General Books/Reading Discussion

Discussions
User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:51 pm

We have a thread on how best to define and think about genocide, which touches on opposing arguments about Ukraine (to be upfront, I don't think that the situation Ukraine fits the definition of genocide I think best), here.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5102
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Morgan de Veldt
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:54 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:50 pm
Upton: thanks for the expanding reply. I think the analogy to the Plague is more an example of literature than analysis? Most metaphors are. The only commonality is "things coming on slowly." Genocide, Wars, that Tutsi killing the old neighbor: more directly than "unrecognized causation" is more basic and is just mans inhumanity towards man. We basically don't care about one another and only care about our own self advancement or security. Nothing to do with lack of recognition. Where to draw any line you can think of: just right before ME. Same as it always has been. 94% care and concern FOR ME. 3% to wifey. 2% to kiddies. 1%: anyone else I don't actively hate.

Just look.
Wow, bobbo! And I thought I was cynical!! About the metaphors, of course, you are right. That's what metaphors do; they provide a model for the imagination. The image of a road making a long series of barely-noticeable bends until it goes back in the opposite direction works for me. (And I believe CS Lewis used it in one of Screwtape's letters to Wormwood.) Another that works equally well is starting-the-frog-in-cold-water, heating it by barely-noticeable degrees until the frog is cooked. What's important in the real-world situation is the reinforcement from the society around one. If others take alarm at certain manifestations that one might have accepted as "just a bit off," one is brought to realize that a wrong has been committed, and hence restored to the straight and narrow path. That's very visible nowadays with the Northam case. No doubt, the society he was in back in 1980s Virginia took no alarm at blackface insults to African-Americans.

But I'm appalled by the number of people who phoned On Point this morning to say that Northam has repented and should be given a chance to redeem himself and turn this into a "teaching moment." Fine, but nothing would teach the lesson better than for him to have to leave office; nothing would make it clearer that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. After leaving office, he'd do a very good thing to make this a teaching moment. Let him redeem himself after he gets out. I won't believe in the sincerity of anything he says while clinging to office.
“It is certainly sad and regrettable that so many innocent people died…Stalin was absolutely adamant on making doubly sure: spare no one…I don’t deny that I supported that view. I was simply not able to study every individual case…It was hard to draw a precise line where to stop.”

Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Skryabin (“Molotov”)

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5102
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Morgan de Veldt
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:57 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:51 pm
We have a thread on how best to define and think about genocide, which touches on opposing arguments about Ukraine (to be upfront, I don't think that the situation Ukraine fits the definition of genocide I think best), here.
Thanks, StatMech. What the Communists wanted from the Ukraine in the 1930s was food for their political base in Moscow-Leningrad. And they got it---ruthlessly and callously starving Ukrainians to death. But these people were murdered not because they were Ukrainians, but because they had grain that the government wanted to bestow elsewhere. And, I might add, part of the deliberate murdering was aimed at breaking all resistance to Soviet power, teaching a brutal object lesson to those who resisted.
“It is certainly sad and regrettable that so many innocent people died…Stalin was absolutely adamant on making doubly sure: spare no one…I don’t deny that I supported that view. I was simply not able to study every individual case…It was hard to draw a precise line where to stop.”

Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Skryabin (“Molotov”)

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:10 pm

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:57 pm
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:51 pm
We have a thread on how best to define and think about genocide, which touches on opposing arguments about Ukraine (to be upfront, I don't think that the situation Ukraine fits the definition of genocide I think best), here.
Thanks, StatMech. What the Communists wanted from the Ukraine in the 1930s was food for their political base in Moscow-Leningrad. And they got it---ruthlessly and callously starving Ukrainians to death. But these people were murdered not because they were Ukrainians, but because they had grain that the government wanted to bestow elsewhere. And, I might add, part of the deliberate murdering was aimed at breaking all resistance to Soviet power, teaching a brutal object lesson to those who resisted.
I agree that the murders were politically and economically based, not aimed at the destruction of Ukrainians per se, and my understanding is that the crime victims included many non-Ukrainians in the same campaign.

I have come to feel that Mann's definition of genocide is really useful and allows important distinctions between types of cleansing and mass murders.

Denying History, who knows a LOT more about this than I do, vigorously disagrees with me (and did so in the genocide thread). We meant to get back to discussing the topic but never did so. (DH also vigorously disagrees with me on defining genocide, btw, and, I think, prefers something more like Lemkin's definition.)
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12673
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:17 am

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:57 pm
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:51 pm
We have a thread on how best to define and think about genocide, which touches on opposing arguments about Ukraine (to be upfront, I don't think that the situation Ukraine fits the definition of genocide I think best), here.
Thanks, StatMech. What the Communists wanted from the Ukraine in the 1930s was food for their political base in Moscow-Leningrad. And they got it---ruthlessly and callously starving Ukrainians to death. But these people were murdered not because they were Ukrainians, but because they had grain that the government wanted to bestow elsewhere. And, I might add, part of the deliberate murdering was aimed at breaking all resistance to Soviet power, teaching a brutal object lesson to those who resisted.
A couple of things to consider:

1) A deep seated hostility that existed between Russia and the Ukraine that existed for decades. Stalin was a Russophile and picked up on that.
2) Peasant resistance to collectivization, it existed all over the USSR but was particularly strong in the Ukraine. This resistance led to violence between the peasants and Communist officials.

I also remember that Communist officials treated the Ukraine particularly harshly.

I go back and forth between whether or not what happened was genocide in the technical term. I lean towards no due to Stalin relenting after harvests improved. Genocidal actions imply to me an unrelenting nature, something that continues long after there is a point.

However I’d need to revisit the Holodomor again and I’ve got enough going on with what I’m reading now.
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Harvard Crimson (on why it refused to run an add by Bradley Smith):
“(It is) vicious propaganda based on utter BS that has been discredited time and time again.”

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:32 am

I wonder how many people think the frog metaphor is valid?..ie: frogs don't do that..........they draw the line at their personal comfort.

Ha, ha.........I did want to give wifey a bit more due, but I was grumpy.....and it does take away from ME. Just nasty to go below 1% for everyone else, although, "in effect"..........its no where near as high as I think generally thought....it just doesn't stand out on its own as "going along to get along" is all about where that line is.

I'm not big on repenting myself. Too easy. I think we should all burn and personally suffer for the "mistakes" we make..........only as appropriate to bring the point home and not do it or something all too similar again? Most evil is just that.......repenting (excusing one's own behavior) and doing it again. I'd be pragmatic about the issue: whats the alternative? Ha, ha........looks like Northam threw his replacement under the bus with that charge of sexual harassment. Choosing between right and wrong is rarely the offer. Contra: I very much prefer actual track record........not so much about moral character.......especially from 40 years ago. Nothing about what he learned or repentance: just his performance in office. Thats where I draw my line. Democracy: its what the majority think. I probably wouldn't vote.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Denying-History
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2173
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Denying-History » Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:14 am

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:57 pm
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:51 pm
We have a thread on how best to define and think about genocide, which touches on opposing arguments about Ukraine (to be upfront, I don't think that the situation Ukraine fits the definition of genocide I think best), here.
Thanks, StatMech. What the Communists wanted from the Ukraine in the 1930s was food for their political base in Moscow-Leningrad. And they got it---ruthlessly and callously starving Ukrainians to death. But these people were murdered not because they were Ukrainians, but because they had grain that the government wanted to bestow elsewhere. And, I might add, part of the deliberate murdering was aimed at breaking all resistance to Soviet power, teaching a brutal object lesson to those who resisted.
The Ukrainians were not starved to death because of their ethnos. They were targeted purely on a regional basis and this falls under the category of a national group.
« The Terror here is a horrifying fact. There is a fear that reaches down and haunts all sections of the community. No household, however humble, apparently but what lives in constant fear of nocturnal raid by the secret police. . .This particular purge is undoubtedly political. . . It is deliberately projected by the party leaders, who themselves regretted the necessity for it. »
Joseph E. Davies

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:32 am

Denying-History wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:14 am
The Ukrainians were not starved to death because of their ethnos. They were targeted purely on a regional basis and this falls under the category of a national group.
Purely? How often does that happen? I generically reject such absolute thinking. Even 1% is not pure. Know what I mean? Even "almost entirely" works for me.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Denying-History
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2173
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Denying-History » Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:14 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:32 am
Denying-History wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:14 am
The Ukrainians were not starved to death because of their ethnos. They were targeted purely on a regional basis and this falls under the category of a national group.
Purely? How often does that happen? I generically reject such absolute thinking. Even 1% is not pure. Know what I mean? Even "almost entirely" works for me.
If you don’t understand that purely can mean “entirely” or “exclusively”, then this conversations pointless. I’ll state this in the clearest manner possible; that the Ukrainians were targeted as peasants of the Ukraine and nothing else. Their ethnicity was not targeted in any similar fashion to that of the Jews or Armenians. They were targeted as Ukrainian peasants and their singling out (similar to the Lower Volga) is shown in the disproportionate levels of repression levied against the regions they inhabited. To sum things up, as Stanislav Kul'chyts'kyi put it:
in 1929-31 the USSR carried out collectivization, which was accompanied by repressions that targeted millions of peasants. The economic relations between the city and the countryside, which were established after collectivization, led to a crisis that the state overcame by both economic and terror measures. The confiscation of all foodstuffs took place in only two regions where Ukrainians comprised two-thirds of the population. In other words, this confiscation was aimed not against peasants in general but against Ukrainian peasants.
According to ICTR a “National group” is "an association of people who have a permanent legal connection such as a single citizenship and, accordingly, certain rights and obligations." They recognize a "Ethnic group” as "a cultural, linguistic, or other openly expressed difference characteristic of a minority, whether within a state or beyond its borders."

So let’s work from these two and ask the question “did ethnicity matter?” Which as Harvard pointed out “ethnicity did not.” People died for their residence, that is being in the wrong location at the wrong time. Stanislav Kul'chyts'kyi has argued that three locations were the targets of “holodomors”, two of these regions (specifically a subregion of one) fit the UN’s categorization of genocidal intent against a national group.
« The Terror here is a horrifying fact. There is a fear that reaches down and haunts all sections of the community. No household, however humble, apparently but what lives in constant fear of nocturnal raid by the secret police. . .This particular purge is undoubtedly political. . . It is deliberately projected by the party leaders, who themselves regretted the necessity for it. »
Joseph E. Davies

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:37 am

Well thanks DH.........I know synthesizing great themes and actions of history into single paragraphs and sentences is difficult to do. course.....I did it by saying my position was "generic." My definition of "purely" is the same as yours. My disagreement is with the concept that ANYTHING humans beings do is purely by any one cause. I see and can accept that the action in the Ukraine was not the same as that taken with Jews or Armenians, but why was the Ukraine chosen to begin with? Seems to me what you have posted is consistent with Stalin didn't want the Ukrainians around so he pointed to the map and said starve everyone in that area. The fact that ethnic non-Ukrainians got caught up in the action doesn't mean ethnic Ukranians were not the target TO SOME DEGREE which is my only point. My knowledge of Russian history is typical for an American as in: none. I'll give it to you completely warts and all: lots of people in the Ukraine did not want to be collectivized and Stalin didn't care and did it anyway. I don't know what an ethnic Ukrainian is or isn't, or a Ukrainian Nationalist either nor any history of the ethnic bigotry between Russians and Ukrainians.....but it seems to be going on today as well? The talk I hear in the news is about "Native Russians" living in Crimea in conflict with "Native Ukrainians." That sounds ethnic to me even though I can't tell one from the other? I only assume it was about the same during the Holodomor.

How does one tell what anyone's (Stalin) motivation "really" was or devine 100% rather than 99%? I don't think anyone can. My comment is grounded in general psychology. History may make a different judgement. History has different concerns/issues.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5102
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Morgan de Veldt
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:36 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:32 am
I wonder how many people think the frog metaphor is valid?..ie: frogs don't do that..........they draw the line at their personal comfort.
Oh for Christ's sake, bobbo! Make it a lobster then. And try to acquire a bit of imagination.
“It is certainly sad and regrettable that so many innocent people died…Stalin was absolutely adamant on making doubly sure: spare no one…I don’t deny that I supported that view. I was simply not able to study every individual case…It was hard to draw a precise line where to stop.”

Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Skryabin (“Molotov”)

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5102
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Morgan de Veldt
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:40 am

Denying-History wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:14 am
Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:57 pm
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:51 pm
We have a thread on how best to define and think about genocide, which touches on opposing arguments about Ukraine (to be upfront, I don't think that the situation Ukraine fits the definition of genocide I think best), here.
Thanks, StatMech. What the Communists wanted from the Ukraine in the 1930s was food for their political base in Moscow-Leningrad. And they got it---ruthlessly and callously starving Ukrainians to death. But these people were murdered not because they were Ukrainians, but because they had grain that the government wanted to bestow elsewhere. And, I might add, part of the deliberate murdering was aimed at breaking all resistance to Soviet power, teaching a brutal object lesson to those who resisted.
The Ukrainians were not starved to death because of their ethnos. They were targeted purely on a regional basis and this falls under the category of a national group.
OK, I see your point. But I don't think the whole Ukraine was targeted, only the parts that produce the grain. I don't consider midwestern farmers in the US to be a national group. I want to reread the definition StatMech posted. The discussion at this point is about words and definitions. I don't think any of us disagree as to the facts of the case. So, should we call it a genocide or not? I still think not, but I'll reconsider.
“It is certainly sad and regrettable that so many innocent people died…Stalin was absolutely adamant on making doubly sure: spare no one…I don’t deny that I supported that view. I was simply not able to study every individual case…It was hard to draw a precise line where to stop.”

Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Skryabin (“Molotov”)

User avatar
Kleon_I XYZ Contagion
Poster
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:06 pm

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Kleon_I XYZ Contagion » Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:44 am

Hello all my dear friends, thinking of you everyday, just can't get involved for a while because ... family and work, you know how it goes in Greece, things are tough.

This is a book which I don't remember seeing it or discussing it in our forum, at least widely.

- Konrad Morgen: The Conscience of a Nazi Judge (just click on the little arrow, top right)
https://goo.gl/ArFCKa

My best regards to all awesome friends and truth warriors here, especially Jeff, StatMech, Holocaust Controversies crew and Dr Terry, Aaron, Nathan, Oozy, IMCE and all guys from Israel, the other Jeff, Denying History, Balsamo, Nessie, Mr Upton, forgive me if I can't remember someone.
Last edited by Kleon_I XYZ Contagion on Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
According to experts and scholars, the 10 stages of every genocide are
Classification Symbolization Discrimination Dehumanization Organization Polarization Preparation Persecution Extermination
... and finally the 10th stage:
Denial
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/t ... ocide.html
XYZ Contagion (‘Because the truth is contagious‘), an investigative/research political and historical website, deals also with the Srebrenica Genocide
https://xyzcontagion.wordpress.com/about/#English

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12673
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:50 am

Hello, Kleon!!
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Harvard Crimson (on why it refused to run an add by Bradley Smith):
“(It is) vicious propaganda based on utter BS that has been discredited time and time again.”

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:07 pm

So good to "see" you Kleon. Thanks for the update.
Kleon_I XYZ Contagion wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:44 am
This is a book which I don't remember seeing it or discussing it in our forum, at least widely.

- Konrad Morgen: The Conscience of a Nazi Judge (just click on the little arrow, top right)
https://goo.gl/ArFCKa
An excellent book - see here

You'll understand that I've been wondering where you've been when you check this out: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=26239&start=1400#p689039; I would love to hear your take on this collection.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Kleon_I XYZ Contagion
Poster
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:06 pm

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Kleon_I XYZ Contagion » Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:27 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:07 pm
So good to "see" you Kleon. Thanks for the update.
Kleon_I XYZ Contagion wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:44 am
This is a book which I don't remember seeing it or discussing it in our forum, at least widely.

- Konrad Morgen: The Conscience of a Nazi Judge (just click on the little arrow, top right)
https://goo.gl/ArFCKa
An excellent book - see here

You'll understand that I've been wondering where you've been when you check this out: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=26239&start=1400#p689039; I would love to hear your take on this collection.
Giorgos Antoniou (knowing him since his early days) and Dirk Moses gathered together, not some random writers, but our best researchers and writers for this book (and many more). It is literally the Dream-Team of Greek Holocaust Studies. To be honest, I was about to buy the English book, but then learnt that a Greek edition is on its way to be published, and hold myself back until they'll launch the Greek edition (because, also, you know, for financial support to the Greek publishers who never make money from this kind of books). I'll come again on this when is out in the market, definitely. :D
Last edited by Kleon_I XYZ Contagion on Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:46 pm

Great, thanks, I thought it was a terrific collection and learned a tremendous amount from it. I highly recommend the book to everyone here.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Denying-History
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2173
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Denying-History » Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:31 pm

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:40 am
Denying-History wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:14 am
Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:57 pm
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:51 pm
We have a thread on how best to define and think about genocide, which touches on opposing arguments about Ukraine (to be upfront, I don't think that the situation Ukraine fits the definition of genocide I think best), here.
Thanks, StatMech. What the Communists wanted from the Ukraine in the 1930s was food for their political base in Moscow-Leningrad. And they got it---ruthlessly and callously starving Ukrainians to death. But these people were murdered not because they were Ukrainians, but because they had grain that the government wanted to bestow elsewhere. And, I might add, part of the deliberate murdering was aimed at breaking all resistance to Soviet power, teaching a brutal object lesson to those who resisted.
The Ukrainians were not starved to death because of their ethnos. They were targeted purely on a regional basis and this falls under the category of a national group.
OK, I see your point. But I don't think the whole Ukraine was targeted, only the parts that produce the grain. I don't consider midwestern farmers in the US to be a national group. I want to reread the definition StatMech posted. The discussion at this point is about words and definitions. I don't think any of us disagree as to the facts of the case. So, should we call it a genocide or not? I still think not, but I'll reconsider.
You’d run into a problem then, considering the non-grain growing regions of the Ukraine (unlike the previous famine in 1921-22) were affected the worst:
http://shevchenko.org/wp-content/upload ... kraine.pdf

The major areas effected are Kiev and Kharkiv which heavily correlate to 1930 resistance against collectivization.
http://euromaidanpress.com

And that the entire border of the Ukraine was closed with intent to isolate the famine in that region for one reason or another

Now I also don’t consider midwestern farmers to be a nation. Their a subset of a very large country, while in Ukraine (based on the 1926 census) 80.8% of the population were rurally based farmers! That is 24.3 million out of a population of 30 million. They’re simply not comparable .

As to the “facts” their importance lay in defining the target. Now if we’re discussing the famine within the context of the UN definition of genocide, I think it fits very well into their description of intent:
What is "intent" to destroy a group? There are two different views on this. The everyday meaning tends to confuse intent with "motive." If a colonial power, motivated by conquest of a territory, or a revolutionary regime with the aim of imposing a new social order, in the process destroys all or part of a human group, does that constitute genocide? Not according to most popular definitions of intent. But in criminal law, including international criminal law, the specific motive is irrelevant. Prosecutors need only prove that the criminal act was intentional, not accidental. A conquest or a revolution that causes total or partial destruction of a group, legally qualifies as intentional and therefore as genocide whatever the goal or motive, so long as the acts of destruction were pursued intentionally. In this legal definition, genocidal intent also applies to acts of destruction that are not the specific goal but are predictable outcomes or by-products of a policy, which could have been avoided by a change in that policy. Deliberate pursuit of any policy in the knowledge that it would lead to destruction of a human group thus constitutes genocidal intent. In international law, then, "genocide” describes both deliberate mass extermination campaigns specifically motivated by fear or hatred of a victim group, as in the Nazi Holocaust, and destruction of human groups pursued for more indirect or political purposes, such as the Indonesian military conquest of East Timor or the Khmer Rouge utopian communist revolution. Of course, there remain important social and political distinctions between these cases, but the legal category of genocide includes.
(The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective edited by Robert Gellately, Ben Kiernan p.15)

Now I’m all for what SM proposes - a more strict definition of genocide - but we should start from the legal definition and shave it down. What would need to be done is redefining “in whole or in part” and which “groups” make the listing. SM (from what I understand) prefers Michael Mann’s definition which defines genocide as targeted murder against religious or ethnic groups. My major issue with Mann’s definition is that if someone then starts a wholesale extermination program against citizens of France (that meaning those with citizenship within the counties borders) then it’s not genocide. Personally I don’t know of any other word that I’d use to describe that.
« The Terror here is a horrifying fact. There is a fear that reaches down and haunts all sections of the community. No household, however humble, apparently but what lives in constant fear of nocturnal raid by the secret police. . .This particular purge is undoubtedly political. . . It is deliberately projected by the party leaders, who themselves regretted the necessity for it. »
Joseph E. Davies

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:52 pm

LOL DH and I disagree and went over the points of disagreement in the genocide thread. Mann's concept of genocide is a lot richer than "targeted murder against religious and ethnic groups" and in fact would include nations under certain circumstances, as I read him. His concern is more with a continuum so that different dynamics aren't lumped together as the same.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:07 pm

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:36 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:32 am
I wonder how many people think the frog metaphor is valid?..ie: frogs don't do that..........they draw the line at their personal comfort.
Oh for Christ's sake, bobbo! Make it a lobster then. And try to acquire a bit of imagination.
Oh.........the metaphor is wonderful and I use it myself. I just wonder how many people think it is true? I mean, its all part of understanding "how we think" and how so much of it is wrong. I think that is rewarding and a positive. Metaphors: Step One: Enjoy them for most are witty and have a lesson. Step Two: identify the fallacy, aka: where the metaphor breaks down BECAUSE THEY ALL DO (its why they are a metaphor and not a restatement of the thing itself). Step Three: Balance the two steps.

Life is a journey.............mind where you step.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:13 pm

There is NO reason to narrow down any definition, to select one over another. The greatest appreciation of ANY subject is to evaluate it using ALL the definitions. Step two: compare and contrast, recognize the pros and the cons of each approach. Step Three: add them all up and appreciate.

yeah, why not?:

Life is a journey.........mind what definitions you don't use.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5102
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Morgan de Veldt
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:14 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:07 pm
Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:36 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:32 am
I wonder how many people think the frog metaphor is valid?..ie: frogs don't do that..........they draw the line at their personal comfort.
Oh for Christ's sake, bobbo! Make it a lobster then. And try to acquire a bit of imagination.
Oh.........the metaphor is wonderful and I use it myself. I just wonder how many people think it is true? I mean, its all part of understanding "how we think" and how so much of it is wrong. I think that is rewarding and a positive. Metaphors: Step One: Enjoy them for most are witty and have a lesson. Step Two: identify the fallacy, aka: where the metaphor breaks down BECAUSE THEY ALL DO (its why they are a metaphor and not a restatement of the thing itself). Step Three: Balance the two steps.

Life is a journey.............mind where you step.
:lol: :lol:

Actually, I think it was always in the back of my mind that it would be hard to get a frog to cooperate in a slow boil, unless the pot had a very tight lid. Lobsters are different though. As I understand this (from Julia Child, no less), if you start them in cold water, they simply die quietly when the water reaches about 30 Celsius.
“It is certainly sad and regrettable that so many innocent people died…Stalin was absolutely adamant on making doubly sure: spare no one…I don’t deny that I supported that view. I was simply not able to study every individual case…It was hard to draw a precise line where to stop.”

Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Skryabin (“Molotov”)

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5102
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Morgan de Veldt
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:21 pm

Denying-History wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:31 pm
Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:40 am
Denying-History wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:14 am
Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:57 pm
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:51 pm
We have a thread on how best to define and think about genocide, which touches on opposing arguments about Ukraine (to be upfront, I don't think that the situation Ukraine fits the definition of genocide I think best), here.
Thanks, StatMech. What the Communists wanted from the Ukraine in the 1930s was food for their political base in Moscow-Leningrad. And they got it---ruthlessly and callously starving Ukrainians to death. But these people were murdered not because they were Ukrainians, but because they had grain that the government wanted to bestow elsewhere. And, I might add, part of the deliberate murdering was aimed at breaking all resistance to Soviet power, teaching a brutal object lesson to those who resisted.
The Ukrainians were not starved to death because of their ethnos. They were targeted purely on a regional basis and this falls under the category of a national group.
OK, I see your point. But I don't think the whole Ukraine was targeted, only the parts that produce the grain. I don't consider midwestern farmers in the US to be a national group. I want to reread the definition StatMech posted. The discussion at this point is about words and definitions. I don't think any of us disagree as to the facts of the case. So, should we call it a genocide or not? I still think not, but I'll reconsider.
You’d run into a problem then, considering the non-grain growing regions of the Ukraine (unlike the previous famine in 1921-22) were affected the worst:
http://shevchenko.org/wp-content/upload ... kraine.pdf

The major areas effected are Kiev and Kharkiv which heavily correlate to 1930 resistance against collectivization.
http://euromaidanpress.com

And that the entire border of the Ukraine was closed with intent to isolate the famine in that region for one reason or another

Now I also don’t consider midwestern farmers to be a nation. Their a subset of a very large country, while in Ukraine (based on the 1926 census) 80.8% of the population were rurally based farmers! That is 24.3 million out of a population of 30 million. They’re simply not comparable .

As to the “facts” their importance lay in defining the target. Now if we’re discussing the famine within the context of the UN definition of genocide, I think it fits very well into their description of intent:
What is "intent" to destroy a group? There are two different views on this. The everyday meaning tends to confuse intent with "motive." If a colonial power, motivated by conquest of a territory, or a revolutionary regime with the aim of imposing a new social order, in the process destroys all or part of a human group, does that constitute genocide? Not according to most popular definitions of intent. But in criminal law, including international criminal law, the specific motive is irrelevant. Prosecutors need only prove that the criminal act was intentional, not accidental. A conquest or a revolution that causes total or partial destruction of a group, legally qualifies as intentional and therefore as genocide whatever the goal or motive, so long as the acts of destruction were pursued intentionally. In this legal definition, genocidal intent also applies to acts of destruction that are not the specific goal but are predictable outcomes or by-products of a policy, which could have been avoided by a change in that policy. Deliberate pursuit of any policy in the knowledge that it would lead to destruction of a human group thus constitutes genocidal intent. In international law, then, "genocide” describes both deliberate mass extermination campaigns specifically motivated by fear or hatred of a victim group, as in the Nazi Holocaust, and destruction of human groups pursued for more indirect or political purposes, such as the Indonesian military conquest of East Timor or the Khmer Rouge utopian communist revolution. Of course, there remain important social and political distinctions between these cases, but the legal category of genocide includes.
(The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective edited by Robert Gellately, Ben Kiernan p.15)

Now I’m all for what SM proposes - a more strict definition of genocide - but we should start from the legal definition and shave it down. What would need to be done is redefining “in whole or in part” and which “groups” make the listing. SM (from what I understand) prefers Michael Mann’s definition which defines genocide as targeted murder against religious or ethnic groups. My major issue with Mann’s definition is that if someone then starts a wholesale extermination program against citizens of France (that meaning those with citizenship within the counties borders) then it’s not genocide. Personally I don’t know of any other word that I’d use to describe that.
There's more here than I can deal with quickly, so it will take me some time to sort through it. The fact that Kiev and Khar'kiv were most strongly affected needs to be looked at. I hadn't known that, so thanks for the information. But "strongly affected" and "strongly targeted" are different things. The food was being shipped off to the big cities in Russia, if I remember correctly. (Here, I'd better get out a couple of old books and look at them.) So naturally, Kiev and Khar'kiv wouldn't be getting any of the food. And, not being in the breadbasket area, they'd naturally find it harder to produce the food they needed. Just an off-the-top-of-my-head comment. I'll think further. (To be continued.) Let me say emphatically, however, that besides procuring grain, it seems clear that another important aim of the famine imposed on Ukraine was to break resistance to collectivization.
“It is certainly sad and regrettable that so many innocent people died…Stalin was absolutely adamant on making doubly sure: spare no one…I don’t deny that I supported that view. I was simply not able to study every individual case…It was hard to draw a precise line where to stop.”

Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Skryabin (“Molotov”)

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5102
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Morgan de Veldt
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:25 pm

OK, let me do a quick capitulation. The UN document quoted explicitly says that even if only a partial destruction of a nation was intended, that still counts as genocide. Whether the UN has found the optimal application of the term could be debated, but to avoid confusing the issue, we'd best accept it. My previous posts were based on my own understanding of genocide, and I hadn't actually looked up any formal, legal definition of it, thinking (erroneously) that my common sense was good enough.
“It is certainly sad and regrettable that so many innocent people died…Stalin was absolutely adamant on making doubly sure: spare no one…I don’t deny that I supported that view. I was simply not able to study every individual case…It was hard to draw a precise line where to stop.”

Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Skryabin (“Molotov”)

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:43 pm

FWIW I think the UN definition of genocide is of limited analytical value.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:45 pm

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:14 pm
Actually, I think it was always in the back of my mind that it would be hard to get a frog to cooperate in a slow boil, unless the pot had a very tight lid. Lobsters are different though. As I understand this (from Julia Child, no less), if you start them in cold water, they simply die quietly when the water reaches about 30 Celsius.
Mine too and I was going to test it but instead I just read some guy who said he had tested it, and it wasn't true. Good enough for me. I've heard lots of instances about its cruel to boil lobsters and as you post, just the opposite. I see no reason why lobsters shouldn't be as advanced as frogs? I mean will they just walk into a thermal vent?.....I have seen pictures of thermal vents crawling with.....CRABS. they know temperature when they bath in it........who knows the mind of a lobster? I only assume its not true re lobsters which is why hot water is started with. Oops....you say JC says start with cold? I plan on cooking some lobster fairly soon, so I checked. EVERY "authentic JC recipe" starts with a roiling boil but thats not JC herself.

We live in the age of Google and Youtube:

The famous lobster show: at 2:50 use boiling water and put the lobsters in brain first to kill them rapidly. No comment on what the lobster thinks.

Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Denying-History
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2173
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Denying-History » Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:10 pm

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:21 pm
Denying-History wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:31 pm
Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:40 am
Denying-History wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:14 am
Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:57 pm
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:51 pm
We have a thread on how best to define and think about genocide, which touches on opposing arguments about Ukraine (to be upfront, I don't think that the situation Ukraine fits the definition of genocide I think best), here.
Thanks, StatMech. What the Communists wanted from the Ukraine in the 1930s was food for their political base in Moscow-Leningrad. And they got it---ruthlessly and callously starving Ukrainians to death. But these people were murdered not because they were Ukrainians, but because they had grain that the government wanted to bestow elsewhere. And, I might add, part of the deliberate murdering was aimed at breaking all resistance to Soviet power, teaching a brutal object lesson to those who resisted.
The Ukrainians were not starved to death because of their ethnos. They were targeted purely on a regional basis and this falls under the category of a national group.
OK, I see your point. But I don't think the whole Ukraine was targeted, only the parts that produce the grain. I don't consider midwestern farmers in the US to be a national group. I want to reread the definition StatMech posted. The discussion at this point is about words and definitions. I don't think any of us disagree as to the facts of the case. So, should we call it a genocide or not? I still think not, but I'll reconsider.
You’d run into a problem then, considering the non-grain growing regions of the Ukraine (unlike the previous famine in 1921-22) were affected the worst:
http://shevchenko.org/wp-content/upload ... kraine.pdf

The major areas effected are Kiev and Kharkiv which heavily correlate to 1930 resistance against collectivization.
http://euromaidanpress.com

And that the entire border of the Ukraine was closed with intent to isolate the famine in that region for one reason or another

Now I also don’t consider midwestern farmers to be a nation. Their a subset of a very large country, while in Ukraine (based on the 1926 census) 80.8% of the population were rurally based farmers! That is 24.3 million out of a population of 30 million. They’re simply not comparable .

As to the “facts” their importance lay in defining the target. Now if we’re discussing the famine within the context of the UN definition of genocide, I think it fits very well into their description of intent:
What is "intent" to destroy a group? There are two different views on this. The everyday meaning tends to confuse intent with "motive." If a colonial power, motivated by conquest of a territory, or a revolutionary regime with the aim of imposing a new social order, in the process destroys all or part of a human group, does that constitute genocide? Not according to most popular definitions of intent. But in criminal law, including international criminal law, the specific motive is irrelevant. Prosecutors need only prove that the criminal act was intentional, not accidental. A conquest or a revolution that causes total or partial destruction of a group, legally qualifies as intentional and therefore as genocide whatever the goal or motive, so long as the acts of destruction were pursued intentionally. In this legal definition, genocidal intent also applies to acts of destruction that are not the specific goal but are predictable outcomes or by-products of a policy, which could have been avoided by a change in that policy. Deliberate pursuit of any policy in the knowledge that it would lead to destruction of a human group thus constitutes genocidal intent. In international law, then, "genocide” describes both deliberate mass extermination campaigns specifically motivated by fear or hatred of a victim group, as in the Nazi Holocaust, and destruction of human groups pursued for more indirect or political purposes, such as the Indonesian military conquest of East Timor or the Khmer Rouge utopian communist revolution. Of course, there remain important social and political distinctions between these cases, but the legal category of genocide includes.
(The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective edited by Robert Gellately, Ben Kiernan p.15)

Now I’m all for what SM proposes - a more strict definition of genocide - but we should start from the legal definition and shave it down. What would need to be done is redefining “in whole or in part” and which “groups” make the listing. SM (from what I understand) prefers Michael Mann’s definition which defines genocide as targeted murder against religious or ethnic groups. My major issue with Mann’s definition is that if someone then starts a wholesale extermination program against citizens of France (that meaning those with citizenship within the counties borders) then it’s not genocide. Personally I don’t know of any other word that I’d use to describe that.
There's more here than I can deal with quickly, so it will take me some time to sort through it. The fact that Kiev and Khar'kiv were most strongly affected needs to be looked at. I hadn't known that, so thanks for the information. But "strongly affected" and "strongly targeted" are different things. The food was being shipped off to the big cities in Russia, if I remember correctly. (Here, I'd better get out a couple of old books and look at them.) So naturally, Kiev and Khar'kiv wouldn't be getting any of the food. And, not being in the breadbasket area, they'd naturally find it harder to produce the food they needed. Just an off-the-top-of-my-head comment. I'll think further. (To be continued.) Let me say emphatically, however, that besides procuring grain, it seems clear that another important aim of the famine imposed on Ukraine was to break resistance to collectivization.
The “targeting” of these areas is proven/suggested by the higher fulfillment of the procurement. You may use Harvard’s famineweb to check this for yourself:
http://gis.huri.harvard.edu/historical- ... b-map.html

It’s better described as an effect than a affect considering the result was produced by repression’s.

Now if your asking for malice against these two regions in particular. Then the best evidence I have is primarily local (Prokopenko plenipotentiary Sakhnovchynsk raion) and via the Italian ambassador. Which is why it’s better to talk in generalities of targeting of the regions as it’s easier to discuss.

Now food for the most part was taken to feed the cities yes, but this was a reaction to the famine, and not the reason for the repression ether. So perhaps it needs to be explained « The famine was not used to kill as many Ukrainians as possible but as a weapon to subdue the Ukrainian peasantry at the cost of its partial extermination. » This is the General thesis and understanding of those who argue the famine was genocide. The reason I bring this up is because we seem to have similar opinions on the matter, however is wasn’t to subdue resistance; as this wasn’t as huge of a problem as most people make it out to be. It was mainly used to assault perceived threats in the peasantry, which is implied by Stalins letter to Kaganovich of August 11th, 1932, Stalins decree of January 22, 1933, and his speech of January 26, 1934.
« The Terror here is a horrifying fact. There is a fear that reaches down and haunts all sections of the community. No household, however humble, apparently but what lives in constant fear of nocturnal raid by the secret police. . .This particular purge is undoubtedly political. . . It is deliberately projected by the party leaders, who themselves regretted the necessity for it. »
Joseph E. Davies

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5102
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Morgan de Veldt
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:21 am

Denying-History wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:10 pm
The “targeting” of these areas is proven/suggested by the higher fulfillment of the procurement. You may use Harvard’s famineweb to check this for yourself:
http://gis.huri.harvard.edu/historical- ... b-map.html

It’s better described as an effect than a affect considering the result was produced by repression’s.

Now if your asking for malice against these two regions in particular. Then the best evidence I have is primarily local (Prokopenko plenipotentiary Sakhnovchynsk raion) and via the Italian ambassador. Which is why it’s better to talk in generalities of targeting of the regions as it’s easier to discuss.

Now food for the most part was taken to feed the cities yes, but this was a reaction to the famine, and not the reason for the repression ether. So perhaps it needs to be explained « The famine was not used to kill as many Ukrainians as possible but as a weapon to subdue the Ukrainian peasantry at the cost of its partial extermination. » This is the General thesis and understanding of those who argue the famine was genocide. The reason I bring this up is because we seem to have similar opinions on the matter, however is wasn’t to subdue resistance; as this wasn’t as huge of a problem as most people make it out to be. It was mainly used to assault perceived threats in the peasantry, which is implied by Stalins letter to Kaganovich of August 11th, 1932, Stalins decree of January 22, 1933, and his speech of January 26, 1934.
OK, many many thanks. I'm going to spend some time reading these links and the one Stat Mech provided to get up to speed. I now begin to get a better understanding of the justification for having majors in Holocaust Studies in a university. There's some pretty complicated stuff to understand, and my aging brain is slow to take it all in.
“It is certainly sad and regrettable that so many innocent people died…Stalin was absolutely adamant on making doubly sure: spare no one…I don’t deny that I supported that view. I was simply not able to study every individual case…It was hard to draw a precise line where to stop.”

Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Skryabin (“Molotov”)

User avatar
Denying-History
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2173
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Denying-History » Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:41 am

Thankfully we’re all patient so take your time. The facts of the famine though are hardly the crux of the last discussion anyway. I’ll toss it to the wind again that SM and I disagree on the definition of genocide, that is pretty much what the last discussion on the famine was about. It’s a hard question of what direction it should go; less strict or more strict. SM appears - as previously mentioned - to agree with Mann’s definition of genocide, that is deliberate targeting of a group for their religion or ethnicity; while also destroying a significant number of them as a whole or regionally. (This is my wording of SM’s description of Mann.) While I’m closer to accepting the current legal definition of genocide recognized by the United Nations.

I agree with SM that this definition is too vague (or not strict enough). However - at least in my opinion - if someone’s going to discuss the definition of genocide we should find some common ground first that shouldn’t just be applicable to the participants. Considering the UN definition on genocide is the only internationally recognized definition it’s the closest we have! Thus it should be our starting point. Shaven down and expanded on based on commonly agreed objections to make a coherent definition that we could probably all agree on. That was the goal of the past thread and I think it really showed miscommunication and how impossible this goal is. Mann’s definition feels too reductionist and makes no alternative description for the wholesale extermination of French citizens; as a hypocritical. In the alternatives he does propose (‘classicide’ & ‘politicide’) there is none for national groups. Which does open room to comment on:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:43 pm
FWIW I think the UN definition of genocide is of limited analytical value.
It’s really dependent on the question one is trying to answer. As I said Imho we’d need to find a definition that everyone would be fine with but given the variety of choices:

Mark Levene defines genocide as ‘the state-organised total or partial extermination of perceived or actual communal groups’.

Henry Huttenbach defines genocide as “any act that puts the very existence of a group in jeopardy.

Peter Drost defines genocide as “The deliberate distraction of physical life of individual human beings by reason of their membership of any human collectivity. . .”

Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn say “genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator.”

Also there is the question of what groups are omitted? Mann removes nationality and race as a factor focusing on ethnos and religion. Other take the UN’s listing and include political groups. I don’t know of any easy agreement we could all reach, so I’d more or less say we should leave the stone unturned for now.
« The Terror here is a horrifying fact. There is a fear that reaches down and haunts all sections of the community. No household, however humble, apparently but what lives in constant fear of nocturnal raid by the secret police. . .This particular purge is undoubtedly political. . . It is deliberately projected by the party leaders, who themselves regretted the necessity for it. »
Joseph E. Davies

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:36 pm

Denying-History wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:41 am
if someone’s going to discuss the definition of genocide we should find some common ground first that shouldn’t just be applicable to the participants. Considering the UN definition on genocide is the only internationally recognized definition it’s the closest we have!
This is a political approach and, as it involves satisfying different constituencies, the approach seems bound to leave flaws in the definition. A benefit of Mann's approach is that it makes clear distinctions among dissimilar dynamics and explains how the dynamics differ. The UN definition IMO is far too broad with the result that different kinds of actions are defined as being similar.
Denying-History wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:41 am
Thus it should be our starting point.
For a sociological definition a legal compromise probably shouldn't be the starting point.
Denying-History wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:41 am
Mann’s definition feels too reductionist
I don't think that criticism fits at all. Mann lays out an expansive continuum which retains differentiations that make a lot of sense.
Denying-History wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:41 am
Also there is the question of what groups are omitted? Mann removes nationality and race as a factor focusing on ethnos and religion.
That's not accurate as I read Mann; I wrote about how he thought out nationality in the genocide thread.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Goody67
Regular Poster
Posts: 646
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:55 pm

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Goody67 » Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:19 pm

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:45 pm
Yes, certain ethnic groups were targeted for persecution (like the Ukrainians) and/or relocation (such as the Tatars), but they were not targeted for extermination. Hence, this was not a genocide.
So why do 15 countries as well as Ukraine consider it to be a genocide?
The underlying drive was to eliminate opposition to Stalin's policies, by murdering a lot of people. But look at the criteria for the roundups.
Have you read Anne Applebaum's book Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine?

Some historians and scholars argue that Stalin had aimed to exterminate the Ukrainians. The causes has been debated for a long time.
Only the Germans, in the late 30s, were targeted because of their nationality, and that was because Stalin thought they were loyal to Hitler.
What is your source that was why Stalin deported the Germans?

Kershaw on Stalin deporting the ethnic Germans:
Suddenly, in mid-September, he changed his mind. There was no overt indication of the reason. But in August, Stalin had ordered the deportation of the Volga Germans Soviet citizens of German descent who had settled in the eighteenth century along the reaches of the Volga river. At the end of the month the entire population of the region more than 600,000 people were forcibly uprooted and deported in cattle-wagons under horrific conditions, allegedly as 'wreckers and spies', to western Siberia and northern Kazakhstan. In all, little short of a million Volga Germans fell victim to the deportations. The news of the savage deportations had become known in Germany in early September. Goebbels had hinted in early September that they could prompt a radical reaction. It was not long in coming. Alfred Rosenberg, the recently appointed Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, lost little time in advocating 'the deportation of all the Jews of central Europe' to the east in retaliation. His liaison at Army Headquarters, Otto Brautigam, was instructed by Rosenberg on 14 September to obtain Hitler's approval for the proposal. Brautigam eventually succeeded in attracting the interest of Hitler's chief Wehrmacht adjutant, Rudolf Schmundt, who recognized it as 'a very important and urgent matter' which would be of great interest to Hitler.
“When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.” - Robert Pirsig

User avatar
Denying-History
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2173
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Denying-History » Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:49 pm

Goody67 wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:19 pm
Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:45 pm
Yes, certain ethnic groups were targeted for persecution (like the Ukrainians) and/or relocation (such as the Tatars), but they were not targeted for extermination. Hence, this was not a genocide.
So why do 15 countries as well as Ukraine consider it to be a genocide?
The underlying drive was to eliminate opposition to Stalin's policies, by murdering a lot of people. But look at the criteria for the roundups.
Have you read Anne Applebaum's book Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine?

Some historians and scholars argue that Stalin had aimed to exterminate the Ukrainians. The causes has been debated for a long time.
Only the Germans, in the late 30s, were targeted because of their nationality, and that was because Stalin thought they were loyal to Hitler.
What is your source that was why Stalin deported the Germans?

Kershaw on Stalin deporting the ethnic Germans:
Suddenly, in mid-September, he changed his mind. There was no overt indication of the reason. But in August, Stalin had ordered the deportation of the Volga Germans Soviet citizens of German descent who had settled in the eighteenth century along the reaches of the Volga river. At the end of the month the entire population of the region more than 600,000 people were forcibly uprooted and deported in cattle-wagons under horrific conditions, allegedly as 'wreckers and spies', to western Siberia and northern Kazakhstan. In all, little short of a million Volga Germans fell victim to the deportations. The news of the savage deportations had become known in Germany in early September. Goebbels had hinted in early September that they could prompt a radical reaction. It was not long in coming. Alfred Rosenberg, the recently appointed Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, lost little time in advocating 'the deportation of all the Jews of central Europe' to the east in retaliation. His liaison at Army Headquarters, Otto Brautigam, was instructed by Rosenberg on 14 September to obtain Hitler's approval for the proposal. Brautigam eventually succeeded in attracting the interest of Hitler's chief Wehrmacht adjutant, Rudolf Schmundt, who recognized it as 'a very important and urgent matter' which would be of great interest to Hitler.
Recognizing a genocide means very little, as their not court issues. Politicians have a habit to twist evidence in their favor. The deportation of the Tatar’s may be genocide by UN standards but this doesn’t mean it meets the categorization of all definitions.

As for Applebaum her book contains serious problems:
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/169438

This is not to say that Tauger is correct though.
« The Terror here is a horrifying fact. There is a fear that reaches down and haunts all sections of the community. No household, however humble, apparently but what lives in constant fear of nocturnal raid by the secret police. . .This particular purge is undoubtedly political. . . It is deliberately projected by the party leaders, who themselves regretted the necessity for it. »
Joseph E. Davies

User avatar
Denying-History
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2173
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Denying-History » Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:44 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:36 pm
This is a political approach and, as it involves satisfying different constituencies, the approach seems bound to leave flaws in the definition. A benefit of Mann's approach is that it makes clear distinctions among dissimilar dynamics and explains how the dynamics differ. The UN definition IMO is far too broad with the result that different kinds of actions are defined as being similar.
Before anyone’s to change someone’s mind you generally should find common ground. Now Mann does have the benefit of a clear definition, but that doesn’t make his the superior option of the UN’s definition. The law has been relatively consistent on the definitions of “group”, “intent”, and “as such”. The flaws in the UN definition are of a matter of perspective with regard to its groups and “as such” it’s probably best that serious bodily or mental harm should be removed.
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:36 pm
For a sociological definition a legal compromise probably shouldn't be the starting point.
Perhaps it shouldn’t be. I haven’t seen any other proposals though, so my arguments going to remain the same. It’s the only internationally recognized definition, so idk what else should be seen as commonly accepted.

If you want to start with Mann’s I’d have a few revisions that I’d like to argue for, but as previously said it’s probably best to leave stones unturned. The conversation as a whole seems like it will be about as productive as it was last time.
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:36 pm
I don't think that criticism fits at all. Mann lays out an expansive continuum which retains differentiations that make a lot of sense.
I think it’s less of a critique, and more of a personal complaint. Mann has a comprehensive definition, but the ICTY and ICTR are comprehensive with the U.N. definition laying out clearly what every aspect of it means. I really feel I need to sit down and work out my own definition, but I don’t have the time for it.
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:36 pm
That's not accurate as I read Mann; I wrote about how he thought out nationality in the genocide thread.
Last I remember I was asking you to clarify this. In the end I think I left you confused and really just gave up on it, and after reading Mann twice I don’t see that in his book. The question isn’t the relationship of nationality to genocide but how it can be a target.

The question I remember asking was “does Mann describe the wholesale indiscriminate extermination of citizens of France (as a hypothetical) as genocide?” You said you didn’t follow. So I also checked with reviews of Mann’s book after reading it to see if I was the only one with this understanding. I’ll use one example - Malcolm Bull states in his review that Mann “reserves ‘genocide’ for the destruction of ethnic or religious groups.“ Which is actually what I said, he omits race and nationality from his definition of “groups”. I don’t know of any place that Mann carries a similar definition for a nationality group as the UN’s does; that is “an association of people who have a permanent legal connection such as a single citizenship and, accordingly, certain rights and obligations."
« The Terror here is a horrifying fact. There is a fear that reaches down and haunts all sections of the community. No household, however humble, apparently but what lives in constant fear of nocturnal raid by the secret police. . .This particular purge is undoubtedly political. . . It is deliberately projected by the party leaders, who themselves regretted the necessity for it. »
Joseph E. Davies

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5102
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Morgan de Veldt
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:10 pm

Goody67 wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:19 pm
Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:45 pm
Yes, certain ethnic groups were targeted for persecution (like the Ukrainians) and/or relocation (such as the Tatars), but they were not targeted for extermination. Hence, this was not a genocide.
So why do 15 countries as well as Ukraine consider it to be a genocide?
I'm coming around to a new point of view on this issue, but I haven't thought it through completely yet. Stay tuned...
Goody67 wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:19 pm
The underlying drive was to eliminate opposition to Stalin's policies, by murdering a lot of people. But look at the criteria for the roundups.
Have you read Anne Applebaum's book Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine?

Some historians and scholars argue that Stalin had aimed to exterminate the Ukrainians. The causes has been debated for a long time.
Haven't read Applebaum's book. My to-read list gets longer every day. I'll see if I can get it, but I probably won't get around to reading it for a month or so. Thanks for the reference.
Goody67 wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:19 pm
Only the Germans, in the late 30s, were targeted because of their nationality, and that was because Stalin thought they were loyal to Hitler.
What is your source that was why Stalin deported the Germans?
Robert Gellately, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler (Alfred Knopf, New York, 2007), p. 253:
Robert Gellately wrote: With Hitler's rise in the West in the 1930s, Stalin became suspicious of Germans living in the Soviet Union. He hastily wrote at a Politburo meeting on July 20, 1937, an order for the arrest of all Germans then working in war-related industries everywhere in the USSR. The order was soon followed by others that affected many other national minorities.
So, I must admit, it wasn't ONLY the Germans who were singled out because of their nationality. I knew what happened to the Tatars, of course, but I don't have a complete picture of every ethnically-based purge Stalin carried out.

Incidentally, Gellately appears to contradict what Denying History wrote about the relative impact of the famine in the Ukraine (ibid., p. 232). There may not be an actual contradiction here, but I need to look at it:
Robert Gellately wrote: In Ukraine, which was worst affected in the USSR, the level of urban mortality was 50 percent higher in 1933 than in 1932, but in rural areas it was nearly three times as high. By contrast, mortality rates in areas around Moscow and Leningrad were largely unchanged in 1932--33.
Goody67 wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:19 pm

Kershaw on Stalin deporting the ethnic Germans:
Suddenly, in mid-September, he changed his mind. There was no overt indication of the reason. But in August, Stalin had ordered the deportation of the Volga Germans Soviet citizens of German descent who had settled in the eighteenth century along the reaches of the Volga river. At the end of the month the entire population of the region more than 600,000 people were forcibly uprooted and deported in cattle-wagons under horrific conditions, allegedly as 'wreckers and spies', to western Siberia and northern Kazakhstan. In all, little short of a million Volga Germans fell victim to the deportations. The news of the savage deportations had become known in Germany in early September. Goebbels had hinted in early September that they could prompt a radical reaction. It was not long in coming. Alfred Rosenberg, the recently appointed Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, lost little time in advocating 'the deportation of all the Jews of central Europe' to the east in retaliation. His liaison at Army Headquarters, Otto Brautigam, was instructed by Rosenberg on 14 September to obtain Hitler's approval for the proposal. Brautigam eventually succeeded in attracting the interest of Hitler's chief Wehrmacht adjutant, Rudolf Schmundt, who recognized it as 'a very important and urgent matter' which would be of great interest to Hitler.
That is more reflective of the overall picture than the single order Stalin wrote in 1937, but the motive ascribed to him (at least, by Gellately) for the latter may also have played a role in the more massive deportations. Thanks for your contributions to this. I'm reading too many things at once, I fear and have trouble remembering where I read some things.
“It is certainly sad and regrettable that so many innocent people died…Stalin was absolutely adamant on making doubly sure: spare no one…I don’t deny that I supported that view. I was simply not able to study every individual case…It was hard to draw a precise line where to stop.”

Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Skryabin (“Molotov”)

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:23 pm

Denying-History wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:44 pm
Before anyone’s to change someone’s mind you generally should find common ground.
This isn't about bargaining - it is about finding a conceptual framework that, to be frank, I find workable and satisfying.
Denying-History wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:44 pm
Now Mann does have the benefit of a clear definition, but that doesn’t make his the superior option of the UN’s definition.
Of course not. I find Mann's framework better than the UN definition, first, because it addresses many of the problems I raised with the UN definition and (b) it adds in elements I'd not thought of and that are very helpful.
Denying-History wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:44 pm
The law has been relatively consistent on the definitions of “group”, “intent”, and “as such”.
Not for me. I see other problems with the UN definition, as I explained in the genocide thread. For one thing, intent is IMO muddled in the UN definition, and so processes with different intent and different dynamics will be grouped together if one uses that definition. That definition also lacks the idea of a continuum, which Mann uses, and "Plan C," another critical point. But, again, this is all spelled out in the genocide thread and I'm not trying to re-argue a case here.
Denying-History wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:44 pm
If you want to start with Mann’s I’d have a few revisions that I’d like to argue for, but as previously said it’s probably best to leave stones unturned. The conversation as a whole seems like it will be about as productive as it was last time.
I am simply trying to alert Upton to some of the alternative perspectives, as he's dipping into this, and point him to some places to look. I'm not trying to resolve differences among us about the topic.
Denying-History wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:44 pm
Last I remember I was asking you to clarify this. In the end I think I left you confused and really just gave up on it, and after reading Mann twice I don’t see that in his book. The question isn’t the relationship of nationality to genocide but how it can be a target.
I know I replied to your question about France in the genocide thread. Anyway, Mann discusses genocide in the context of murderous ethnic cleansing, with an aim to purify a territory, where purify means to seek ethnic homogeneity. Genocide is the worst point in the continuum of ethnic cleansing. Further, Mann looks at genocide in the context of the emergence of modern nations and, of course, the rise organic nationalisms and interethnic competition for political power. IIRC Mann defines an ethnicity as a population with common culture and descent. A nation is such a group with common "political consciousness." Mann specifically mentions ethnonationalism in his discussion of his core postulates. There are terrible, large-scale murderous actions that Mann doesn't define as genocide, btw.
Denying-History wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:44 pm
Last I remember I was asking you to clarify this. In the end I think The question I remember asking was “does Mann describe the wholesale indiscriminate extermination of citizens of France (as a hypothetical) as genocide?” You said you didn’t follow.
I replied at one point to that question. I am certain. I think it was the second or third time you raised it, after I replied, that I said I didn't understand what you were after.
Denying-History wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:44 pm
Malcolm Bull states in his review that Mann “reserves ‘genocide’ for the destruction of ethnic or religious groups.“ Which is actually what I said, he omits race and nationality from his definition of “groups”. I don’t know of any place that Mann carries a similar definition for a nationality group as the UN’s does; that is “an association of people who have a permanent legal connection such as a single citizenship and, accordingly, certain rights and obligations."
Mann defines a nation-state as a nation that has a sovereign state of its own, IIRC. Mann's examples are replete with religious cleansing. Religion, race, and language are all important to Mann as elements of mythical ethnic groupings, playing different roles among different groups (he says, for example, that religion is a constituent factor for Serbs but not, IIRC, Germans). He doesn't neglect these factors but situates them in a context which he describes in his first chapter.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Denying-History
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2173
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Denying-History » Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:31 pm

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:10 pm
Incidentally, Gellately appears to contradict what Denying History wrote about the relative impact of the famine in the Ukraine (ibid., p. 232). There may not be an actual contradiction here, but I need to look at it:
Robert Gellately wrote: In Ukraine, which was worst affected in the USSR, the level of urban mortality was 50 percent higher in 1933 than in 1932, but in rural areas it was nearly three times as high. By contrast, mortality rates in areas around Moscow and Leningrad were largely unchanged in 1932--33.
Not sure I notice the contradiction, I’m just using Wolowyna et als along with Wheatcrofts crude mapping of the famine. Both more or less confirm the other. It also appears that this is consistent with Wolowynas findings:
a) the 4 million losses is equivalent to 13 percent of Ukraine’s 1933 population, one of the highest levels of mortality among all man-made famines; b) in some oblasts this percent approached 25 percent and in some raions more than 40 percent; c) close to 85 percent of all rural excess deaths occurred in the first seven months of 1933; d) the number of losses in rural Ukraine increased 10 times during this period and in some oblasts this increase was 15-fold; e) at the peak of the Holodomor, June of 1933, the daily average number of excess deaths was 28,000; f) more than 30 percent or 1.2 million of the Holodomor losses were children under age 10.
http://www.ukrweekly.com/uwwp/understan ... s-numbers/

Hard to know though without his figures.
« The Terror here is a horrifying fact. There is a fear that reaches down and haunts all sections of the community. No household, however humble, apparently but what lives in constant fear of nocturnal raid by the secret police. . .This particular purge is undoubtedly political. . . It is deliberately projected by the party leaders, who themselves regretted the necessity for it. »
Joseph E. Davies

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5102
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Morgan de Veldt
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:37 pm

While I try to sort through the SM/DH discussion, I continue learning. Today, not wanting to walk on sidewalks with icy patches, I worked out on my bicycle and watched the first half of an Israeli-produced bio of Hannah Arendt, under the title "Vita Activa." I first heard of Arendt in 1962, when she came to Northwestern (where I was a student) to give a colloquium. Then, of course, her book on Eichmann had not yet appeared. It came out not long after, and she spent the last decade of her life (as I'm sure you all know) defending herself for what she said. Without embracing some of the things she said, I was impressed by certain passages from The Origins of Totalitarianism, which I have never read.

The most impressive point was her description of the stateless people who became refugees as the result of the war. Nobody wanted to take them in. It was an abomination to her that an ordinary criminal in prison had rights, but an asylum seeker didn't. (Somebody tell this to Trump!)

The biographical details that I didn't know were interesting. She was first a student of Martin Heidegger, and she refused to believe he was an evil man, even after his Nazi views gained him the rector's office at Freiburg University. The long letters quote from Heidegger to her strongly suggest that they had a long-running affair, which would have been fatal for his career, as he was married with children and she was his student. In one of her letters quoted, she tells him longingly that he can "have" her. What that means may not be as bad as it sounds. But after the affair was over, she bad-mouthed him to her dissertation adviser Karl Jaspers. Jaspers did a deep mea culpa in September 1945, when Heidelberg University was reopened, admitting that he should have done more, that he didn't protest when his Jewish friends and colleagues were persecuted. But Arendt and Jaspers remained very close friends and colleagues to the very end.

I've watched only half of this, as I say. The rest comes tomorrow.
“It is certainly sad and regrettable that so many innocent people died…Stalin was absolutely adamant on making doubly sure: spare no one…I don’t deny that I supported that view. I was simply not able to study every individual case…It was hard to draw a precise line where to stop.”

Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Skryabin (“Molotov”)

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:38 pm

On France, FWIW, from earlier discussion:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:20 am
< snip >
Denying-History wrote:If I take over France and start exterminating the French citizens, that is genocide because I am murdering the French because of their nationality.
But if you take over France, and start murdering French people because they resist your policies, it's different. Sure, you're murdering them in part because they're French - but if they accept your demands, you will stop murdering them. My question hinges on this: isn't this different to a situation in which you won't stop murdering them even if they accede. Or, say, you occupy France, start killing resisters, and you also carry out a small number of murders of French civilians because they're imagined to be resistant. Is that genocide?

Viva la France! btw.

I am not trying to rank atrocities, by the way; I am trying to understand what is like and what is different, at a core level. <snip>
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=28837&start=40#p617428
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:01 pm

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:10 pm
every ethnically-based purge Stalin carried out.
Levene's vol 2 has an overview, although he wouldn't use the word "purge."
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Goody67
Regular Poster
Posts: 646
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:55 pm

Re: General Books/Reading Discussion

Post by Goody67 » Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:36 am

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:10 pm
Robert Gellately, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler (Alfred Knopf, New York, 2007), p. 253:
Robert Gellately wrote: With Hitler's rise in the West in the 1930s, Stalin became suspicious of Germans living in the Soviet Union. He hastily wrote at a Politburo meeting on July 20, 1937, an order for the arrest of all Germans then working in war-related industries everywhere in the USSR. The order was soon followed by others that affected many other national minorities.
So, I must admit, it wasn't ONLY the Germans who were singled out because of their nationality. I knew what happened to the Tatars, of course, but I don't have a complete picture of every ethnically-based purge Stalin carried out.

Incidentally, Gellately appears to contradict what Denying History wrote about the relative impact of the famine in the Ukraine (ibid., p. 232). There may not be an actual contradiction here, but I need to look at it:
Robert Gellately wrote: In Ukraine, which was worst affected in the USSR, the level of urban mortality was 50 percent higher in 1933 than in 1932, but in rural areas it was nearly three times as high. By contrast, mortality rates in areas around Moscow and Leningrad were largely unchanged in 1932--33.
Goody67 wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:19 pm

Kershaw on Stalin deporting the ethnic Germans:
Suddenly, in mid-September, he changed his mind. There was no overt indication of the reason. But in August, Stalin had ordered the deportation of the Volga Germans Soviet citizens of German descent who had settled in the eighteenth century along the reaches of the Volga river. At the end of the month the entire population of the region more than 600,000 people were forcibly uprooted and deported in cattle-wagons under horrific conditions, allegedly as 'wreckers and spies', to western Siberia and northern Kazakhstan. In all, little short of a million Volga Germans fell victim to the deportations. The news of the savage deportations had become known in Germany in early September. Goebbels had hinted in early September that they could prompt a radical reaction. It was not long in coming. Alfred Rosenberg, the recently appointed Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, lost little time in advocating 'the deportation of all the Jews of central Europe' to the east in retaliation. His liaison at Army Headquarters, Otto Brautigam, was instructed by Rosenberg on 14 September to obtain Hitler's approval for the proposal. Brautigam eventually succeeded in attracting the interest of Hitler's chief Wehrmacht adjutant, Rudolf Schmundt, who recognized it as 'a very important and urgent matter' which would be of great interest to Hitler.
That is more reflective of the overall picture than the single order Stalin wrote in 1937, but the motive ascribed to him (at least, by Gellately) for the latter may also have played a role in the more massive deportations. Thanks for your contributions to this. I'm reading too many things at once, I fear and have trouble remembering where I read some things.
There is nothing in Gellately's quote which suggested that Stalin deported the Germans for being "loyal to Hitler".

Stalin did not exactly describe the Germans collectively in a good manner. For example, during his speech in Moscow in November 1941, he described the German troops as "German fascists". Undoubtedly, there were many German troops who were Nazis, but he described all of the troops as fascists, which was a ridiculous thing to say. Of course the Nazis were equally as bad with the propaganda about "Bolshevik sub-humans", "Russian sub-humans", "Soviet sub-humans", etc.

In your defence about Stalin not wanting to exterminate the Ukrainians, Stephen Kotkin in his book Stalin, Vol. II: Waiting for Hitler, 1929–1941 wrote:
All of these actions were woefully insufficient for avoiding the mass starvation in the countryside caused by his policies, in the face of challenging natural conditions. Still, these actions do not indicate that he was trying to exterminate peasants or ethnic Ukrainians.
Robert Service in his book Stalin: A Biography wrote:
Coming after the arrests and trials of Ukrainian culture figures from the late 1920s, these measures were brutal and discriminatory; and although Stalin did not seek the extermination of all Ukrainians and Kazakhs, he certainly aimed to extirpate all opposition real and potential from among them. The ultimate objective, though, was to turn Ukraine and Kazakhstan into economically efficient Soviet republics.
pp. 328-329.

I don't believe Stalin had to have had an official policy to exterminate the Ukrainians for the Holodomor to be classified as a genocide. Either way, whether it should be classified as a genocide or not a genocide, Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions of people.
“When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.” - Robert Pirsig