ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags adolf hitler , Josef Stalin , Robert Conquest , Soviet Union history , Tim Snyder , World War II history

Reply
Old 31st March 2018, 10:30 AM   #121
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,536
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Well it definitely wasn't the Soviet government, since its 6 May 1932 (before the 1932 harvest) decree lowered procurement quota's by 30% and allowed peasants to trade in grain at free market prices again. Procurement quota's were then successively lowered even further throughout 1932. So maybe magic fairies it is?
Quote decree please.
Quote:
No you didn't, you showed an aggregate export figure for 1933 and conveniently forgot to mention that almost all of that figure (>80%) is exports from the 1933 harvest, after the famine had stopped and they had plenty of grain.

Fine, grain exports were immediately lowered to the minimum. Happy now?
Of.course not. What is a "minimum" grain export during a famine? But I'll check every statement you make with special care from now on. Because that was a plain untruth.
Quote:
TubbaBlubba already did. Did you read the referenced source? If not, why should your contributions be considered serious if you fail to even read the sources already given earlier in the thread?
I have read it. So what? You have monthly figures, which you say are required for an understanding of this matter. So give me them, and stop messing about.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2018, 11:01 AM   #122
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,987
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Quote decree please.

I have read it.

Originally Posted by Tauger
The Central Committee lowered the planned procurement quota in a 6 May 1932 decree, which also permitted kolkhoz and peasant trade in grain at free market prices.
{...}
These decisions were a major policy shift from the preceding years' attempt to eliminate market forces from the Soviet economy. After the May 1932 decree, Soviet leaders were optimistic that trade by kolkhozy and individual peasants would become as important for urban food supplies as procurements. Local officials and outside observers even saw the decree as a new NEP.
Originally Posted by Tauger
354,000 tons exported during the first half of 1933
{...}
How Soviet leaders calculated the relative costs of lower exports and lower domestic food supplies remains uncertain, but available evidence indicates that further reductions or cessation of Soviet exports could have had serious consequences.
Originally Posted by Craig B
Of.course not. What is a "minimum" grain export during a famine? But I'll check every statement you make with special care from now on. Because that was a plain untruth simplification.
ftfy

If you'd like some more simplifications to jump on: When I said that it was only in december 1932 they got the real harvest figures and responded to them, that's a simplification too. It's not like they made a singular U-turn from one day to the next in december 1932, the response was gradual from august to december as partial/regional figures were coming in and the Soviet government responded by partially lowering procurement quota's and exports, a change which was completed by december 1932.

And hey, maybe you'll find even more simplifications in what I said.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2018, 11:25 AM   #123
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,536
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
If you'd like some more simplifications to jump on: When I said that it was only in december 1932 they got the real harvest figures and responded to them, that's a simplification too. It's not like they made a singular U-turn from one day to the next in december 1932, the response was gradual from august to december as partial/regional figures were coming in and the Soviet government responded by partially lowering procurement quota's and exports, a change which was completed by december 1932.

And hey, maybe you'll find even more simplifications in what I said.
So the evidence you cited is a heap of nonsense that you do not dare to place in front of me in case I perceive "simplifications" in it. I have seen none so far. Merely untruth and relentless evasion.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2018, 11:55 AM   #124
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,987
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
So the evidence you cited is a heap of nonsense
Well, strictly speaking it wasn't me who cited it but TubbaBlubba. So if you think it's a heap of nonsense then maybe you should take it up with him. Also, if you believe the evidence is a heap of nonsense then why didn't you immediately say so after you've read it - as you claim you did?

Quote:
that you do not dare to place in front of me
It's been placed in front of you multiple times now, an unproductive procedure it seems.

Quote:
in case I perceive "simplifications" in it.
Maybe you should try to "perceive" evidence placed in front of you, and let your theories account for the already-presented evidence (such as the existence of the 6 May 1932 decree) before wasting our time with them.

Quote:
I have seen none so far. Merely untruth and relentless evasion.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2018, 12:30 PM   #125
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,536
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Well, strictly speaking it wasn't me who cited it but TubbaBlubba. So if you think it's a heap of nonsense then maybe you should take it up with him. Also, if you believe the evidence is a heap of nonsense then why didn't you immediately say so after you've read it - as you claim you did?



It's been placed in front of you multiple times now, an unproductive procedure it seems.



Maybe you should try to "perceive" evidence placed in front of you, and let your theories account for the already-presented evidence (such as the existence of the 6 May 1932 decree) before wasting our time with them.



You're not being serious or even sincere, and further interchanges along these lines are pointless. Have a nice day. If you do say something significant I may exercise my right to comment on it, but no more of this nonsense.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2018, 08:23 AM   #126
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,428
Lenin and Stalin: Who really killed more?

There was a great Marxist called Lenin
Who did two or three million men in.
That's a lot to have done in,
But where he did one in
That grand Marxist Stalin did ten in.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2018, 10:48 PM   #127
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
There was a great Marxist called Lenin
Who did two or three million men in.
That's a lot to have done in,
But where he did one in
That grand Marxist Stalin did ten in.
Latter-day research seems to generally lean toward Lenin being at least as callous and brutal as Stalin, although having less of a need to thanks to his charisma.
__________________
"The presidentís voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesnít exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2018, 11:44 PM   #128
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,137
I think we first have to define the question.

1. Hitler and Stalin: Who really killed more (with own hands)?
I think in this case it could be Stalin. While Hitler was in the army and at the Western front during the Great War, I see Stalin as a more hands on person and he certainly would have had more opportunity during the Russian Civil war.
In the end it is unknowable though.

2. Hitler and Stalin: Who really killed more (responsible for)?
In this case Hitler without any question. Not only have we the industrial mindset of killing known as the Holocaust and all that comes with it, but Hitler started World War II. Any death resulting from the wars he started is directly his responsibility.
Stalin does bear some responsibility in this case (Finland, Eastern Poland, Iran and such) and this should not be forgotten, but all in all, the dead from WWII in Europe lie firmly on the doorstep of Hitler.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2018, 01:04 AM   #129
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,536
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Latter-day research seems to generally lean toward Lenin being at least as callous and brutal as Stalin, although having less of a need to thanks to his charisma.
In respect of several of Stalin's greatest crimes, he demonstrated a much greater degree of callousness than Lenin, although I agree that Lenin was exceptionally callous too, and I take a very negative view of him generally.

Stalin denied the famine of 1932, and refused to seek international aid to relieve it, while in 1921 Lenin made public the famine of that year and invited aid, which certainly saved hundreds of thousands, or probably millions, of lives in the worst hit regions.

Stalin conducted a blood purge of the Party and state machinery in 1936-1938, while under Lenin the mass execution of state and party officials was not practiced.

Stalin sent huge numbers of peasants and members of disfavoured ethnic groups into exile in remote regions where many of them perished. Lenin did not do this to any significant degree. Indeed when the peasants demanded a return of the right to sell their grain on the market, Lenin conceded the point. Stalin's response to a similar situation was very different: collectivisation.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2018, 02:22 AM   #130
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,458
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
I think we first have to define the question.

1. Hitler and Stalin: Who really killed more (with own hands)?
I think in this case it could be Stalin. While Hitler was in the army and at the Western front during the Great War, I see Stalin as a more hands on person and he certainly would have had more opportunity during the Russian Civil war.
In the end it is unknowable though.

2. Hitler and Stalin: Who really killed more (responsible for)?
In this case Hitler without any question. Not only have we the industrial mindset of killing known as the Holocaust and all that comes with it, but Hitler started World War II. Any death resulting from the wars he started is directly his responsibility.
Stalin does bear some responsibility in this case (Finland, Eastern Poland, Iran and such) and this should not be forgotten, but all in all, the dead from WWII in Europe lie firmly on the doorstep of Hitler.

Bear in mind WWII was in effect a continuation of WWI (the Great War). Hitler was only a lance corporal then, so it's doubtful he is the sole initiator of WWII.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2018, 02:36 AM   #131
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,137
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Bear in mind WWII was in effect a continuation of WWI (the Great War). Hitler was only a lance corporal then, so it's doubtful he is the sole initiator of WWII.
No.

Germany did have some legitimate claims concerning the Versailes treaty.
But....

It was Hitlers decision to annex Czechoslawakia, attack Poland, to attack the Low Countries, to attack France, to attack....(fill in about any country in Europe).
In none of these cases there was a present need to attack right there and then, but he gave the order anyway.

No.
Hitler started the war. The dead are his responsibility.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2018, 08:51 AM   #132
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,486
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Bear in mind WWII was in effect a continuation of WWI (the Great War). Hitler was only a lance corporal then, so it's doubtful he is the sole initiator of WWII.
There is no doubt at all. By 1939 Germany had rolled back the Versailles treaty and had gained considerable territory by way of Austria and Czechoslovakia. The only reason war broke out in 1939 was because Hitler wanted war and it was Hitler who chose to invade the USSR and Hitler who initiated a campaign of genocide against Jews, Slavs and Poles.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2018, 10:30 AM   #133
kayle
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 227
this is fun. discussing dirty history from apart and based on books by authors who have been doing the same.

Even in today's environment, when there is so much live information around, I avoid making such bold statements about other countries because I am not there.

What the Soviet regime did, was unforgivable. Hitler, Stalin and other were evil and brain-damaged. This is not a game where you count corpses to prove something. those were real people who were killed, and for them and their relatives the fact that one dictator killed a million more or less, does not help.

I was born and lived in the USSR. My relatives were deported (luckily, they returned; many did not).

Here is a film (yeas, exaggerated maybe, yes, the voice is extaltic), but some insight to those sitting in comfy chairs and discussing something they know naught about, called The Soviet Story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lv9Rjq44zA
kayle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2018, 02:26 PM   #134
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,987
Originally Posted by kayle View Post
this is fun. discussing dirty history from apart and based on books by authors who have been doing the same.

Even in today's environment, when there is so much live information around, I avoid making such bold statements about other countries because I am not there.

What the Soviet regime did, was unforgivable. Hitler, Stalin and other were evil and brain-damaged. This is not a game where you count corpses to prove something. those were real people who were killed, and for them and their relatives the fact that one dictator killed a million more or less, does not help.

I was born and lived in the USSR. My relatives were deported (luckily, they returned; many did not).

Here is a film (yeas, exaggerated maybe, yes, the voice is extaltic), but some insight to those sitting in comfy chairs and discussing something they know naught about, called The Soviet Story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lv9Rjq44zA
Nice fascist propaganda. My favourite part is where the footage from the 1941 Nazi propaganda film Red Mist and the accompanying book Year of Horror are simply reproduced with a more modern "scary music soundtrack" added. Shows just how low the Eastern European far-right will stoop with their propaganda, yet also how cost-efficient they are - just put a new soundtrack under the older films.

Of course the rest is also a litany of forged[*] or fraudulently presented[**] evidence, but that one in particular stood out.

* such as the purported NKVD-Gestapo agreement against Jews

** such as the purported quote by Marx:
Originally Posted by Marx
{1}Classes and races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way... {2}They must “disappear in the revolutionary Holocaust
(my numbering - the quote was pasted together from different sources)

The first part is from this text clearly showing Marx to be talking about the development of capitalism and resulting colonialism rather than expressing a program for communism. The second part isn't even from Marx but from Engels.

Sorry kayle but not yet every skeptic believes in the principle of blind, unquestioning faith in authority figures, some would rather go by the evidence instead. So, nice try but no cigar. Loved the gall for actually reproducing a Nazi anti-communist propaganda film and passing it off as documentary evidence though
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 06:10 AM   #135
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,987
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
There was a great Marxist called Lenin
Who did two or three million men in.
That's a lot to have done in,
But where he did one in
That grand Marxist Stalin did ten in.
As did the grand capitalist Yeltsin (about 5-10 million excess deaths under his rule). But of course the dead only count as "victims of X", and the leaders only count as "callous and brutal" for it, when X is socialism. If X is capitalism instead then there is but a mere "mortality crisis" and the leaders are celebrated for it.


That entire anti-communist enterprise is just transparent ideological posturing.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 06:17 AM   #136
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
As did the grand capitalist Yeltsin (about 5-10 million excess deaths under his rule). But of course the dead only count as "victims of X", and the leaders only count as "callous and brutal" for it, when X is socialism. If X is capitalism instead then there is but a mere "mortality crisis" and the leaders are celebrated for it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=11788

That entire anti-communist enterprise is just transparent ideological posturing.
I actually take no particular issue with the idea that leaders like Yeltsin should be thought of as having a lot more to answer for, but a more careful analysis needs to be performed.
__________________
"The presidentís voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesnít exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 06:44 AM   #137
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,987
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I actually take no particular issue with the idea that leaders like Yeltsin should be thought of as having a lot more to answer for, but a more careful analysis needs to be performed.
And I actually take no particular issue with the idea that leaders like Stalin should as well, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize obvious anti-communist double standards when I see them. The number of excess deaths due to the socio-economic system in the USA (ie capitalism) is about 800k per year, so over Obama's term of 8 years that adds up to about 6.5 million. But I've yet to see the first study of the "callous and brutal" Obama "leaving millions of victims behind."

Once this sort of research rids itself of the obvious ideological double standards it might be taken a bit more seriously.

ETA: interesting though you refer to the need for a "careful analysis" since that's exactly what you seem to be failing to do regarding the CMA as a causal factor in the 1932-33 famine. All the evidence supports is 1) harvest failure due to environmental conditions and 2) reduction of grain supply below subsistence level due to bureaucratic inefficiency delaying information transfer - and resulting significant reduction of grain export - for several months between august and december 1932. The CMA as such doesn't come into it other than as a pre-ordained conclusion pasted on the data.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 5th April 2018 at 06:50 AM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 07:16 AM   #138
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
And I actually take no particular issue with the idea that leaders like Stalin should as well, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize obvious anti-communist double standards when I see them. The number of excess deaths due to the socio-economic system in the USA (ie capitalism) is about 800k per year, so over Obama's term of 8 years that adds up to about 6.5 million. But I've yet to see the first study of the "callous and brutal" Obama "leaving millions of victims behind."

Once this sort of research rids itself of the obvious ideological double standards it might be taken a bit more seriously.
We must also recognize the limitations of what actions could be taken. I don't doubt that a lot of people for example die due to poor availability of health care in the U.S., but there is a limit to what any one individual can do about it, there is a limit to what even the state as a whole can do. I also see no problem with burdening Republicans and corporatism with the guilt for many of those deaths.

Compare that to say, the Bengal famine, when Churchill opted to executively divert food relief AWAY from Bengal, and thus had an active, direct and obvious responsility. If we can't even have enough nuance distinguish between those cases, what's the point of discussing anything at all?

Finally, there is in fact highly regarded literature on deaths from capitalism. Mike Davis' "Late Victorian Holocausts" is the most famous single work; the work of Amartya Sen is very well-known as well. Excess deaths during the Industrial revolution is also something I frequently see references to but I can't name any works off-hand. And so on.

Quote:
ETA: interesting though you refer to the need for a "careful analysis" since that's exactly what you seem to be failing to do regarding the CMA as a causal factor in the 1932-33 famine. All the evidence supports is 1) harvest failure due to environmental conditions and 2) reduction of grain supply below subsistence level due to bureaucratic inefficiency delaying information transfer - and resulting significant reduction of grain export - for several months between august and december 1932. The CMA as such doesn't come into it other than as a pre-ordained conclusion pasted on the data.
You sure have learned to read Russian quickly. Spent a lot of times in the archives?
__________________
"The presidentís voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesnít exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 08:10 AM   #139
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,987
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
We must also recognize the limitations of what actions could be taken. I don't doubt that a lot of people for example die due to poor availability of health care in the U.S., but there is a limit to what any one individual can do about it, there is a limit to what even the state as a whole can do. I also see no problem with burdening Republicans and corporatism with the guilt for many of those deaths.
Liberal apologetics. Even a fraction of the available resources would be enough to outright eradicate the causes of death listed. Also, Obama wasn't a Republican so I don't think your political-partisan try will get you anywhere - especially since there's no such thing as "corporatism" except in liberal ideology, it's called capitalism.

Quote:
Compare that to say, the Bengal famine, when Churchill opted to executively divert food relief AWAY from Bengal, and thus had an active, direct and obvious responsility. If we can't even have enough nuance distinguish between those cases, what's the point of discussing anything at all?
Yet if Stalin were to, say, use the resources required for subsistence of people (leading to their deaths) for other purposes - as the more right-wing Holodomor theory asserts - then those dead would count as his "victims", no? After all, dying from being unable to buy sufficient food is but one way to die from poverty (172k deaths/year in the US - 1.3 million over Obama's term).

So indeed, what's the point of discussing anything at all if it's just ideological posturing? Have you figured out yet why mortality rates can go down yet "victims of X" suddenly appearing who weren't there before and go up yet "victims of X" suddenly disappearing who were there before?

Quote:
You sure have learned to read Russian quickly. Spent a lot of times in the archives?
You understand that none of those potshots hide the fact that you failed/refused to support your theory with evidence?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 5th April 2018 at 08:12 AM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 08:12 AM   #140
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,760
^^TubbaBlubba. I don't know where your one post is anymore, but your explanation of Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR being "two sides of the same coin" being out of date and missing context was real nice I thought. It opened my eyes.
Venom is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 08:16 AM   #141
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Liberal apologetics. Even a fraction of the available resources would be enough to outright eradicate the causes of death listed. Also, Obama wasn't a Republican so I don't think your political-partisan try will get you anywhere - especially since there's no such thing as "corporatism" except in liberal ideology, it's called capitalism.
I'm not a liberal.

Quote:
Yet if Stalin were to, say, use the resources required for subsistence of people (leading to their deaths) for other purposes - as the more right-wing Holodomor theory asserts - then those dead would count as his "victims", no? After all, dying from being unable to buy sufficient food is but one way to die from poverty (172k deaths/year in the US - 1.3 million over Obama's term).
What specifically do you suggest Obama should, or shouldn't have done, within the confines of his office? Maybe you have an argument here, but I haven't seen it.

Quote:
You understand that none of those potshots hide the fact that you failed/refused to support your theory with evidence?
You yourself have already cited works that refute your argument. No need for me to do more. You wibbled and wobbled about why you quoted Tauger for a while, before digging up what I presume is a canned argument you found somewhere, expecting me to debate whoever you are plagiarizing by proxy. Yeah, right
__________________
"The presidentís voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesnít exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 08:19 AM   #142
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,252
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post

Compare that to say, the Bengal famine, when Churchill opted to executively divert food relief AWAY from Bengal, and thus had an active, direct and obvious responsibility.
Firstly, I'd say that the direct and obvious responsibility lay with the Japanese.

Secondly, your phrasing is a bit misleading. Churchill was prioritizing the war effort. however, he did try and request shipping from the USA (as the UK had none spare) but the US didn't have any available.


Also worth noting regarding shipping (and related needs for additional naval escorts):
"In the Indian Ocean alone from January 1942 to May 1943, the Axis powers sank 230 British and Allied merchant ships totaling 873,000 tons, in other words, a substantial boat every other day. British hesitation to allocate shipping concerned not only potential diversion of shipping from other war-related needs but also the prospect of losing the shipping to attacks without actually [bringing help to] India at all."
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 08:36 AM   #143
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Firstly, I'd say that the direct and obvious responsibility lay with the Japanese.

Secondly, your phrasing is a bit misleading. Churchill was prioritizing the war effort. however, he did try and request shipping from the USA (as the UK had none spare) but the US didn't have any available.


Also worth noting regarding shipping (and related needs for additional naval escorts):
"In the Indian Ocean alone from January 1942 to May 1943, the Axis powers sank 230 British and Allied merchant ships totaling 873,000 tons, in other words, a substantial boat every other day. British hesitation to allocate shipping concerned not only potential diversion of shipping from other war-related needs but also the prospect of losing the shipping to attacks without actually [bringing help to] India at all."
First, within the context of British police in India (particularly, promotion of cash crops), Churchill had a PARAMOUNT responsibility to ensure that food was supplied. He inherited the system, but he did so knowing the earlier catastrophes that had occurred. There's absolutely no excuse, given the experience of the late 19th century, to not realize just how horrible the consequences of not sending food to Bengal would be. (and no, asking the U.S. to feed them does not count.) The responsibility of the Japanese (which I don't think anyone denies) does not absolve Churchill in any way, shape or form. Indeed, he should have been prepared for the possiblity of such an event from the very start (I believe the excess of the 1942 harvest in Bengal was diverted to Britain rather than stockpiled, but I don't remember exactly).

Second, "prioritizing the war effort" ignores the context of Winston "I hate Indians" Churchill's views on India in a euphemistic way. I'm prepared to take Leopold Amery to accurately represent Churchill's expressed views here: "Winston may be right in saying that the starvation of anyhow under-fed Bengalis is less serious than sturdy Greeks, but he makes no sufficient allowance for the sense of Empire responsibility in this country..."
__________________
"The presidentís voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesnít exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

Last edited by TubbaBlubba; 5th April 2018 at 08:39 AM.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 08:37 AM   #144
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,987
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I'm not a liberal.
I don't care.

Quote:
What specifically do you suggest Obama should, or shouldn't have done, within the confines of his office? Maybe you have an argument here, but I haven't seen it.
Expropriate and redistribute the means of production, obviously. Is that qualifier "within the confines of his office" there as a form of Nuremberg defense?

Quote:
You yourself have already cited works that refute your argument.
No I haven't. I've cited primary sources in a work supporting point 1 in my argument, you then cited a part of that work in which you quote an assertion which is not supported by the primary sources given in that work. You were then asked to provide the evidence for that assertion and refused to do so.

Quote:
No need for me to do more. You wibbled and wobbled about why you quoted Tauger for a while, before digging up what I presume is a canned argument you found somewhere, expecting me to debate whoever you are plagiarizing by proxy. Yeah, right
Like I said, none of this hides the fact that you failed/refused to support your theory.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 08:41 AM   #145
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Like I said, none of this hides the fact that you failed/refused to support your theory.
Give me a secondary source that supports yours. If that is a secondary source worth taking seriously, then I will take your argument seriously. Otherwise, it is simply not worth the effort refuting some apologetic argument I am absolutely convinced you have plagiarized, that is, taken from someone else without attribution.
__________________
"The presidentís voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesnít exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 09:03 AM   #146
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,987
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Give me a secondary source that supports yours.
I don't particularly know of one. How about instead you give me some primary sources that support yours?

Quote:
If that is a secondary source worth taking seriously, then I will take your argument seriously. Otherwise, it is simply not worth the effort refuting some apologetic argument I am absolutely convinced you have plagiarized, that is, taken from someone else without attribution.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 09:14 AM   #147
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I don't particularly know of one. How about instead you give me some primary sources that support yours?



What's the point of givimg you a primary source when you can't even read Russian?


I am not a historian. You are not a historian, as far as I know. Neither of us have even remotely the expertise to usefully evaluate the bureaucracy and policy of the USSR. We have to rely on people who do have that expertise to a considerable extent. If you have found an argument that does not appear in aby reputable work, the correct default assumption is that it is garbage.
__________________
"The presidentís voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesnít exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 09:43 AM   #148
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,987
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
What's the point of givimg you a primary source when you can't even read Russian?
Machine translation exists, and I have friends who speak fluent Russian who I can ask. And you don't even have to give me the primary source itself, a reference in a reputable secondary source would do. For example I haven't seen that 6 May 1932 Central Committee decree myself but I have no problem taking it on authority that it indeed exists and says what Tauger says it says. But that doesn't mean that I'm required to take on authority statements of theory (such as that it was the CMA specifically which caused the famine). You really need to learn to distinguish between statements of data and statements of theory.

Quote:
I am not a historian. You are not a historian, as far as I know. Neither of us have even remotely the expertise to usefully evaluate the bureaucracy and policy of the USSR. We have to rely on people who do have that expertise to a considerable extent.
Which is a really nice principle if only this weren't all taking place in an environment characterized by things like this:
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Conquest's books {...} were monumental and references to them are so abundant in later works
This isn't physics or something free from (ideological) bias throughout.

Quote:
If you have found an argument that does not appear in aby reputable work, the correct default assumption is that it is garbage.
I didn't find it, I constructed it from the primary sources given in Tauger, Davies and Wheatcroft, etc. And I didn't say that it doesn't appear in some secondary source, I said that I don't know of one - I didn't particularly go looking for one.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 10:01 AM   #149
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
I did not say exclusively rely on secondary sources. Some judgment must be used, as well as referencing the ongoing discussion.

But okay, "you" (or whoever you got the argument from) "constructed" an argument none of the authors made, leading to a conclusion none of them arrived at. You cannot cite a reputable secondary source to support your view. In light of the conclusions provided by reputable researchers, I am comfortable with entirely dismissing your argument without finding out exactly where the fallacy lies. It's just not worth the effort.
__________________
"The presidentís voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesnít exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 10:19 AM   #150
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,987
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I did not say exclusively rely on secondary sources.
Just because you didn't say it doesn't mean you're not doing it.

Quote:
You cannot cite a reputable secondary source to support your view.
And you can not cite a primary one to support yours. See paragraph above. Heck, you can not even defend yours from basic questions.

Quote:
In light of the conclusions provided by reputable researchers, I am comfortable with entirely dismissing your argument without finding out exactly where the fallacy lies. It's just not worth the effort.
That's nice, I don't care. I'll go by the evidence instead, if you ever get to the point of being able to support your theory with evidence (ie primary sources) then feel free to share such evidence.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 10:20 AM   #151
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
And you can not cite a primary one to support yours. See paragraph above. Heck, you can not even defend yours from basic questions.

That's nice, I don't care. I'll go by the evidence instead, if you ever get to the point of being able to support your theory with evidence (ie primary sources) then feel free to share such evidence.
LOL. Let me know when a journal publishes your research. I'll be waiting.
__________________
"The presidentís voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesnít exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 10:23 AM   #152
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,987
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
LOL. Let me know when a journal publishes your research. I'll be waiting.
Again, none of these potshots hide the fact that you have failed/refused to support your theory with evidence.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 10:35 AM   #153
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Again, none of these potshots hide the fact that you have failed/refused to support your theory with evidence.
Nope. You do not have the expertise to employ primary-source evidence in the way you do. As you have not provided secondary sources to support your thesis, it stands at least as unsupported.

Of course, because secondary sources DO support my view, I have in fact provided evidence for it.
__________________
"The presidentís voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesnít exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 11:02 AM   #154
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,987
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Nope. You do not have the expertise to employ primary-source evidence in the way you do. As you have not provided secondary sources to support your thesis, it stands at least as unsupported.

Of course, because secondary sources DO support my view, I have in fact provided evidence for it.
You do not even have primary sources supporting your view - it's all theory without data. And what makes you think you have the expertise to employ secondary-source material in the way you do (like uncritically promoting Robert Conquest's works on the subject)?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 11:25 AM   #155
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You do not even have primary sources supporting your view - it's all theory without data.
LOL. This takes the cake coming from someone who tried to get away with citing Tauger for views he doesn't express, then calling it citing 'a group of primary sources'.

Simply stringing together a horribly shoddy argument (or rather, repeating an argument you dug up somewhere when you didn't get away with your Tauger cite) from some primary source you can't even read doesn't make you a historian.
__________________
"The presidentís voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesnít exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

Last edited by Loss Leader; 8th April 2018 at 03:14 PM. Reason: Fixed quote tag
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 11:30 AM   #156
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,760
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
As did the grand capitalist Yeltsin (about 5-10 million excess deaths under his rule). But of course the dead only count as "victims of X", and the leaders only count as "callous and brutal" for it, when X is socialism. If X is capitalism instead then there is but a mere "mortality crisis" and the leaders are celebrated for it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=11788

That entire anti-communist enterprise is just transparent ideological posturing.
True that people often overlook the post-Soviet Russian calamity under Yeltsin, however, after the fall many of the 'ex-communists', if you can call them that, merely put on new suits and essentially ran the country with the same thinly-veiled dictatorship they were used to for the past century (and centuries before). It wasn't overbearing oppression though, so Yeltsin's camp could create for Western viewers the illusion that they had really changed.

The abrupt shift was too much for anyone to handle.
Venom is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 11:49 AM   #157
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,987
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
LOL. This takes the cake coming from someone who tried to get away with citing Tauger for views he doesn't express, then calling it citing 'a group of primary sources'.

Simply stringing together a horribly shoddy argument (or rather, repeating an argument you dug up somewhere when you didn't get away with your Tauger cite) from some primary source you can't even read doesn't make you a historian.
Yet again, none of these potshots hide the fact that you fail/refuse to support your theory with evidence. And even your desperate appeal to authority doesn't stand up to scrutiny on its own terms:
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
the paper you cite from 1991 merely supports that the harvest was much lower than previously thought, and that the conclusion you quoted is not actually supported by the text. Tauger simply ascribes the lower harvest to the CMA as a given a priori. It is then notable that in his later work from 2001 that I have cited, where he actually researches the causes for the lower harvest figures (rather than just supporting that the harvest was, indeed, lower than previously thought), he gives environmental conditions as the main cause.
As to this general approach of blind, unquestioning faith in unevidenced assertions of authority figures: Hey look, we found some more Real HistoriansTM!
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 12:34 PM   #158
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,987
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
True that people often overlook the post-Soviet Russian calamity under Yeltsin, however, after the fall many of the 'ex-communists', if you can call them that, merely put on new suits and essentially ran the country with the same thinly-veiled dictatorship they were used to for the past century (and centuries before).
True, to some extent the owners of the means of production remained largely the same group of people. However, their thinly-veiled dictatorship didn't remain the same, it got much worse.

Quote:
It wasn't overbearing oppression though
Of course it was, the entire point was to increase the level of oppression to capitalist standards. Before the change the owners of the means of production couldn't fire you (employment was a right), couldn't evict you (housing was a right), couldn't withhold healthcare or education (which was a right), etc. All of which even on their own constitute a distinct increase in the oppression of the working class.

Quote:
so Yeltsin's camp could create for Western viewers the illusion that they had really changed.
But they had really changed, they were now - as per capitalist standards - using the threats of unemployment, poverty, homelessness, etc and resulting mortality as power levers.

Which still leaves the question: Why always make these comparisons of "who killed more?" using Stalin rather than, say, Yeltsin (5-10 million) or Obama (6.5 million) or something?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 02:03 PM   #159
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,760
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
True, to some extent the owners of the means of production remained largely the same group of people. However, their thinly-veiled dictatorship didn't remain the same, it got much worse.
...pick your poison I guess

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
But they had really changed, they were now - as per capitalist standards - using the threats of unemployment, poverty, homelessness, etc and resulting mortality as power levers.

Which still leaves the question: Why always make these comparisons of "who killed more?" using Stalin rather than, say, Yeltsin (5-10 million) or Obama (6.5 million) or something?
I should specify that they were flirting with Democracy, or at least pretended to, and that's what made the West let down their guard.

Personally I don't care "who killed more" when numbers are in the millions for each party we are comparing, but the motive and culpability is the tie breaker. Answering the OP imo I don't know who killed more but Hitler's long game appears more sinister and well organized than Stalin's. Both would commit equally atrocious acts, which is why at first I grouped em pretty close together.
Venom is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2018, 02:40 PM   #160
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,987
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
...pick your poison I guess
Why would one pick a glass of cyanide over a glass of vodka? Remember, those 5-10 million under Yeltsin are in excess of the norm under socialism.

Quote:
I should specify that they were flirting with Democracy, or at least pretended to, and that's what made the West let down their guard.
Liberal apologetics..."the West let down their guard"

Quote:
Personally I don't care "who killed more" when numbers are in the millions for each party we are comparing, but the motive and culpability is the tie breaker. Answering the OP imo I don't know who killed more but Hitler's long game appears more sinister and well organized than Stalin's.
What about Obama and his legacy of 6.5 million deaths?

Quote:
Both would commit equally atrocious acts, which is why at first I grouped em pretty close together.
And what acts exactly of Stalin would be "equally atrocious" as, for example, the Holocaust?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 5th April 2018 at 02:41 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:23 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.