Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "How to Ideologically undermine Holocaust Denialism" video.
-
"The Holocaust happened, the Holodomor happened, and their ideologies are immoral."
A perfectly ironic statement, that shows the goal of your channel in full. You can't go a single video talking about the crimes of the nazis... without defending them by attempting to "whataboutism" their far-right actions, with the actions of the far left. Your statement is equivalent to "Yes this person got hurt, and yes this other person got hurt. Both are bad," without pointing out that one person got shot, and the other got punched on the shoulder. What a surprise, TIK, the far right apologist, is yet again trying to deny the crimes of the far right nazis by equating them where they historically will not, and should not, be compared. Holocaust survivors will tell you this, their surviving family will tell you this, historians who studied both crimes will tell you this... but I suppose to a denialist like you, they're all in on the conspiracy, right?
5
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thefrenchareharlequins2743
Again, baseless assertions only backed up by conspiratorial assumptions. First off, why do you assume collectivization was based where Ukrainian nationalists were, instead of the other way around? According to you these policies were cruel and inefficient, so would it not make sense that movements against these policies and the government that supported them would spring up around these areas, and not the other way around? But oh, wait, that doesn't make your narrative sound correct, so you didn't even consider it. And again, we've been over this. Yes, there was a large amount of grain produced locally, which was then sold for profit because of a large famine even outside of the USSR's boarders, and the state prioritized its own moneymaking over support of its people. You act as though the whole of the USSR's policies was to end Ukrainian nationalism, when in reality, that nationalism didn't even exist until these policies, so how could the USSR have conspiratorially put them into place? Furthermore, you assert that the reason they collectivized farms was a planned effort to cause a famine... which has literally no historical basis, especially considering that the last major eastern european famine happened under the USSR, when it had been a common occurrence under the monarchy. Maybe they wanted to collectivize the farms... because they felt it worked? But oh wait, no, it makes much more sense that they'd enact a widespread economic program specifically to get back at a few farmers! Yes, total sense. The mismanaging of the economy was a result of the famine not being exclusive to those they disliked, those they disliked I might add because they aided the destructive capability of said famine. It is conspiratorial to take the words of one politician, and your own assumptions on policy, and manufacture a conspiracy out of them. I also never said "kulaks had it coming," I said that their actions, which included killing government officials and destroying their own property and harvest rather than giving it to the government. I would say a mass movement centered around the destruction of food and the capability to grow it probably had a lot to do with local food shortages, but that's just logic for you.
1
-
@thefrenchareharlequins2743
...They really couldn't resist, hence, they destroyed their property and harvest rather than hand it over to soviets, which only ended up hurting their communities immensely in the end and not stopping the greater soviet societal control at that point.
Because it simply wasn't. You, again, assert without evidence that an entire famine, which was caused by factors outside the soviet's control and impacted more areas than just areas with urkanian nationalist movements, was a purposeful "attempt to end ukrainian nationalism." You provided proof of a single soviet politician saying they thought ukranian nationalism was a threat, nothing backing up that wild assertion. And why do you think they were trading and exporting so much if for not profit?
...amazing job proving my point, thank you. Yes, nationalist movements are often in reaction to something they dislike, and the soviets were certainly up here.
No, i'm referring to the centuries of famines that happened up until soviet control, and the only reason less people died is because less people existed within a system that relied upon the goods being produced by this famine, hell, less people existed.
The NEP was quite literally the first economic policy of the soviet union, dude. How little do you know?
They actually weren't "going after" anyone, but I guess that's yet another fact you can't handle.
Again - they didn't. Other areas were collectivized. My question is why you don't accept the rational answer that mass collectivization of areas known to be based on farming would inspire nationalist movements, not the other way around.
...and yet more holocaust minimalism, great. No, actually, in the holocaust we can see clear orders passed down, the ideological hatred for jewish people spoken about in public, in writing, behind closed doors for years before the deaths started happening en masse, it was a well publicized and hell even bragged about effort at the time, and to deny its historical footprint is absolute nonsense.
...by selling the grain to other countries that also had been dealing with famines, or just to keep export quotas which were set in place years before. Gosh, you're really hung up on your little conspiracy theory huh?
1
-
@thefrenchareharlequins2743
So you concede that your previous assertion on said policies being put in place specifically because of these movements is false, and as we've been over, has no basis in the slightest?
The fact of their exportation didn't start the famine though, nor was their policies the only thing impacting it, as we've been over said famine existed outside of the soviet's reach and was not only localized to the one area you allege it was.
So again, rhetoric, not actions. Words against a movement don't mean you want to plan a famine against said movement. Now, the policies. It would be amazing for you to actually cite any of these in the context of the surrounding laws, but I know that's too much to ask from you so i'll simply address them on the trust that you're not lying. How foolish of me. "why from 18 November 1932 peasants from Ukraine were required to return extra grain they had previously earned for meeting their targets?" As I already said, quotas had been increased to capitalize on the surrounding famine, so more exportation was asked for. "Why on 20 November 1932 was a law was passed forcing peasants who could not meet their grain quotas to surrender any livestock they had?" To provide greater incentive to actually do the work the state asked of them, when resistance to those orders had already been commonplace. "Why then did collective farms that failed to meet their quotas were placed on "blacklists" in which they were forced to surrender 15 times their quota, then those farms were picked apart for any possible food by party activists, and blacklisted communes had no right to trade or to receive deliveries of any kind?" Again... incentive. This is pretty much the exact thing banks do when you owe a huge amount of money, just not with agriculture. " Why on 5 December 1932, Stalin's security chief presented the justification for terrorizing Ukrainian party officials to collect the grain and it was considered treason if anyone refused to do their part in grain requisitions for the state?" Again, what does this have to do with a supposed manufactured famine? So the state told people to listen to the state's policies? OK, and? "Why was Ukraine was required to provide 1/3 of the grain collection of the entire Soviet Union?" Because Ukraine was a majority agricultural area and said grain was grown most there, which explains why said area was hit hardest by a famine, and why the destruction of crops in the area was so impactful? I have to say, if this is your proof of a conspiracy... you don't have any.
Great, let's stick on topic then and do stop deflecting with pointless drivel with no basis in this argument.
...so in other words, the soviets did stop the famines through their industrialization efforts. Thanks for admitting that.
War Communism was a policy of Russia that was quickly abandoned and dismantled, not a policy of the USSR. The first policy of the USSR was the NEP, formed the same year as the USSR. Thank you for admitting to your ignorance.
Why are you continuously implying facts you have no basis for? "Other areas" included other nearby areas, that had nothing to do with ukranian nationalist movements. Why do you keep making up statements with no basis?
I don't care about your excuses for deflection. You are manufacturing a conspiracy, in that you are artificially creating one where none had existed historically, unlike the holocaust which was not a conspiracy (a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.) because it was open government policy and nazi ideology, not secret.
Interesting how when pressed on the spread of the famine in question you can't name a single "other area" that supposedly also had nationalist movements, that you refuse to elaborate on.
One definition of a conspiracy, yes. Not a good one though, as the definition is "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." Sadly for you, you are again, manufacturing a conspiracy where none existed, asserting of a secret plan with no proof, and furthermore, trying to fabricate proof to add to your assertion.
1
-
@thefrenchareharlequins2743
Not really, given that the state had its fingers in pretty much every area of life under the soviet rule.
The factors that started the famine were undeniably out of soviet control. While soviet policies did exacerbate the harm the amine caused with a poor response, this is not a case of some sort of conspiratorial artificial famine.
The famine you claim was a purposeful and targeted action by the soviets. Do you not know what we're talking about?
What else would they take? Your farm? Already owned it. Your house? You were already using that to pay them off, and it has no profit or value. So yeah, livestock makes the most sense.
Do you not see how seizing something that actually benefits people is a good incentive?
Perhaps those ukrainian nationalists shouldn't have burned down their fields then. And again, a high estimation isn't at all grounds to accuse them of an artificial famine.
"Which I refuted." Oh ok, I guess i'll just take your word for it... or not. You quite literally proved that the push for ukrainian independence and nationalism was a direct result of those people feeling slighted by soviet policies. The existence of more policies down the line that further cemented this attitude and desire to rebel, even in small ways, does not disprove that being the cause of said nationalism.
Yes, historically it wasn't like that at all. Hence medieval farming in decidedly non-medieval times.
The point being, they didn't "know" that, and why do you assume they must be "failing" on purpose?
Well, that's the movement you said the USSR's government strongly opposed and wanted to end.
It doesn't, though, especially with your lack of evidence or historical support for your claim.
The first *outside report. The government, the people who had family, friends, and neighbors stolen away, they already knew. But why would they tell anyone they had been complicit?
I already have "answered your question," despite your constant deflection. Belarus, Roamnia, Moldova, even poland in small part were all areas impacted by the famine that were outside your ukranian assertion.
Evidently it isn't, it isn't even good enough for your argument. You've asserted you have proof, but have yet to show it.
1
-
@thefrenchareharlequins2743
And many more had neither the financial or physical ability to do that, hence why they tried to "improve" their circumstances at home... by burning down their property and fields I guess.
Ah yes, name dropping random people, and without a single quote. No, it was stupid yes, but to claim that bad policy is malicious is conspiracy theory thinking. I much prefer to align with actual history, the type that doesn't try to manufacture conspiracies, and is backed up by Robert Davies, Stephen Kotkin, Stephen Wheatcrof, Mark Tauger, ect.
Oh wow, you really are ignorant of basic soviet history. Ok, first off, profit does not necessitate currency, to profit means to "obtain a financial advantage or benefit, especially from an investment." However, this is redundant in this case, because the USSR had currency. In fact, it had several different variants of currency, based off the soviet ruble. They needed currency, it's what they paid their workers. Also, I said they were exporting from ukraine, can you read?
The soviet government literally determined who owned and managed farms. Did you have your own farm? No.
You tried to assert that a legal incentive to work and give up the proceeds of said work was evidence of a conspiracy, because the laws were harsh. I pointed out that this is false. You had no response.
Most were though, given that the term Kulak is defined by the amount of property one owned, and Ukrainians on average owned more agricultural property.
War Communism as a policy, though temporary, didn't provide "poor results," the aim was quite literally a system that would allow for the quick and seamless taking of power by the soviets, and when this was accomplished, the NEP and USSR were formed. Yet again, your claim "High quotas were made out of malevolence." has no historical basis.
Ah yes, because it was Ukrainian... culture. Couldn't be the thousands of Ukrainian nationalists burning their crops and slaughtering their animals rather than giving them up to the soviet state, it must have been the culture! Really, rationally I fear people would point to this being false, but well you and rationality mix like oil and water.
The first tractor was created in the 1880s, and was improved continuously since then. If they wanted to start building tractors, why the hell didn't they? As you said yourself, they were engaging in medieval agriculture methods, they couldn't manage the resources they did have and they didn't have much modern ability to collect new ones. The Tsar was more more worried with stopping a peasant revolt than actively improving their lives.
Again, this assertion of "didn't work." They worked to crush monarchist resistance to soviet rule, they worked to keep the country stable in the meantime. You haven't provided any proof that war communism was a spectacular failure, nor any proof that they saw it as such.
You've provided no other evidence of other movements they opposed as of now.
But you haven't. You've provided policies you refuse to cite and historians you copied off the first page of wikipedia, and then call this citation.
Not just the government knew, though. Random people, again, watched their entire towns get stolen away, or lived next to concentration camps, and saw what was happening. Hitler made public speeches calling for genocide, and there was no question why he was taking those people.
Sorry you can't make sense of basic things.
Sure. The Odessa Region of Romania was hit hard by the famine at the time, so hard that in order to try to drum up hatred of the soviets, when counting deaths from the '32 famine, many western nations decided to count this part of Romania as a part of Ukraine, as to drum up the death toll. The same thing happened with other areas of eastern europe. Did you really never research this, at all? (The Foreign Office and the famine : British documents on Ukraine and the Great Famine of 1932—1933)
You haven't, and the fact that this is your response only proves that.
1
-
@thefrenchareharlequins2743
A mass burning of fields and slaughtering of livestock took place in one of the agricultural hearts of the USSR. Fact.
They don't, though. And you are quite literally manufacturing a conspiracy, pointing out a handful of politicians that disapproved of a movement is far from providing proof of an actual political intent to do something about said movement, much less an artificial famine.
Because they could, by exporting food elsewhere to profit. And your opinion of currency in the USSR doesn't change because the simple fact is, currency existed, goods were priced, and the currency was used. Central planning doesn't mean that money automatically falls out of use, you know.
11%... when and where, champ? Willing to provide anything like a citation?
You could stop asserting nonsense to start off with but I don't have very high hopes for that.
Yes, thank you for your concession that the term Kulak was one historically often leveled at Ukrainian landowners, far more than other groups.
The Tambov rebellion was quite literally a result of the devastation caused by conflict, not the economic system in question, and the policies that led to it were amended while war communism was still in effect.
Saying "debatable" is a odd way to deflect from your stated arguments. Painfully sad, but an odd way all the same.
Why then were they industrializing and progressing far less than every other nation at the time, despite their supposed ability otherwise?
Yes, the monarchist rule did, as we've been over.
Asserting nonsense doesn't make it true.
See above.
They didn't speak out because who would they speak out too? The nazi party? The americans, russians, brits, ect who liberated the camps that these people had been complicit in?
A, kindergarten insults.
I'm sorry, that's simply false. As shown from my citation, Odessa was a part of Romania in the 1930s. You literally just made the same mistake I cited people making, and being criticized for, in the past.
But you haven't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1