Russia: No CFE treaty for you!

[notyoueither]

But it did. The Allies expected that even a neutral Soviet Union would require significantly larger garrisons in Poland than the Germans in fact left there due to their Soviet 'friends'.

However, you are correct that Britain was determined to go to war over Poland if not to save Poland itself, then to drop the facade and begin resisting Nazi aggression directly. The French were less enthusiastic, but once Poland decided to resist German demands they had little choice.

The important bit about the Pact was the effect it had on British and French miscalculations of what the situation would be after Poland and therefore how it stayed the hand that could have cut Germany down at the knees at an early date.

Time was very much on the side of the Allies. Industrial output just in Britain and France was outpacing that in Germany. Prior to September the Commonwealth was at peace and was acting like it. For Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa (and India to a lesser extent) to get going required war. The longer the war went on, the stronger Britain (and the position of the French) would have been. That's not how it went, but it was what the Brits were thinking.

Despite the reputation of the French Army, the French nation had little desire to get into another blood bath. The simple arrival of war was in a way a defeat for all they had fought for in 1914 as their sacrifices were without permanent result. To them there was a large appeal in defending while starving Germany out prior to toppling Hitler over.

Had the French known in August what they knew by October, it is perhaps possible that Gamelin would have had his offensive into the Ruhr, but with the French mechasied forces and in strength rather than a few infantry divisions advancing 5 miles and entrenching.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Sandman
"Death by government"; sounds like libertarian propaganda. Contrive the data into nice big numbers to show the dangers of government.

Soldiers killed in war are not obviously government sponsored; partisans for example. And it's silly to suggest that soldiers who die in a defensive war are killed at the behest of their own government; if anything, they're killed at the behest of the invading government.

Actually, it's a study of how murderous governments in various places were throughout the twentieth century. It is not limited to the Soviet Union.

Respected researchers take care to denote casualties of war, as opposed to internal repression. Patroklos seems to be lumping them in in response to some tactic by Serb.

I have seen the 60 million number, but think it is too high. More common are estimates in the range of 20 to 40 million.

[Patroklos]

The original thread, which is so far buried by now I am not going to go find it, did not discuss war dead at all. Serb started including Nazi war dead so I tacked on the Soveit. It is called bieng consistant.

The war dead inclusion is used in the book but for all sides. They are not picking on the Soviet Union.

Serb has never sated "the number of people killed under Soveit rule is....?" Not once. So give me your number.

And I understand Serbs population sources are respected, which is why I ageed to use them Sandman. But those population figures say nothing about what he wants to prove. They could probobly be used so support his counter argument if he ever chooses to make one. But right now all we have is a turgid form of...

"not-aaaa"

[Serb]

Originally posted by Sandman


"Death by government"; sounds like libertarian propaganda. Contrive the data into nice big numbers to show the dangers of government.

Sure it is pure propaganda.

And it's silly to suggest that soldiers who die in a defensive war are killed at the behest of their own government; if anything, they're killed at the behest of the invading government.

Exactly.
But doesn't it mean, that anyone who accept such aproach is... well... a silly person?
Patroklos seems to do not understand this (not that I'm very surprised).

[Serb]

Originally posted by Patroklos
HA.

Whoever said 1913-1941 Serb? You seem to be cutting off 50 years of Soviet history.

You mean that Soviets keep killing their population after 50's? You mean Khrushev, Brezhnev, Chernenko, Andropov and Gorbachev were the same muss-murderers as Stalin?

And though I have told you this a naseum, the 61 million figure INCLUDEDS Soviet war dead.

Idiotic aproach. Soviet Union was invaded. Is it fault of Soviet Union's government that half of the dozen countries attacked USSR in attempt to completely exterminate its population? Is it fault of Soviet government that nazi killed about 15 millions of civilians and 11 millions of Soviet soldiers who defened their own country from agressors?

It didn't at first but a few threads ago you refused to remove war dead from the Nazi total.

I did? Show me.
Your books claims that nazi killed about 20 millions and I've asked how the hell it could be true if in USSR alone they killed 26,6 millions.

We are not talking about people murdered. We are talking about people who were killed at the behest of their government. Once again something you ignored as it doesn't fit with your idiocies.

And you're talking about idiocies? You who concider that it's Soviet government's fault that nazi invaded USSR and killed millions there.

Then perhaps you should learn from it for a change and modify your idioms to resembly historical reality at some level. As it is you are still only using "Hammer and Sickle Man," regardless of whatever else you have read.

Perhaps you should read it first.

Yeah the Nazi's didn't have the habit of calling concentration camps "genocidal death factories" either.

And perhaps USA has not alike organization? You don't have prisons, don't you? You don't have deportment who governs those prisons, right? If you do, does it means your prisons are twin brothers of nazis's concentration camps?

Actually no Serb, that is an insane leap of idiocy on your part.

And you tell me about idiocy? Yeah, right.
Don't you know that number of prisoners in any country always greater than number of executed people? So it's pretty logical to think that if Soviets killed 60 millions, then they imprisoned even more. Then it means that almost whole population of USSR were prisoners or were executed.

Beacause we don't have the habit of killing and/or working the prisoners to death maybe?

Or maybe because USA is the country with highest crime rate?

Your Gulag trivia, while interesting, is not relevant to the discusion. Why were more White Sea Channels not built? Partly because your number of prisoners logic is bunk,

How is so? I've used your figure of 60 millions KILLED by government. You gave that number. So, I've asked if all those 60 millions were worked to death, where is the 406 White Sea chanels such number of prisoner could build?

and partly because those people werw not there.

Then where they were? Tell me.

I will give you a shovel and you can mill around the old gulag sites to find out what happened to them.

Why should I? It is not I who claim that Soviets killed 60 millions. It is you who claim so. It means you have to take showel and have to dig some evidence to prove your claim. So, I ask you once again, where are those muss-graves? Where are the graves of those 60 millions killed by Soviets?

Of course the "Soviet Gulag State" title is just something the author thought was a good label. Only people of Serbs intelligence think that people only died there. There were the wars, the normal prisons, NKVD/KGD barracks and headquarters nationwide, those killed in their homes or on the streets (during the revolution years), etc. etc.

As I thought, you're still have no idea wtf are you talking about. All places where people were held against their own will, where under authority of Gulag- the "central deportment of prisons". There weren't "normal" or "Gilag-prisons". There were only prisons, that were managed by Glavnoe Upravlenie LAGerei (GULAG).

Serb, you do understand what the NKVD is right?

Aside you and the author of this BS book, I know what is NKVD. NKVD it's:
Narodnuy
Kommisariat
Vnutrennih
Del
or "ministery of internal affairs", "ministery of police", an organization that every country has, the organization which fight against any crimes. Such organization has dicipline and accurate statisitc, because it's state's institution, it's part of the state.

As is so convenient for Serb, I in fact don't read Russian. Good tactic Serb, I guess I will start using Gaelic sources so we can just assume I am right, which is what I will do for you.

If we will ever disscus Gaels (I doubt, because their history is not my strong side, and I think it's pretty stupid to engage in debate, if my knowledge about this subject is well... pretty limited), feel free to do so. Because for me it's obvious that the best source of knowledge about Gaelic history is Gaelic sources themselves. However, we are not talking about Gaelic history, we are talking about Russian histroy. Why do you think your American source, can know more about Russian history, than Russian sources and documents?

So we will give Serb the benefit of the doubt. He is right about his numbers.

I remember you've said it was wrong figures a couple of pages ago.

Which proves two things as I said before....

1) That the Soviet Union from 1913-1980 had more than enough population to facitlitate the killing of 61 million people.

Just as I thought - logic and mathematics are not Patroclos best friends.

2) That it is an unimaginably tragic event as it was in fact a significant portion of the Soviet population that is no more.

That is unimaginably, because everyone who can think logicaly and can do simple math, understand that Soviets simply could not kill so many people.

Birth rates are interesting, but again irrelevant as the Soviets killed men, women and children with equal zest when it suited their purposes.

Oh my, Soviets had eaten babies.

No more quotes from the book. I grow tired of quoting it too you every time you show your head.

Actually, I don't remember you posting a single quote.

You can scroll back because the same ones hold true, since you have yet to give your own number on how many people died under Soviet rule. That is really all we want you to do.

I've already gave you the number of people arrested for "anti-revolution crimes" during Stalin's rule. It's the numbers used by Khrushev in his report about "Cult of personality of J.Stalin" on XX's meeting of Communist party of USSR. Though Khrushev have strong motivation to exeggerate the number of people killed during Stalin's rule, all he was able to find in archives (or falsify, but it's unlikely) are the numbers I gave to you in my previous post.

And how the hell are we going to bet without odds Serb?

How can I know? It's you who started to throw bets.

Don't feel the needs to respond now. I know it is craft time at the asylum...

I've no idea wtf are you talking about, but tell me... why do you know all this stuff about asylums?
The only explonation I see, is that you are their "number one client" .

Have a nice day... Napoleon? Ceasar!

[Serb]

ErikM, thanks for assistance, but I must warn you. Those guys consider everyone who dissagreed that Russians are the most evil bastards humanity ever saw, as even more evil bastards.

Rebyta opredelenno hotyat chto by my zhili s permanentnym chustvom viny.

[Ned]

On the issue of Kaliningrad, anyone understand what the Right of Return means?

[Heresson]

[SIZE=1]
Vultures/barbarians, huh? Oooh these Russians - they were not at all like saintly Poland, a model pre WW2-European country, which never had any territorial aspirations towards their neighbours.

It had, just like its neighbours towards her.

Except maybe this one time when Poland attacked Soviet Russia during the civil war. This does not qualify as "attacking when their pray was halfly dead" at all.

Of course it does not. A country with 3mln army isn't nearly dead. And this step was taken only after
a) Soviet Russia attacked and annexed most of allied with Poland Ukraine
b) Secret services gave information of Soviet plans of attacking Poland on the way to Germany. Do I have to remind You a "the world to world revolution leads through dead body of Poland" quote?

And grabbing Vilnius from Lithuania does not qualify either. It was just restoring Poland historical borders, right? Of course, Vilnius was never a part of Poland - but it was a part of Poland-Lithuania, so I'm sure that annexing Vilnius was just a manifestation of brotherly love towards Lithuania on Poland's part. And Lithuania of course was simply not advanced enough to realize that it was for their own good and even broke diplomatic relationships. Poland was so deeply upset about this lack of apprehension, that in March, 1938 it issued one of the most bizarre ultimatums of the inter-war period to Lithuania, threatening an invasion if diplomatic contact were not restored.

My God. Here we go again. First of all, whether the first union of Poland and Lithuania was an union, or incorporation of Lithuania into Poland, it is a matter of translation of the documents. Secondly, Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a state of Polish culture, at least at the end, and Poland can claim its tradition just like Lithuania.
Lithuanians were for centuries regarded, and regarding themselves, as part of Polish nation. At the end, according the constitution of 3may, all differences and boarders between the Crown and Grand Duchy were annihilated. Vilnius and its neighbourhoods had Polish majority. In Vilnius, ethnical Lithuanians formed a 5% minority, less than Jews or Byelorussians. There were several propositions of solving the problem; a Polish-Lithuanian union, a Switzerland-like confederation of Lithuania, making Polish the second official language of Lithuania; Lithuania rejected all, it demanded incorporating Vilnius with no rights for Polish inhabitants.
And Vilnius is as important for Poland as to Lithuania.
Also, I'd like to remind you that current leader of Poland came from these regions and claimed himself Lithuanian.
Lithuania gained Vilnius at this time from hands of Soviets, after they captured it from Poles.
Oh c-mon. That's just normal dispute over souvereignity of the region, with both nations having some rights. But when Lithuania could claim it historically only, Poland had both the historical and ethnical rights on its side.

Meddling in Czechoslovakia does not qualify, either. When Chechoslovakia was annexed by Germany, Poland, this land of the brave, just moved in and grabbed what she could in a most civilized manner and in a spirit of neighbourly love, I'm sure. After all it was "far from what poland demanded earlier" - I mean, Poland still does not stretch from Elbe to Volga. Oooh historic injustice.

First of all, Polish claim was lead before Muenchen, and long long before German occupation of this country. You're mixing facts.
I'm sure You do not know anything about what earlier situation of these lands was. Poland claimed several villages over Slovakian boarder, really tiny changes. Only visible change was Cieszyn thing, and this thing I've discussed earlier.
Your irony is again only an indication of your lack of knowledge. I'd like to inform You that after Polish-Soviet war, Soviets offered much more lands to Poland than it wanted to get - for example, Soviets offered entire Byelorus and entire Podolia.
Also, Germany, before it reapproached with Soviets, offered Poland an alliance against them, offering entire Ukraine (in return, they demanded Gdañsk, a highway and railway through what You call "the Corridor" and some other stuff. Poland could become second Romania on better conditions, but rejected this offer.

Really, Poland was such a noble, saintly country, that it is absolutely unclear what motivated Lloyd George to say after 4th partioning on Poland (or was it fifth? who can count, anyway) that "Poland got what she deserved".

Llloyd George was an idiot that in one of his speeches mixed Silesia with Cilicia and bashed Poland for "aspiration to owning lands in Asia Minor". He was barely an expert in eastern matters. And this quote only proves I am right. It's a sign of his bias, not anything more.

In the light of present events Polish arguments to the contrary, while natural, cannot be considered satisfactory. Now as the enemy of Poland Russia has occupied the same positions as she would take as an ally-to-be. The actual difference to the outcome, thus, is not as large as it appears at the first sight" [what a beautiful piece of realpolitik! - ErikM

That only prooves naivety of western politicians. Soviets wanted to grab eastern Poland and grabbed it. How after seeing that one can think their intentions were clear and honest? The same Poland could agree to let Germans into western Poland "to protect it from Soviets"
Again, if Soviets were afraid of German progress nearer their boarder, why did they sign a pact with this enemy allowing it to move closer? Soviets wanted these lands, and their proposition was just a way of getting it. I'm very suprised why are some people so naive to believe Soviets had good intentions.

Erik, Poland didn't act always nicely. But it has shown some signs of peacefulness, more than most of its neighbours. The conflicts between newly borned Poland, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania and USSR were unavoidable. What do You expect Poland to do?
Lithuania and Czechoslovakia made the same things that Poland did. And they, in the end were successful. They own the lands that were under discussion, though they were, and some still are, majorly Polish. If I was on Polish nationalist forum, I would explain that we weren't the only ones who had rights to these lands. But here, I am among people who, like You, bear prejudices towards Poland and do not understand its situation. It is obvious to me I should then defend Polish point of view, also that in situation of conflict of Cieszyn, I agree with it, unlike when it comes to the case of owning Polesie or Wolyn, where Poles were a small (less than 20%) minority. I try to do that not offending other Apolytoners, and not offending other nations. I'm not acting like Serb here. I called Lloyd idiot, because he indeed acted so, acting against Poland any time He could often not knowing what the case is about. I offend him, because He offended my country not once. I may say harsh words about Soviet politics, but it's hardly different than offending German Reich

On the issue of Kaliningrad, anyone understand what the Right of Return means?

I understand why Israel is so afraid of it, and understand that allowing it may destroy it. But comparing Koenigsberg Germans and Arabs is exagerration. You should give something in return.

[Patroklos]

Jesus Serb, give it up with the smoke and lights and just say it.

WHAT IS YOUR FREAKING NUIMBER!!!

Not what is the birth rate of 1913, not defensive war blah blah blah, not or war dead was this, not KGB arrested numbers for May 1946 was blank. Just say your number. Trying to drown the issue with census data is not important. YOU extrapolate what you want want me to see and YOU just state the number.

All stupid attempts at sarcasim and whatnot by me asside, JUST STATE YOUR NUMBER!!!

[ErikM]

Sorry Heresson I don't have time for a detailed response right now. I'll try to address your points some time later this week.

But this quote

Originally posted by Heresson
Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a state of Polish culture

is so grossly inaccurate you better cover your bases before I respond

Also

It is obvious to me I should then defend Polish point of view <...> I try to do that not offending other Apolytoners, and not offending other nations.

Commendable. I'm all for a civil discussion. But perhaps then you might realize that calling Russians "vultures", "barbarians", and inserting here and there some condolescing remarks about "Russian culture" or "Russian education" just might qualify as "offending other nations"? I mean really, what kind of response do you think these remarks would solicit?

[Saras]

--"Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a state of Polish culture"

I could agree to some extent that a large part of our nobility by the end of 18th century was polonised. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania, though, has come into life in the 12-13th centuries and was hardly polish back then.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Jesus Serb, give it up with the smoke and lights and just say it.

WHAT IS YOUR FREAKING NUIMBER!!!

Not what is the birth rate of 1913, not defensive war blah blah blah, not or war dead was this, not KGB arrested numbers for May 1946 was blank. Just say your number. Trying to drown the issue with census data is not important. YOU extrapolate what you want want me to see and YOU just state the number.

All stupid attempts at sarcasim and whatnot by me asside, JUST STATE YOUR NUMBER!!!

Well... well... well... Mr. Patroklos had stopped to comment my post. I don't see a single quote from my previous post, not a single answer of questions I've asked. What the hell it could mean? Looks like Mr. Patroklos decided to ignore my questions. Perhaps because he don't have answers and don't have explanations and he want to change the tactic and draw attention from my two previos posts and questions I've asked in those post. His motive is clear.




Perhaps you didn't noticed, but I aready gave you the number you are asking for. I did this in my first post and then later said again that I already gave it. Why do you still screaming for number you already have?
Ok I'll give it one more time.

My number is only for Stalin's rule and it comes from Khrushev, the man who killed Stalin, the man who took the power after this murder, the man who started anti-Stalin compaign by his famous report about Stalin's cult of personality on 20's meeting of communist party, the man, who because of this reasons needed as high number for people killed by Stalin, as possible. Here is Krushev's number (from his report about Stalin's cult of personality) for people killed during Stalin's rule. It's based on archive documents of all according Soviet state institutions, such as NKVD, Gulag, court archives, etc. and signed by general public prosecutor of USSR R.Rydenko, minister of internal affairs of USSR (former NKVD) S.Kruglov, minister of justice of USSR K.Gorshenin. In accordance with this document, in 1921-1954 3 777 380 peoples were found guilty in anti-revolution, anti-state crimes.
Ok, Patroklos, I repeat:
3 millions 777 thousands 380 people were found guilty in anti-revolution and anti-state crimes between 1921-1954 .

Among them:
642 980 were centenced to death warrant. (642 thousands 980 people were shot)

2 369 220 were sentenced to imprisonment. (2 millions 369 thousands 220 people were imprisoned)

765 180 were sentenced to "ssylka" a relocation for living in poor populated parts of the country. (765 thousands 180 people were took from their homes in big cities and moved to live in small villages somewhere in Siberia)

This comes from Khrushev, who was interested in as much bigger numbers as possible. It's all what he was able to find about Stalin's atrocities in police and court archives. In case if you don't know any case against any "enemy of the people" (the person who was charged with anti-communist/anti-state crimes) was always very well documented.

[notyoueither]

How many were deliberately starved, or 'lost' without charge?

Somehow, I doubt that Kruschev had any interest in turning over all the stones. That would be like suggesting that Ford was interested in getting to the bottom of what Nixon had done.

Also, did the practices of the NKVD, or KGB, start with Stalin, or did they end with him?

[Serb]

Originally posted by notyoueither
How many were deliberately starved, or 'lost' without charge?

Despite what you think, Soviets didn't burn villages and shot all its inhabitants just for fun, because of their pure evil nature, or because of any other reason. Oh... and I doubt also, that Stalin himself did eat babies. "Enemies of the people" were arrested and put to trial, even if the "enemy of the people" was a simple peasant who agitated other peasants against Soviet government. One more thing, most of the trials (including the most loud cases) were absolutely open for public and foreign press Hundreds of foreign journalists were in courts and saw those trials.

Somehow, I doubt that Kruschev had any interest in turning over all the stones. That would be like suggesting that Ford was interested in getting to the bottom of what Nixon had done.

From this point of view, he had no single reason to turning over ANY stones. No one forced him to do so. His report about Stalin's cult of personality and anti-Stalin campaign which followed after, had done huge impact on USSR image. USSR lost sympaty of millions of communists all around the world. Khrushev knew this will happen, but still done this. He had no choice, he killed Stalin and had to compromise Stalin after his death. Why? It's pretty long story and I can't describe a whole book within few words. I'll just say that right before Stalin's death, USSR was on his way to huge transformation. Stalin already started his reforms. Had his reforms were completed, Khrushev, "apparatchiks" and other 'blah...blah...blah...' party leaders who did nothing except praising the glorious role of the communist party of SU, would have lost their possition in society. Stalin wanted to remove communist party from the role it played in USSR. This construction was sick and it's finally died in 1991. Stalin knew this and was going to change the situation. For party's bureaucracy those changes meant however, that they will lose their possition and will have to actually do something for the country, instead of speaking their usual "blah...blah...blah..." party praising speeches.
That's why Stalin died in 1953, his reforms were canceled, he was compromised and Khrushev started to create myths.
The next way of myths started in middle of 80's and was mostly an American creation. A propaganda which goal was to destroy the USSR. Those myths of second wave, like the one about 60 millions murdered, that were inspired by BS books like this "death by the government", were even more absurd, insane and completelly illogical. But who cares? An usual person who hear such number, says "Oh my God!!! It's horrible", he didn't ask himself where Soviets could take so many people, he didn't ask himself where is evidences, he did not go to archives to seek documents, he just keep telling "Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God... it's so horrible, no one should ever turn to communism again... oh my God...".

Go ahead, call me brainwashed moron. But, you know what? In this case, I'm more enlightened braiwashed moron, than you are, because about ten years ago I was one of those "Oh my God, those bastards killed 30 millions of my countryman".

Also, did the practices of the NKVD, or KGB, start with Stalin, or did they end with him?

What practices? You mean crimefighting? Espionage and couter-espionage?

[notyoueither]

No, I was kind of thinking of what they did in the Ukraine that led to up to 10 million deaths by starvation. Of course, none of those people were ever tried, so I guess they wouldn't show up in crime statistics.

[Serb]

Ten millions it's almost 1/2 of Ukraine population of this time or 1/4 of urban population of ENTIRE USSR.

To your luck, I don't have full statictic about Ukraine total population, birth/death rates, average yearly growth, etc. right now.

Btw, I'm Ukranian on 1/4.

[Heresson]

Commendable. I'm all for a civil discussion. But perhaps then you might realize that calling Russians "vultures", "barbarians", and inserting here and there some condolescing remarks about "Russian culture" or "Russian education" just might qualify as "offending other nations"? I mean really, what kind of response do you think these remarks would solicit?

I didn't call Russian vultures, I compared Soviet behaviour towards Poland in 1939 to vultures' behaviour. It's a difference and I don't find it at all bad, as well as my "barbarian" comment. I've written that barbarians think that if one nation is defenceless, it can be freely attacked. Do You disagree? By that, I was indicating not even that Soviet behaviour in 1939 was barbaric, though I think it was, but that Serb's claim was wrong. Perhaps I've offended Him, but not Russians in general.

When it comes to the next remarks, perhaps they may be offensive, not more than yours when it comes to Poland, I would say less, and definitevely less than Serb's comments. But why have I used such words? To let Serb know that by his posts, he brings shame to the nation he's trying to "defend" or glorify. Oh, I know I shouldn't.

Originally posted by Saras
--"Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a state of Polish culture"

I could agree to some extent that a large part of our nobility by the end of 18th century was polonised. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania, though, has come into life in the 12-13th centuries and was hardly polish back then.

That's why I've written "at least in the end". The "at least" thing is redundant, true
(have I mentioned that my original surname was supposed to sound something like Mintwid?
I could be Algerdas (my second name) Mintwitus (or whatever)

[notyoueither]

Good for you. Many of the survivors are 100%, and they are a somewhat pissed off living testimony to what happened in the Ukraine in 1932 and 33.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Serb
Ten millions it's almost 1/2 of Ukraine population of this time or 1/4 of urban population of ENTIRE USSR.

Nice trick, but I think that at this time, urban population was modest compared to rural one.
And... that it's such a big part of the population, it is quite irrelevant

[Serb]

You know, my dobre pan, I've decided to give Patroklos a little time-out.
Now it's turn for you and your crap that you've posted earlier. Perhaps later, we will talk about tricks.

[Saras]

Serb, you really are a revisionist stalinist apologist. At least 200 thousand LITHUANIANS ALONE were deported, and about 1/2 of them died. So by your figures they comprise 1/3 of total killed. Nice.

[Serb]

This figure do not include deported people. It only include the number of people who were found guilty in anti-revoultion/anti-state crimes.

Ssylka bila odnim iz vidom nakazaniya za anti-sovetskuy deyatelnost' po zakonu.

Deportation is other case. The people who were deported, were deported without trial. It was more like military opertation. I don't know how about 200 000, and 1/2 of them dead, but I guess you meant the case just after the war. You mean deported relatives of "forest brothers" right? The former nazi servants who after defeat of their masters hid in forests and constantly terrorized, pillaged and murdered? To deport their relatives was a cruel mean, but after this, banditism had stopped pretty quickly. Stalin used the same strategy at Caucasus.
And I've never said Stalin wasn't cruel. He was.

[Serb]

Russian human rights organization "Memorial" (it's not exactly a human rights organization, but more decendents of victims of Stalinism, Saras, I guess you heard about them) says about 3 millions of deported during Stalin's rule. How much among those 3 millions died, I have no idea. But I doubt death rate among them is greater than among German POW's captured by Soviets during WW2, because: 1) aside deported people, POW's were imprisoned and worked hard; 2) again aside deported people, nazi's soldiers were the most hated persons at this time, and 1/8 of those POW's never returned home, it is true (just for note 2/3 of Soviet POW's died in German camps).

Anyhow, correct number about deported, can be found in archives. The archives of NKVD are open now.
The point of my posts, however was to show idiocy of this 60 millions of murdered figure, not to prove that it was everything fine in USSR and no innocent were harmed. Many innocent people suffered. It was a cruel times and cruel decisions.

p.s. I guess I've found an English equivalent for Russian "ssylka" - it's "exile".

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Serb
The point of my posts, however was to show idiocy of this 60 millions of murdered figure, not to prove that it was everything fine in USSR and no innocent were harmed.

You didn't have to Serb IMHO. The figure is idiotic in itself and people who believe it obviously don't have a clue.
Mind you the people who believe that are propably the same who supported Juntas all over the world, bombed people mercilessly, killed 3 millions in Vietnam, greenlighted East Timor and Cyprus and directly or indirectly have the blood of dozen of millions on their own hands. And propably say that a good communist is a dead communist. What do you expect them to say?

If you want to play with them fine but personally I think there's no real point. But it can be amuzing.

[Patroklos]

Hey, give me a figure and I'll mull it over, but this has yet to be done.

It could go something like NUMBER NUMBER, NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER, NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER.

Easy as that.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by notyoueither
No, I was kind of thinking of what they did in the Ukraine that led to up to 10 million deaths by starvation. Of course, none of those people were ever tried, so I guess they wouldn't show up in crime statistics.

The 10 million deaths in Ukraine number is by no means an accepted figure for 32-33 famine casualties, neither in FSU nor in the West.

See, for instance,
Douglas Tottle, Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard, Toronto, Progress Books, 1987.

Now, the author of this book (I've read some parts of the book on the net long time ago) has a clear leftist bias, so I am suspect of his findings.

But I equally distrust Robert Conquest's "The Harvest of Sorrows" and other mainstream western press on the subject.

All numbers that are published on Ukrainian famine in 1930s are based on indirect evidence. In particular, the number of ~7.5mln. casualties is obtained by comparing USSR census figures in 1926 and 1939. The population of Ukraine increased by ~3.5mln during this period which is lower than one might expect given average birth rates and mortality rates in preceding years and in the USSR overall. By making population growth projections and comparing them with census numbers, Conquest & co. arrive at ~7.5 mln. "excess deaths" which are than attributed to the famine.

Problems with this approach:

1. Birth rates were likely to be lower than assumed, partially due to poor economic and sociological conditions, and partially due to increased use of contraceptives, legalizing abortions, etc. Birth rates declined not just in USSR but elsewhere in Europe during this period.

2. Death rates were likely to be higher than assumed. For instance, it was wildly publicised that by early 90s the average life expectancy for Russian males has fallen to 57 years vs. 69 years in 70s-80s. While economic conditions in USSR worsened during 80s, I'd think they still were much better than during late 20s-early 30s. So it is only reasonable to assume that natural mortality rates were much higher during this period.

3. The number of people registering as "Ukrainians" changed throug inter-ethnic marriages, rural-urban migrations, changes in declared nationality and so such. For instance, Kouban cossacks (between 2-3mln. people) were recored as "Ukrainians" in 1926 census but were reclassified as "Russians" in 1939 census. That change alone accounts for ~30% of assumed "casualties".

And so on. Prior to Gorbachev's era, the accepted figure for Ukrainian famine casualties among Western historians was put at between 300,000 and 1mln. Than in 80s it started to grow on and on and on, and one would naturally think that this is due to some "new information" being released from Soviet archives. But this is just not true. Simply, old data were reinterpreted to exaggerate Soviet era casualties as it became fashionable in academic circles to treat communists as scum of the earth, being worse than Nazi and so such. Ukrainian nationalists were also interested in exaggerating collectivisation casualties to lend some credibility to their ludicrous claims of Russian genocide against Ukrainians and so on.

Another thing. USSR in 1930s was not as closed society as commonly assumed. Iron curtain has not fallen yet. Many thousands of western workers and specialists worked in Ukraine. Many of them left memoirs. All of them mention economic hardships and such, but nobody writes about these millions of dead. Now, 7.5mln dead is 25% of Ukrainian population at that time. One in four. It is very difficult for any government, no matter how totalitarian, to hide that many casualties from outsiders.

I am not a historian, but it just goes against common sense that 1933 casualties could have been that high. Ukrainians would remember this period as being worse than Nazi invasion and will tell their kids so. But this is just not the case.

BTW, before someone accuses me of pro-Russian bias, I'm a Ukrainian. Actuallly half Russian, half Ukrainian as is common in both Ukraine and Russia.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Serb
I don't know how about 200 000, and 1/2 of them dead, but I guess you meant the case just after the war. You mean deported relatives of "forest brothers" right? The former nazi servants who after defeat of their masters hid in forests and constantly terrorized, pillaged and murdered? To deport their relatives was a cruel mean, but after this, banditism had stopped pretty quickly. Stalin used the same strategy at Caucasus.
And I've never said Stalin wasn't cruel. He was.

Well, let me break this to you, 'cause they EVIDENTLY DON'T teach this at school - mass deportations started BEFORE THE WAR.

[Saras]

--"Anyhow, correct number about deported, can be found in archives."

This very plainly shows how well based your arguments are

[Heresson]

I can only tell that on the formerly Polish grounds annexed by USSR, Poles were being systematically deported (it's zsylka in Polish) to inner USSR. The goal was complete clearing of this grunds of Poles. Started with the ones with higher education (not counting those killed at once), later were others. My grandma was deportated as well. Some were let out after the war, many still live somewhere there, especially in Kazakhstan. I don't have to add that the conditions weren't good. My grandma suffered from this up to her death.

[Heresson]

Oh, and I don't believe in 60mln people killed, obviously, though we may count USSR citizens killed during the war into that number.