5 ms·

I've been wrong about the 250k troops. That was Ukraine's position at the negotiating table, while Russia's position was 85k. Negotiations on that were still go

I've been wrong about the 250k troops. That was Ukraine's position at the negotiating table, while Russia's position was 85k. Negotiations on that were still going on. Yes, it was a surrender, but the conditions were infinitely better than anything achievable right now. And before the war the conditions were even better, basically just the continuation of Minsk and rejection of NATO membership (as demanded by Putin during the call with Macron just before the invasion). The conditions were obviously going to get worse and worse the longer this conflict dragged on, but much more importantly: So many people could have kept on living.

mopsi 2y ago
Yes, it was a surrender, but the conditions were infinitely better than anything achievable right now. That's where most people, especially Ukrainians, disagree with you. Russia's goal is the complete destruction of Ukraine as an independent country and the eradication of Ukrainians as an ethnicity. Russians already attempted this in the 1930s by starving several million Ukrainians to death through artificial famines. Currently, they are doing their best in occupied areas to root out anything Ukrainian. Your suggestion to surrender is as good as telling Jews to stop resisting and voluntarily hop on a train to a death camp. Anything is better than certain death.
- DeepSeaTortoise 2y ago
  > Russia's goal is the complete destruction of Ukraine as an independent country and the eradication of Ukrainians as an ethnicity. Just what would be the motivation behind that? As an ethnicity, there is little to no difference between eastern Ukrainians and Russians. The Soviet Union even actively preserved local languages like Ukrainian, although they cracked down very harshly on anything culturally they considered at odds with Marxism, like the Orthodox Church, but that wasn't targeted any more against Ukraine compared to other Soviey member states. > Russians already attempted this in the 1930s by starving several million Ukrainians to death through artificial famines. Even if this opinion is popular nowadays it's highly misleading. What caused the holodomor was that agricultural areas and Ukraine in general was highly FAVORED by the Soviets. Ukraine got a high priority on all the things the Soviets thought of as GOOD. Specifically related to the holodomor: - Collectivization of farming and industry - Execution of 'greedy factory and farm owners depriving the proletariat of the fruits of their labor' and those colaborating with them to sabotage communism - Development and implementation of Marxist sciences, soon after developing into Lysenkoism - Management of production by implementing quotas based on last year's performance - Oversight over all production processes, labor and property by party commissars, enforcing the "dictatorship of the proletariat" - Strict reporting duties to the party management And in 1928, when the implementation of these policies rapidly accelerated in Ukraine and, to a lesser degree, in other agricultural areas, they seemed like a great success. The "kulaks" left large amounts of their fields without crops or crops they would later destroy, according to the communists 'to oppress the proletariat and cause the periodic famines', and since of all of the kulaks and their "supporters" had to keep absolutely silent or were executed otherwise, nobody told the Marxists about crop rotation. Which worked out great in the beginning. The farms could be expanded onto the unused farmland, priority was given to high yield crops like grains and the harvests shot through the roof. And this carried on for another year, despite the soils already starting to be depleted, because the seeds from the previous year stored a lot of the macro and micro nutrients the plants would require throughout their growth. The Marxists felt greatly vindicated in their believes and the "revolutionary discovery" of Marxist science, that "certain types of seasonal variation of crops could be converted into others by just keeping to grow it throughout the seasons on the same field", allowing for further simplification of growing and storage procedures on the collective farms, created a giant almost nationwide crop monoculture. Thanks to modern pesticides and fertilizers monocultures have become favored again, but back then this was a catastrophe. The soil was depleted, the stored nutrients in seeds were depleted, there were unfavorable weather conditions and pests and crop diseases began rapidly spreading throughout the monoculture, accelerated by the weakened plants. So while the quota was even more increased due to last year's great performance, harvests began decreasing, initially slowly, but soon rapidly. The Soviet commissars went to the farms to check what was happening and found farmers just throwing aside crops (the ones with diseases) and hungry people, who suffered under the bad harvest combined with high quotas, coming to collect these crops. Of course, as is Communist tradition, these people were quickly executed or shipped of to "internment" camps and collective farms were heavily guarded. But both soils and seeds became more and more nutrient depleted, the grain quality kept decreasing, requiring more to achieve the same nutritional value, crop diseases became ever more prevalent and harvests were about to hit rock bottom. The communists, as always convinced by the perfection of their ideology, came to the conclusion that the kulaks and their supporters were sabotaging Communism. As vindictive as demanded by their ideology, they immediately started measures to root out the problem. Collective farms "subverted by the kulaks" had their quotas skyrocketed and leaving them or trading with them was forbidden. Afraid to end up being targeted next when not meeting their quota, other farms and their officials collected grains from where ever they could, including from normal people, emergency reserves and even seeds for the next year and crops with diseases were cleaned up and included in the shipments. People became sick due to the low quality and quantity of crops and malnutritioned, they could work less and less effectively, there were still all of the previous unresolved problems and on top of that the emergency rations (except for those managed directly by the party in secret) were gone. Queue the holodomor.
  - mopsi 2y ago
    I was born and educated in the USSR. I was in middle school at the height of one of the many Russification campaigns, which went as far as forbidding us, the students, from speaking our native language among ourselves even during recess. We were ordered to "speak like humans", that is, in Russian, and were physically punished if we didn't obey. So please forgive me if I refuse to believe the commie fairy tales about the preservation of local languages. The reality was anything but. Nor can I offer an entirely rational explanation for why Russians want to murder Ukrainians, why Germans gassed millions of Jews, or why many other such horrible crimes have been committed throughout history. Why are Russians destroying Ukrainian libraries in occupied territories? Why would a sane, rational person burn books? As for the Holodomor, I'd like to repeat an older comment of mine: a) Stalin and other top-ranking officials were aware of the food shortages in Ukraine, b) they knew that their policies were going to make things worse, c) they still adopted those policies, and d) they expressed satisfaction with the outcome. They deliberately allowed millions of people to die of starvation to suppress Ukrainian national identity and punish them for perceived disloyalty. The utterly criminal intent becomes very clear when examined at the personal level. If someone came to your city, confiscated all food, harshly punished any attempts to store even a minimal amount for basic survival, caused a horrific starvation that killed many people, drove survivors to such insanity that parents ate the flesh off their children, and still blocked all foreign aid and prevented people from leaving, then how would you call it if not deliberate mass murder? How is it any different from Germans locking Jews up in ghettos and letting them starve to death? It isn't, at that's why the Holodomor has seen gradual international recognition as genocide, most notably by the European Parliament, which represents 450 million Europeans from 27 countries.
    - DeepSeaTortoise 2y ago
      > I was born and educated in the USSR. I was in middle school at the height of one of the many Russification campaigns, which went as far as forbidding us, the students, from speaking our native language among ourselves even during recess. I guess it's naive for me to assume there was a common situation throughout the entire SU. My Grandpa was a German living along the Danube and then dragged off by the Communists to a remote village in Uzbekistan, because his dad was pressed into the Wehrmacht. They were taught in German, Russian and the local language in school. And that was under the definitively very kind hearted but bit austere communist scholar Stalin /s. When Stalin finally made his greatest contribution to mankind (fueled by paranoia, wiping out the Extremists in the Party around him and then going to hell), Gramps got a chance to become a German teacher. And I guess, after thinking about it for a bit, that might be where our differences in accounts are coming from. Gramps obviously wouldn't ever have seen a school from the inside, that didn't teach multiple languages. Also he despised anything Russian to the point, he refused to talk to any of his own children in anything but German. And his favorite joke was: > A war veteran was applying to join the Communist Party. The examiners were greatly pleased by his many achievements to further the people's causes during the war. The only problem were his rather poor educational credentials, which was also shown by the misspelling of the Party: KPS. > So the examiners told him: "You'd be a great fit and your rapid advancement would be assured, but you need to learn how to spell the name of our Party. Not S, but SS." > Veteran: "Nein, I've already been in the SS." Apparently got detained several times over it, so I guess he wasn't holding back. Also applied for travel to Germany every single year, which "surprisingly" wasn't even granted once. Not sure why the Communists kept him around as a teacher... > We were ordered to "speak like humans" Apparently that was the attitude of the Russians living in the major cities all over the SU. Never been told any more about it, tho. Dragging ears, beatings and sending students to the back of the food line during cotton harvest was definitely encouraged for all kinds of disobedience. > why Germans gassed millions of Jews The Nazis blamed the Jews for the German Revolution in 1918. I really dont know the leadup to this claim, the strong dislike of Jews at this point in time in general or how it was managed to sell this to the German people. It's just not being taught, which is s huge mistake in my opinion. There is very little understanding among Germans on how this situation could have escalated to this absurd degree and therefore also absolutely 0 awareness for potential trends in a similar direction. Nowadays "Nazis" and "Fascists" are just whoever the left currently intends to purge the most and people can't name a single of the Nazis' policies except "Hitler killed Jews" and "Hitler built the Autobahn." Which is a very sad and, tbh, dangerous state. I've thought of just reading Hitler's (and his associates') books, speeches and laws myself, but they're ... not very pleasant to read and of questionable value, since the Nazi leadership did seem to believe very little about their own drivel and just spouted whatever they thought would get them in power. > Why are Russians destroying Ukrainian libraries in occupied territories? Havent heard about this, but they're emptying museums with the excuse of protecting historic artifacts. Can't really judge this until the war is over, Ukraine asks Russia to return these objects and makes preparations to receive and store them. Then we'll see how much there is to Russia's clakms on this. > Why would a sane, rational person burn books? Not a good look if done by Russians, it'd be different if done by the LPR/DPR militias. Same situation as Ukraine getting rid of Russian books. These two sides have been killing each other over a language dispute for quite some time. Also, it's less about the destruction of knowledge and culture, rather than symbolic. People will just download an ebook nowadays. > a) Stalin and other top-ranking officials were aware of the food shortages in Ukraine, b) they knew that their policies were going to make things worse, c) they still adopted those policies, and d) they expressed satisfaction with the outcome. They deliberately allowed millions of people to die of starvation to suppress Ukrainian national identity and punish them for perceived disloyalty. a) Yes, but the information they received was often falsified (due to people not daring to admit the failures of collective policies, I guess) and delayed through the process. They still knew, but very convinced of being sabotaged. b) I dont know of any evidence they intended to worsen the situation for the general population. They certainly intended to make the situation much worse for anyone they thought of trying to sabotage Communism. But that's just a matter of ideology. Germany nowadays arrests anyone showing any Nazi affiliated symbolism, Communists shot everyone showing a slightly furrowed eyebrows during the Party's declarations. c) It's a death cult. Of course a Communist would never spare a perceived opponent. d) actually never heard about this. I know they declared the agricultural revolution a great success, trying to brush the holodomor under the carpet (replacing dead population with Russians, preventing people from fleeing, rejecting foreign aid under the pretense that everything is ok, suppressing the release of any details, ...) in pursuit of Communist ideological perfection, but that'd be important to know about. Do you have any links saved? Otherwise I just go digging myself > to suppress Ukrainian national identity and punish them for perceived disloyalty. For some the latter is certainly true and Stalin was indeed worried about Ukrainian nationalism (since the only major difference between the leftist ideologies of the Second International, Nazism, Fascism and Communism, was their disagreement on whether nationalism (Engels) or internationalism (Marx) was more suited to overthrow capitalism). But mass starvation generally wasn't how the Communists tried to impose "the dictatorship of the people". They usually relied on violent mobs, kidnappings and assassinations where they weren't already in power and executing people, disappearing people into internment camps and informers among the population where they already took over. In fact I'd highly doubt they would deliberately sabotage their collectivization pilot project. Communists are aweful people with 0 respect for human life, but they'd never risk any information on Communist collectivization being anything but a great success spreading. > [...] then how would you call it if not deliberate mass murder? A Communist pilot project, resulting in an apocalyptic famine, combined with ensuring the angelic purity of Communism. If I build a bridge, it collapses with many people on it and I open a dam upstream to flood away all the people and evidence, I didn't intent to kill these people, nor did I try to specifically target the population of this town. The people might survive the flood or not, all I would have cared about is getting rid of the evidence. What I would have been, is an awful bridge designer, bottom of the barrel human and a severe ideological narcissist with 0 regard a for human life. There might be many mass-murderers with a much more superior moral compass, but all that would be important to me is successfully having saved the reputation of my bridges being the utmost superior and infallible. > How is it any different from Germans locking Jews up in ghettos and letting them starve to death? The Nazis desired the utter destruction of the Jewish population in Europe and deliberately designed an efficient system to pull off their genocide. The Communists desired the best future for the future of their population, designed their perfect system and graciously bestowed it upon the agrcultural regions at gunpoint, unsurprisingly killed millions, and then were concerned about other regions not entirely embracing Communist dictates anymore if they became aware of potential minor flaws in the Party's interpretation of Marxism. It's not entirely clear which of these two sides of the coin is worse, the Nazis, who would have killed entire population subgroups ever so often, or the Communists, who would have observed their ideology killing millions of people ever so often and would have started reflecting on additional writings of various Marxist authors to devine up the perfect adjustment to their ideology, which sadly wasn't real Communism before, but now it definitively is and if you got any questions about it, the execution wall is right over there. > that's why the Holodomor has seen gradual international recognition as genocide, most notably by the European Parliament, which represents 450 million Europeans from 27 countries. Sadly the resolution of the EU is loaded up with ideological drivel and opportunism. Furthermore, it just barely recognizes that the holodomor affected many other regions and calls to crack down on anything perceived as historical revisionism. I have no problem with people widening the definition of a genocide in order to fit the atrocity that is the holodomor, and leftist collectivism in general, into it. What I dislike is people actively revising history or misrepresenting it by projecting modern or temporally or spatially separated concepts in general onto it.

mopsi 2y ago

Yes, it was a surrender, but the conditions were infinitely better than anything achievable right now. That's where most people, especially Ukrainians, disagree with you. Russia's goal is the complete destruction of Ukraine as an independent country and the eradication of Ukrainians as an ethnicity. Russians already attempted this in the 1930s by starving several million Ukrainians to death through artificial famines. Currently, they are doing their best in occupied areas to root out anything Ukrainian. Your suggestion to surrender is as good as telling Jews to stop resisting and voluntarily hop on a train to a death camp. Anything is better than certain death.

DeepSeaTortoise 2y ago
> Russia's goal is the complete destruction of Ukraine as an independent country and the eradication of Ukrainians as an ethnicity. Just what would be the motivation behind that? As an ethnicity, there is little to no difference between eastern Ukrainians and Russians. The Soviet Union even actively preserved local languages like Ukrainian, although they cracked down very harshly on anything culturally they considered at odds with Marxism, like the Orthodox Church, but that wasn't targeted any more against Ukraine compared to other Soviey member states. > Russians already attempted this in the 1930s by starving several million Ukrainians to death through artificial famines. Even if this opinion is popular nowadays it's highly misleading. What caused the holodomor was that agricultural areas and Ukraine in general was highly FAVORED by the Soviets. Ukraine got a high priority on all the things the Soviets thought of as GOOD. Specifically related to the holodomor: - Collectivization of farming and industry - Execution of 'greedy factory and farm owners depriving the proletariat of the fruits of their labor' and those colaborating with them to sabotage communism - Development and implementation of Marxist sciences, soon after developing into Lysenkoism - Management of production by implementing quotas based on last year's performance - Oversight over all production processes, labor and property by party commissars, enforcing the "dictatorship of the proletariat" - Strict reporting duties to the party management And in 1928, when the implementation of these policies rapidly accelerated in Ukraine and, to a lesser degree, in other agricultural areas, they seemed like a great success. The "kulaks" left large amounts of their fields without crops or crops they would later destroy, according to the communists 'to oppress the proletariat and cause the periodic famines', and since of all of the kulaks and their "supporters" had to keep absolutely silent or were executed otherwise, nobody told the Marxists about crop rotation. Which worked out great in the beginning. The farms could be expanded onto the unused farmland, priority was given to high yield crops like grains and the harvests shot through the roof. And this carried on for another year, despite the soils already starting to be depleted, because the seeds from the previous year stored a lot of the macro and micro nutrients the plants would require throughout their growth. The Marxists felt greatly vindicated in their believes and the "revolutionary discovery" of Marxist science, that "certain types of seasonal variation of crops could be converted into others by just keeping to grow it throughout the seasons on the same field", allowing for further simplification of growing and storage procedures on the collective farms, created a giant almost nationwide crop monoculture. Thanks to modern pesticides and fertilizers monocultures have become favored again, but back then this was a catastrophe. The soil was depleted, the stored nutrients in seeds were depleted, there were unfavorable weather conditions and pests and crop diseases began rapidly spreading throughout the monoculture, accelerated by the weakened plants. So while the quota was even more increased due to last year's great performance, harvests began decreasing, initially slowly, but soon rapidly. The Soviet commissars went to the farms to check what was happening and found farmers just throwing aside crops (the ones with diseases) and hungry people, who suffered under the bad harvest combined with high quotas, coming to collect these crops. Of course, as is Communist tradition, these people were quickly executed or shipped of to "internment" camps and collective farms were heavily guarded. But both soils and seeds became more and more nutrient depleted, the grain quality kept decreasing, requiring more to achieve the same nutritional value, crop diseases became ever more prevalent and harvests were about to hit rock bottom. The communists, as always convinced by the perfection of their ideology, came to the conclusion that the kulaks and their supporters were sabotaging Communism. As vindictive as demanded by their ideology, they immediately started measures to root out the problem. Collective farms "subverted by the kulaks" had their quotas skyrocketed and leaving them or trading with them was forbidden. Afraid to end up being targeted next when not meeting their quota, other farms and their officials collected grains from where ever they could, including from normal people, emergency reserves and even seeds for the next year and crops with diseases were cleaned up and included in the shipments. People became sick due to the low quality and quantity of crops and malnutritioned, they could work less and less effectively, there were still all of the previous unresolved problems and on top of that the emergency rations (except for those managed directly by the party in secret) were gone. Queue the holodomor.
- mopsi 2y ago
  I was born and educated in the USSR. I was in middle school at the height of one of the many Russification campaigns, which went as far as forbidding us, the students, from speaking our native language among ourselves even during recess. We were ordered to "speak like humans", that is, in Russian, and were physically punished if we didn't obey. So please forgive me if I refuse to believe the commie fairy tales about the preservation of local languages. The reality was anything but. Nor can I offer an entirely rational explanation for why Russians want to murder Ukrainians, why Germans gassed millions of Jews, or why many other such horrible crimes have been committed throughout history. Why are Russians destroying Ukrainian libraries in occupied territories? Why would a sane, rational person burn books? As for the Holodomor, I'd like to repeat an older comment of mine: a) Stalin and other top-ranking officials were aware of the food shortages in Ukraine, b) they knew that their policies were going to make things worse, c) they still adopted those policies, and d) they expressed satisfaction with the outcome. They deliberately allowed millions of people to die of starvation to suppress Ukrainian national identity and punish them for perceived disloyalty. The utterly criminal intent becomes very clear when examined at the personal level. If someone came to your city, confiscated all food, harshly punished any attempts to store even a minimal amount for basic survival, caused a horrific starvation that killed many people, drove survivors to such insanity that parents ate the flesh off their children, and still blocked all foreign aid and prevented people from leaving, then how would you call it if not deliberate mass murder? How is it any different from Germans locking Jews up in ghettos and letting them starve to death? It isn't, at that's why the Holodomor has seen gradual international recognition as genocide, most notably by the European Parliament, which represents 450 million Europeans from 27 countries.
  - DeepSeaTortoise 2y ago
    > I was born and educated in the USSR. I was in middle school at the height of one of the many Russification campaigns, which went as far as forbidding us, the students, from speaking our native language among ourselves even during recess. I guess it's naive for me to assume there was a common situation throughout the entire SU. My Grandpa was a German living along the Danube and then dragged off by the Communists to a remote village in Uzbekistan, because his dad was pressed into the Wehrmacht. They were taught in German, Russian and the local language in school. And that was under the definitively very kind hearted but bit austere communist scholar Stalin /s. When Stalin finally made his greatest contribution to mankind (fueled by paranoia, wiping out the Extremists in the Party around him and then going to hell), Gramps got a chance to become a German teacher. And I guess, after thinking about it for a bit, that might be where our differences in accounts are coming from. Gramps obviously wouldn't ever have seen a school from the inside, that didn't teach multiple languages. Also he despised anything Russian to the point, he refused to talk to any of his own children in anything but German. And his favorite joke was: > A war veteran was applying to join the Communist Party. The examiners were greatly pleased by his many achievements to further the people's causes during the war. The only problem were his rather poor educational credentials, which was also shown by the misspelling of the Party: KPS. > So the examiners told him: "You'd be a great fit and your rapid advancement would be assured, but you need to learn how to spell the name of our Party. Not S, but SS." > Veteran: "Nein, I've already been in the SS." Apparently got detained several times over it, so I guess he wasn't holding back. Also applied for travel to Germany every single year, which "surprisingly" wasn't even granted once. Not sure why the Communists kept him around as a teacher... > We were ordered to "speak like humans" Apparently that was the attitude of the Russians living in the major cities all over the SU. Never been told any more about it, tho. Dragging ears, beatings and sending students to the back of the food line during cotton harvest was definitely encouraged for all kinds of disobedience. > why Germans gassed millions of Jews The Nazis blamed the Jews for the German Revolution in 1918. I really dont know the leadup to this claim, the strong dislike of Jews at this point in time in general or how it was managed to sell this to the German people. It's just not being taught, which is s huge mistake in my opinion. There is very little understanding among Germans on how this situation could have escalated to this absurd degree and therefore also absolutely 0 awareness for potential trends in a similar direction. Nowadays "Nazis" and "Fascists" are just whoever the left currently intends to purge the most and people can't name a single of the Nazis' policies except "Hitler killed Jews" and "Hitler built the Autobahn." Which is a very sad and, tbh, dangerous state. I've thought of just reading Hitler's (and his associates') books, speeches and laws myself, but they're ... not very pleasant to read and of questionable value, since the Nazi leadership did seem to believe very little about their own drivel and just spouted whatever they thought would get them in power. > Why are Russians destroying Ukrainian libraries in occupied territories? Havent heard about this, but they're emptying museums with the excuse of protecting historic artifacts. Can't really judge this until the war is over, Ukraine asks Russia to return these objects and makes preparations to receive and store them. Then we'll see how much there is to Russia's clakms on this. > Why would a sane, rational person burn books? Not a good look if done by Russians, it'd be different if done by the LPR/DPR militias. Same situation as Ukraine getting rid of Russian books. These two sides have been killing each other over a language dispute for quite some time. Also, it's less about the destruction of knowledge and culture, rather than symbolic. People will just download an ebook nowadays. > a) Stalin and other top-ranking officials were aware of the food shortages in Ukraine, b) they knew that their policies were going to make things worse, c) they still adopted those policies, and d) they expressed satisfaction with the outcome. They deliberately allowed millions of people to die of starvation to suppress Ukrainian national identity and punish them for perceived disloyalty. a) Yes, but the information they received was often falsified (due to people not daring to admit the failures of collective policies, I guess) and delayed through the process. They still knew, but very convinced of being sabotaged. b) I dont know of any evidence they intended to worsen the situation for the general population. They certainly intended to make the situation much worse for anyone they thought of trying to sabotage Communism. But that's just a matter of ideology. Germany nowadays arrests anyone showing any Nazi affiliated symbolism, Communists shot everyone showing a slightly furrowed eyebrows during the Party's declarations. c) It's a death cult. Of course a Communist would never spare a perceived opponent. d) actually never heard about this. I know they declared the agricultural revolution a great success, trying to brush the holodomor under the carpet (replacing dead population with Russians, preventing people from fleeing, rejecting foreign aid under the pretense that everything is ok, suppressing the release of any details, ...) in pursuit of Communist ideological perfection, but that'd be important to know about. Do you have any links saved? Otherwise I just go digging myself > to suppress Ukrainian national identity and punish them for perceived disloyalty. For some the latter is certainly true and Stalin was indeed worried about Ukrainian nationalism (since the only major difference between the leftist ideologies of the Second International, Nazism, Fascism and Communism, was their disagreement on whether nationalism (Engels) or internationalism (Marx) was more suited to overthrow capitalism). But mass starvation generally wasn't how the Communists tried to impose "the dictatorship of the people". They usually relied on violent mobs, kidnappings and assassinations where they weren't already in power and executing people, disappearing people into internment camps and informers among the population where they already took over. In fact I'd highly doubt they would deliberately sabotage their collectivization pilot project. Communists are aweful people with 0 respect for human life, but they'd never risk any information on Communist collectivization being anything but a great success spreading. > [...] then how would you call it if not deliberate mass murder? A Communist pilot project, resulting in an apocalyptic famine, combined with ensuring the angelic purity of Communism. If I build a bridge, it collapses with many people on it and I open a dam upstream to flood away all the people and evidence, I didn't intent to kill these people, nor did I try to specifically target the population of this town. The people might survive the flood or not, all I would have cared about is getting rid of the evidence. What I would have been, is an awful bridge designer, bottom of the barrel human and a severe ideological narcissist with 0 regard a for human life. There might be many mass-murderers with a much more superior moral compass, but all that would be important to me is successfully having saved the reputation of my bridges being the utmost superior and infallible. > How is it any different from Germans locking Jews up in ghettos and letting them starve to death? The Nazis desired the utter destruction of the Jewish population in Europe and deliberately designed an efficient system to pull off their genocide. The Communists desired the best future for the future of their population, designed their perfect system and graciously bestowed it upon the agrcultural regions at gunpoint, unsurprisingly killed millions, and then were concerned about other regions not entirely embracing Communist dictates anymore if they became aware of potential minor flaws in the Party's interpretation of Marxism. It's not entirely clear which of these two sides of the coin is worse, the Nazis, who would have killed entire population subgroups ever so often, or the Communists, who would have observed their ideology killing millions of people ever so often and would have started reflecting on additional writings of various Marxist authors to devine up the perfect adjustment to their ideology, which sadly wasn't real Communism before, but now it definitively is and if you got any questions about it, the execution wall is right over there. > that's why the Holodomor has seen gradual international recognition as genocide, most notably by the European Parliament, which represents 450 million Europeans from 27 countries. Sadly the resolution of the EU is loaded up with ideological drivel and opportunism. Furthermore, it just barely recognizes that the holodomor affected many other regions and calls to crack down on anything perceived as historical revisionism. I have no problem with people widening the definition of a genocide in order to fit the atrocity that is the holodomor, and leftist collectivism in general, into it. What I dislike is people actively revising history or misrepresenting it by projecting modern or temporally or spatially separated concepts in general onto it.