AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
For context Libs on Bsky are passing aroudn this fascists shithead’s bullshit book “On Tyranny” as a manual for “resisting authoritarianism” THE CALL IS COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE YOU LIBERAL SHITWIPES!
For all the complaints of “antisemitism” of the past several years, it’s amazing how Snyder has been able to walk the double genocide tightrope and still be “in good standing”.
My favorite question to ask people is, in which Soviet Republic did the ethnic majority become an ethnic minority as a result of the famine(s) of 1930-1933?
Everyone says Ukraine because they’re dummies. It’s Kazakhstan, and yet you don’t see Westoids clammoring to woke genocide narratives on behalf of Kazakhs. Only Anne Applebaum does in deep psychotic NYT op-ed lore as she has to devise a good explanation of why her ideology is not the exact carbon copy of Putin’s ideology with some labels moved around.
Even within Soviet Republics, it’s super not clear cut what would constitute a genocide here. You have racism against different nationalities. Plenty of Ukrainians when I was growing up called Kazakhs, aziaty or churki and still do. The USSR itself was very anti-peasantry and anti pastoral/nomadic lifestyle.
If we consider the big evil Russian dictator theory both Stalin and Lenin are on record as saying Russian ethnic tendencies are actually the worst. In the history of evil Soviet dictators there are only 3 Russians: Lenin, Andropov and Gorbachev.
Lastly a lot of these fights typically rely on first mover advantage that’s found in all pro-Western chauvinism. “We got to do it because we did it before the magical date when it’s considered wrongbad.” is literally the excuse used by the West for everything they want to condemn from genocide, to energy use, to national development. Even if there was an active evil Soviet plot to sedentarize the Kazahs and remove them from their traditional way of life, there is not a developed nation on earth that practically supports nomadic lifestyles.
It’s honestly not a simple question, and in practice a question that people ask solely for political points. If we call/don’t call these famines genocide won’t actually get us to stop genocides and famines that are currently happening. It’s just propaganda.
It’s seriosly annoying, when people will only acknowledge a genocide to say ‘communism bad’, its like the fascist ‘anti sex trafficking’ panic-they dont actually care about the victims or want to stop it from happening again, and it’s almost worse than a denial
My favorite stuff to read in genocide studies is when Western academics shiv each other on political grounds.
Norman Naimark is an interesting case. He’s a super right wing guy, Hoover Institution, literally Galician parents and all that. Wrote a book called Stalin’s Genocides
He’s unique because he posits that the definition of genocide should be broadened and one of this hobby horses (that I interestingly enough entertain and mildly agree with) is that kulaks became a targeted class. Which brings up some interesting points like, if I manufacture a class of people that are labeled as enemies, and I just slide those goalposts to be able to push more people into that class does that constitute a genocide? It’s a very postmodern proposal to redefine genocide.
Ironically another right wing guy called Michael Ellman does not like Naimarks theory because:
“The liberal interpretation of genocide that Naimark favors is… in line with recent jurisprudence. However, he fails to point out the boomerang effect of such an interpretation. According to a recent book by a U.S. specialist on genocide… the massacres of some of the native Americans by European settlers, the Atlantic Slave Trade, the use of a nuclear bomb against Nagasaki…should all be considered genocides. This would make the United States founded on two genocides and guilty… of more… In view of this boomerang effect, my advice to Western governments is to stick to a strict constructionist interpretation of genocide. Hence, I disagree with Naimark’s wish to classify Stalin’s mass murders as genocide.”
It would stain the credibility of the United States…
Ironically, Snyder and Applebaum (like Naimark) point to the USSR’s advocacy for current and specific definition of genocide as the reason that USSR actions don’t fall into the legalistic criteria of genocide, they also do not see this potential for blowback. Ellman doesn’t even acknowledge things in recent history that would fit the extended definition (which would effectively add all ethnic cleansing into the criterion) such as “Mexican Repatriation”.
It’s almost like this term is a political football in-as much as it is a descriptor of historic atrocity.
kulaks became a targeted class
Turns out communists target classes. Weren’t they extremely explicit about this? And the pearl-clutching libs then say that “every domestic enemy of the state was called a kulak”
Or do you mean, like, they were all explicitly targeted with death as the only allowable outcome rather than the dissolution of there class? (a number of them were killed either way, of course)
Yeah, its not like anyone who matters has ever actually given a shit about genocide, by any definition heretofore proposed.
You know, you raised something in my mind; The Germans committed the Herero genocide in, what, 1898? Okay, 1904 to 1908. The idea that the Germans needed to look outside for inspiration is preposterous on it’s face, they’d already committed genocide in their own colonies.
The conflict between agriculturalists and pastoralists/nomads is such an incredibly deep conflict in human history. Any suggested reading for how Khazaks experienced the USSR?
You know, you raised something in my mind; The Germans committed the Herero genocide in, what, 1898? Okay, 1904 to 1908. The idea that the Germans needed to look outside for inspiration is preposterous on it’s face, they’d already committed genocide in their own colonies.
The one reason they’d need outside inspiration is that doing a genocide in a colony is a bit different than bringing the empire home. The colonial apparatus is already primed to do violence against the colonized population. The reason they needed inspiration is because a double sized colonization where you colonize the periphery (Westward expansion) and you recolonize the imperial core (Trail of Tears, slavery, population transfers, Jim Crow) at the same time was really an American invention.
The conflict between agriculturalists and pastoralists/nomads is such an incredibly deep conflict in human history. Any suggested reading for how Khazaks experienced the USSR?
Good overview for the Sovietization of Central Asia is
Inside Central Asia by Dilip Hiro
Nomads and Soviet Rule by Alun Thomas is on my reading list but I haven’t gotten to it. So I cannot vouch for its quality.
There’s not a lot of “friendliness” in portions of this history so you’re not gonna get a lot of good feelings but I’ve heard good things about:
- The Hungry Steppe – 1930 famine, it’s an anti-Stalin polemic so you have to critically read where Cameron is pushing something that she can’t actually back up
- Atomic Steppe – How the bomb was developed in Kazakhstan
- Steppe Dreams – Post-Soviet studies
In practice a lot of this is really the history of colonial conquest…
Japan’s Siberian intervention, 1918-1922. tells the story of Japans attempt at the same region during the same time.
I don’t think anything will go as hard as Furr’s ‘Blood Lies: The Evidence that Every Accusation against Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in Timothy Snyder’s “Bloodlands” Is False’. Say whatever you want about Furr, but his titles crack me up
This is one of the best takedowns of On Tyranny which is in reality one of those “should have been a blog post” drivel books that I’ve read:
My lib mom (who is somewhat well read) loves this fucking hack and this book in particular
I like wsws even though they’re trots
must’ve missed their apologetics for any celebrity accused of SA since woody allen
