3 ms·

>Just FYI, it was not a systematic starvation program, it was a systematic food export program. And it was not target at Ukraine, but was applied in much the sa

>Just FYI, it was not a systematic starvation program, it was a systematic food export program. And it was not target at Ukraine, but was applied in much the same way all over the Soviet Union. Food production was initially fine. After USSR central planning shenanigans shaking things up production was less. Those crops were then allocated away from Ukraine because they were last in line to be fed and first in line to starve for political reasons. Whether that constitutes "systemic starvation" or just "normal starvation" is pretty much an exercise in taxonomy because the fact of the matter is that intentional decisions by the people in charge are what lead to the problem.

panick21_ 5y ago
What matter to the top people at the government was not total production, but rather total share of production controlled by the government. They didn't not care if total production went down. > intentional decisions by the people in charge are what lead to the problem And I am not denying that. What I am arguing against is the claim that this was ethnic derived warfare target at destroying Ukrainian nationalism. That is the story often told today. Stalin certainty was engaged in class warfare ('taking a class approach' is the common translation used from his writings) and many different cultures and ethnicity were hit. Kazakhs, Ukrainians and lets not remember the many Russian victims too, and of course many more. Their fundamental driver was getting the resources need for spending on industrialization.
- csense 5y ago
  > They didn't care if total production went down. They didn't care if millions of people died slowly and horribly of starvation. Phrasing it as "Production went down" is a rather extreme euphemism.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    Yes that's correct. From a practical standpoint that simply means lower overall production, that communist party logical for you. Gaining control over the means of production is what mattered to them. Anything cost was acceptable to achieve that outcome.

panick21_ 5y ago

What matter to the top people at the government was not total production, but rather total share of production controlled by the government. They didn't not care if total production went down. > intentional decisions by the people in charge are what lead to the problem And I am not denying that. What I am arguing against is the claim that this was ethnic derived warfare target at destroying Ukrainian nationalism. That is the story often told today. Stalin certainty was engaged in class warfare ('taking a class approach' is the common translation used from his writings) and many different cultures and ethnicity were hit. Kazakhs, Ukrainians and lets not remember the many Russian victims too, and of course many more. Their fundamental driver was getting the resources need for spending on industrialization.

csense 5y ago
> They didn't care if total production went down. They didn't care if millions of people died slowly and horribly of starvation. Phrasing it as "Production went down" is a rather extreme euphemism.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  Yes that's correct. From a practical standpoint that simply means lower overall production, that communist party logical for you. Gaining control over the means of production is what mattered to them. Anything cost was acceptable to achieve that outcome.