Discussion of Stalinism

[Sarmatian]

No, but I believe it went a little further than that. Saying that Stalin may have done some good things is fine, but outright praise of him and drastically playing down the numbers of those he killed certainly is not.

Bah, there's no reason for me to play down the numbers. I'm not Russian, actually I'm not from any of the former Soviet republics, I'm not a communist and I don't have any love for Stalin. It is actually you who are inflating the numbers, constantly refusing to look at the demographic situation, which speaks volumes in this case.

How many Ukrainians you said Stalin killed through Holodomor? 20 millions? Ok, let's see.

According to 1897 census in the Russian Empire there were 22,380,551 Ukrainians in Russian Empire. Now, it would be better if we had some later census to take a look at as it would allow us to estimate more accurately the number of Ukrainians in 1932-1933, but census scheduled for 1915 never happened because of the first world war. Never fear though, as we can compare how much population increased in other European countries during the same period and make a pretty accurate estimation. So, let's see.

(in millions)
France:
1900 - 38.9
1930 - 41.6

Spain:
1900 - 18.5
1930 - 23.3

Portugal:
1900 - 5.4
1930 - 6.8

Germany:
1900 - 56.4
1930 - 65.1

Italy:
1900 - 32.4
1930 - 40.9

We see that population increase was mostly between 10% and 20%, and we know that in 1900 there were app. 22 million Ukrainians. If we apply the trend we've seen in other European countries there couldn't have been more than 25-26 millions of Ukrainians in 1930. But just for the fun of it, let's assume than in the case of Ukraine population increase was 50%. That would place the total number of Ukrainians in 1930 at slightly above 30 millions. Now, 5.5 millions of these 30 lived in Poland in the interwar period, because they were in the territories Russian Empire lost and they were out of Stalin's reach and not affected by Holodomor. That leaves 25-27 millions Ukrainians in the USSR in 1930's. So if your number is correct, it means that during that one year of Holodomor, more than 80% of all Ukrainians in USSR died, leaving only 5 millions. And then again those 5 + 5.5 from Poland became 50-60 millions today, which means that in roughly 70 years, Ukrainian population increased 500% or 600%.

That's assuming there was a 50% increase in population between 1900 and 1930. If we assume that increase in population was like in all other European countries, we can only conclude that more Ukrainians died than ever lived in the Soviet Union and to get to the number of Ukrainians today, there would have to be an increase 1000% to 1200% (from those 5.5 millions left in Poland).

If you would be so kind to explain to me how is that possible, I'd be very grateful...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It is actually you who are inflating the numbers, constantly refusing to look at the demographic situation, which speaks volumes in this case.

On the contrary, I use historical works and the meticulous compilations of reliable historians and universities. You try to use demographics to show the whole story, despite repeated statements that they cannot.

How many Ukrainians you said Stalin killed through Holodomor? 20 millions? Ok, let's see.

I said no such figure. In fact, that is twice the number that is estimated by historians on the high end. No offence, but you're pulling figures out of thin air to try to prove someone wrong on a statement they haven't made because of an opinion they do not hold.

[Sarmatian]

On the contrary, I use historical works and the meticulous compilations of reliable historians and universities. You try to use demographics to show the whole story, despite repeated statements that they cannot.

I'm just showing that even a quick check of something as plain and as available as population numbers discredits those figures.

I said no such figure. In fact, that is twice the number that is estimated by historians on the high end. No offence, but you're pulling figures out of thin air to try to prove someone wrong on a statement they haven't made because of an opinion they do not hold.

You really didn't. I was 100% sure that you did, so much that I even didn't bother to check and quote that post. Bah, I was arguing a point no one made, and it took me 10 minutes to write that post

Sorry about that

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm just showing that even a quick check of something as plain and as available as population numbers discredits those figures.

As said, demographics do not tell the whole story - and obviously so, as many historians have looked at those killed by the Soviet Union, including demographics, and come out with the same story. In fact, I think there is a demographics section somewhere on the website I linked to.

[Sarmatian]

Moscow had no importance but yet they tried to capture the city?

It had no importance in June 22, when attack on USSR commenced. The goal was to destroy so much of the Red Army that Soviet Union has no choice but to surrender or at least accept the peace at extremely unfavourable terms. Quick victory was the main objective, like in the case of Poland, the Low Countries or France. When in September it became clear that quick victory by destruction of the Red Army is impossible, as Red Army deployed its numerous reserves, Germany changed the plan. They hoped they could achieve the same results (surrender of the USSR or at least getting them bloody and battered to the peace table) by taking Moscow. Even if Soviets continued to resist, taking Moscow would have been of great symbolic value, not to mention how important transportation hub it was.

Sound reasoning no doubt, problem is it didn't work and it is highly questionable would USSR surrender after losing Moscow. That's my point.

As said, demographics do not tell the whole story - and obviously so, as many historians have looked at those killed by the Soviet Union, including demographics, and come out with the same story. In fact, I think there is a demographics section somewhere on the website I linked to.

They don't but, they form the basis. Let's say I try to discern how many soldiers Country A lost in a battle against Country B. Eyewitness account says 12,000 for example. Then I take a look at official numbers, number of provisions taken on the campaign etc... and I see that the size of the army of the Country A could have been no more than 10,000. Obviously, even if I have an eyewitness estimate, I must take at as wrong.

Also, I'm not staking my claim only on demographic data.

The main reasons are:
1) Virtually all data that show such huge numbers are before the 1990's, when Russia was pretty much closed for any serious research by anyone outside.
2) A good chunk of that data comes from people who defected for one reason or the another, such people can not be a priori considered unbiased
3) In that period Cold Was was very real and both sides used propaganda extensively.
4) In the same period, exaggerating those numbers was very politically convenient and useful (getting published or getting research grants, getting attention in the press or TV, that sort of stuff)
5) Demographic data show that those kind of numbers are highly improbable if not impossible outright, depending on which figure we are talking about
6) Data available in the 1990's and afterward casts doubts on those figures.


We've seen this time and again. There are still misconceptions about Eastern Front in the WW2. Still most people in the West believe it was mass frontal attacks by the Red Army during the entire war what defeated Wehrmacht, that pretty much all Red Army commanders were rigid, unimaginative and poorly skilled (soldiers and lower rank commanders, too, btw), that it was allied landing in Normandy what defeated Germany, that it was actually land-lease what made it possible and so on... There are still misconceptions and bias about Russia in general and much more so about USSR. When intervention in Georgia was on the table, every possible media story was about strategical or geopolitical goals of Russia, how they were just waiting for the right provocation... It included little or no story from the Russian side and Russian sources were practically ignored. On the contrast, in 1999 no one in the media doubted or dared to doubt that NATO bombing campaign was anything but a humanitarian crusade against the wicked to protect the oppressed. God forbid that anyone thought there was any gain in it for US or NATO.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Demographics can and did register the impacts of the Holocaust, let alone of the Holodomor.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Demographics can and did register the impacts of the Holocaust, let alone of the Holodomor.

Once again, did you even read the whole thread? That is helpful sometimes, you know. There was this whole argument here, with hundreds of points and here you drop as if from the sky and quack once. What are you even saying? We are debating on the extent of Stalin's Purges. We all know it happned, just not how large it was. Sarmatian was right in the sense that nothing close to official statistics exist. The once the Western world uses were not much better than conjured by a couple of out-of touch eggheads, with one leg over the other, at comfortable chairs, enjoying cigars in a library. Alright, that was an obvious overstatement, but really, the death claims are ridiculous. It seems as if they are pulled out of the mist, so varied they are.

....