AbuTahir @ Allah @lemm.ee

Posts

122

Comments

129

Joined

3 mo. ago

Moderating

---

i am just pro-peace, i think they should live peacefully there should be no violence or settlers, weather it's arab settlers in kurdistan or orthodox jewish in west bank or gaza, or balck or white in africa

i am guessing you stick to watching one prespective? i used to be that way but found out it leads to dogmatism and close minded thinking

isn't that ad homenim? also i thought it's wrong to generalize people

surely there must be some moderate beliefs between the two, from what i have seen there were in moderation

it was a critical analysis not promotion, i never praised that guy i was just talking about both prespectives

wait assuming i am using llms when did sam alt man engage in child sacrifice?

that was a quotation of zoomer historian i wrote

https://www.rferl.org/a/RFERL_Interview_Robert_Conquest_Genocide_Famine/1357449.html

"But it was a definite attack on them [Ukrainians] as they were discriminated against as far as death went." This phrase directly conveys the intent to destroy a group, which is the core of the genocide definition.

Snyder, Timothy. Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. Basic Books, 2010. (Snyder builds upon Conquest's work and largely affirms the genocidal intent).

Applebaum, Anne. Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine. Doubleday, 2017. (Applebaum extensively cites and acknowledges Conquest's pioneering role, and her own work comes to a similar conclusion regarding genocide).

Sysyn, Frank E. "Thirty Years of Research on the Holodomor: A Balance Sheet." East/West: Journal of Ukrainian Studies. (how Conquest's work held up to new evidence and his continued stance).

wait so he (Robert Conquest) never actually took back that the Holodomor was a genocide. He argued that Ukrainians were deliberately targeted in a way that led to their deaths.

His hesitation wasn't about whether it was a genocide, but more about the word "genocide" itself. He thought that it might be misunderstood or generalizeall Russians were guilty, which wasn't his point. He also thought it might overshadow the unique horror of what happened under the Soviet regime.

Even in his later work, he continued to use and discuss the term "genocide" when talking about the famine. this tells us his stance was more like a historian carefully choosing his words, even while holding firm to the terrible truth he uncovered.

While new archival information might have led to adjustments in specific factual details or statistical estimates (e.g., precise death tolls) in his original work, it did not fundamentally contradict his core conclusion that the Holodomor was a deliberate, man-made famine constituting genocide.

Robert Conquest never walked back his accusation of genocide. On the contrary, he consistently maintained that the Holodomor was a genocide, and he incorporated new archival evidence into subsequent editions and articles to strengthen his arguments, not retract them. He wrote prefaces to later editions of "The Harvest of Sorrow" (e.g., the 2004 edition) explicitly stating that the newly available archival data overwhelmingly confirmed his initial conclusions about the famine's artificial nature and its genocidal character. He continued to advocate for its recognition as genocide until his death in 2015.

Many historians argue that the declassified Soviet archives, far from contradicting Conquest's genocide claim, actually provided further evidence of the deliberate and punitive nature of the famine policies, including the sealing of borders, the "black boards" system, and the excessive grain requisitions, which disproportionately affected Ukraine. These documents often revealed the intent to crush peasant resistance and Ukrainian nationalism.

but what about Robert Conquest's "The Harvest of Sorrow" (1986)?

and

A significant body of historical research, widely accepted by many international scholars and governments (including the EU, USA, Canada, Australia, and many others), argues that the famine in Ukraine was deliberately exacerbated and directed against Ukrainians as a national group, constituting genocide

there was also :

Grain requisition quotas: Unrealistic and impossible grain quotas were imposed on Ukrainian farms, leading to the confiscation of all food and seeds. Internal blockades: Borders of the Ukrainian SSR were sealed to prevent starving peasants from seeking food elsewhere.

Blacklists (Black Boards): Villages that failed to meet quotas were put on "black boards," meaning all food supplies were cut off, and their inhabitants were left to starve. Suppression of aid: Soviet authorities actively suppressed information about the famine and refused international aid offers.

De-kulakization: The liquidation of "kulaks" (wealthier peasants), many of whom were ethnically Ukrainian, and the widespread deportations also contributed to the breakdown of agricultural production.

you say that

"In fact, only a few years after this famine, millions of Russians, as well as Central Asians and people of other ethnicities within the Soviet Union sacrificed their lives in the liberation of Ukraine from Nazi rule, which had a policy of genocide against the “slavic Untermenschen” under the “Hungerplan Öst”."

but this fact does not negate or disprove the Holodomor as a separate historical event or its genocidal nature.

and your next point

"On the contrary: during the Soviet Union, for the first time in history, Ukraine became its own republic, with Ukrainian representation, with the right to an education in Ukrainian in the Ukrainian-majority regions, and the region thrived industrially and economically (unlike it’s happened since 1990, reason why Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe after 30+ years of economic recession and stagnation)."

Ukraine did become a Soviet Socialist Republic. However, its "sovereignty" was largely nominal, subservient to Moscow's control.

The early Soviet policy of Ukrainization (1920s) did indeed promote Ukrainian language and culture, allowing for some national development. However, this policy was abruptly reversed in the early 1930s (coinciding with the Holodomor), leading to severe repression of Ukrainian intellectuals, cultural figures, and religious leaders.

While there was industrialization in the USSR, including Ukraine, it came at an immense human cost (e.g., forced labor, exploitation of resources, and the famine itself). The claim that Ukraine "thrived industrially and economically" during the period of collectivization and famine is disingenuous, as it ignores the massive human suffering and destruction of traditional Ukrainian society.

Ukraine's post-1990 economic struggles are complex and due to many factors (transition from communism, corruption, external influences, conflicts), but attributing them solely to "anti-Russian nationalism" or implying that Soviet rule was uniformly beneficial is a oversimplification.

i appreciate feedback , it seems this site doesn't censor stuff

good point

read this by Hussein Aboubakr Mansour