Talk:Holodomor/Archive 6

During a wider famine?

According with the mentioned article about famines in Russia and USSR: "The first famine in the USSR happened in 1921-1923 [...] The second famine happened during the collectivisation in the USSR. In 1932-1933 confiscations of grain[...] The last major famine in the USSR happened mainly in 1947[...]". Nowhere it is mentioned that the second one happened during a wider famine, unless we were to consideer the three mendioned ones, despite of the hiatuses betwenn each, as a single wider famine. The closest thing would be the 1931 drought in the Eastern region. Did that resulted in famine too?

Also, if the whole USSR were in an ongoing famine I think that the genocidal character would be somewhat more disputed than it actually seems to be, since more or less the same ammount of people would be expected do die anyway, only more widely distributed. (I point that just as a possible clue indicating that there was no wider famine, not as some sort of argument "against" a wider famine. If there was a wider famine, I won't dispute, but the mentioned article that would supposedly support that does not).--Extremophile 01:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question the famine did affect areas other than Ukraine for instance Kazakhstan, Kuban and Volga regions of Russia. However, similarly to the Ukrainian famine, the underline reason was grain confiscation rather than drought. The severity of grain confiscation varied from region to region, that's why the scale of the catastrophe was non uniform Soviet-wide. Kazakhs, were the nation who lost the highers percentage of population in that famine but Ukraine lost the largest number of people. --Irpen 01:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If famine were caused by confiscation of grain, then an aswer is needed as to where the confiscated grain went. Since, as we know, the grain went mostly to feed the rapidly growing urban population using ration cards (e.g., in 1932 there were 40 million ration cards issued as opposed to 20+ million several years prior), then it is logical to conclude that there would've been mass starvation in the cities had the grain not been confiscated. Therefore, a more likely answer is that the primary reason for the famine was low harvest (incidentally, not caused by drought). Now, there was export out of the 1932 harvest, of course, but it was very limited compared to the previous harvest and could only affect the scale of starvation. Some starvation would've occurred anyway. In short, confiscation of grain affected the geographic distribution of famine, not the existence of famine. Fkriuk 20:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The various decrees functionally condemning Ukrainians to starve to death clearly demonstrates malevolence on the part of Stalin. Your argument heads in the same direction as that of Stalin apologists, that is, that the Ukrainians were not participating in the glorious Soviet experiment (low crop yield) and Stalin was "forced" to teach them a lesson for the greater good. Unfortunately, I have not yet found the reference I came across that when the Ukrainians weren't dying fast enough Stalin sent Khrushchev in to machine-gun them to death. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

1) I would appreciate it if you discussed specifically what I'd written, rather than where you errouneously suspect it leads.

2) Can you point me to a single decree that clearly demonstrates that the Soviet gov't knew the confiscation of grain would lead to starvation, and that attempted to starve specifically Ukrainians, rather than peasants in general?

3) How is it a demonstration of malevolence to choose to feed urban population at the expense of the peasants? Letting the city dwellers starve would've been less malevolent? Or are you going to claim that there was enough food to feed the urban population without peasants starving? Can you prove it?

Fkriuk 23:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Then please explain where you do lead. You appear to conclude there would have been famine somewhere regardless, ergo, it could not be intentionally used as an instrument of Soviet policy.
2. If Stalin (and I'm still looking for a more reputable source than I have "re"-found so far) ordered Ukrainians to be executed to maintain a target death rate originally/primarily fueled by the famine, then I believe that is sufficient demonstration of policy intent. Would you agree on that point?
       Your request for a document, unfortunately, draws the conclusion that lack of a document stating "famine as instrument of death" equals or at least strongly implies lack of the policy of "famine as instrument of death." The syllogism inherent in your of your position vis-a-vis Stalin's "policy" is demonstrated by the lack (as far as I am aware) of official policy documents stating that Kolyma et al. were officially intended to sentence millions to their deaths and burial in Siberian mass graves.
3. This goes back to point 2: if we show Stalin intentionally increased the death rate by alternate means when famine was providing insufficient results, then I believe your point is adequately addressed.
       And, yes, I do claim there was enough food. As Ukrainians were starving, Stalin was sending grain abroad for hard cash: 1.54 million tons exported in 1932 and 1.77 million tons exported in 1933. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

1) There was not enough grain to feed the entire population of the USSR to begin with, ergo confiscation of grain did not cause the famine. I thought I made that clear? Maybe you shouldn't try to figure out where anything leads, and just read what is written?

2) If "Stalin ... ordered Ukrainians to be executed to maintain a target death rate" -- yes, that would demonstrate genocidal intent. However, if "Stalin ... ordered Ukrainians to be executed", period, then no, genocidal intent is not proven. Stalin, after all, ordered many people to be executed without any genocidal intent, just simple paranoia and witch-hunting. Now, how you go about proving that there was allegedly a "target death rate" remains a mystery. As for Kolyma, you seem to be in the grip of a logical fallacy that assumes that achieved result was the intended result (not to mention the fact that the number of people who died there is significantly less than "millions"). Drawing on a more recent analogy, it's like claiming that since Bush's Iraq war killed about 600k Iraqis, that would mean that Bush specifically started the war in order to kill 600k (or more) Iraqis. Why wouldn't you conclude that it was an unintended consquence of the decision to go to war?

3) Yes, if you can sufficiently prove Stalin's intent. Demonstrate a single document that shows the existence of a "target death rate" and measures taken to achieve it, and you've made your point. But something tells me that you will not be able to do so, since such documents do not exist in nature.

4) As I've pointed out, the amount of grain exported would not have been sufficient to prevent the famine, merely to alleviate it (you're welcome to calculate it yourself). Secondly, you make an erroneous claim that the export took place "while Ukrainians were starving". First, you need to realize that famines don't exist in autumn, as the harvest is being collected, or in winter, while there are still stocks from the last harvest. A famine is normally a late spring-early summer phenomenon. The exports out of the harvest of 1932 (which caused the famine of 1933) took place in early 1933, before the famine actually started. And they were pretty much halted as soon as the reality of the famine set in. You need to be more careful in your claims. Incidentaly, did you take care to differentiate 1933 exports between sources (i.e. harvest of 1932 and harvest of 1933)? The harvest of 1933 was sufficient to stop the famine, and any exports out of it were entirely justifiable.

Fkriuk 23:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My grain export numbers did not specify season versus calendar year, while "season" is standard practice for accounting for grain imports/exports, Soviet statistics are more likely based on calendar year. For example, I believe the 1934 (calendar) export figure was still around 800,000 tons. I don't think you've established a solid chain of events that too much grain was (inadvertantly) sent abroad and that exports were halted as soon as it was apparent that millions were dying. (Export could equally have died down, no pun intended, because the Ukraine had been devastated by human losses--the Ukraine had typically outproduced other regions of the Soviet Union on a per-hectare basis.)

How many would you say died in the gulags, then, if not "millions"? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, agricultural statistics are usually based on the so-called agricultural year (хозяйственный год in Russian), which is counted July to July, IIRC. In any case, I haven't read any published detailed analysis of the timing of Soviet agricultural exports in 1933, but I do think it is sorely needed. What I do go on, however, is private statements by researchers who have actually worked in Soviet archives. Tauger, e.g., claimed that exports were halted once the reality of famine became understood in Moscow. A more detailed example is from a slightly histerical missive to the H-Russia list in May 2002: http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Russia&month=0205&week=a&msg=02U3yMV%2b2ptLgmF6thwCig&user=&pw= Regardless of the barely professional tone (which can be excused in a non-published source), the facts are interesting. I think that we can tentatively conclude that the last 1933 exports out of the 1932 harvest took place in March-April, while the rest of 1933 exports came out of the 1933 harvest in the fall. In May USSR actually started importing grain! As for Ukraine "typically" outproducing other Soviet regions, that wasn't actually the case -- it was Kuban, usually. However, as Tauger calculated in "The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933" (need a link?) in 1932 both Ukraine and Kuban singificantly underproduced other regions of the USSR.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what "gulags" are. If you are wondering how many died in the GULAG NKVD correctional labor camps, annual NKVD reports to that effect are in GARF (formerly TsGAOR) and have been published in 1992 in Russian by Zemskov, and in 1993 in English by Zemskov and Getty. If you're interested, I can provide detailed references. I don't want to look this up now, but the total number of deaths in places of confinement (camps, colonies, and prisons), even if so-called "other losses" are assumed to be deaths, was IIRC around 1 million during the entire Stalin period, with probably 50% of that occuring in 1941-45. As you can see, the mortality was significantly less than "millions", and much of it wasn't even attributable to Stalin (but to war conditions).

Fkriuk 16:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(reindented) I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with your notion of the inviolablity of Soviet statistics. Even conservative estimates put deaths at around 2,000,000 just on the way to Siberia--and destinations were not only camps but entire villages people were forced to carve out of the wilds for themselves (and where many were subsequently worked to death)--which is why I used the more colloquial (and plural) "gulags," I'm quite aware of the official designation of the official prison system, GULAG being the department name within the NKVD.

    My cousin's (eventually to become) husband, deported in a cattle car packed standing full of men, was the only one left alive by the time they reached Siberia (the majority died enroute, bodies dumped by the tracks) and were then force marched to their destination beyond the Arctic circle. I rather doubt NKVD efficiency in recording any of those deaths, or (you can call it my POV) millions of others similarly and directly attributable to the deportation of Eastern Europeans from their homes (not that Russians were immune, either). All having nothing to do with "war conditions." Or, perhaps you might direct me to the archives where I might find the name of one Linards Kalniņš--that would be "Калниньш, Линард"--and all who were packed into his particular cattle car and the recorded time and place of death of all his "travel companions"? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You're 10 years or so late with this particular objection. As soon as the Soviet archives became available to reasearchers, many historians went to Moscow and started doing what any normal historians do -- digging through archives, comparing sources, etc. As the flood of archival publications hit various academic publications, people like Conquest started strenuously objecting -- after all, they'd made their name on creative interpretation of cherry-picked narrative accounts, and the newly available documents were showing that they had been utterly wrong (if not to say worse). The acrimonious debates raged for several years, with mutual accusations of deliberately misrepresenting opponents' position and other "nice" things. In the end, Conquest and his crew have pretty much shut up. They could not win simply because archival work is bread and butter to any historian. No one claims that any particular document or a number pulled out of it is the final truth. But if you peruse through thousands of documents, compare them with each other, etc, then the truth emerges. Brushing all of that aside in favor of poorly detailed narratives passed through who knows how many layers of "broken telephone", with obvious mistakes (as in, do you know where the Arctic Circle actually is?) -- all of that is simply anti-historical. What you need to understand is that, in a large bureaucratic system, nothing moves without a piece of paper, and none of those papers are actually meant for the public to see. They accurately represent how the system viewed itself. And since much of those documents have been preserved, we can now use them reconstruct the events in question. These are basics of historiography.

You are, incidentally, confusing separate issues. You apparently asked for the mortality in the GULAG camps, but object to the sources by pointing out mortality among deportees. These two categories are unrelated. Urban legends about cattle cars full of bodies do not apply to camp mortality simply because camps were but one part of the Soviet penal system. A person entered that system before trial (or OSO/troika conviction) while physically located in a prison in his hometown. He was counted in internal NKVD statistics from that point on. Deaths during transportation from prisons to camps or colonies cannot pass unnoticed, and do not. Statistics I referred to do not hide them. As for deportations, when people were picked up, loaded on trains, and sent wherever (but not beyond the Arctic Circle, that's the result of someone's unbridled fantasy), the statistics there would be under a different department. You need to realize that trains don't move without papers either, and that there are signed papers enumerating the deportees at the origin, and signed papers (authored by a different officer) enumerating the deportess at the destination. If any are lost, there are documents for that as well. Unfortunately, statistics for deportees are not as complete as for prisoners, but there is still a lot to go on. The reality is that deaths during deportations were few, and the bulk of mortality occured in the years following the arrival. For example, out of 151,720 Crimean Tatars deported to Uzbekistan (which, as you can imagine, is not beyond the Arctic Circle), 191 died en route. However, the mortality of the entire deported Crimean contingent (not just Tatars) up to 1948 came to 44,887, with only 6,564 births. This is bad enough, no need for urban legends about "cattle cars packed with corpses" or "2 million deaths on the way to Siberia".

Now, if you want to find the fate of a particular train with deportees, then, first of all, you will need to know the exact date and the origin. Armed with that knowledge, you can proceed to the TsA FSB RF (Central FSB Archive), located in Moscow, ul. B. Lubianka, d. 2, and get their permission to conduct research. If you want to find out the details of how that particular archive works, and which particular fond you need, try asking a historian who actually does his research there, e.g. Aleksandr Dyukov, whose blog is here: http://a-dyukov.livejournal.com/ As a matter of fact, he is doing research on deportations from Estonia, so Latvian (I assume, judging by the name) deportations will be very close to his area of research. Fkriuk 20:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ukraine

    It's precisely the probem when historians focus on a particular holy grail and view it as their mission to dismiss/disprove earlier (quite real) evidence--rather than come to a conclusion which embraces all current and past scholarship. You also would appear to follow the "either"/"or" principle, that is, you are intellectually reasonable and correct and I am an anti-Stalinist (and by your imputing confusion on my part, a rather bumbling) propagandist.

    Your observation about people like Conquest and his ilk having "given up" is also explainable by circumstance: Conquest is what, now, 90? Mace is dead (at only 52). Nor, do I believe your contention that Tauger disproves all alleged "man-made" aspects to the famine is entirely correct, as even Tauger in his own published analysis does not free Stalin from responsibility for the famine.

    Do I believe the famine was entirely man-made? No. Do I believe that Stalin used the famine as an opportunity to direct the famine against a particular set of victims and promulgated regulations to insure that no one could stray from the target area? Yes.

    Let's say the phenomenon is not a famine but a sizeable asteroid. If you determine where the asteroid is going to hit and you make sure those in its path can't escape, that's as good as killing them yourself. To claim they were victims of a natural disaster when the meteor hit is disingenuous at best. The salient point is, if Stalin directed the devastation of the famine against the Ukrainians, it doesn't matter whether the famine is "man-made" (which some here seem to apply in the strictest of senses, i.e., it is only because of Stalin's policy that any famine was occured) or "man-exacerbated." Was the famine used as a weapon by Stalin against the Ukrainians? That answer is undoubtedly yes. Arguing over the precise source of the famine does not in any way affect whether or not famine was used as a weapon, or whether the target (agrarian Ukraine) and human toll (7 million even by Soviet archives) qualifies as "genocide."

    P.S. On the 1934 grain number (earlier), that was definitely calendar year. I'm quite aware that grain exports/metrics are conventionally recorded by growing season. That does not mean the Soviet Union always reported them that way.

Kolyma et al.

    Your dealing with evidence that does not fit your mold is to dismiss anything not in an archive as undoubtedly degenerated/embellished into falsehoods, as in, do I even know where the Arctic circle is. (And reports of being deported there being "unbridled fantasy.") Let's, see, that would be...hmm... the dotted line on the map labelled Северный полярный кяуг above which appears labeled the Колыма river which runs into the ВОСТОЧНОСИБИРСКОЕ МОРЕ? If I'm misreading our family copy of the ГЕОГРАФИЧЕСКИЙ АТЛАС СССР, do please let me know. I'm quite aware of the geographical situation of the lower Kolyma versus other more hospitable deportation destinations, say, Krasnoyarsk.

    I'm afraid I'm quite unlikely to contact Mr. Dyukov, whose main purpose (in his own words) is to prove that Soviet oppression of Estonia is a big fat Nazi lie, for example, quoting NKVD records that show trains "outfit to carry people" took them away to Siberia, therefore proving the reporting of "cattle cars" used to transport Estonians is simply not true. (That is, the possibility that some people were taken away in more "regular" trains while others were taken away in "cattle cars" is not considered. If it doesn't say "cattle car" specifically, or even one specifically states something other than "cattle car," then there were no cattle cars as proven by the record, all just "Nazi"--his word--lies.) Although I must say Mr. Dyukov's remarks bear striking resemblance to your aggressively benign view of the Soviet past.

    You would present the whitewashing of Soviet atrocities as attempts at meaningful dialog aimed at an objective understanding of the past. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    Seem to have lost a paragraph as I was organizing... What would you consider the total population count deported to Siberia, and what would you consider the number that perished at a highly accelerated death rate? Since anyone not shot was simply listed, if at all, as dying of natural causes (the "archival" opposite of "shot dead")? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My dear Vecrumba, it is really quite sad that you've missed the debate over the use of archival materials between Conquest and younger historians. You would've fit right in. As I've mentioned, it was replete with accusations of misrepresenting the opponent's position, and it is with some sadness that I must note that you've managed to misrepresent both my position, and Dyukov's (as far as I know his position). But even if your claims were true (which they obviously aren't), it still would only amount to a red herring in this argument -- facts reported even by biased sources must be examined, rather than brushed aside using inane and disingenuous, or even true, accusations about the source's character. I would extend this courtesy to you if only you would start actually using facts while constructing your theories. In your profile you claim to prefer facts, yet this preference is sorely lacking in your discourse. I hope you will improve.

Even if your theory about why Conquest gave up his hopeless fight against history is correct (that he is simply too old), it still doesn't explain why no one else has picked up his faded banner. Why is it that younger historians are increasingly turning to the archives (as any historians worth their salt should), while the old timers of Conquest's ilk can't even grumble anymore? On a related point, you also ask why old-style narrative sources cannot be reconciled with modern archival research by modern historians. You are barking up the wrong tree here as well. Primary sources (both personal accounts and archival documents) can and should be reconciled. Note, however, that it is one of the basics of historiography to choose more reliable sources over less reliable ones, in case of a conflict, and personal accounts are considered to be the least reliable of all primary sources. But the real problem is not that personal accounts cannot be reconciled with archival material, it is that Conquest et al cannot be reconciled with new documents. His methodology of using cherry-picked accounts (rather than objective inclusion of all available ones) and careless extrapolation from insufficient samples does not amount to "earlier (quite real) evidence", but to sloppy scholarship which needs to be fixed, and the sooner the better. If you remove Conquest from Conquest's research, and reduce it simply to primary sources, then there is no problem in including it in the body of modern scholarship on the subject.

While we're still on the subject, congratulations on finding the Kolyma and the Arctic Circle on a map. However, if your knowledge on the subject were up to date, you would've realized that what is colloquially known as "the Kolyma" was the Dal'stroi organization, run from Magadan, that it was a network of camps (techically, it was a single ITL) located around Magadan and on the upper Kolyma, that they were SOUTH of the Arctic Circle (where the river starts), and that it was the destination for prisoners, not deportees (especially from Latvia, from which most deportees were sent to Krasnoyarsk). That's the basic problem with personal accounts, they usually get most details wrong, and that is why they are disliked by historians. In general, I am not going to give you the total count of deportees to Siberia (why necessarily Siberia? you don't care about those deported to Central Asia or the Far East, or even within European USSR?) or their mortality, simply because I do not consider the scholarship on the topic to be complete. However, based on the documents available now, it is clear that the possible upper bound for such numbers is significantly below previous claims a la Conquest.

Returning to Ukraine. Your analogy is incorrect. A famine is not an asteroid. If you evacuate people from an asteroid's path, they will survive. However, if you evacuate people from an area where there is a famine to an area with a less severe famine, they will simply enfamish the new area. The amount of food is fixed. Moving people (or food) around in the conditions of a general shortage does not create new food supplies, it simply moves the famine. You would have a point if there were areas of USSR where food was plentiful. But as we now know it wasn't the case (there was starvation even in Moscow), you don't have a point.

Now, thanks for sharing your belief that "Stalin used the famine as an opportunity to direct the famine against a particular set of victims". What is the evidence to back up this claim? Or is it simply a belief? What was the alleged "set of victims" who were targeted? Is there a single document that mentions them and refers to them as targets? How do you explain millions of victims who were not your purported targets (e.g., Kazakhstan, Siberia)? I am also puzzled by your claim that the death toll in Ukraine was "7 million even by Soviet archives". You haven't even read this Wikipedia article on the subject, have you? Read it, note the references to research by Kulchytsky and the more recent one by Vallin et al. All based on the Soviet achival material.

On a concluding note, I thought I should point out that striving for more balance and trying to adjust unrealistic numerical estimates does not amount to "the whitewashing of Soviet atrocities" or an "aggressively benign view of the Soviet past". It doesn't make one lick of difference to the qualitative assessment of Stalin's era whether 30 million or 2 million perished. A belief that "post-Soviet Stalinist propagandists" (what a cute term) are those who do not condemn Stalin loudly enough, or often enough, or do not use quite the right terminology, is merely an indication of a totalitarian mindset. In the words of one wise leader, "I feel your pain." Facts, my dear Vecrumba, facts and "rigorous application" thereof is what we should strive for. Character assassinations should have no place in an academic debate.

Fkriuk 01:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(reindented again) I'll try and keep this a bit shorter to not tax our other readers...

    Alas, I am not engaging in character assasination--you offer as a reputable (balanced) source a Soviet, sorry, Russian historian who in his very words has one agenda, that is, disprove as a "Nazi lie" all alleged Soviet oppression of Estonia--and by extension, of all the Baltics. His methodology? The very "cherry picking" you accuse the anti-Stalinists of. Any alleged cherry picking of the past is not going to be remedied by energetic cherry picking in the opposite direction--that will only exacerbate the polarization of positions. People taken away in comfort, not in cattle cars, to peaceful resettlement in Siberia to open patriotic new frontiers? What wonders will the archives confirm next? Baltic republics which after two decades of bloody bourgeousie oppression of the workers were finally overthrown by a Baltic peoples eager beyond words to petition to join the great Soviet family?

    Russian authorities would portray they are getting more energetic in defense of Soviet glory and of Russian rights because the West is trying to encircle and marginalize them (again). Alas, it is the Russian attitude which came first which is causing said encriclement. I haven't heard Bush describe Putin as a man into whose soul he had looked through his eyes and seen a good man he could partner with--at least not any time lately.

    You suggest I practice character assassination, yet you practice insulting condescension amid your citing of sources (you quite remind me of Mauco in that regard--different editor, different topic, same pro-/anti-Soviet view of the world polarization). You suggest I am unobjective and uninformed and I and family/relatives have a poor knowledge of geography. Yet your being informed cherry picks no less than your alleged opposition. Now that we have that little unpleasantry out of the way...

    "Stalin used the famine as an opportunity to direct the famine against a particular set of victims." Would you accept Yakovlev (formerly in charge of all Soviet propaganda) as a reputable source? He describes the earlier 1921 Cossack famine and the later famines (Cossack et al, the Ukraine being similarly "stripped" of all its grain) in the 1930's as "man made." To your question of evidence... what would you call laws restricting mobility? Laws declaring underproducers saboteurs and prohibiting them from buying basic supplies? And as I've indicated, even Tauger, explicitly takes pains to NOT absolve Stalin of blame for the famine. As for conclusive proof of intent, I still owe the Khrushchev source. (Of course, in the "Glasnost tapes" he doesn't even mention the famine or his position in the Ukraine at the time....)

    As for "7 million" in the Ukraine I have read that from other sources also quoting the self same archives. And I would make the point the more recent the Russian scholarship, the more likely it is, unfortunately, to apppear to be tainted by the attitude set out by Dyukov: cherry picking the past to paint claims of any Soviet opppression or wrongdoing a lie.

    On the wider question, Yakovlev estimates from his years of experience in the Soviet leadership that the total number who were killed or died in prison and camps during the entire Soviet period totals 20 to 25 million.

    On a less conspiratorial note, referencing Wikipedia articles as reference is the first step down a slippery slope. If you want to discuss sources, let's discuss the originals, not their representation in Wikipedia. Many a time people have quoted some book, and when I have bought the book and read it all--and the quote in context--I find it was completely misrepresented.

    I don't think this particular discussion thread is going to bear any additional fruit until we can discuss specific sources in detail (as opposed to pitting my source/my interpretation against your source/your interpretation). I'll pick one of Tauger's pertinent works. (BTW, I should have been clear on the Ukraine historically being more productive than most other areas of the Soviet Union. Your quoting of specific years where that did not happen does not invalidate the general observation--otherwise you're using cherry-picked exceptions to intimate the exception was the rule and the rule the exception.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: you need to consider facts presented by your opponents, not engage in disingenuous speculation about their political beliefs. To do otherwise amounts to character assassination. In relation to Dyukov, his beliefs (which you misrepresent, incidentally) are of no consequence. You wanted to find out how to conduct research in TsA FSB (and I hope it was an honest wish), and that is why I recommended that you contact Dyukov. It doesn't matter what his political beliefs are, what matters is that he has worked in TsA FSB, and I haven't, and thus, unlike me, he is qualified to answer your questions about how to do archival research. Your attempts at his character assassination as well are completely misplaced in this context.

Your counteraccusation of cherry-picking archival evidence lacks specific details. How can you prove that such cherry-picking has occurred? I can always prove that Conquest cherry-picked by pointing out accounts that he did not use, and which do not support his theses. But how can you prove that Dyukov or Tauger or other real historians (i.e. using archival sources) cherry-picked archival documents, if you haven't seen any yourself?

I also have to point out that simple condescension cannot be insulting. I'm not even trying to condescend, it might appear that way because I am explaining basic truths about historiography to you (as in, how to judge relative reliability of primary sources), and if you choose to feel insulted by it, it is not my problem. I don't know who Mauco is, but I do have to point out that if you feel being condescended to by so many different people, maybe you should look inward for causes, rather than outward. And isn't it a fact that either you or your source made a mistake about the Arctic Circle in relation to the location of GULAG camps or deportation destinations? Should I ignore it, rather than use it as an illustration for the inherent lack of reliability of personal accounts as primary sources? Why do you find that insulting?

Returning to the discussion on the Ukrainian famine: I'm surprised that you haven't realized yet that I do not consider individual judgments to be relevant to the discussion. I don't care what Yakovlev, Tauger, Conquest or you *believe* on the subject. And I suggest the same attitude to everyone, including you. What matters is a) what primary sources were used (i.e. basic facts); b) how theories were constructed on those sources (i.e. interpretation of facts). If you want to prove that the famine can be described as "man-made", then you need to enumerate basic facts that demonstrate it, not try to hide behind the opinion of a former chief Soviet propagandist turned chief anti-Soviet propagandist. So, returning to facts and their interpretation, please explain to me how restricted mobility or harsh measures against perceived "saboteurs" prove that the famine was man-made? If these measures hadn't been taken, no one would've died of hunger? Is that your claim?

You have a funny attitude toward Wikipedia for someone who is supposed to be a contributor. Wiki articles have many problems, but that is one of the reasons I am here -- to fix rather than complain. And somehow you've failed to understand me yet again. When I suggested that you look at this Wiki article on the issue of famine related deaths, I specifically meant that you should see the referenced sources. Both Kulchytsky and Dallin et al used published census results plus raw TsUNKhU stats on population movement (from the archives) to make their calculations. In my opinion, neither is misrepresented. Citations are clear and unambiguous. If you want to discuss these articles in detail, be my guest, but do not start throwing out random irrelevant accusations. I cannot recall a single calculation using archival data (e.g. TsUNKhU numbers) that came up with "7 million" for Ukraine alone. But I am glad that you have finally decided to start reading more sources on the subject. Once you've read Tauger, I'm sure this discussion will become a lot more productive.

Fkriuk 20:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"In relation to Dyukov, his beliefs (which you misrepresent, incidentally) are of no consequence."

    I am sorry, but my "characterization" of Dyukov is nothing but reporting his direct verbatim response to being interviewed about his magnum opus in progress, where he specifically states not that he is seeking simple historical accuracy, but that he is seeking to disprove Soviet oppression of Estonia as a "Nazi lie." His words, not mine.

    I am, quite frankly, flabbergasted by your contention that I need to consider only facts, not beliefs. Or to paraphrase, "Consider the words, not the source"--I've heard that too more than once on Wikipedia. It is inescapable that a historian's motivations--noble or ignoble, implicitly or explicitly furthering or countering a premise and conclusion--will color their work. To a hammer, everything is a nail. To Dyukov, every fact is a disprover of Nazi lies. (Which also means he has little, if any, interest in gathering any facts which cannot be applied toward that purpose.)

    On the other hand, your contention does represent some hope that you'll consider whatever facts others bring to the table (assuming they trace back to some record somewhere).

    On the Ukraine, I'll leave you with a few more thoughts:

• Under Lenin, the 1921 famine was ammeliorated through a massive influx of grain aid from the west, including the United States (which at the time did not even recognize the Soviet government).
• Under Stalin, the 1930's famine was covered up (to the point where U.S. newspapers published accounts that reports of famine in the Soviet Union were totally unfounded)--no possibility of external aid.
• Under Stalin, grain stores were emptied, leaving the population with nothing.
• This population left with nothing to eat was actively prevented from leaving, or from buying supplies, thereby insuring their starvation. (And that it happened elsewhere, for example, with the Cossacks, does not mean it was a universal calamity with no connection to Soviet policy.)

    You would contend that Stalin did nothing to take advantage of the famine situation to focus the maximum suffering on the Ukrainians--in fact, that as soon as he realized people were starving, he halted exports. So, I have to ask, where is the archival record backing the contention that Stalin "halted" exports as soon as he "realized" the true gravity of the situation?

    As to condescension, I would only observe that asking me if I even know where the Arctic circle is has very little, if anything, to do with the noble purpose of furthering my historiographical enlightenment. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    I grow weary of discussing Dyukov and your misrepresentations of his work. To make matters simple, here's the interview that you apparently refer to: http://www.newspb.ru/allnews/802017/ Now anyone who is able to read Russian can verify for themselves that not only did you NOT quote Dyukov verbatim, despite your claim, but that you also distorted his views and in effect you are not being truthful in your accusations against him (not that I consider those accusations relevant in the first place). Once again I will have to point out that Dyukov was recommended to you only so you could ask him about the technical details of how to work in the archives. Hence your tirades against him are utterly irrelevant.

    In general, if you prefer to delve into conspiracy theories about historians' motivations rather than discuss facts they present and logic they support their theories with, I certainly cannot stop you. But at the same time I refuse to treat your attempts at irrelevant character assassination seriously. Or even if, for a change, you would not misrepresent someone's views, I would still not treat your characterizations seriously. Facts are facts, regardless of who reports them. Cherry-picking of facts can be an issue, but you need to prove it, and delving into a person's character is not the way to go about it. Judgements are a different issue, where the personal qualities of the one making the judgement do matter a great deal but, as you now know, I refuse to consider judgements of a secondary (if not worse) source. I can draw my own conclusions based on evidence presented to me, and I would encourage you to do the same.

    Thanks for sharing "a few thoughts". I still don't see how they are connected in any way, shape, or form with your contention that the famine was "man-made". The issue of foreign aid is applicable to the accusation that the Soviet gov't messed up (willingly or unwillingly) the relief effort, rather than that it caused the famine in the first place. Foreign aid itself is highly doubtful, considering that at the time the US and Europe were descending into the Great Depression, and starvation was becoming rather frequent there as well. The third point about the grain stores, you will need to clarify it because it is not understandable at all -- certainly it is obvious that all grain stores would be emptied under famine conditions. The last point is relevant, but the faulty logic in it is apparent to anyone who knows that the entire country was starving, not just Ukraine. Allowing Ukrainians to leave would not have alleviated the famine. (We have already discussed this anyway.) Incidentally, I do not consider the contention that only Ukrainians were prevented from leaving to be an established fact. I suspect that migration controls were in place throughout the entire country. But since I haven't studied the subject in detail, I'll leave it be for now.

    Now, this is the second time you asked for sources on the exports. I replied after your first request. Please look it up. The fact that you ask the same questions or reiterate the same claims without referencing previous responses begs the question: do you actually read what you reply to?

    As for the Arctic Circle tangent, I believe the discussion has taught you the danger of relying on poetic exaggerations inherent in personal accounts, whose intent is psychological effect on the reader, and confusing them with fact. So it's not all bad, as far as I'm concerned.

    Fkriuk 00:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I decided to move this issue forward. I suspect that you will not be able to come up with any facts to prove the claim that the famine was "man-made". So instead I decided to come up with "a few thoughts", or rather questions, of my own. In my opinion, the facts referenced below demonstrate that the theory of the intentional man-made origin of the famine, and it being directed specifically against Ukrainians, is not sustainable. Can you answer these questions within the framework of your theory, or do you need to discard your theory? Note that I'm not providing a source on purpose, to avoid a tangential discussion of sources. Assuming that the facts are true, can you answer these questions?

1. Why did reaping in 1933 (during the famine) start 20 days before normal (e.g. 1930 or 1931), rushing the food to the market even at the risk of greater losses of the total harvest? Didn't the gov't want to starve the peasants some more?
2. Why were grain collections by the state (incl. milling levy) 20% lower in 1932/33 than in the previous two years, despite the fact that the number of ration card holders increased by a third in that period?
3. Why were grain collections for Ukraine, which had accounted for 1/3 of the Soviet total in the previous two years, reduced to only 23% of the total for 1932/33?
4. Why was the grain collection plan for 1932/33 (of 6 May 1932) reduced by 20% compared to 1931/32? Did the gov't decide to leave more grain to the peasants by any chance?
5. Why was the already reduced grain collection plan for 1932/33 further reduced on numerous occasions throughout the year, until at least 12 January 1933? Did the government decide to leave even more grain to the peasants?
6. Why was the grain collection plan for Ukraine as of 12 January 1933 reduced to only 65% of the original, while the plan for Russia and other areas of the USSR wasn't reduced to nearly the same extent? Did the government decide to leave even more grain to the Ukrainian peasants compared to e.g. Russian ones?
7. Why was 1274 thousand tons of grain allocated as seed loans and aid (returned back to the peasants) in February-May of 1933?
8. Why was 320 thousand tons of grain allocated as food loans and aid (returned back to the peasants) in February-July 1933? Didn't the government want the peasants to starve?
9. Why was 176.2 thousand tons of that, more than half of the total, allocated specifically to Ukraine? Didn't the government want specifically the Ukrainian peasants to starve?

--Fkriuk 03:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, of course, I will need to dig into the details behind the numbers and exactly what areas/people they specifically applied to. I suspect it will take me some time to gather up and get through Tauger.

Given your staunch defense of Dyukov, I do have to return to him one last time. Let's examine his perspective on the mass deportations (1941) in the Baltics. I wouldn't want to misrepresent him, so I'll quote him:

"The fact is that deportation of 1941 was not organized for the genocide of the Estonian people, as they say today in Tallin. Deportation from the Baltic republics was the method used to counter the 'Fifth Column' which Nazi special services had formed from local nationalists. In the decision by TsK the AUCP(b) and SNK USSR - Council of People's Commissars USSR, the basis for the need for deportation was clearly states: 'in connection with the presence in the Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian SSRs of a significant quantity of former members of different counter-revolutionary nationalistic parties, former policemen, gendarmes, landowners, manufacturers, important officials of the former government apparatus of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and others, that lead disruptive anti-Soviet activities and are utilized by foreign reconnaissance for espionage purposes.'"

    They weren't deported, they were simply taken away because they were criminals and Nazi collaborators. They all deserved it. Can't call that a "deportation of Estonians," that's hardly accurate.

    And we're supposed to take this stated need to purge the Baltics of its criminal element at face value? Ahh... criminal to own a plot of land, criminal to own a machine shop, now there's a subversive anti-Soviet activity. Those who had been ministers and parliamentarians--Politicians? Public servants? No, they and everyone else a Nazi "Fifth Column" hauled away before it/they could execute their nefarious purpose. Dyukov would ask us to forget that in the Soviet Union, history--and its records--served politics, not facts.

    I'm sorry, but Dyukov's pro-Russo-neo-Soviet Stalinist-rehabilitative stench is detectable a hemisphere away. And with that remark, I expect this thread dovetails neatly once again into Irpen's earlier admonition (below) against inflammatory remarks.

    Don't rush to respond, I expect that after ploughing through Dyukov's diatribes I'll need to spend a few days on something less olfactively stimulating. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

    You don't need to dig into details. You have a pet theory about the famine of 32-33. Under the assumption that the facts provided by me are all true, can you answer my questions within the framework of your theory? It's a simple mental exercise in logic.

    The discussion on the validity of facts themselves, as well as their context, can wait until you finish reading Tauger and other reputable historians.

    Returning to Dyukov, since you keep attacking him for some mysterious reason, despite it being utterly irrelevant to the present discussion, I will now have to spend some time explaining your misrepresentations in detail. Not for the sake of protecting Dyukov, but for the sake of simple... honesty.

1. You claimed that you were quoting Dyukov's interview verbatim when you ascribed to him that "he is seeking to disprove Soviet oppression of Estonia as a 'Nazi lie.'" A check of the text of the interview at http://www.newspb.ru/allnews/802017/ demonstrates that no such words were ever uttered by Dyukov.
2. As for the meaning of the quote above, what Dyukov said in reality is that there was no genocide of Estonians, rather than "no Soviet oppression".
3. Moreover, he did not call that a "Nazi lie". He simply caught official Estonian historians using a Nazi propaganda source when claiming the number of executions in Estonia. Thus, the number of executions is a "Nazi lie", not the Soviet oppression or even genocide.
4. You claimed that "he specifically states not that he is seeking simple historical accuracy". A check of the interview's text finds the following passage: "We need to remember that history is a science. We need to simply conduct an objective investigation based on archival documents of the events that took place in the 1940s. There is no need to politicize the subject of research or, like the Estonian historians, to distort the picture of the past events." This is very much equivalent to a claim that he is seeking "simple historical accuracy.
5. You forgot to provide a source for the latest quote of yours (it's not from the interview) so I can't check it. However, I can check your claims based on it. You claim that Dyukov said Estonians weren't deported. Yet the quote demonstrates Dyukov using the word deportation. What the quote actually says is that Dyukov does not consider the deportation to have been an act of genocide, because it wasn't targeted at an ethnicity, but at a presumed "fifth column".
6. You claim that it is Dyukov's opinion that those deported were the "fifth column". Yet Dyukov does not make that claim. He merely reports the opinion of the gov't that those deported were the "fifth column".

    Now, per Wiki standards, we are supposed to assume good faith on the part of the opponent. Therefore, I should not jump to the conclusion that these misrepresentations were deliberate (syn: lies). However, don't you think that six misrepresentations are six misrepresentations too many? In general, based on your emotional outburst, do you think it's time to change the slogan in your profile to "This user attempts to refute imaginary post-Soviet Stalinist propaganda by rigorous application of ad hominem attacks"?

    Finally, in response to your latest attack on the archival material alleging that it served political (apparently, propaganda) purposes, I have to point out that all of these documents were originally classified. Don't you think that "classified propaganda" is an oxymoron? Please find another excuse to reject archival materials out of hand.

    --Fkriuk 05:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Vecrumba, please avoid inflammatory rhetoric in your posts and stay to the point like your opponent above, with whom I actually do not agree. --Irpen 05:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, was not attempting to be inflammatory. The phenomenon of apologists for Stalin is one contemporary with Stalin. I have read accounts which, in so many words, say that the Ukrainians brought "it" upon themselves. Since the point was made that the low crop yield was not weather related (that is, seeming to be intentional on the part of the Ukrainians), that pointed in the direction of the logic some have used to postulate the Ukrainians set their own tragic end in motion. Still looking to find the Krushchev source again, unfortunately. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Facts are facts. Inflammation is a response.

P.P.S. Found an online ref, but looking for citeable. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You misinterpreted the point about the weather. The drought did not cause the low harvest of 1932, i.e. it wasn't drought related, which you misinterpreted into "weather related". Drought actually caused the low harvest in 1931. In 1932, there were plenty of other natural factors that caused the low harvest (e.g., heavy rains during the harvesting season), as well as unintentional man-made ones. For a dicussion of all of these factors, please see Mark Tauger's "Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Soviet Famine of 1931-1933." (need a link?) Thus, next time please read what is *actually* written, rather than what you *think* is written. Fkriuk 23:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Irpen: if you do not agree with my point, please dispute it. I'm interested in an intelligent debate on the topic (with sources etc), rather than an ideological battle of pro-Stalin/anti-Stalin propagandists, like Vecrumba seems to desire. Otherwise I'll eventually have to force the issue by going directly to the article and modifying it. Fkriuk 23:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Davies and Wheatcroft

What's up with all those different Davies and Wheatcroft citations? Can't they all be just one citation? — Alex^(T|C|E) 04:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad news for the Stalinlovers Part I

I`m sorry, but the Parliament of Spain has officially recognised as genocide the Holodomor :-)

http://www.mfa.gov.ua/spain/ua/news/detail/5420.htm

and http://www.diba.cat/cido/temp/Av-2007-81-05-20070514_81.pdf

Lusitania Express 13:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And the saga goes on...

And? --Kuban Cossack 22:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Have they officially recognized 520 years of colonialism and imperialism, and the genocide and cultural destruction of millions of aboriginals? Not to mention the oppression of the Basque people.. --Mista-X 05:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo. Now look at a map, check where Spain is and where Ukraine is. And now read up on Spain's history (especially on nice stuff like Inquisition, colonies, antisemitism) and understand (hopefully) why are you talking nonsense. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I remove this trollish entry from the talk page? --Kuban Cossack 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Only the provided links are useful. All the comments about Spanish history are not. --Lysy^talk 18:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop such calls for censorship... <_< -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Observing that your comment does not directly bear on the substance of the declaration of the parliament of Spain is not "censorship." Is there anything you would like to offer regarding the declaration itself (as opposed to interpreting this as an opportunity to denounce Spain through to the dawn of civilization)? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad news for the Stalinlovers Part II

I`m sorry, but the GUAM National Coordinators finally agreed the text of the Statement initiated by Ukraine on admitting the 1932-1933 "Holodomor” in Ukraine as an act of genocide of the Ukrainian people. :-)

http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=131&info_id=4192

And the saga goes on...

Lusitania Express 13:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 13:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How wonderful... Ukraine (and three other countries) making resolutions about themselves... That spells POV from around 10 miles away... It's like, I don't know, if Germany votes a resolution that WWII was genocide of German people - think it will have as much credibility... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The analogy is skewed however. In this case, Ukraine was not the perpetrator of death (as in the case of Germany during WWII). Keep in mind, the recognition of Holodomor as genocide is not only by the GUAM countries as the article makes clear. True, that (# of resolutions) in itself does not constitute "truth" but it ought to alleviate concerns over the POV issue.--Riurik^(discuss) 20:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There were no Ukrainians confiscating grain from Ukrainian peasants? Ukrainian SSR, of which modern Ukraine is the successor state, was the primary "perpetrator of death" (not the fact of death, but the geographical distribution of death). Grain confiscated from Ukrainian peasants went to feed Ukrainian urban population. So who perpetrated what to whom? Fkriuk 23:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude, read before you comment. The analogy does not apply which I point out. Did I say that no Ukrainians confiscated grain? Again, read before writing. Yes, the huge majority of dead from this famine were in Ukraine (raw numbers). What is your source on which grain went where and what does it change? The people were still starved to death by the regime. You ask who? I'm not sure what to answer to you at this point. You seem to be confused as to who was in power at the time so I'll let you go figure it out.--Riurik^(discuss) 20:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that Ukraine was not the perpetrator of death and admission that Ukrainians themselves (as officials of the Ukrainian SSR) participated in confiscation of grain from Ukrainian peasants contradict each other. Dude, read before you comment. Fkriuk 23:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's clear the confusion as to who was in charge in the Soviet Union. Sure you had Ukrainian and Russian communists participate in grain confiscation, but the ultimate authority, the go ahead was sent NOT from the officials of the Ukrainian SSR, but from Moscow. Unless you're using a very narrow definition of perpetrated (as in - the person who seizes food and cordons off a geographical area to escape death by hunger), the perpetrators of death during Holodomor were those in charge of the country at the time in Moscow - Stalin, Kaganovich, Molotov and Postyshev.--Riurik^(discuss) 23:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Above is equivalent to the claim that Hitler alone was the perpetrator of the Holocaust. Logical? Fkriuk 00:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, at the highest level, it is logical that Hitler alone is the perpetrator of genocide; having said that, others at the top of Nazi hierarchy and below were responsible for bringing death to jews, slavs, and other societal "outcasts." Under your line of argument, strictly speaking anybody who partakes in any death machine (Hitler's, Stalin's or in Darfur) is a perpetrator of death. It consequently includes under the same umbrella - an SS soldier who executes his victim and a Jewish ghetto police who "patrols" his own people since both serve the same machine. However, to lump everyone together blurs the line between those most responsible and those less so. As you seem to disagree that Stalin and his thugs are responsible for the Holodomor, I won't continue this discussion. With sources such as Mark Tauger, you seem to be on the true version of history.--Riurik^(discuss) 22:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

At the highest level, there was the leadership of the Ukrainian SSR, who implemented the bulk of agricultural policies in Ukraine, even without Moscow. And since modern Ukraine is the direct descendant of the Ukrainian SSR (as in, practically every institution dates from the Soviet times), the claim that Ukraine had nothing to do with the famine of 1932-33 is disingenuous.

Now, I don't know what "the true version of history" is, but I can assure you, I am "on to" facts. As in, I prefer facts to suppositions. I also prefer historians who dig up facts in the archives, such as Mark Tauger. Or do you think it is wrong to dig up facts in the archives? Anyway, I hope that you will be able to resume the discussion once you recover from your current bout of what seems to be cognitive dissonance. --Fkriuk 20:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Your implication that the Ukrainian SSR authorities somehow acted independently of, or were vested in some self-governing authority by, Moscow is certainly suspect. Your further claim that today's Ukraine, as it "descended" from the Ukrainian SSR, is linked with (i.e., complicit in) the famine on a historical factual basis is like contending the Baltics of today, having "been" SSRs (and I use "been" advisedly), were complicit in the deportation of their citizens (and should bear blame, not just the dear departed central Soviet).

And insulting other editors too, I see. If you insist on continuing this approach, I'll have to request a checkuser to see if you're Mauco, your disparaging tone is just too similar to his. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian authorities were neither independent of Moscow, nor were they mindless puppets controlled by Moscow. Their policies affected the course of the famine same as Moscow's policies did. I fail to see how your Baltic analogy is relevant to this discussion. Being a Ukrainian myself, I certainly consider myself, rather than you, a better judge of the Ukrainian political system. If I claim that almost every Ukrainian political institution dates from the Soviet period, you should listen to it. Even the first president of Ukraine was the last secretary of the Ukrainian Communist Party. And that's not even addressing international law, i.e. the SNG treaty, which specifically set all newly independent states as official successors of the USSR. (On an unrelated note, this means that Russia's claim to be the sole successor of the USSR is illegal.)

The purpose of your threat is lost on me. You demand that I treat you more gently (which, I think, means that I have to start agreeing with you rather than pointing out your mistakes), or you will do what, try to find out if I'm some Mauco (btw, can you give me a link to his profile?)? Not even mentioning the fact that you're feeling insulted where no normal secure person would be, why should I be bothered by such a ridiculous threat? --Fkriuk 21:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's the problem. Even Khrushchev was Ukrainian, it's all the Ukrainian's own fault. Mea culpa.

    There's no "threat," I've only seen the tactic of belittling other editors under the guise of "informing" them once too often. If that's how you prefer to pursue your discussions, I would just want to satisfy myself you are not a blocked user somehow reincarnated (regardless of likelihood). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You've misrepresented my point yet again. I am disappointed. I am also disappointed by your persistence in considering yourself to be an injured party. But since you haven't actually addressed any of the facts under discussion, I consider it closed. --Fkriuk 23:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)