Message from @Evan
Discord ID: 542237684924678144
I'm not saying Stalin did nothing wrong, I'm just saying that there's no evidence there was a targeted campaign against Ukrainians
There's plenty of reasons Stalin was bad, we don't need to make stuff up to say he was bad
according to this faulty definition communists could never be said to commit genocide since they saw the world in terms of classes
he did undermine Ukrainian nationalism as well tho
"According to them [Davies and Wheatcroft], only taking an action whose sole objective is to cause deaths among the peasantry counts as intent. Taking an action with some other goal (e.g. exporting grain to import machinery) but which the actor certainly knows will also cause peasants to starve does not count as intentionally starving the peasants. However, this is an interpretation of 'intent' which flies in the face of the general legal interpretation."
the sort of non racial communists of the past could be said to never commit genocide since they would not have wanted that even if they did effectively do that
I think we're kinda talking past each other
thats fine
im going to bed
oh well!
My point here isn't to say whether they intentionally killed people or not. I mean, they obviously did in some cases, but that's not the point here.
The point I was making was just that there's no evidence *Ukrainians specifically* were targetted
imma pull up the undermining of ukrainian nationalism another time. goodnight
I didn’t know much here so did some reading. Vince basically said what I wanted to say and more
But let me get this straight Stalin kills 30,000 of the wealthiest, aka best, farmers in Russia.
Then he expects Ukrainians to foot the bill. And when the Ukrainians can’t perform as well he takes grain and lets them starve.
@VinceChaos Good night
I think the term genocide is the issue. It’s genocide out of negligence.
Worse than negligence. But negligence at best.
For all you language enthusiasts, do you recommend I learn Danish or Swedish first?
I haven't looked into the killing farmers thing. The point I was making was just that Ukrainians just happened to be more likely to live in grain producing areas. If you look at the map of affected areas, there's plenty of ethnic Ukrainian areas that weren't affected, and plenty of ethnic Russian areas that were affected. So, my point still stands, there's no evidence that Ukrainians specifically were being targeted.
That would depend why you're learning it
@Jacob lol I use the archives as well! Just not the Soviet ones... <:teehee:381917632359563264>
I mean the Soviet archives reveal plenty of really incriminating stuff about the Soviet Union
It's mainly cultural interest. I don't have any plans on living in Sweden or Denmark long term.
oh, if it's just out of interest, then just choose based on which country you're more interested in
or maybe choose the one that there's more resources for
Norwegian
so that way it'll be easier to learn the other one
Why Norwegian?
Danish is a nightmare to pronounce, written danish basically is written Norwegian, it’s said to be “in between” Danish and Swedish
@Jacob There are things that Russia still has classified, however. 95% or more of all German art taken during the war has never turned up since then.
My great grandmother was Danish. It does not sound like a human language
@The Eternal Anglo I mean I'm sure that if something was a security threat they didn't release it, however, the Soviet archives were released with the unsavory stuff intact
you'd think if there was a targeted extermination campaign against Ukrainians we'd have at least *one* document ordering it
If you specifically want either Danish or Swedish, I’d say Swedish
Seriously, Danish is rough to understand for other Scandinavians even. Spoken Danish, that is. They’re all quite similar when written.
Icelandic being a huge exception of course. Its isolation afforded it extremely conservative grammar and pronunciation.
People learning Old Norse are told to just pronounce it like Icelandic