Hiroshima, August 6, 1945

[Relic]

Dude, maybe go there and talk to people who live there. Then tell me what you think.

I have. The general consensus to a 100% figure is that Stalin was responsible and deliberately used the famine to quash Ukrainian nationalism.

 

[Schlyder]

So knowing what history has revealed about good old "Uncle Joe". You think that this is out of character for him? It was not just Ukrainians he targeted, he targeted damn near everyone, including Russians. But yes it was to quash Ukrainian natonalism.
Also, Russia needed the production and resources from Ukraine to supply the developing communist state. They were not going to give up what they felt entitled to.Ukrainians were considered lower class than Russians, and were expendable to Stalin.

 

[Relic]

So knowing what history has revealed about good old "Uncle Joe". You think that this is out of character for him? It was not just Ukrainians he targeted, he targeted damn near everyone, including Russians. But yes it was to quash Ukrainian natonalism.
Also, Russia needed the production and resources from Ukraine to supply the developing communist state. They were not going to give up what they felt entitled to.Ukrainians were considered lower class than Russians, and were expendable to Stalin.

I don't know how anyone in their right mind would ever defend Stalin and/or the NKVD (not that nosebleedkid is). That's about as savory as Holocaust denial.
It's 100% proven that he had several rounds of purges where military and political people were executed, or at best exiled. Then there's Katyn and a whole host of other atrocities. The Ukrainian famine sadly would just be par for course for him.

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

Dude, maybe go there and talk to people who live there. Then tell me what you think.

I seriously doubt the average person in Ukraine is privy to Stalin's personal motives. Which is what I originally started debating.

You still haven't answered many of my assertions.

Hmm...

Interesting. This is the first time I've ever heard someone deny Stalin's responsibility for the famines in the Ukraine. I'll have to research this a bit more because this is a bit shocking to me.
I would think that regardless of the actual causes and intentions, a nation's leader is nonetheless responsible to prevent such things from happening is this not true?

When Wheatcroft first started making his arguments he was labelled a Stalinist sympathizer and not given much lee-way. In any case, it's a specific point of a specific part of an emerging history. Conquest's work was particularly early (and wrong) as well as having a lot of clout in America, many of his critics didn't get such press.

Well, I've never led a nation and don't really know how to respond. My understanding is that 32-33 was particularly bad across the board because of several factors combining together. Some of which were policy based (not stockpiling enough) and the more significant really weren't (combination of terrible weather in consecutive seasons and drought). The foray into colelctivisation and de-cossakisation was also not making life easier when drought hit.

I have. The general consensus to a 100% figure is that Stalin was responsible and deliberately used the famine to quash Ukrainian nationalism.

Memory and trauma is an area of historiography that's emerging and many people are resistant to it's inception into historical field. Very few individuals living at the time can provide the information we need to draw broad strokes.

No Ukrainian that I'm aware of has pointed out how they (Ukranians) were specifically and specially targeted in the famine, and how that targeting formed. For every argument I've heard from that side there's been Russian nationals within Russia subjected to the same standards.

So knowing what history has revealed about good old "Uncle Joe". You think that this is out of character for him? It was not just Ukrainians he targeted, he targeted damn near everyone, including Russians. But yes it was to quash Ukrainian natonalism.

How and why? I'm getting really tired of your unsubstantiated generalised statements.

Also, Russia needed the production and resources from Ukraine to supply the developing communist state. They were not going to give up what they felt entitled to.Ukrainians were considered lower class than Russians, and were expendable to Stalin.

Not just Ukraine. Tambov and other black earth states, as well as minerals from the Urals and oil from other areas of Russia. Requisitions were violent across the board, the Ukraine is not special is having deaths due to requisitioning.

I don't know how anyone in their right mind would ever defend Stalin and/or the NKVD (not that nosebleedkid is). That's about as savory as Holocaust denial.
It's 100% proven that he had several rounds of purges where military and political people were executed, or at best exiled. Then there's Katyn and a whole host of other atrocities. The Ukrainian famine sadly would just be par for course for him.

I'm (as you said) not defending him. Stalin is often given flack for actions that weren't his, or out of his control. He, like other 'evil' figures of history, is often distorted and blamed for a variety of things. The Kirov murder is also another great example of something laid squarely at Stalin's feet when it doesn't add up at all. Khrushchev's adoption of blaming many problems, and emerging issues on Stalin, was nothing but bad politics and many interpret his blaming as admittance.

The purges are an event that are blameless. The reason for this being that the plenum of the meeting before they begun is (in an incredibly un-Soviet manner) missing. No one really knows who ordered, or suggested the purges, and given the issues of Evdokimov and other personnel at the time it's hardly clear cut.

I want to make clear one thing. Soviet history is incredibly emergent. Most of it was guesswork before 1990 when the archives were opened, sometimes educated guesswork. Many Russian history professors encourage students to read pre-1990 sources with that in mind - their evidence is largely based on very little, but often draws wild generalisations, especially in the west where the cold war effected people's biases.

 

[Schlyder]

The truth will always come out in the wash. There will be even more evidence revealed in the future. Investigations, and research are still happening and will continue until all the information comes to light.
Through all this, there is no real animosity toward the Russian people. As Ukrainians feel that the genocide was the responsibilty of Stalin and his communist lackies, and not the Russian peoples. There are fairly good relations between Russia, and Ukraine.

Ukrainians are a strong people. Stalin could not wipe them out, Hitler could not wipe them out. It is going to take more than that to take out the Ukrainians.

 

[Relic]

I seriously doubt the average person in Ukraine is privy to Stalin's personal motives. Which is what I originally started debating.

You still haven't answered many of my assertions.




When Wheatcroft first started making his arguments he was labelled a Stalinist sympathizer and not given much lee-way. In any case, it's a specific point of a specific part of an emerging history. Conquest's work was particularly early (and wrong) as well as having a lot of clout in America, many of his critics didn't get such press.

Well, I've never led a nation and don't really know how to respond. My understanding is that 32-33 was particularly bad across the board because of several factors combining together. Some of which were policy based (not stockpiling enough) and the more significant really weren't (combination of terrible weather in consecutive seasons and drought). The foray into colelctivisation and de-cossakisation was also not making life easier when drought hit.




Memory and trauma is an area of historiography that's emerging and many people are resistant to it's inception into historical field. Very few individuals living at the time can provide the information we need to draw broad strokes.

No Ukrainian that I'm aware of has pointed out how they (Ukranians) were specifically and specially targeted in the famine, and how that targeting formed. For every argument I've heard from that side there's been Russian nationals within Russia subjected to the same standards.



How and why? I'm getting really tired of your unsubstantiated generalised statements.



Not just Ukraine. Tambov and other black earth states, as well as minerals from the Urals and oil from other areas of Russia.




I'm (as you said) not defending him. Stalin is often given flack for actions that weren't his, or out of his control. He, like other 'evil' figures of history, is often distorted and blamed for a variety of things. The Kirov murder is also another great example of something laid squarely at Stalin's feet when it doesn't add up at all. Khrushchev's adoption of blaming many problems, and emerging issues on Stalin, was nothing but bad politics and many interpret his blaming as admittance.

The purges are an event that are blameless. The reason for this being that the plenum of the meeting before they begun is (in an incredibly un-Soviet manner) missing. No one really knows who ordered, or suggested the purges, and given the issues of Evdokimov and other personnel at the time it's hardly clear cut.

I want to make clear one thing. Soviet history is incredibly emergent. Most of it was guesswork before 1990 when the archives were opened, sometimes educated guesswork. Many Russian history professors encourage students to read pre-1990 sources with that in mind - their evidence is largely based on very little, but often draws wild generalisations, especially in the west where the cold war effected people's biases.

I was living in Poland right around the time that the Berlin wall came down in Germany. In the time that followed a LOT of stuff came out that clearly illustrated the brutality of the Stalin regime. It wasn't until quite recently that the Russians even admitted to Katyn being their doing. They were still blaming the Germans up until the 80-90's. Matter of fact, they just released some more documents regarding Katyn shortly after the recent plane crash that killed the Polish president and others.

My point is that, I highly doubt that history will reveal that Stalin was a great guy...

 

[Schlyder]

I notice a few of nosebleedkid's references are on the Adelaide Institute's list of fine reading.
The Adelaide Institute is a well known anti-semetic organization, involved in Holocaust denial, as well as the Holodomor.

Read some research by Andrea Graziosi
or this
Invalid Link Removed

If Ukraine wasn't targeted, how come they had a net population loss of just under 10% during the period, while regions in Russia, Kazakistan etc. were seeing net increases in population from 15 - 20+%.
And the regions in Russia that were hit by the famine were comprised of up to 80% Ukrainian peoples. The Cossacks in particular. After the famine period those regions comprised of 1% Ukrainian inhabitants.

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

My point is that, I highly doubt that history will reveal that Stalin was a great guy...

No disagreement here. I just hope it looks at a country that developed a lot and recognizes the complexities of it's leader and the choices made.

I notice a few of nosebleedkid's references are on the Adelaide Institute's list of fine reading.
The Adelaide Institute is a well known anti-semetic organization, involved in Holocaust denial, as well as the Holodomor.

Just because research is used by people disconnected with it barely reflects on the research at all. Look at climate change research, I'm sure a lot of that is taken out of context too! One of the definitions of genocide is government sponsored attempts at elimination of a group. The famine includes none of those elements in a defined and complete way - that's why there's 'discussion', not 'denial'.

Although if more people read the evidence this would be a non-issue.

Read some research by Andrea Graziosi
or this
Invalid Link Removed

Not sure of it's relation to the archival opening. I will not consider research that's pre-archival opening at all. Others might, I will not. 1982 is was established, I assume much of it's findings in that PDF were before then.

If Ukraine wasn't targeted, how come they had a net population loss of just under 10% during the period, while regions in Russia, Kazakistan etc. were seeing net increases in population from 15 - 20+%.

Not being a statistics expert I wouldn't presume to trust those statistics. Or know how to properly analyse them. However, one thing I do know if that statistics from pre-archival times are notoriously poorly done, and almost always inflated to suit a particular contention.

And the regions in Russia that were hit by the famine were comprised of up to 80% Ukrainian peoples. The Cossacks in particular. After the famine period those regions comprised of 1% Ukrainian inhabitants.

Cossacks were hit by a campaign to wipe them out. Not a famine. The cossacks did not identify with any racial group, despite where they may have lived.

The Ukraine wasn't even a country at this time, it was a region of Russia, the 'Ukrainian' identity didn't even really exist as many assume it does. There's a pretty strong correlation between the bumper crop regions of Russia (ie - where they could take and redistribute crops from) and the geography of the Ukraine (and it's infamous black earth).

Requisition-associated violence was nothing new for Stalin's regime at all. It's a mistake to assume that violence indicates anything beyond harsh requisitioning tactics. The motivation here is not elimination (which wasn't continued in any way after the famine), but collection (which continually was).

 

[mike_v_s]

Been up almost 24 hours... so cannot respond coherently.... but plan to do so at a later point.

One point however, is that I'm not sure why when I bring up something like group bias that the conversation moves from the discussion of the merits of the claim of group bias, whether or not it is a valid concern or not, and then suddenly turns to focus instead on a discussion of my bias. That's the personally directed move that I'm uncomfortable with.

Your bringing up group bias wasn't what brought on the discussion of your bias. It was a series of comments you made that more or less put your opinion on a higher plane than the others here, their path to their opinion and the assumptions you made to back it up (I'm starting to repeat myself...) He's a quick example:

My training is in philosophy, psychology, and science. While I'm admittedly not immune to bias, I'm consciously aware of it and try to mitigate its impact as much as possible. In short, I care about the truth more than just thinking I'm right, regardless of the facts.

I don't think you're any different than anyone else in that respect, do you?

Actually, I do. Philosophers seek truth to a degree which is relatively rare in my experience. If you're interested, I'd be happy to talk about epistemology and critical thinking for the next twenty pages.

I'm not sure I'll belabor this point anymore. There's a disconnect that, whether conscious or unconscious, isn't something I feel like bridging.

With regard to the other half of your post: Since at no point in time did I ever make the claim that you question in the first sentence of the following paragraph, I've "adjusted" it to reflect exactly how it fits into this conversation.

[DEL]Don't agree that group bias affects how people view Hiroshima? Then, by all means, let's see your points refuting that claim. I'd really rather not have things turn to "but you're not unbiased 1111!", as that only makes things personal. Also, it is an ad hominem argument, which is a fallacy. Whether or not I'm unbiased has absolutely no bearing on whether or not group bias affects people's perspectives on Hiroshima. If the claim is true, then it is true regardless of anything to do with me.[/DEL]

(Turner was right, that is a fun fuction).

Mike

 

[BlacksHole]

By virtue of having a math degree, I have also been exposed to formal logic. Yet I still find your presentation troublesome. Any attempt to discuss historical "facts" is by its very nature colored to some degree. I say this because there appears to be no foolproof method of establishing a complete enough set of uncolorsed facts. Relying on first hand evidence gets a certain sidedness or bias as do the reports written at or near the time of the event. Making a full impartial judgment by studying the evidence years later also lends a certain bias.
What we can gather from all this is that it works much like almost all else - it is shades of gray and rarely fully clear cut. Not only can we not be completely sure of the intentions and complete reasoning of the persons who were actually involved - they themselves would probably have difficulty in explaining it to a fully satisfactory degree that would stand for any length of time.

 

[12bass]

Your bringing up group bias wasn't what brought on the discussion of your bias. It was a series of comments you made that more or less put your opinion on a higher plane than the others here, their path to their opinion and the assumptions you made to back it up (I'm starting to repeat myself...) He's a quick example:

I'm not sure I'll belabor this point anymore. There's a disconnect that, whether conscious or unconscious, isn't something I feel like bridging.

With regard to the other half of your post: Since at no point in time did I ever make the claim that you question in the first sentence of the following paragraph, I've "adjusted" it to reflect exactly how it fits into this conversation.
(Turner was right, that is a fun fuction).

Mike

First, it is important to clarify that I made those statements after the discussion had already been turned away from the topic and toward me personally. At that point the ad hominem line of reasoning had begun. Perhaps I made an error in judgment by responding to ad hominen claims, because since doing so, I'm continuing to see even further focus on myself instead of the topic at hand.

Logic dictates what is and is not reasonable. Logic provides a tool to analyze and deconstruct arguments though the process of determining whether or not arguments are sound. What I was expressing is that I happen to have training in the use of logic and critical thinking which goes beyond that of most people (as most people do not spend years studying logic and the critical analysis of arguments as philosophy students tend to do).

So, if anything, I put logic and critical thinking on a higher plane for the evaluation of truth, not myself per se. I'm just someone who uses the critical thinking tool set. My view is that anyone with a deep understanding of what is and is not a valid and sound argument is in a better position to evaluate truth claims than anyone who is not trained in this area. To suppose, however, that therefore I'm claiming myself to be the personal final arbiter of truth is a false assumption and a disingenuous misinterpretation of my actual perspective.

The facts are the facts, regardless of any individual's assertion to the contrary, including my own. Yes, admittedly, I too am susceptible to errors in my reasoning. However, I also have training in how to mitigate that error by using applied critical reasoning and attempt to do so whenever possible, and am perfectly willing to go through the critical thinking process in explicit detail. Importantly, however, note that this critical thinking tool set can be used by anyone and I would never make the claim that I alone am privy to its mastery (as that would be just plain silly).

BTW, I still say that the line of reasoning above amounts to an ad hominem, and is thus fallacious reasoning and a side track from the actual points which I was attempting to make. I'm done with the inquisition. I have no problem explaining the rationale behind what I've written, but refuse to address any more personal attacks. If there are specific claims which you would like clarified which are not related to me personally, then please put them out there for discussion.

A more constructive, and less combative, way of challenging someone's assertions would have been to ask them to show the reasoning behind their posts, rather than target them personally. Generally speaking, if it appears that an assertion has been made in error, then the best course of action is to ask for clarification of the logic behind that assertion, then put the claim under critical scrutiny to see if it is sound or erroneous (or.... put another way, have a reasoned discussion about the point(s) of contention).

 

[BlacksHole]

Somehow my post ended up before the post I was responding to/

 

[12bass]

Sorry... had to edit.

By virtue of having a math degree, I have also been exposed to formal logic. Yet I still find your presentation troublesome. Any attempt to discuss historical "facts" is by its very nature colored to some degree. I say this because there appears to be no foolproof method of establishing a complete enough set of uncolorsed facts. Relying on first hand evidence gets a certain sidedness or bias as do the reports written at or near the time of the event. Making a full impartial judgment by studying the evidence years later also lends a certain bias.
What we can gather from all this is that it works much like almost all else - it is shades of gray and rarely fully clear cut. Not only can we not be completely sure of the intentions and complete reasoning of the persons who were actually involved - they themselves would probably have difficulty in explaining it to a fully satisfactory degree that would stand for any length of time.

Sounds pretty reasonable. Humans are not objective, unbiased, observers. We're fallible beings. What I was taking issue with, in part, was the suggestion of some that the facts about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are beyond question, as this suggests a degree of certainty which is not justified given a large number of confounding factors.

 

[aborgman]

My impression is that you are making claims that our (US members) group bias might be influencing our views -

Every group, everywhere, has group bias influencing their views

Every single one.

It's unavoidable.

I'm countering by pointing out that you very well may also have bias-influenced views,

No one, anywhere, has any non bias-influenced views. Such a thing doesn't exist.

If you are truly trying to say "ya'll are Americans so have no idea what yer tawkin' about" then I take exception to that.

I'd argue that it's more like "y'all are human so all your views on everything are biased"

 

[aborgman]

counting famines (which weren't anyone's fault in Russia).

Umm... yes, the Ukrainian famines were certainly exacerbated by Stalin (both through collectivization and food diversions).

 

[12bass]

I'd argue that it's more like "y'all are human so all your views on everything are biased"

Yep.

 

[Relic]

Every group, everywhere, has group bias influencing their views

Every single one.

It's unavoidable.

No one, anywhere, has any non bias-influenced views. Such a thing doesn't exist.


I'd argue that it's more like "y'all are human so all your views on everything are biased"

Thank you. That underscores nicely what I was trying to say.

 

[12bass]

Don't want to sidetrack much further... except to say that 'biased' does not necessarily mean wrong (although bias can and does lead to significant error). Rather, the idea is that one's world view is not, and cannot be, "from nowhere", but is a subjective perspective which is culturally situated and limited by human perceptual and cognitive faculties.

 

[Relic]

Don't want to sidetrack much further... except to say that 'biased' does not necessarily mean wrong (although bias can and does lead to significant error). Rather, the idea is that one's world view is not, and cannot be, "from nowhere", but is a subjective perspective which is culturally situated and limited by human perceptual and cognitive faculties.

Yeah, I definitely agree with that.

 

[mike_v_s]

First, it is important to clarify that I made those statements after the discussion had already been turned away from the topic and toward me personally. At that point the ad hominem line of reasoning had begun. Perhaps I made an error in judgment by responding to ad hominen claims, because since doing so, I'm continuing to see even further focus on myself instead of the topic at hand.

Awesome. It is also important to clarify that I used that exchange as an example and it is labeled so. Feel free to reread this thread and find my first response to you. It's where you begin expressing concern about others' opinion without knowing anything about their opinion. Sadly, we'll revisit this again. Moving on .... This would be an "ad hominem line of reasoning" if and only if I was attempting to discount or discredit your postion...but I'm not. In fact, I specifically stated that I had not fully addressed your points on the bombings in detail and when I did, I made no claims as to their validity in either direction. Ooops. But since you seem keen on throwing the term around, look up ad hominem circumstantial. It dovetails nicely with your discussion of others' bias, but maybe not in the way you might hope.

Logic dictates what is and is not reasonable. Logic provides a tool to analyze and deconstruct arguments though the process of determining whether or not arguments are sound. What I was expressing is that I happen to have training in the use of logic and critical thinking which goes beyond that of most people (as most people do not spend years studying logic and the critical analysis of arguments as philosophy students tend to do).

At this point, I would like to mention to anyone reading this besides 12bass that i am exercising a nearly inhuman amount of self restraint.

So, if anything, I put logic and critical thinking on a higher plane for the evaluation of truth, not myself per se. I'm just someone who uses the critical thinking tool set. My view is that anyone with a deep understanding of what is and is not a valid and sound argument is in a better position to evaluate truth claims than anyone who is not trained in this area. To suppose, however, that therefore I'm claiming myself to be the personal final arbiter of truth is a false assumption and a disingenuous misinterpretation of my actual perspective.

...and this means that others here are not concerned with the truth?

The facts are the facts, regardless of any individual's assertion to the contrary, including my own. Yes, admittedly, I too am susceptible to errors in my reasoning. However, I also have training in how to mitigate that error by using applied critical reasoning and attempt to do so whenever possible, and am perfectly willing to go through the critical thinking process in explicit detail. Importantly, however, note that this critical thinking tool set can be used by anyone and I would never make the claim that I alone am privy to its mastery (as that would be just plain silly).

YES, IT IS. Almost as silly would bee asserting that others here don't use it...

BTW, I still say that the line of reasoning above amounts to an ad hominem, and is thus fallacious reasoning and a side track from the actual points which I was attempting to make. I'm done with the inquisition. I have no problem explaining the rationale behind what I've written, but refuse to address any more personal attacks.

See above.

If there are specific claims which you would like clarified which are not related to me personally, then please put them out there for discussion.

No, the claaims are pretty clear.

A more constructive, and less combative, way of challenging someone's assertions would have been to ask them to show the reasoning behind their posts, rather than target them personally.

Holy crap, you HAVE been reading my posts. It might take me two hands to count the number of times I've mentioned that you should have done this very thing before commenting on others' posts. In fact, that's been the heavy end of my point since the very beginning. That you would now attempt to suggest that I use it after you have repeatedly stated the resoning behind your posts is...curious, to say the least.

Generally speaking, if it appears that an assertion has been made in error, then the best course of action is to ask for clarification of the logic behind that assertion, then put the claim under critical scrutiny to see if it is sound or erroneous (or.... put another way, have a reasoned discussion about the point(s) of contention).

As stated, you gave your reasons for believing that your position was more sound than others... I've quoted it twice now. I do not believe we are having the same conversation.

Here, I'll bow out now and leave the space below (or, as I like to call it, The Remainder of the Thread) for you to make whatever claims about my post that you desire.

Mike