5 ms·

This article makes no mention of the role the Wilson administration likely played in creating the famine to begin with. Following 1917, anglo-american support o

This article makes no mention of the role the Wilson administration likely played in creating the famine to begin with. Following 1917, anglo-american support of fascist paramilitary groups in Russia led to the bloodiest civil war in history.

adventured 9y ago
The articles makes no mention of it, because the famine was directly caused by Lenin's government forcibly removing farmers from their own land and taking state control of food production and distribution. The famine occured several years after the Russian civil war was already over. The Wilson Administration played no role in making Lenin and the nascent Communist system seize control of farm land, intentionally starve millions of people to death by stealing their food, and seize control of most food production and distribution.
- Demiurge 9y ago
  It was the Tsar who took control of the Russian farm yields in order to supply the WW1 army, with strong encouragement of the British/Entente.
  - adventured 9y ago
    It was directly caused by Lenin's prodrazvyorstka, and began formally in early 1919 and gradually spread to every form of food and food production over the following years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodrazvyorstka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodrazvyorstka
    - Demiurge 9y ago
      From the article you linked, "The term is commonly associated with war communism during the Russian Civil War when it was introduced by the Bolshevik government. However Bolsheviks borrowed the idea from the grain razvyorstka introduced in the Russian Empire during World War I, in 1916." The point being made that this has something to do with Lenin and communism "directly" is ignoring the context. The context is that this famine, as well as the revolution were caused by the extreme failures of the Tsarist rule, compounded with the pawn role Russian Empire was given in the World War I. Russian Empire was used a supplier of the Entente in both grain, and ground forces. You can perhaps blame Lenin for the famine, but Lenin has steered the country out of the World War, in which Russia would have been the loser, regardless of which side won.
      - gandhium 9y ago
        Lenin's prodrazvyorstka led to famine. Tsarist razvyorstka - didn't. Major difference. And why you think that Russia would have been the loser in WW1, is beyond me.
nnq 9y ago
Wait, so somebody actively tried to kill the scourge of communism in it womb, and you say it like it's a bad thing?! Maybe that civil war should've been bloodier, if only the other side could have won... it would have spared the rest of the world at least (hint: Eastern Europe) from the hideous ideology and politics that spread from Rusia and infested them and dragged them down for decades after decades.
- chepaslaaa 9y ago
  You realize that communism didn't drag Russia down but actually improved their quality of life from the reign of the Czars right? They were an unindustrialized starving shithole and became 2nd world power. Communism was far from perfect, but it was a step forward at least up until the mid 1950s.
  - literallycancer 9y ago
    Russia had an elected parliament since 1905. >You realize that communism didn't drag Russia down but actually improved their quality of life from the reign of the Czars right? Did it improve faster than it would have under democratic rule? And then there is the whole business with making half of Europe a 'starving shithole'.
    - nullymcnull 9y ago
      I'm going to assume that you are just reaching out for counterfacts without being particularly well-versed on the history here, because the Russian Duma was, from inception to the revolution, a very bad joke. It was only barely tolerated by Nicholas, and dissolved for years at a time whenever it tried to compel the autocracy toward meaningful reforms. That parliament has a very great deal to do with why events took the radical course they did - it effectively discredited everyone who tried to work within the system.
    - rospaya 9y ago
      > Did it improve faster than it would have under democratic rule? That wasn't an option for Russia at any point, as it isn't even today.
tpm 9y ago
The bloodiest civil war in history is probably the Taiping Rebellion.
- HumanDrivenDev 9y ago
  You're absolutely correct, it's the Taiping Rebellion by a fairly wide margin.
Fins 9y ago
Fascist paramilitaries in 1917 is rather creative reinterpretation of history. So is the idea that forces opposing the communist plague were any less legitimate than bolsheviks. Of all the participants in the civil war, bolsheviks were the least legitimate, anbd the most blood-thirsty.
HumanDrivenDev 9y ago
1. The famine occurred tens of thousands of kilometers from where US forces landed. 2. Fascism did not exist in 1917. The whites were extremely diverse, ranging from royalists to outright socialists. 3. The United States role in starting the Russian Civil war was minimal at beast. The main catalyst was the Bolshevik party seizing power a few months after losing the Russian Constituent Assembly election. 4. The Russian civil war likely had less deaths than the Chinese Civil War, and unquestionably less deaths than the Taiping Rebellion.
ericd 9y ago
It probably doesn't mention it because it's not true.

adventured 9y ago

The articles makes no mention of it, because the famine was directly caused by Lenin's government forcibly removing farmers from their own land and taking state control of food production and distribution. The famine occured several years after the Russian civil war was already over. The Wilson Administration played no role in making Lenin and the nascent Communist system seize control of farm land, intentionally starve millions of people to death by stealing their food, and seize control of most food production and distribution.

Demiurge 9y ago
It was the Tsar who took control of the Russian farm yields in order to supply the WW1 army, with strong encouragement of the British/Entente.
- adventured 9y ago
  It was directly caused by Lenin's prodrazvyorstka, and began formally in early 1919 and gradually spread to every form of food and food production over the following years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodrazvyorstka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodrazvyorstka
  - Demiurge 9y ago
    From the article you linked, "The term is commonly associated with war communism during the Russian Civil War when it was introduced by the Bolshevik government. However Bolsheviks borrowed the idea from the grain razvyorstka introduced in the Russian Empire during World War I, in 1916." The point being made that this has something to do with Lenin and communism "directly" is ignoring the context. The context is that this famine, as well as the revolution were caused by the extreme failures of the Tsarist rule, compounded with the pawn role Russian Empire was given in the World War I. Russian Empire was used a supplier of the Entente in both grain, and ground forces. You can perhaps blame Lenin for the famine, but Lenin has steered the country out of the World War, in which Russia would have been the loser, regardless of which side won.
    - gandhium 9y ago
      Lenin's prodrazvyorstka led to famine. Tsarist razvyorstka - didn't. Major difference. And why you think that Russia would have been the loser in WW1, is beyond me.

nnq 9y ago

Wait, so somebody actively tried to kill the scourge of communism in it womb, and you say it like it's a bad thing?! Maybe that civil war should've been bloodier, if only the other side could have won... it would have spared the rest of the world at least (hint: Eastern Europe) from the hideous ideology and politics that spread from Rusia and infested them and dragged them down for decades after decades.

chepaslaaa 9y ago
You realize that communism didn't drag Russia down but actually improved their quality of life from the reign of the Czars right? They were an unindustrialized starving shithole and became 2nd world power. Communism was far from perfect, but it was a step forward at least up until the mid 1950s.
- literallycancer 9y ago
  Russia had an elected parliament since 1905. >You realize that communism didn't drag Russia down but actually improved their quality of life from the reign of the Czars right? Did it improve faster than it would have under democratic rule? And then there is the whole business with making half of Europe a 'starving shithole'.
  - nullymcnull 9y ago
    I'm going to assume that you are just reaching out for counterfacts without being particularly well-versed on the history here, because the Russian Duma was, from inception to the revolution, a very bad joke. It was only barely tolerated by Nicholas, and dissolved for years at a time whenever it tried to compel the autocracy toward meaningful reforms. That parliament has a very great deal to do with why events took the radical course they did - it effectively discredited everyone who tried to work within the system.
  - rospaya 9y ago
    > Did it improve faster than it would have under democratic rule? That wasn't an option for Russia at any point, as it isn't even today.

tpm 9y ago

The bloodiest civil war in history is probably the Taiping Rebellion.

HumanDrivenDev 9y ago
You're absolutely correct, it's the Taiping Rebellion by a fairly wide margin.

Fins 9y ago

Fascist paramilitaries in 1917 is rather creative reinterpretation of history. So is the idea that forces opposing the communist plague were any less legitimate than bolsheviks. Of all the participants in the civil war, bolsheviks were the least legitimate, anbd the most blood-thirsty.

HumanDrivenDev 9y ago

1. The famine occurred tens of thousands of kilometers from where US forces landed. 2. Fascism did not exist in 1917. The whites were extremely diverse, ranging from royalists to outright socialists. 3. The United States role in starting the Russian Civil war was minimal at beast. The main catalyst was the Bolshevik party seizing power a few months after losing the Russian Constituent Assembly election. 4. The Russian civil war likely had less deaths than the Chinese Civil War, and unquestionably less deaths than the Taiping Rebellion.

ericd 9y ago

It probably doesn't mention it because it's not true.