The enlightened non-“Tankies” be like
The enlightened non-“Tankies” be like
You're viewing part of a thread.
Are you capable of reading and processing information? Nevermind that the Great Depression was a worldwide catastrophe. Nevermind that it's thousands vs millions of people. Did you notice where I talked about the larger pattern in the USSR? There wasn't just one famine, but a shitload of things causing the deaths of millions of people, many of which were fucking executions.
Are you capable of reading and processing information?
Are you?
Nevermind that the Great Depression was a worldwide catastrophe.
Point to where I mentioned the Great Depression.
Nevermind that it's thousands vs millions of people.
What methodology did you use to determine your numbers? And why would it matter anyway? Is it not a genocide if it's bellow a certain amount?
There wasn't just one famine
Yes there was, unless you're counting the one caused by the Nazis flattening half of it, in which case I'm just going to write you off as a Nazi apologist.
but a shitload of things causing the deaths of millions of people, many of which were fucking executions.
Yes, that is indeed true of the USA, so why is the Dust Bowl "Just a thing that happened", but the famine that happened in the same time period in the USSR not?
I'm all ears, buddy. Paint me the picture of this dust bowl genocide. My mind is open. Convince me.
You know that picture you paint of the holodomer? it's literally just that, but the USA.
Let's see. 34 countries and the EU consider the Holodomor (check your spelling btw) a genocide.
I can find... well, you, and nothing else claiming the dust bowl is a genocide.
34 countries and the EU consider the Holodomor (check your spelling btw) a genocide.
Interesting; and when did they make this entirely non-political determination?
Also, that leaves 161 countries that don't consider it a genocide. Oh, but let me guess:
I can find... well, you, and nothing else claiming the dust bowl is a genocide.
I didn't realize that whether something was a genocide or not was decided by vote.
It's not not a vote. It's a classification; they tend to not have perfect clear boundaries, and so one goes with the prevailing opinion of experts.
But let's forget the term "genocide". In the USSR, millions of people were intentionally killed for no good reason. That's fucked.
It's not not a vote. It's a classification; they tend to not have perfect clear boundaries, and so one goes with the prevailing opinion of experts.
Which you didn't do, you instead tried to act like the votes of white European countries were the determinants.
But let's forget the term "genocide".
No, you used it, stand by it.
I do stand by it. But it's not an interesting discussion for me to just go back and forth on a definition.
I'm trying to understand if we can agree on basic facts. I suspect that we cannot, which means there's not much point in having any discussion. But I'm open to the chance that we can.
I do stand by it.
Then do so, don't try and equivocate.
But it's not an interesting discussion for me to just go back and forth on a definition.
We were not arguing about definitions.
I'm trying to understand if we can agree on basic facts.
Sure, but don't expect me to honor a double standard.
So, if I got into my government and made them recognise the dust bowl as a genocide, does that make it a genocide? Do countries‒who care a lot more about politics than the truth‒get to say what is and isn't a genocide?
Okay, how about the guy who coined the term?
Raphael Lemkin (a pioneer of genocide studies[79]: 35 who coined the term genocide, and an initiator of the Genocide Convention), James Mace, Norman Naimark, and Timothy Snyder have written that the Holodomor was a genocide and the intentional result of Soviet policies under Stalin.
Wikipedia as a source. Amazing.
Here's a challenge; find an academic work written by a serious historian after the opening of the Soviet archives that considers the 32-33 Soviet famine to be a deliberate genocide.
And while you're at it, go back and answer 新星's question, which you are still dodging.
Also, didn't you say you weren't interested in arguing about definitions?