Look, I don't know if you have some agenda, but otherwise I can't explain why you keep making statements that alternate between being outright false, ignoring c

Look, I don't know if you have some agenda, but otherwise I can't explain why you keep making statements that alternate between being outright false, ignoring context, moving goalposts, and drawing "parallels" that are not parallel in any sense. > the highest level of the German government Cool, that's the first time "the highest level" comes up. You started with "The Nazi regime". Do you think "The Nazi regime" is Hitler and his direct reports? How many is that? About 20 people? > there's plenty for the Holodomor too Then you list 1 single piece of "evidence" (one list of items that would implicate regime provided ALL of them are true). And it is not really an evidence, because clause "b) they knew that their policies would make things worse" is your own personal guess. I can't see how you could logically arrive that Stalin foresaw that that policy will make things worse. What evidence do you have for that claim? I kinda suspect that your evidence for it looks likes this: (a && b && c && d) => Holodomor was intentional. Holodomor was intentional. Therefore b must be true Which is problematic on two accounts: the 2nd statement is the one being debated on the first place (e.g. circular evidence), and 2 - you can't reverse implication in the first statement.