The Communist Problem

[CornMaster]

quote: Originally posted by Theben on 07-22-2000 12:09 PM While I don't disagree with the basic premise of your post, I find it annoying that you dismiss his agrument w/o trying to refute it. We don't need blind followers on the left. Maybe you should take his advice and read a book or two.

Well as you can probably tell I'm not much of a debator but I don't feel obligated to answer to a post by S. Kroeze which was clearly not his own. And I have also proposed most of my arguements in previous posts. But you must note that I refuted his arguements about Hitler because they were clearly his.

In addition, my opinions don't come from a book. I came to these by reading books and taking world history courses. I can't credit S. Kroeze with much because the least he could have done is paraphrased the arguements. If he believed them then he shouldn't have just copied them straight. Unless he quoted them and then wrote his opinions under it.

I agree that this topic should be moved to off-topic or locked.


------------------
"I'm too out of shape for a long fight so I'll have to kill you fast"
"If the great Emperors of Rome, Egypt and Greece were alive today, do you think they would prefer Coke or Pepsi?"
[This message has been edited by CornMaster (edited July 22, 2000).]

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Theben,

I have to say I am a bit disappointed by your decision to move the Communism thread to the Off-Topic Forum. You will probably know best, but in my view the central question was whether Communism should be represented in CivIII as its advocates claim it was ideally meant to be or as it turned out in real-life. I'll cite the topic starter:

quote: "I believe that the biggest problem in the government part of the game is Communism. In Civ II it was represented in its true form. This has never been the case in the real world. What do we ask Firaxis to do? Leave it alone or make it into the corrupt form of government of the real world? Also if Firaxis leaves Communism alone then why do we say that it should be easier to go to Republic or Democracy from Communism. Communism is making everyone happy so why would they want a rich-poor gap to suddenly open up? Freedom doesn't always mean comfort."

In my opinion I held on to the original subject, but you think probably otherwise. Since I never visit the Off-Topic Forum my contribution to the subject ends here. When you have time you really should read Pipes! I know that historians generally are disrespected but I experienced it as a bit cheap to dismiss his studies of about 1000 pages as anti-Communist propaganda. It is true he doesn't like Communism, nor Marxism, nor Bolshevism. But that doesn't make him necessarily less reliable when he tries to tell what actually happened. You can always check his footnotes and sources. One doesn't need to admire Hitler to write a study about him!

Do you know any better, recent study on the subject of the Russian Revolution?
I am not a Russia specialist, nor is contemporary history my subject. But Pipes is among historians truly respected and accepted as the most reliable general study. When Commmunists don't want to hear the truth I think that is their problem. Pipes estimates the total of victims of the Revolution at about 23 million people between 1917 and 1924. I can imagine why a Communist doesn't like to acknowledge such a number.

By the way, my main point was not that Communism is evil -though I indeed think it is- but that the Western countries never seriously tried to bring the regime down. I will check Pipes on details but I think most foreign troops arrived before Compiègne(Nov 1918), while Russia was a political satellite of Germany! So the argument that the oppression of the population was a result of attacks of the capitalists on Communism falls short. Businessmen traded with them, while labour union leaders, who were more in touch with Socialist-Revolutionaries in Russia, distrusted them. And instead of allying with the peasants the Americans helped the poor victims of the famine, actually collaborating with this criminal government. From its first day in power the regime was a brutal dictatorship. And I distrust anyone who believes Hitler was a genius!

I also would like to point out that I posted some time ago part of the Communist manifesto in another thread on Communism. I intended to prove the Bolsheviks followed it very closely in 1919/20. This contributed heavily to the subsequent famine. So this antithesis between 'ideal' and 'real' Communism only exists in the heads of Communist sleepwalkers. Marxisms' ideal is the dictatorship of the proletariat, led by the intelligentsia. It doesn't respect the rights of the individual!

Sincere regards,

S. Kroeze

[Theben]

S. Kroeze,

"Among the Allies it had a mixed reception, but it certainly caused no alarm. Lenin and his party were unknown quantities whose utopian plans and declarations no one took seriously. The tendency, especially after Brest-Litovsk, was to view Bolshevism as a creation of Germany which would vanish from the scene with the termination of hostilities. All European cabinets without exception vastly underestimated both the viability of the Bolshevik regime and the threat it posed to the European order."

Quite possibly because the seat of power had been kicked around for months prior to the October coup. The allies certainly had no reason to believe that the bolsheviks would hold it for any length of time, as the author indicates.

"For these reasons, neither in the closing years of World War I nor following the Armistice, were attempts made to rid Russia of the Bolsheviks. Until November 1918 the great powers were too busy fighting each other to worry about developments in remote Russia."

Fighting a known enemy vs. an uncertain campaign against an enemy that probably won't exist in a year? Pipes does like to point out the obvious, although I think a greater cause should go to the continuing war.

"Lenin was absolutely convinced that after making peace the belligerents would join forces and launch an international crusade against his regime. His fears proved groundless...Soon the British, French, Japanese, and Americans landed token contingents on Russian soil in a vain attempt to reactivate the Eastern Front."

Seems to me Lenin was right, don't you think? Oh, and that "token" American force numbered 50,000. Not to mention the numerous other nations that attacked: Germany, Poland, The Cossacks (Khazhak now), others I don't recall...around 10 nations attacked at once. Fortunately for the Russians most of the forces were demoralized Germans.

"The Bolshevik Government could not promote revolution and civil war outside its borders in disregard of international law and appeal to the same international law to keep foreign powers from intervening in its own affairs."

Of course it could. "All fair in love and war", remember? They were trying their damnest to survive. The Americans who were captured during our revolution weren't supposed to go fight again, but they did, in violation of "international custom" (if not law). Countries fighting for survival aren't limited by treaties.
And as for the call for international revolution, not only was it part of the communist ideology but considered necessary for survival, as no communist nation would be able to stand alone in a capitalist world.

"no Western government, either during World War I or after it, appealed to the people of Russia to overthrow its Communist regime."

Um, who do you think the Whites were in the civil war!?

"Western capitalists lost no sleep over the fate of their Russian brethren: they were quite prepared to make deals with the Soviet regime,"

This is common for capitalists. It was also a trait the Soviets were counting on. They knew that then, as now, capitalists will do business with anyone if they smell a buck to be made.

"The Bolsheviks exploited their eagerness to do business by having them pressure Western governments for diplomatic recognition and economic assistance."

Which seems pretty smart to me. Get what you can from the enemy while you can, and use it to rebuild yourself.

"Businessmen eager to exploit Russia's natural resources and sell to her manufactured goods justified trading with a regime that had volated, at home and abroad, all accepted norms of civilized behavior"[bold mine]

I include this to point out possible bias of the author. So far no incident has been presented that points to a "violated norm", except to do business with capitalists (admittedly the author might have made it before this section). But it doesn't make me think the guy's totally objective. Unless he means a nation that supported revolution elsewhere: not unlike the French in the American revolution and the U.S. in most of the 20th century?

"What became known and caused great consternation in American relief circles was evidence that at the very time the Soviet government was relying on Western charity to feed its people, is was offering foodstuffs for sale abroad. In the fall of 1922 Moscow made it known that it had millions of tons of cereals available for export- this at a time when its own estimates indicated that during the coming winter 8 million Soviet citizens would stil require food assistance, only half of which could be met with native resources. When questioned, the Soviet authorities explained that they needed money to purchase industrial and agricultural equipment."

This is probably true- you can find similar behavior in impoverished nations in the world today. Usually the funds goes to a dictator instead of the people; I find it interesting that Pipes makes no mention of this in the Soviet example.
The facts are that there was a famine in the 1920's and it's likely that the Soviets used it to crush unrest brewing in the countryside. While not condoning such actions I find myself wondering why is is commonly considered intregral to communism to behave as such while similar examples thruout monarchist and capitalist regimes are glossed over. So what level of violence against a people is acceptable in order to preserve the state?

Finally I should mention that over time I've heard quite a lot of anti-communist, anti-Soviet propaganda that has later proven unsubstantiated. So I tend to look at these things with a careful lens.

Cornmaster,

"It's cowardice to take up the popular point just to be right...It just annoys me to hear people that defend these types."

While I don't disagree with the basic premise of your post, I find it annoying that you dismiss his agrument w/o trying to refute it. We don't need blind followers on the left. Maybe you should take his advice and read a book or two.

Evil Cappie,

"Give me a good reason anyone but a government with machievellian streak would want to keep people poor.
Rich people get their money from business
Businesses gain increased overall profits from an increased market.
An increased market is achieved by letting people have more money.
Therefor the very rich have an interest in letting people become rich."

You're absolutely right, and occasionally you'll find a person or company that is truly generous &/or pays its employees well. Such people/firms are met with derision by their contemporaries. The problem is that people in positions of power aren't always looking out for the business; most of the time they're looking out for themselves. Many of the crippling mergers of the 80s and 90s only benefitted 4 groups of people: the bankers who finance the deal, the lawyers who see it through, the stockholder who have the stock and then dump it when it peaks, and top executives who receive huge salaries, bonuses, and stock options. They make more money by letting go of workers and slashing their salaries (because Wall Street looks favorably on such actions; stocks usually rise after a round of "restructuring") then by paying their people better or retaining them. The economy as a whole would do better if employees were paid better, but that's not in the interest of the individuals in charge, who prefer short-term person gain.
Another thing that this points out is that better pay for employees equals "spreading the wealth" which a CEO can't even conceive, let alone support. But as you note it's true, and recent history supports this. A liberal couldn't have said it any better. We welcome you...comrade.

[Theben]

Oops...should read "personal gain" above. And if anyone wishes to continue this agrument I'll be more than happy to (for today, after which I won't be here for a week) in the Off-Topic forum. Yin should close this thread.

[S. Kroeze]

Since this thread will probably be closed in the near future I think it imperative to add some citations of Pipes. Theben will probably dismiss it as anti-Communist propaganda, while CornMaster will reason that because its written in a book by a professional and anti-Communist historian it cannot be true anyway. So be it!

When CornMaster would have followed my course on history I would at least have learned him that giving chapter and verse is the trademark of a historian. I will give a verbatim citation of the text and add the footnotes too, so they can check the sources. Unfortunately they don't mention the font of their knowledge, so I cannot check their sources. I suppose those hundreds of books in CornMasters' library do have titles?

'Soviet historiography, especially under Stalin, went to great lengths to depict the Civil War as foreign intervention in which the anti-Bolshevik Russians played the part of mercenaries. While it is incontestable that there were foreign troops on Russian soil, the Civil War was throughout a fratricidal conflict. In late 1918 there was talk in Allied circles of a "crusade" against Bolshevism,(5) but such plans never came anywhere near realization. The casualty figures of the three-year war indicate that, except for a few thousand Czech volunteers (on the anti-Communist side), and several times that number of Latvians (on the Communist side), as well as up to 400 Britons, the combat fatalities were overwhelmingly Russian and Cossack. The French and their allies fought one skirmish with a pro-Bolshevik Ukrainian partisan detachment in April 1919, following which they withdrew. The Americans and the Japanese never engaged the Red Army. The Allied (essentially British) contribution) consisted mainly of supplying the Whites with war matériel.'

(5) N.Kakurin, Kak srazhalas' revoliutsiia, II (Moscow,1925), 135;
The Trotsky Papers, 1917-1922, Jan M. Meijer, ed., (The Hague, 1964-71), I, 241

'American policy, as formulated by President Wilson, was that after the Armistice the Allies had no business keeping troops in Russia; they were to be withdrawn, leaving the Russians to settle their quarrel among themselves.(83) Wilson felt it was "always dangerous to meddle in foreign revolutions": "to try to stop a revolutionary movement by a line of armies is to employ a broom to stop a great flood.... The only way to act against Bolshevism is to make its causes disappear." Unfortunately, he confessed, "we do not even know exactly what its causes are."(84) In addition to noninterference, Wilson favored the nonrecognition of the Soviet government and the preservation of Russia's territorial integrity.(85)

Japanese policy toward Russia was the most consistent and the most transparent. The Japanese landed their first troops in the Russian Far East in the spring of 1918 on the initiative of the Allied Supreme Command, which had planned to deploy them against the Germans in a reactivated Eastern front. Nothing came of this idea, not only because it was impractical but also because the Japanese had no intention of fighting the Germans. Their interests were strictly predatory: they wished to take advantage of the Russian turmoil to seize and annex the maritime provinces. The United States, aware of these designs, deployed military forces in eastern Sieria, but American troops, whether in the Far East or the northwest, at no time engaged the Red Army in combat.*'

(83) J.M.Thompson, Russia, Bolshevism, and the Versailles Peace (Princeton,N.J.,1966), 46
(84) R.H.Ullman, Britain and the Russian Civil War (Princeton,1968), 165; Thompson, Russia, 204
(85) Thompson, Russia, 46
* "The United States sent troops only to two areas of Russia: to the European north, in the neighborhood of Archangelsk on the White Sea, and to eastern Siberia. Both of these areas were far from the main theatres of the Russian civil war then in progress. In neither case was the decision to dispatch these troops taken gladly.... In neither case was it motivated by an intention that these forces should be employed with a view to unseating the Soviet government. In neither case would the decision have been taken except in conjunction with the World War then in progress, and for purposes related primarily to the prosecution of that war." George Kennan in Foreign Affairs, LIV, No.4(July 1976),671. Cf. William S.Graves, America's Siberian Adventure(New York,1931),92
(source: R.Pipes:'Russia under the Bolshevik Regime',1994)

Finally I would like to point out that "the decision to create a security force -essentially, a revived tsarist Department of Police and Okhrana- was adopted by the Sovnarkom on December 7, 1917, on the basis of Dzerzhinskii's report on fighting "sabotage", by which was meant the strike of white-collar employees." The Red Army was formed in the fall of 1918, while the decisive stage of the Civil War only began in March 1919!

I'll give some figures on the economic performance of Germany (and Britain in brackets): index of industrial production (1913=100)
1900-07: 74 (80)
1908-13: 91 (89)
1914-20: 61 (88)
1921-29: 80 (86)
1930-37: 72 (99)
(source: up to 1929 the index compiled by Wagenfuhr,R., Die Industrie-wirtschaft; thereafter from the League of Nations, International Statistical Year Book

Doubtless Germany suffered more from the war than Britain, but I don't see evidence of a ruined country. I don't deny the hardships of the inflation of 1922/23.
Germany was in 1900 the strongest continental power of Europe, as it was again in 1940. Its allies in World War I, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire, performed rather poorly, so Germany fought almost alone against the other Great Powers!

In the period between the Second and the Third Reich, i.e. the Weimar Republic, it was a democracy, but the power of the old aristocratic and industrial elite wasn't broken. The revolution of 1918 was not generally supported, but triggered and hastened by Allied demands. Because the democratic government couldn't rely on massive support it was forced to manoeuvre very carefully and to spare the old elite. And this elite in general financed Hitler, both his economy and his rearmament.

[Theben]

S. Kroeze,

For shame. Did I "dismiss" anything before? If I had, I wouldn't have bothered replying. I merely stated that I tend to look at things thru a careful lens.

And I no longer have any authority to close a thread. Only Yin or an administrator can do that. So it may stay open.

Interesting note about the American force at Murmansk. I never heard about them engaging the Red army either. In fact the route they took down the peninsula barely cut into Russian territory. It is possible, however, that their presence secured Finland's independence as perhaps Trotsky did not wish to risk such an engagement.

I would also state that I do not deny any of the terrible results of how communism has been implemented. But I do not wish to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'. The ideals are sound (most of them, anyway). Totalitarianism is not inherent to communism, despite what you may think.

*now attempts to go back to on-topic*

A loooong while back I suggested a wonder called the Great Polis. Essentially it removed the negative effects of SE on that city- possibly added a bonus to current benefits (the flipside was that if govt.s were used then it would receive the best categories of each govt. type). Later I casually suggested a 'Utopia' wonder which was pretty much the same but on a civ-wide scale. It was almost (but not quite) a game-ending wonder (building a utopia with loads of freight doesn't sound logical, but bear with me). The difference between the 2 was that with Utopia you could no longer change your SE (why would you if your empire was perfect?). But now instead of like SMAC where a "green" empire was always the best, you could have ANY type of perfect empire at game end. Is laisse-faire your style? You can build it. Communist? See it finally happen. Religious? The perfect fundamentalist civ. Feeling like a bastard? Build a fascist regime to last 1000 years. So I'd say that with this you could have govt. SE/types with actual real-world limitations, but a utopic version may lay in your future.

Any comments?

[Christantine The Great]

I like the idea Theben. You should start a thread about it because...

Yin! I am requesting that you lock this thread. It is the source of unwanted arguments about Communism vs. Democracy. If you don't lock it then please move it.

P.S. It shouldn't be a wonder.

------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1
[This message has been edited by Christantine The Great (edited July 23, 2000).]

[Az]

OK this is totally off-topic but I just have the feeling I must write it down .

I've just seen this TV article about north-corea . And that was weird . To the corrupt eye of the western viewer it would look twisted and weird . During the visit of Russian president putin to north corea ppl waved to him with flags as the colonade of govnt. cars passed by . The passion in the people's eyes was so real it scared me quite a lot . in this country a 2 generation old total isolationism caused something so weird so twisted ... so ... I don't have a word for it , actually .

People are taught from infancy that Kim Er Seng's way is the only way , and with no evidence or rumor whatsoever to prove it's wrong most people do believe its right .

people are well dressed . travel by foot or on bicycles .

in this country there is no Coke
in this country there is no pop-music
in this country there is no hate
in this country there is no crime
in this country there is no poverty
in this country there is no AIDS
in this country there is no instability
and
in this country there is no FOOD .


I don't know . is it the right way or is it the wrong way . plz tell me . this report really confused me .....


P.S. about the topic : maybe there should be a goverment like the goverment above . it's name would be ... well Ideas ?

Utopia wonder ? I don't know ....... if its the perfect goverment there should be no corruption , excellent production and science , excellent military .... etc etc . i

I dont know . anyway this wonder is no good.

a goverment-wonder ?

dunno . and how can it be in real life ? is there the slightest chance that mining a lot will allow you to bring to a better form of goverment ? or sending trucks from here to there ?

common


Dalgetti


------------------
Prepare to Land !

[Stuff2]

quote: Originally posted by Evil Capitalist on 07-20-2000 02:35 AM Since this thread is crawling with commies I'm going to insult Marx. His economic theories are based on the assumption that all manufatured goods are worth the cost of the raw materials and the cost of the labour and, since there is profit, the workers are being deprived of what is rightfully theirs. He ignores the neccessity of management and product development, which is the profit. *ducks to avoid tirade of red abuse*

Well, the capitalistic theories in economy assume that every consumer know how exactly how much labour, transports and raw materials that is needed for a product. The economic theory also assumes that there are no monopolies and that every consumer knows exactly all his options. Also, humans are considered not to have any moral or social behavior but only thinking about spending all thier money on products.

As I see it there is only one good thing about capitalism. The competiton between corporations and other players steadily encourages development of new ideas and new 'markets' and new technologies. It stimulates growth. The bad thing is that it makes the gap between poor and rich more and more wide. And also that it always needs to exploit new areas which most often means destroying the enviroment.
The communistic system has one bad weakness. It doesn't stimulate growth. It's not effecient simply beacouse there is no competition between different actors.

[Algernon Pondlife]

All very interesting and there are plenty people out there who seem to understand quite a bit about theory of government. I am tempted to suggest that there is little intrinsically different in the desireability of idealized communism or idealized democracy, but there is surely no such thing as idealized capitalism.

But surely the most interesting thing from the game point of view would be to build in a risk of decay to any system (I'm tempted to say especially to "democracy" because as a currently "successful" system it seems to get too much of a good press). If you look at what happens in any organization people learn the rules and begin to manipulate them (I'll bet the first people to think up electoral systems never conceived of pressure groups for example).

That is why change is important. And it will happen, painfully or worse at some time. The true value for example of considering changing from proportional representation to first past the post or the reverse lies in the time it will take powerful groups to learn how to manipulate the new system.

So why not build a decay cost into any system that remains static (becomes stagnant) over long periods?
[This message has been edited by Algernon Pondlife (edited August 07, 2000).]

[wernazuma]

I think your idea of a decay cost for governments is a good idea but it should be a cost that simply rises a bit turn by turn. Happiness should be a factor as well. And it should differ between different governmental styles. Monarchy turned out to be much more stable than other govs until economy became so much more complex after industrialization.

But let's return to Communism: I think communism was an excellent system for nations that are somewhat behind. In 1917 Russia was an agrarian state with almost no industry and poor education and after the revolution russia's industry grew enormously and don't forget: Russians were the first in space. Cuba has the best educational and medical system in latin america, I know some people from around the world who go there for medical treatment.
The problem of communism is that it generally soon ends in a cruel dictatorship and inefficiency rises quickly.

by the way: does anyone still think, in China there is communism other than in name? In fact China develops to a capitalistic despotism!!

A word to Par4: Do you really want to compare x-millions of dead jews on one side, x-million dead peasants on the other side? Both was inacceptable!!!!!!
Although, those millions of ucrainian peasants you probably think of died because of a (maybe evitable) famine not because some mad guy killed them in a technocratic way "just because they are peasants", jews were killed because they were jews, without a chance to escape.


: A word to the evil capitalist: Prussia gained Silesia in 1742 from Maria Theresia and lost it after WWI

Finally I want to return to the topic: I'd suggest that in communism it should be easier to to build up industry and mainenanceshould be cheaper. On the other hand corruption should rise turn by turn.
Luxury in communism should have less effect, making it more instable.
Communism should be desirable mainly in phases of transition.
Socialism could be a governmental form worth to think of in Civ3, as already mentioned by someone.
An other way would be to differ in Civ3 between government and economic system. In antiquity there were monarchies with centralised economy (Ptolemeans, Sumerians,...) and such with an economy based more on individuals (Athens, Phoenicians,...), we have modern democracies with a "social market economy" and so on.
Stalin's Communism would be i.e. Government: Dictatorship
Economic System: Socialism

PS: Americans shall stop to think, they know everything better than all the others (first take a look at your educational system!!!)

------------------
Wernazuma

Comrade of the aztec peoples republic

[Christmann]

quote: Originally posted by wernazuma on 08-05-2000 09:20 AM But let's return to Communism: I think communism was an excellent system for nations that are somewhat behind. In 1917 Russia was an agrarian state with almost no industry and poor education and after the revolution russia's industry grew enormously and don't forget: Russians were the first in space.

So you're a Maoist, right?

[Sir Shiva]

In response to an earlier post, governments actually do become better over time. In a democracy, perhaps, it could be due to gradual change in mindset of the people, more efficient, evolved functioning of administration etc..

So an increase in trade/tax/science or something per 50 years doesn't sound too bad..

------------------
Get paid for every second you spend online at http://referral.jotter.com/join/bulk
Refer people (like what I'm doing) to earn even more. $50 a month is not uncommon.

-Shiva
Email: shiva@shivamail.com
Web: http://www.shivamail.com
ICQ: 17719980

[Wazell]

Governments should not automatically become
better over time. Decay cost is needed and should work like this. If you have been under certain government for 30 turns or so, and your civ is still not better place to live (luxuries haven't increased etc.), people will be more and more unhappy and eventually make a revolution. I think that this would well represent the history of 20th century.

Also the original post seems to say that only communism is non-historical in Civ2. But if we compare it to fundamentalism, we'll find bigger problems. What's historical in a govt form under which no one is ever unhappy? And democracy is totally resistant to bribery & subvertings, not realistic at all.

Main thing about having so powerful govt types in Civ2 was scenario making. Fundie represents total-war nations when democracy is for peaceful superpowers. In Civ3 Firaxis will definitely use modified and improved Social Engineering system from SMAC. So there will be more socialistic and communistic SE choices like there'll be capitalistic ones. And because govts are then varied from despotics to democracies, it's possible (tho' not very easy) to have democratic socialism, democratic communism, and other even more interesting systems. In scenarios then some or all SE choices of certain civs could be locked. Six or seven Civ2/CTP type forms of government are simply not enough.

Wernazuma: Germans lost only small parts of eastern Silesia after WWI, the whole thing gone after WWII to Poland.

[Evil Capitalist]

quote: Originally posted by wernazuma on 08-05-2000 09:20 AM Although, those millions of ucrainian peasants you probably think of died because of a (maybe evitable) famine not because some mad guy killed them in a technocratic way "just because they are peasants", jews were killed because they were jews, without a chance to escape.

How do you define chance of escape?
"Maybe evitable" What the ****ing hell do you mean by that? The famine was a response to the collectivisation of the farms. There have been many food shortages in Western Europe, yet there havn't been famines in Britain or France since the 18th century. The USSR was exporting grain at that time so don't you go on about evitable.
Stalin let the famine happen because they were in the same area as nationalists. Western Ukraine is an area that is nationalistic and Stalin could not tolerate that. Farmers are also bastions of conservatism. Murder because of politics is evil and the actions of a sane man, murder because of race is lunacy.
My Grandfather came from near Lvov, less than 100 miles from the famine, and now in modern Ukraine. He joined the German army for a reason: to help smash communism for good, to save lives.