [general] secretary.” In the journal of Lenin’s activities kept by the secretarial staff there is no mention of any such “Ilich letter.” … not a single source corroborates the content of the January 4 dictation. Also curious is the fact that Zinoviev had not been made privy to the “Ilich letter about the [general] secretary” in late May, along with the evaluations of six regime personnel. The new typescript emerged only in June. (Stephen Kotkin, Stalin 505) * Proyect: “Largely because of his bureaucratic control and the rapid influx of self-seeking elements into the party, Stalin could crush the opposition…” However, in his 1973 work Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution Stephen Cohen wrote: But machine politics alone did not account for Stalin’s triumph. … within this select oligarchy, Stalin’s bureaucratic power was considerably less imposing…. By April 1929, these influentials had chosen Stalin and formed his essential majority in the high leadership. They did so, it seems clear, less because of his bureaucratic power than because they preferred his leadership and politics. (327) * Proyect: “Stalin’s forced march did not discriminate between rich and poor peasants.” But in 1983 James Mace, a champion of the Ukrainian Nationalist fascist collaborators, wrote about the role of “committees of poor peasants,” komitety nezamozhnykh selian, in supporting collectivization. There is much other evidence of peasant support for collectivization. Conclusion Correctly understood, history is the attempt to use well-known methods of primary-source research in an objective manner, in order to arrive at accurate – truthful — statements about the past. Very often the result is disillusioning to those who cling to false ideological constructs, even when those constructs constitute the “mainstream” of politicized historiography. No one who does not try to discover the truth and then tell it without fear or favor, is worthy to be called a historian, regardless of how famous, honored, or “authoritative” he or she may appear to be. Distortions and lies about Soviet history of the Stalin period predominate everywhere, including Ukraine, Russia, and in the West. These lies mainly consist in repeating Trotskyist and Khrushchevite lies, in defiance or in willful ignorance of the primary-source evidence now available. The newly-available evidence from archival sources necessitates a complete rewriting of Soviet history of the Stalin period and a complete revision of Stalin’s own role. This exciting yet demanding prospect is of great importance to all who wish to learn from the errors, as well as from the successes, of the Bolsheviks, the pioneers of the communist movement of the 20th century.” Source: The Ukrainian Famine: Only Evidence Can Disclose the Truth After the collectivization of agriculture and the relocation of the kulaks the output of agriculture improved significantly. Prior to Stalin’s reforms farmers were using livestock and wooden plows on small plots. America was using more advanced methods at this time. Stalin brought in modern farm equipment and improved efficiency. But the climate of the Soviet Union and drought have plagued it forever. Thanks to Putin’s reforms and adopting the large agribusiness model Russia has had no food shortages. Stalin’s reforms had been such a boost that despite urbanization the average person in the Soviet Union had a higher calorie and more nutritious diet than the average American. AMERICAN AND SOVIET CITIZENS EAT ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF FOOD EACH DAY BUT “Why Kolkhoz or Collektivize or not Collektivize? Before 1918 Russian agriculture was in especially bad shape. Agriculture has suffered centuries of backwardness, primitive methods of work and excess labor. The caricature from approximately 1860: illustrates the main reason for the ineffectiveness — a mind breaking patchwork of tiny plots prevented the usage of mechanization. Almost all agricultural work was performed manually or by using the horse-drawn (sometimes human-drawn) plow. Mineral fertilizers (mostly imported) accounted for no more than 1.6 kg per sown hectare (exclusive for landowners and kulak households). Agricultural and livestock productivity was low (cereal harvest in 1909-18 was about 7.4 kg/ha(yield per hectare of cereals in Europe —2800kg/ha), the mean annual yield of milk from a cow -- about 1000 kg (15 000 kg in Israel kibbutz). Underdevelopment of the agriculture, their total dependence on the natural environment had caused frequent crop failures, mass death of livestock; in lean years famine covered millions of farms. Sokha - Wikipedia Soviet leaders, Stalin among them, decided that the only solution was to reorganize agriculture on the basis of large factory-type farms like some in the American Midwest, which were deliberately adopted as models. When sovkhozy or “Soviet farms” appeared to work well the Soviet leadership made the decision to collectivize agriculture. Contrary to anti-communist propaganda, most peasants accepted collectivization (emphasis added). Resistance was modest; acts of outright rebellion rare. By 1932 Soviet agriculture, including in the Ukrainian SSR, was largely collectivized. (ibid) Hence the answer to the title question cannot be other than collectivization in the USSR was a long time overdue action, not a blunder. II. Method Of course, it could be nice if Bolsheviks could mobilize an army of social workers in the US and entrust them with the task. Such an army would highly likely demonstrate an utmost politically correct way to perform that crash project of collectivization and make it in a colorful festival of happiness and goodwill. Alas, at that time the West was busy with the opposite -- to smash the newbie Soviet Union ASAP and be what. So the Bolsheviks many of them former poor villagers themselves used the methods which once the Empire used against them. The former day, about six, I visited Sennaya*. The peasant woman there by whip Was beaten, devil power. No any sound's heard from chest, The only scourge was whistling. Then to my Muse I said: "Look best - Here's your sister-sibling!" Nikolay Nekrasov 1848 Translation: Людмила 31 --- * Sennaya street in St.Petersburg BUT! The widely spread in the Western Sovietology allegation that the authorities killed 6-7 million during collectivization in 1929-1932 does not hold water. According to Viktor Zemskov, in 1930-1931 authorities did exile slightly more than 1.8 million so-called kulaks (mostly rich farmers and second-hand grain dealers). The fact is that since 1935, the fertility in the kulak settlements has become higher than mortality: 1932-1934 in kulak's settlement 49168 was born and 271367 died but in 1935-1940 the numbers changed to 181090 and 108154 respectively. Do you see that? 1.8 million (1.8%) exiled out of the 100 million-strong private peasantry. That was the price. To declare it Holodomor (Golodomor) is a shameless lie. The truth is that the famine of 1930 has had environmental causes, collectivization not one of them. True, the timing was bad. But was there an option to delay the project for a more suitable time? III. Timing. The industrialization of agriculture was a matter of life or death, no question of it. And there was not any other time to accomplish it before the Nazi invasion. A Triumph of Socialism The Soviet collectivization of agriculture is one of the greatest feats of social reform of the 20th century, if not the greatest of all, ranking with the “Green Revolution,” “miracle rice,” and the water-control undertakings in China and the USA. If Nobel Prizes were awarded for communist achievements, Soviet collectivization would be a top contender. The historical truth about the Soviet Union is unpalatable not only to Nazi collaborators but to anticommunists of all stripes. Many who consider themselves to be on the Left, such as Social-Democrats and Trotskyists, repeat the lies of the overt fascists and the openly pro-capitalist writers. Objective scholars of Soviet history like Mark B. Tauger , determined to tell the truth even when that truth is unpopular, are far too rare and often drowned out by the chorus of anticommunist falsifiers.” Source: Hersh Bortman, Hersh Bortman's answer to Why was collectivization in the USSR such a blunder? Photos of Collective Farming Sergey Bobyk's answer to Would it be accurate to say that the Soviet famine known as Holodomor targeted ethnic Ukrainians specifically? Further, the reaction of the kulaks to the collectivization is important to understand. This is from Cass Dean: “Only recently have the NKVD archives opened to researchers, and one thing found has been reports of agents who attended all the rallies by the anti-government peasants’ parties and movements, passing back the slogans, the mood of the crowds, etc. They chanted “Sow no seeds!” Their brilliant leadership told them the way to defeat taxes (in kind): If the government was going to take 30% of your harvest, plant 30% less. (How do you blame Stalin for that? He was very big on everyone getting at least a primary education.) At the center of the revelations will be Mark B. Tauger, a professor of history whose specialization is “the history of agriculture and its impact on the history of civilizations.” There’s a bibliography on his website. One thing every theory needs to take into account is that in 1933 there was a bumper harvest, brought in on the same land, by the same people, still newly collectivized, still with no draft animals, easily surpassing the supposed impossible quotas of 1932. It’s also interesting that nobody had heard of the holodomor until all the witnesses were dead. It was entirely a theory of OUN until they started putting money into publicizing it in the late 1980s, when the paid for the first book ever to be written on it. (They wrote most of it, too.) Things that were simply not true. There was very little grain exported. The quotas were not “impossible” to attain. The quotas were also lowered repeatedly when the local agents reported shortages. Huge amounts of grain were returned as aid. Since the archives have been opened, we have such hard evidence as the railway manifests of shipments. Things to be remembered. Russian agriculture had always been communal; it was not a great innovation. The grain was cut, taken to threshing yards to be beaten off the stems, stored centrally and milled in a single facility. At no time did peasants have grain in their homes or barns. Or fake graveyards. Any they took home in the normal way would go home as flour. So any peasants who had troops dragging grain out of their cellars or attics or barns were guilty of sabotage or theft, no question. Another thing nobody thinks about. The center requisitioned grain even when there was not enough to feed the locals. They took it to the cities, the mines, the armies, where there was NONE AT ALL. What is a government supposed to do in an emergency shortage? Gather all the supplies and ration. What the Soviet Union did was what has always been done and always will be, and only in one case has it ever been questioned. The core issue was who owned the grain? The peasant attitude seemed to be that while it was all very nice to have foresters, miners, roads, railways, sailmakers, telegraphs, merchants, blacksmiths, cartwrights, publishing houses, defense forces, a merchant marine, none of these external entities were entitled to food. If there was a surplus, fine, they could buy it. But if there was a shortage, the grain belonged to the tiller. “Stalin was convinced that stubborn peasants simply hide grain and forced confiscations.” This was true. It had happened before and it happened in the 30s. It wasn’t just Stalin being paranoid. The trouble was that just leaving the locality to rely on hidden grain, however much there was, meant the population was at the mercy of those who had hidden it, probably not the most merciful among them.” Source: Sergey Bobyk's answer to Would it be accurate to say that the Soviet famine known as Holodomor targeted ethnic Ukrainians specifically? comments section. The Ukraine was not the only area affected by famine. Dmitry Leontiev: “There was a famine in middle Asia. This famine was named after comrade Philip Goloshekin, who started confiscation campaign in Kazahkstan. 90% of cattle was killed because there was no food for them and this was one of the main reasons of famine in 1931–1933. I dunno how did communists achieved this, because there was plenty of food in steppes before collectivization.” Id. “An important additional consideration is that the locals hid important information that made the problem worse. Local leadership at this time run their turf more like a medieval barons. They get rewarded for hitting the targets (and more importantly been left alone) and investigated for failures. Investigation was likely to cost a place and a head and open a can of worms with likely irregularities, embezzlement and cronyism. In this situation they actively started to suppress an information to the central administration. By 1933 signals from the ground still managed to get to Kremlin and GPU (State security) had to investigate UNDER COVER OF EPIDEMIOLOGISTS. They did not trusted a local cadres at all and had to move undercover. Sound idiotic but its not. Below is actual documents from one of this reports from Ukraine. On a 5th March 1933. This is now declassified internal report regarding a Dnepro area with 35 rural districts in it. Total: starving 7291 families, dead 1814. It also mention an epidemic of malaria in areas close to Dnepro this year causing considerably death toll on already weakened population. Moscow realized that harvest failing and DECREASED grain tax on peasants as of 6th May 1932. Exports was cut off 4 times and some grain was even returned back. But it was all too late. Real harvest of 1932 was times worse off than usual but due to “estimates” based and widely falsified by local bosses numbers still hidden. Collapse in agriculture and lack of emergency grain stocks caused a dilemma between feeding the cities and countryside. There was already no good option left. Stalin was convinced that stubborn peasants simply hide grain and forced confiscations. So he tried to restrict a population movement by Army rightly fearing that influx of seriously pissed off and desperate millions to the central cities would likely to create an explosion he would not be able to control. Lessons of 1917 when Bread (or rather lack of it in capitals caused by intentional sabotage as country was overfilled in reality due to lack of exports for 3 years and exceptional harvest of 1916) was a direct trigger for fall of Empire was not wasted. Stalin was not willing to take a chances especially with even Party being split between Trotskysts and Stalinists. Problem was that if official harvest numbers would be correct (a big IF) than after collection of allocated grain tax peasants should still have a plenty left. But that meant to open up the falsifications of local administrations and likely execution for doing so. Result was that they dig the heels and in attempt to save an own hide to take a grain at all cost. But as reality of harvest was a lot worse, grain taken to feed the cities was not a surplus but a survival minimum for a peasants. Big issue was that growing cities and lacking yields created situation when a country could not really produce reliably a necessary amount of bread for itself. At the end Stalin sorted this problem on a minimal consumption level but growing population with increased affluence brought the same problem back in 1950s-1990s and eventually caused a collapse of USSR. Finally this 200 years old Russian nightmare got solved only now by Putin who finally managed impossible and turned country agriculture around for good.” Source: Sergey Bobyk's answer to Would it be accurate to say that the Soviet famine known as Holodomor targeted ethnic Ukrainians specifically? Putin’s Reforms “By 2005 one of the most dramatic changes in Russian agriculture was the emergence of externally owned and managed commercial farming operations that are exceptionally large, typically ranging between 10,000-250,000 hectares. The investment community had long considered Russian agriculture as the sector with the most risk, carrying a high potential for loss and a low return on investment. By 2005, however, investors from outside the agricultural sector had acquired control over farm assets and millions of hectares of farmland and had begun introducing organizational changes such as vertical integration, custom and contract farming, land leasing, and central machinery stations. Responding to real profit opportunities, these entrepreneurs brought with them the means to overcome market and institutional imperfections, as well as human and physical capital limitations. This new phenomenon of non-agricultural new agricultural operators (NAO) participating in farm production and decision-making and engaging in "value through risk" investment ran contrary to the common expectation of how Russian agriculture would evolve in the post-Soviet era. Rather than a vibrant family-farming sector, what was emerging was a kind of Russian latifundia, owned not by the nobility [as under the Czars] or the State [as under the Soviets] but by corporations that in many cases are not directly related to food and fiber production. The highest level of vertical integration exists in the domestic poultry industry, where the five leading companies control 24 former collectives and newly established farms, providing 35% of the national broiler output. In other subsectors of Russian agriculture the level of integration is much lower even though the overall presence of leading agribusiness companies in agriculture is high. For example, in the grain industry, six of the ten leading exporters have grain production operations. The decision-making structure of the mother company is typically rooted in an industrial, trading, or financial culture that emphasizes economies of scale, standardization, and top-down approaches. This managerial orientation is not particularly well-suited for agriculture. Consequently the potentially hugebenefits of centralization and economies of scale are offset by the inability to make timely, local decisions. When the holding company tries to increase local decision-making authority, it often increases the risk of resource misuse and theft. Yields improved mainly because of the rise of these "new operators" - large, vertically integrated enterprises that combine primary agriculture, processing, distribution, and sometimes retail sale. The most common types of farms in these countries are big corporate farms, most of which are the former State and collective farms of the Soviet period that remained largely unreformed even into the 2000s. The more dynamic new operators usually acquire a number of these corporate farms and improve them, as well as bring investment; superior technology, including the use of imported high-quality seed; and better management practices into the entire agro-food system. The new operators are especially interested in grain production because of the opportunities for profitable export.” Agriculture Policy - Putin 11.7K views110 upvotes11 shares15 comments Profile photo for Alexander Finnegan Alexander Finnegan Profile photo for Alexander Finnegan Alexander Finnegan · Apr 16 Was corruption a major problem in the Red Army in World War II? How was corruption handled? There were coup plotters who were conspiring against the Soviet Union. I am talking among generals, too. There were instances where the soldiers were sabotaging the war effort. And some generals, like Tukhachevsky, was a backstabber. He drank too much and opened his mouth at a party. Stalin eventually got word of it. He was tried, convicted, and given justice. Eight generals were involved. And it was a real planned conspiracy. If you look in the Wikipedia article, it references Simon Shitbag Montefiore. You have to watch out for him, because he does very sloppy work, and he has reproduced untrustworthy information and fobbed it off as authentic. His use of citations in many instances is shit. He is a very strong anti-communist and spins the facts and ignores important evidence every chance he gets. I like how the Wikipedia article doesn’t mention that Bukharin’s phone was tapped, and that Stalin actually knew what was going on. Tukhachevsky is painted as an innocent, sweet little angel in the Wikipedia version. This is misleading. And fucking untrue. Tukhachevsky was guilty as hell. But it is unlikely he would have initially admitted it. Was he forced into confession? Probably. Yezhov was in charged of the NKVD, and he was a maniac. Later Stalin replaced him because of his body count during the Great Purges was too high. Was this good? No. One unfortunate reality of Russian life during the time of the Tsars and during the Soviet times, police violence and secret police violence was normalized. Communism didn’t cause it. It already existed under the Tsar. But you never hear about that. Guess what? It still exists to some degree, now. Communism looks different around the world, as it is just one part of a culture and economic system. Latin American Marxism-Leninism is different from Soviet Marxism-Leninism. The FBI and CIA edit the Wikipedia articles, particularly in the communist related sections. Lovely. The source list on this one is a veritable orgy of anti-communist sources, especially Edvard Radvinsky. Donald Rayfield is a notorious Stalin hater. CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits There were lies which came later, claiming that he was actually innocent. These were fabrications. The problem with the Soviet Union was that after the Russian Civil War, it never really ended. It kind of simmered for several years. Then started heating up again. And the people in society were scared because of the growing armies of the other nations. Stalin purged the military end cleaned up the riff raff. The military generally: In 1930, ten per cent of the officer corps, i.e. 4500 military, were former Tsarist officers. During the purge of institutions in the fall of 1929, Unshlikht had not allowed a massive movement against the former Tsarist officers in the Army. . Ibid. , p. 317. These factors all show that bourgeois influence was still strong during the twenties and the thirties in the army, making it one of the least reliable parts of the socialist system. Plot? V. Likhachev was an officer in the Red Army in the Soviet Far East in 1937--1938. His book, Dal'nevostochnyi zagovor (Far-Eastern conspiracy), showed that there did in fact exist a large conspiracy within the army. . Getty, op. cit. , p. 255, n. 84. Journalist Alexander Werth wrote in his book Moscow 41 a chapter entitled, `Trial of Tukhachevsky'. He wrote: `I am also pretty sure that the purge in the Red Army had a great deal to do with Stalin's belief in an imminent war with Germany. What did Tukhachevsky stand for? People of the French Deuxieme Bureau told me long ago that Tukhachevsky was pro-German. And the Czechs told me the extraordinary story of Tukhachevsky's visit to Prague, when towards the end of the banquet --- he had got rather drunk --- he blurted out that an agreement with Hitler was the only hope for both Czechoslovakia and Russia. And he then proceeded to abuse Stalin. The Czechs did not fail to report this to the Kremlin, and that was the end of Tukhachevsky --- and of so many of his followers.' . Alexander Werth, quoted in Harpal Brar, Perestroika: The Complete Collapse of Revisionism (London: Harpal Brar, 1992), p. 161. The U.S. Ambassador Moscow, Joseph Davies, wrote his impressions on on June 28 and July 4, 1937: `(T)he best judgment seems to believe that in all probability there was a definite conspiracy in the making looking to a coup d'état by the army --- not necessarily anti-Stalin, but antipolitical and antiparty, and that Stalin struck with characteristic speed, boldness and strength.' Joseph Davies, op. cit. , p. 99. `Had a fine talk with Litvinov. I told him quite frankly the reactions in U.S. and western Europe to the purges; and to the executions of the Red Army generals; that it definitely was bad .... `Litvinov was very frank. He stated that they had to ``make sure'' through these purges that there was no treason left which could co-operate with Berlin or Tokyo; that someday the world would understand that what they had done was to protect the government from ``menacing treason.'' In fact, he said they were doing the whole world a service in protecting themselves against the menace of Hitler and Nazi world domination, and thereby preserving the Soviet Union strong as a bulwark against the Nazi threat. That the world would appreciate what a very great man Stalin was.' . Ibid. , p. 103. In 1937, Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov was working for the Central Commitee of the Bolshevik Party. A bourgeois nationalist, he had close ties to opposition leaders and with the Central Committee members from the Caucausus. In his book The Reign of Stalin, he regrets that Tukhachevsky did not seize power in 1937. He claims that early in 1937, after his trip to England, Tukhachevsky spoke to his superior officers as follows: `The great thing about His Britannic Majesty's Army is that there could not be a Scotland Yard agent at its head (allusion to the rôle played by state security in the USSR). As for cobblers (allusion to Stalin's father), they belong in the supply depots, and they don't need a Party card. The British don't talk readily about patriotism, because it seems to them natural to be simply British. There is no political ``line'' in Britain, right, left or centre; there is just British policy, which every peer and worker, every conservative and member of the Labour Party, every officer and soldier, is equally zealous in serving .... The British soldier is completely ignorant of Party history and production figures, but on the other hand he knows the geography of the world as well as he knows his own barracks .... The King is loaded with honours, but he has no personal power .... Two qualities are called for in an officer --- courage and professional competence.' . Alexander Uralov (Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov), The Reign of Stalin (Westport, Conn.: Hyperion Press, p. 1975), p. 50. Robert Coulondre was the French Ambassador to Moscow in 1936--1938. In his memoirs, he recalled the Terror of the French Revolution that crushed the aristocrats in 1792 and prepared the French people for war against the reactionary European states. At the time, the enemies of the French Revolution, particularly England and Russia, had interpreted the revolutionary terror as a precursor of the disintegration of the régime. In fact, the opposite was true. The same thing, Coulondre wrote, was taking place with the Soviet Revolution. `Soon after Tukhachevsky's arrest, the minister of Lithuania, who knew a number of Bolshevik leaders, told me that the marshal, upset by the brakes imposed by the Communist Party on the development of Russian military power, in particular of a sound organization of the army, had in fact become the head of a movement that wanted to strangle the Party and institute a military dictatorship .... `My correspondence can testify that I gave the ``Soviet terror'' its correct interpretation. It should not be concluded, I constantly wrote, that the régime is falling apart or that the Russian forces are tiring. It is in fact the opposite, the crisis of a country that is growing too quickly.' . Robert Coulondre, De Staline à Hitler: Souvenirs de deux ambassades, 1936--1939 (Paris: Hachette, 1950), pp. 182--184. Churchill wrote in his memoirs that Benes `had received an offer from Hitler to respect in all circumstances the integrity of Czechoslovakia in return for a guarantee that she would remain neutral in the event of a Franco-German war.' `In the autumn of 1936, a message from a high military source in Germany was conveyed to President Benes to the effect that if he wanted to take advantage of the Fuehrer's offer, he had better be quick, because events would shortly take place in Russia rendering any help he could give to Germany insignificant. `While Benes was pondering over this disturbing hint, he became aware that communications were passing through the Soviet Embassy in Prague between important personages in Russia and the German Government. This was a part of the so-called military and Old-Guard Communist conspiracy to overthrow Stalin and introduce a new régime based on a pro-German policy. President Benes lost no time in communicating all he could find out to Stalin. Thereafter there followed the merciless, but perhaps not needless, military and political purge in Soviet Russia .... `The Russian Army was purged of its pro-German elements at a heavy cost to its military efficiency. The bias of the Soviet Government was turned in a marked manner against Germany .... The situation was, of course, thoroughly understood by Hitler; but I am not aware that the British and French Governments were equally enlightened. To Mr. Chamberlain and the British and French General Staffs the purge of 1937 presented itself mainly as a tearing to pieces internally of the Russian Army, and a picture of the Soviet Union as riven asunder by ferocious hatreds and vengeance.' . Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War: The Gathering Storm (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1948), pp. 288--289. The Trotskyist Deutscher rarely missed an opportunity to denigrate and slander Stalin. However, despite the fact that he claimed that there was only an `imaginary conspiracy' as basis for the Moscow trials, he did have this to say about Tukhachevsky's execution: `(A)ll the non-Stalinist versions concur in the following: the generals did indeed plan a coup d'état .... The main part of the coup was to be a palace revolt in the Kremlin, culminating in the assassination of Stalin. A decisive military operation outside the Kremlin, an assault on the headquarters of the G.P.U., was also prepared. Tukhachevsky was the moving spirit of the conspiracy .... He was, indeed, the only man among all the military and civilian leaders of that time who showed in many respects a resemblance to the original Bonaparte and could have played the Russian First Consul. The chief political commissar of the army, Gamarnik, who later committed suicide, was initiated into the plot. General Yakir, the commander of Leningrad, was to secure the cooperation of his garrison. Generals Uberovich, commander of the western military district, Kork, commander of the Military Academy in Moscow, Primakow, Budienny's deputy in the command of the cavalry, and a few other generals were also in the plot.' . I. Deutscher, Stalin: A Political Biography, second edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 379. Deutscher, an important anti-Communist, even when he accepted the veracity of the Tukhachevsky plot, made sure that he underlined the `good intentions' of those who wanted `to save the army and the country from the insane terror of the purges' and he assured his readers that Tukhachevsky was in no way acting `in Germany's interest'. . Ibid. , p. x, n. 1. The Nazi Léon Degrelle, in a 1977 book, referred to Tukhachevsky in the following terms: `Who would have thought during the crimes of the Terror during the French Revolution that soon after a Bonaparte would come out and raise France up from the abyss with an iron fist? A few years later, and Bonaparte almost created the United Europe. `A Russian Bonaparte could also rise up. The young Marshal Tukhachevsky executed by Stalin on Benes' advice, was of the right stature in 1937.' . Louise Narvaez, Degrelle m'a dit, Postface by Degrelle (Brussels: Éditions du Baucens, 1977), pp. 360--361. On May 8, 1943, Göbbels noted in his journal some comments made by Hitler. They show that the Nazis perfectly understood the importance of taking advantage of opposition and defeatist currents within the Red Army. `The Führer explained one more time the Tukhachevsky case and stated that we erred completely at the time when we thought that Stalin had ruined the Red Army. The opposite is true: Stalin got rid of all the opposition circles within the army and thereby succeeded in making sure that there would no longer be any defeatist currents within that army .... `With respect to us, Stalin also has the advantage of not having any social opposition, since Bolshevism has eliminated it through the purges of the last twenty-five years .... Bolshevism has eliminated this danger in time and can henceforth focus all of its strength on its enemy.' . J. Göbbels, Tagebücher aus den Jahren 1942--1943, (Zurich, 1948), p. 322. Quoted in Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, La seconde guerre mondiale: caractères fondamentaux de la politique et de la stratégie, vol. 1, pp. 213--214. We also present Molotov's opinion. Apart from Kaganovich, Molotov was the only member of the Politburo in 1953 who never renounced his revolutionary past. During the 1980s, he recalled the situation in 1937, when the Purge started: `An atmosphere of extreme tension reigned during this period; it was necessary to act without mercy. I think that it was justified. If Tukhachevsky, Yakir, Rykov and Zinoviev had started up their opposition in wartime, there would have been an extremely difficult struggle; the number of victims would have been colossal. Colossal. The two sides would have been condemned to disaster. They had links that went right up to Hitler. That far. Trotsky had similar links, without doubt. Hitler was an adventurist, as was Trotsky, they had traits in common. And the rightists, Bukharin and Rykov, had links with them. And, of course, many of the military leaders.' . F. Chueva, Sto sorok besed s MOLOTOVYM (One hundred forty conversations with Molotov) (Moscow: Terra, 1991), p. 413. The Russian Civil War didn’t end The Russian Civil War never really ended. It just kind of simmered. The veterans from the Russian Civil War later infiltrated parts of the Communist Party and the military. Their loyalties weren’t to the Soviet Union. And the top military brass was also looking out for its own opportunities. I think it is just lovely the way Wikipedia consistently presents a narrative which is Trotskyist and anti-Stalin. Even when referring to Stalin’s own entry. Stay away from Wikipedia as your final source or you are going to read a lot of bullshit. Tukchachevksy and several generals turned out to be part of a coup plot against Stalin. The problem with some leftists is that they tend to be backstabbers. So purges are an essential part of survival. And despite the lies of Simon Shitbag Montefiore and their lies, Stalin had to purge the military. Hit Job on Stalin Look at this section of bullshit from Simon Shitbag Montefiore’s book, “Stalin: Court of the Red Tsar” The army had been the last force capable of stopping Stalin, reason enough for the destruction of its High Command. It is possible that the generals knew about Stalin’s record as an Okhrana double agent and had considered action. The usual explanation is that German disinformation persuaded Stalin that they were plotting a coup. Hitler’s spymaster, Heydrich, had concocted such evidence that was passed to Stalin by the well-meaning Czech President Beneš. But no German evidence was used at Tukhachevsky’s trial—nor was it necessary. Stalin needed neither Nazi disinformation nor mysterious Okhrana files to persuade him to destroy Tukhachevsky. After all, he had played with the idea as early as 1930, three years before Hitler took power. Furthermore, Stalin and his cronies were convinced that officers were to be distrusted and physically exterminated at the slightest suspicion. He reminisced to Voroshilov, in an undated note, about the officers arrested in the summer of 1918. “These officers,” he wrote, “we wanted to shoot en masse.” Nothing had changed.13 My analysis Yes, the army could have stopped Stalin. Isn’t that the point? That it was capable of doing a coup? But Shitbag here gives us the implied message “that bastard Stalin concocted evidence to frame these generals and destroy them.” Actually, Shitbag is ignoring evidence. Why? Because he is a fuck. Unlike Wikipedia, I personally own most of these goddamn books so I can check the endnotes and ring out the bullshit. Shitbag decides to just speculate and then draw his own bullshit conclusions. Watch out for scholars from the Hoover Institution. It is a shill outlet created originally by anti-communist “escaped” Eastern Europeans. Most of the modern communism haters like Anne Applebaum are members. Robert Conquest, the Godfather of Stalin Hate, and former British Intelligence Services paid propagandist was a member. Before he died, President Bush gave him a medal for spending his life shitting on communism. Conclusion Many Western scholars are anti-communists. Eight generals and other officers were purged. They were guilty as hell. It temporarily weakened the military, but it would have been worse if they weren’t purged, considering what they had planned. What is astounding to me is the amount of bullshit we hear from these so called “academics” and major Western writers. I suppose I shouldn’t be too shocked, considering the amount of lies they peddle in the news now. History is weaponized for propaganda purposes. Having lived awhile, I have a memory of some events that are now covered in history books. I remember 9/11 and the 2003 Iraq Invasion. The latter was a major bullshit oriented event, based on lies. So I remember how the narrative was built. They do that in history books, too. But the braindead set among us believe you can arbitrarily grab a history book or read on Wikipedia entry and be a Stalin scholar. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. Profile photo for Alexander Finnegan Alexander Finnegan U.S. petty bourgeoisie prefer Nazism over communism, historically. Nothing changes as fascism serves their class interests. Profile photo for Hoàng Phan Hoàng Phan · May 6 Which has a more negative opinion from the US, Nazi or Communist? One of the greatest lies we were fed was that the US was ever ideologically opposed to the Nazis. There were lots of Wall St firms/big corps (GM, Standard Oil) at the time that wielded major political influence who were financially linked to and did business with the Nazi regime. It was the US and it's allies in the West who supported Hitler for most of his career. The oligarchs of the West loved Hitler because he reigned in Germany's powerful workers. WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER There would have been no Hitler and no war in Europe if the US had not paid for it to destroy the Communist political threat sweeping across Europe in the wake of WW1. One team created Hitler and the other (USSR) killed him for us. error... inadvertently... The “German American Bund" searches on YouTube Do you know why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941? Because the US imposed a total trade embargo. And then an oil embargo. With the explicit aim of crushing Japan's economy. And ever after always claimed: “The Japanese attacked us for no reason whatsoever!” You might want to read up on StanVac Oil. TLDR the US didn't care about fascist Japan's invasion of China until it posed a threat to the UK-US-Dutch oil monopoly in Asia. US only fought Nazis because Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor forced Germany to declare war on US. US, in turn, was forced to respond by declaring war on Germany. Otherwise, US may have remained neutral. US corporations were given time & aid to leave Germany w/out interference. Let's also remember the US helped build up Imperial Japan to take over China and destroy Russia's influence Great Michael Parenti talk on the same theme: The Real Causes of World War II (1 of 2) Michael Parenti - The Real Causes of World War II (1 of 2) via @YouTube Not to mention all the Nazi-sympathizers among NYC's elite, e.g. Charles Lindbergh. Those in the upper echelons of US finance and national security wanted powerful Nazi figures returned to postwar power, to ensure Germany as a strong bulwark against the Soviet Union. Hitler in Hollywood | The New Yorker. Two great books about this era: "The Collaboration: Hollywood's Pact with Hitler" by Ben Urwand "Hollywood and Hitler: 1933-1939" by Thomas Doherty 1938 Henry Ford Receives the Grand Cross of German Eagle from Nazis Hitler’s American Friends: Henry Ford and Nazism It’s Time to Truly Face the Hatred of Henry Ford — Detroit Jewish News Ford and the Führer Ford's Anti-Semitism | American Experience | PBS Imagine this meme except for US companies Coca-Cola: https://www.thelocal.de/20170523/fanta-how-the-nazi-era-drink-became-the-world-famous-brand/amp Ford: Nazi documents reveal that Ford had links to Auschwitz “I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration” - Hitler (1933) Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm Especially the oil industry, who funds PragerU. From the world's most inaptly-named magazine (it's actually good though): Even the American press too: “Hitler’s model for his empire was America. He owed much of his study and implementation of concentration camps, so he claimed, to the study of U.S. and English history.“ HOW AMERICA'S HISTORY OF RACE BASED IMPERIALISM, SLAVERY AND GENOCIDE INSPIRED NAZI PLANS: AMERICAN GENOCIDE Also, American foundations bankrolled the development of German eugenics. And the Nazi eugenics practices were literally directly inspired by and derived from the work of US scientists while receiving funding from the likes of Rockefeller. Rockefeller Corp was into genetics. It started research of genetic modification in the 1920s, the aim already then was to take control over agriculture. So Rockefeller funded Nazi Germany's 'genetic research' 100%. See W.Engdahl Seeds of Destruction (book) - Wikipedia. For another instance, the Rockefeller foundation provided grants to The Keiser Wilhelm Institute who's director was the notorious Nazi Eugen Fisher. A squalid largely unknown history. Far from being the opposition, the US was literally the blueprint. IBM as well. They helped the Nazi to keep track of the Jewish people. Yes! IBM's cooperation with the Nazis is a prime example https://besacenter.org/ibm-holocaust/, literally helped the holocaust kill more efficiently IBM 'dealt directly with Holocaust organisers'. Capitalism never met a fascist it didn't want to sell weapons and supplies to. But also don't forget the American Ivy League universities. They were firing anti-Nazi professors from German departments right up until Kristallnacht. From Black Shirts and Reds https://eastsidemarxism.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/michael-parenti-blackshirts-and-reds-rational-fascism-and-the-overthrow-of-communism.pdf: You can learn more about this in the speech Fascism: The False Revolution which is on Soundcloud. List of companies involved in the Holocaust - Wikipedia For the complete economic story, I recommend the book, Wall Street and FDR: The True Story How Franklin D. Roosevelt Colluded with Corporate America (1975) by Anthony C. Sutton. Available free on Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Books, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine This was the original "conservatism isn’t popular what now" moment. And Americans don't learn about it because it makes elites look really f#cking bad. Technically, American corporations and business elites drove the USA into WW1 for money. They paid huge money on yellow journalism to call for wars and lend huge money to European empires. They also funded the rise of Hitler and Nazis. Henry Ford received a medal from Hitler, while they almost have the first successful military coup in history (Business Plot) by Wall St, conveniently swept under the rug of American history: the time the DuPont family (of DuPont Chemicals), along with a bunch of bankers at JP Morgan, plotted a fascist military coup against FDR bc they were mad at his economic policies. It was exposed, but everyone seemed to forget about it bc they all had a ton of money. The plot was in motion: they had the $$ to finance it, Remington Arms had agreed to supply the weapons. Smedley Butler, the general they'd approached to assemble a paramilitary force, was the one who blew the whistle on the entire plot. And they made a point of attempting to destroy Butler for not shutting up and just being their dictator. The media mocked him relentlessly and the allegations, doing the work to protect the monied. The most unsung American hero. These Wall Street millionaires literally plotted to overthrow the president Also check out the sources under "Learn More" in this short article: Gerald MacGuire and the Plot to Overthrow Franklin Roosevelt | Connecticut History | a CTHumanities Project Then rigged against nomination of Henry Wallace. DuPont Chemicals did so many other evil things, recommend the movie Dark Waters. There is also the documentary The Devil We Know- highly recommend. Friendly reminder that Dupont has already contaminated almost the entire human race with PFOA from the ubiquitous spread of Teflon products. It's in our blood now and there's nothing we can do about it. How DuPont may avoid paying to clean up a toxic "forever chemical". Don’t worry DuPont is now pushing “Inclusive capitalism”. 😂. What’s pathetic is how buried this piece of history is among Americans. You bring up this fact of US history in some circles and people will say that it’s a hoax. “hahaha no no this is just a hobby of ours, fascism and overthrowing the government etc” Anyway back to the matter at hand, also involved in the plot were former NY governor/1928 Dem pres nominee Al Smith and banker/future Connecticut senator/father to George H. W. Bush/grandfather to George W. Bush Prescott Bush. He was the one who funneled all the money. A man created a bank for Nazi gold, who would go on to have a US President son, a US President grandson, and a state Governor grandson. “But these things are likely completely unrelated” 😬 https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2007/07/02/did-the-bush-family-fund-adolf-hitler-and-the-nazi-party/ How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power Wall Street's Failed 1934 Coup - CounterPunch.org YouTube: Maj Gen Smedley Butler Exposes Americas Fascist Coup of 1934 No one was called for testimony, and no one was ever punished. Anyway read The Devil's Chessboard! It's about the origins of the CIA and it's all these people plus a bunch of Nazis. That doc series is so good! From the business plot up to killing JFK and then getting owned by Castro (which is delightful). Absolutely insane history. Seems also appropriate to point out that the Nazis studied US Jim Crow and immigration laws when forming the blueprint for their own Nuremberg laws. The Nazis and the US were/are more ideologically aligned than most people understand. From the Prussian Memorandum, the doc that served as the blueprint for the 1935 Nuremberg Laws, notice how the Nazis 1. drew inspiration from US Jim Crow law at the time & 2. found them too harsh to be adopted wholesale (in that they criminalize public AND private interactions) Vital to note it was American eugenics program & Jim Crow that laid the foundation for Hitler's plan & featured prominently in Mein Kampf. Not only did the Nazis draw inspiration from Jim Crow, they also studied US immigration laws. Here, eminent Nazi public lawyer Otto Koellreutter observes how Nazis should take note of the way US guards itself from “inferior elements” thru immigration bans and quotas. Nazi lawmakers debated the practicality of race-based legislation, given the elusive nature of who even qualified as Jewish. In response, Nazi lawyer Roland Freisler turned to the US, which managed to implement a racial legal system despite race having little scientific basis. This is actually from a book called Hitler's American Model Hitler's American Model. Basically about how the Nazis used America as a model for racism and "race science". Here's an article about it from The New Yorker. How American Racism Influenced Hitler Sounds familiar? Red scare and yellow peril: challenging the New McCarthyism - Invent the Future Time to bring out the "the nazis are beating us at out own game" quote It should be noted that the Nazis adopted the groundwork developed by the Kaiser's Prussian rule (that Trump mimics) and the WW1 German agents who saw the racial divide along the US-Mexican border during The Great Phenol Plot (they aided both sides during the US-Mexican Border Wars). Not to mention Operation Paperclip - Wikipedia and how American built both NASA and their bioweapons programs under Nazi scientist's leadership. There's a crucial book about that should you want to be disabused of any notions as to American idealism: Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program that Brought Nazi Scientists to America Doubtless cooperation between CIA's Allen Dulles and Nazi Reinhard Gehlen set the stage for this, LOL. A New Biography Traces the Pathology of Allen Dulles and His Appalling Cabal Our Hidden History on Twitter When Nazi officials visited the US to learn more about US immigration and racial policies New Yorkers demonstrated at their hotel - love NYC! YouTube: In 1939 the Nazis Held a Rally at Madison Square Garden | Topic When Nazis Took Manhattan From The Atlantic: 'Nearly 1,000 uniformed men wearing swastika arm bands and carrying Nazi banners parade past a reviewing stand in New Jersey on July 18, 1937.' And yet the Democrats, under president Woodrow Wilson, sided with Nazi Germany to help the Chinese fight the Japanese. Oh second picture is also NYC.  There’s a reason why White Supremacist is a BIG problem in the U.S today Let’s remember that the only 16 years of peace USA has enjoyed in its existance, most of those happened while the Nazis burned half of Europe. Ironically many were besties with them before that: Except Germany has changed since then the US hasn't. AmeriKKKa! Most are blissfully unaware of how embedded fascism is in the West, especially the US today: High profile Nazi’s and war criminals were given positions of power throughout the worlds institutions. NATO’s Nazi Beginnings: How the West implemented Hitler's goals, by Robert S. Rodvik As the great George Carlin noted, “Germany lost the war, fascism won”. Truth be told l, America has always been fascist. Just look at what's happening today: Jimmy Dore on Twitter The United Nations found that Pompeo's sanctions “disproportionately affect the poor and most vulnerable” in Venezuela, with one (American) UN Rapporteur accusing him of "crimes against humanity" and estimating his sanctions cost over 100,000 Venezuelan lives. Even reporter from VOA (U.S propaganda machine) who challenged Pompeo was also punished and reassigned. That tells a lot of what VOA is and very much what a hypocrite Pompeo is after “We lie, We cheat and We steal” for so long. Voice Of America White House Reporter Reassigned After Questioning Pompeo. Last year the guy investigating him got fired too. Steve Linick: State Department official investigating Pompeo is fired. It is beyond the freedom of speech. The U.S is corrupted to the core. Rania Khalek on Twitter The theory of George Jackson notes how fascism was baked into the structure of america since the beginning. Fascism is imperialism turned inwards The so called bourgeois “democracy” in the US is only allowed as a cover for the true political power, finance capital. As the rate of profit declines, the state reveals its true nature and any illusion of liberal democracy will be swept away for the sake of profit. America is a post-fascist state. MR Online | Prisoner prophet: revisiting George Jackson’s analysis of systemic fascism Human Rights Watch Watcher on Twitter The person who wrote this was a professor at Standford University, lol https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-long-run-wars-make-us-safer-and-richer/2014/04/25/a4207660-c965-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html Meanwhile, US backs al-Qaeda in Yemen while dubbing its Houthi enemies 'terrorists' | The Grayzone Not to mention literally funded the creation and continuous subsidies of a fascist state: Let’s also remember that the Dixie Chicks legit weren’t heard from again for like a decade after saying Bush sucked. Funny, eh? Update: Astonishing details are accumulating each day There will be more US troops in DC for Biden's inauguration than in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, a stark reminder of the danger of homegrown extremism Air BnB has canceled all bookings in Washington DC; Delta Airlines has banned inbound passengers from carrying guns in their check-in luggage; and the National Guard have been warned of IED threats - the very same *improvised explosive devices* that killed so many US troops on the roads of Iraq: National Guardsmen briefed on IED threat to Capitol But this is all a political show of force, a facade: Rania Khalek on Twitter A new report finds that 200+ militia pages and groups were active on the platform as of March 8 — despite promises from Facebook leadership to crack down on extremism after militias played a key role in leading the violence at the Capitol on January 6th. Hundreds Of Far-Right Militias Are Still Organizing, Recruiting, And Promoting Violence On Facebook In the past many Americans might have said "I don't recognize my country any more" - but now it seems this was the real America all along. Profile photo for Alexander Finnegan Alexander Finnegan · Feb 20 Why does my friend of Ukrainian descent try to make me feel bad about the "Holodomor"? He even claims his grandparents almost starved to death under the order of Comrade Joseph Stalin. 1. First, be sympathetic. There was a Ukrainian Famine. It was bad. People did go hungry because food was scarce. These people did suffer. It makes no sense to say they didn’t. 2. From their perspective, they saw Soviet workers collecting all the grain, every drop. They were hungry and grain was bein… Read more The "Bloc" of the Oppositions against Stalin (January 1980) MIA > Archive > Broué Pierre Broué The “Bloc” of the Oppositions against Stalin in the USSR in 1932 (January 1980) From Revolutionary History , Vol. 9 No. 4 , 2008, pp.161–189 ( Appendix , pp. 189–192). Originally published in Cahiers Léon Trotsky , no. 5, January-March 1980. Translated by the John Archer. Transcribed by Alun Morgan for the Revolutionary History Website . Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive . Pierre Broué’s Bloc of The Oppositions first appeared in the Cahiers Léon Trotsky , no. 5, January–March 1980. It was significant for a number of reasons. First, the article not only reinforced our awareness of the degree of opposition to Stalin in what for him was the troubled year of 1932 but emphasized its aspiration to unity. Second, Broué documented for the first time that links existed between Trotsky and non-Trotskyist opposition groups inside the Soviet Union. Third, he was able to demonstrate that the later terror had its roots in earlier difficulties: the charges in the Trial of the Sixteen in 1936 were not simply pathological inventions but had some rational basis in the events of 1932. Fourth, the research undertaken by Broué and his team from Grenoble at Harvard confirmed the necessity for continuing archival research. Isaac Deutscher had earlier worked in the closed archive but The Prophet Outcast, while referring to Trotsky correspondence at this time, makes no reference to these matters. The episode is further discussed in J. Arch Getty, Origins of the Great Purges (Cambridge 1985), pp. 119–123; P. Broué, Party Opposition to Stalin (1930–1932) and the First Moscow Trial in ??, Essays in Revolutionary Culture and Stalinism (1985); P. Broué, Trotsky (Paris 1988), pp. 700–712; P. Broué, Histoire d L’Internationale Communiste, 1991–1943 (Paris 1997), pp. 591–594; V.Z. Rogovin, 1 937: Stalin’s Year of Terror (1998), pp. 60–66. See also R.W. Thurston, Life and Terror in Stalin’s Russia (New Haven 1996), pp. 25–26 and M. Jansen and N. Petrov, Stalin’s Loyal Executioner: People’s Commissar Nickolai Yezhov, 1895–1940 (Stanford 2002), pp. 44–49. The opening of the Russian archives witnessed increasing interest in Ryutin and publication of his platform and documents: see, for example, B. Starkov, Trotsky and Ryutin: from the history of the anti-Stalin resistance in the 1930s in T. Brotherstone and P. Dukes, eds. , The Trotsky Reappraisal (Edinburgh 1992). There is a brief discussion of the Riutin circle in I. Kershaw and M. Lewin, Stalinism and Nazism: Dictatorships in Comparison (Cambridge 1997), pp. 40–44, where the Russian language literature is cited. Also worth consulting is R.W. Davies, The Syrtsov-Lominadze Affair , Soviet Studies , 1, 1981. Broué needs no introduction to many of our readers: he is the doyen of contemporary historians of Trotskyism. Founder of the Cahiers Léon Trotsky , he is President of the Leon Trotsky Institute at Grenoble where he was for many years Professor of Contemporary His https://www.marxists.org/archive/broue/1980/01/bloc.html