The Kulaks killed by the Soviets were primarily Ukranian, and many farmers who weren’t Kulaks were still branded enemies of the state to deport them and kill off Ukranian independence and culture. It is clear they were not trying to preserve Ukranian culture, but to subvert and replace it and use the valuable agricultural land.
If that was the intent, why were they given their own Soviet Socialist Republic and not just folded into the Russian one? Would-be conquerors don’t give statehood and political autonomy to the people they’re trying to erase and absorb.
The slave owners killed by the northerners were primarily white southerners that tortured and killed slaves. Kulaks were not an ethnicity to be targeted for eradication, but a class that often violently resisted collectivization. Kulaks that complied were largely left alone.
As I proved to you, the soviets actually supported the preservation of Ukrainian identity, which was oppressed by the Tsarist empire. The soviet union was a multinational federation, it was in everyone’s interests for people to not starve, as you need people to farm. Russians were not trying to replace Ukrainians, a naturally occuring famine was made worse by kulaks resisting collectivization. After collectivization, crop yields were higher, and famine eradicated.
If the USSR was trying to kill their culture, they weren’t very good at it, because Ukrainians are still speaking Ukrainian to this day.
Taking this argument in isolation, it’s the same argument used today to say Israel isn’t conducting a genocide. “If Israel wanted to genocide Palestinians, they aren’t very good at it, cause only 70K killed.”
Taken in isolation, THIS argument could be used to cast the Allied invasion of Italy in WW2 as a project of genocide. They did kill a number of Italians, after all.
The Kulaks killed by the Soviets were primarily Ukranian, and many farmers who weren’t Kulaks were still branded enemies of the state to deport them and kill off Ukranian independence and culture. It is clear they were not trying to preserve Ukranian culture, but to subvert and replace it and use the valuable agricultural land.
If that was the intent, why were they given their own Soviet Socialist Republic and not just folded into the Russian one? Would-be conquerors don’t give statehood and political autonomy to the people they’re trying to erase and absorb.
The slave owners killed by the northerners were primarily white southerners that tortured and killed slaves. Kulaks were not an ethnicity to be targeted for eradication, but a class that often violently resisted collectivization. Kulaks that complied were largely left alone.
As I proved to you, the soviets actually supported the preservation of Ukrainian identity, which was oppressed by the Tsarist empire. The soviet union was a multinational federation, it was in everyone’s interests for people to not starve, as you need people to farm. Russians were not trying to replace Ukrainians, a naturally occuring famine was made worse by kulaks resisting collectivization. After collectivization, crop yields were higher, and famine eradicated.
You are parroting literal Nazi propaganda.
If the USSR was trying to kill their culture, they weren’t very good at it, because Ukrainians are still speaking Ukrainian to this day.
No shit. That’s the point of socialism: to expropriate bourgeois private property and redistribute it to the masses.
Taking this argument in isolation, it’s the same argument used today to say Israel isn’t conducting a genocide. “If Israel wanted to genocide Palestinians, they aren’t very good at it, cause only 70K killed.”
Taken in isolation, THIS argument could be used to cast the Allied invasion of Italy in WW2 as a project of genocide. They did kill a number of Italians, after all.
Does Israel recognize the state of Palestine?