No bodies, nothing to count. The death toll therefore doesn’t increase.

The Germans did not start off the Holocaust by immediately rounding up and exterminating the Jews. They started through deportations (check), then by mass killings in the areas they took control of through conquest (check, though with some qualifiers), and then finally only settled on extermination in death camps. Israel is likely going to pass a law calling for mandatory execution of all “terrorists”, which in Israeli rhetoric means all Palestinians. They’re very far along on the road!

You seem to be taking the liberal Zionist position that a democratic Israel can exist alongside a penned-in Palestine, a captive nation with limited rights where people exist as noncitizens (but aren’t exterminated, as the right-wing Zionists support). I am telling you that is a dead ideology, and it was always self-contradictory in the first place. It’s a relic from a time when a country could be a “free democracy”, but racially discriminate against citizens or colonial subjects. When black Americans couldn’t vote, when “democratic” France could keep Algerians or a dozen other nationalities as colonial subjects in their own countries, or when South Africa could be a democracy for the white minority and an occupying power for its black residents. It is a fundamental contradiction to believe in rights for one group but not another (for whatever, I’m sure, complex and nuanced reasons), and so the tendency just going all the way into racial supremacy as the right-wing Zionists have done.

You’re going to have to take a serious look at what’s happening, as you’re being led along into a very dark place. I’m sure you’re not a racial supremacist and your concerns are for the safety of the Jewish people, but that isn’t what the Zionist project is, and the liberal position is no longer tenable. What will you tell yourself when you look back and find that you supported a genocide?

Did Stalin say that Ukrainians are human animals who need to be exterminated? No, but Yoav Gallant said it about Palestinians. Ben Gvir and other MKs wear noose pins to show their support for execution of detainees, and it looks like the Iasraeli law for the mandatory execution of “terrorists”, which in Israeli rhetoric includes kids who throw rocks at tanks, is going to be passed.

Israeli rhetoric is routinely ethnic supremacist and eliminationist. The entire Zionist project has been one of establishing a Jewish majority state in a Jewish minority country - first they expelled enough Palestinians in the Nakba to establish a comfortable Jewish majority state, and then they continued to expand said state through settlements, all the while expelling enough Palestinians to keep a majority. They continue to expand into the West Bank even as they’ve bombed Gaza to rubble and starved its people.

Your entire argument seems to come down to “well, if they didn’t do it to Palestinians, the Palestinians would do it to the Israelis,” That in itself is genocidal rhetoric.

Just realized you’re the same guy I replied to in a separate thread. Yes, you’re the Nazi. You’re carrying water for an ongoing genocide.

It’s hard to say definitively - one of the issues in the Stalinist USSR was information feedback. There were strong incentives to exaggerating production numbers, and strong disincentives to reporting shortfalls. Basically, everyone in a position of power was terrified and covering their ass at all times.

What it ultimately comes down to, I think, is crash-industrialization. Stalin believed that the USSR needed to industrialize as soon as possible, with all other concerns (i.e. lives) being secondary. To his credit, this ended up being a spot-on assessment. Supposing they had a kinder leader rather than Stalin with his heart of steel, and they industrialized more slowly, collectivized agriculture more slowly and voluntarily, how would they have fared in WW2? It’s possible that the USSR would have been unprepared for an industrial war and the Germans would have won, in which case there would have been hundreds of millions of deaths.

Ah, and here we have it! Israeli officials state explicit genocidal intent, explicit dehumanization (“they are human animals and will be treated accordingly”), have an explicitly racially supremacist ideology and intent to annex all of Palestine and maintain a Jewis-majority nation, they impose a total blockade on a captive civilian population in Gaza and bomb it to rubble over the course of years while continuing to slowly annex the West Bank and expel the Palestinian population, and that’s just “collateral damage”. But the Soviets having a famine in all the major grain producing areas is a full-on genocide comparable with the Holocaust.

Yes, you may proceed.

No problem! Actually, I’m not specifically one of the “tankies” you’re contending with. I only recently registered on this site and was not previously aware of the beef between lemmy.ml and lemmy.world (I myself coming by way of lemmy.ca), though you can consider me to be aligned with the former ideologically.

The idea that the famine constituted a genocide is not a settled matter among serious historians - it isn’t just Grover Furr (author of Blood Lies: The Evidence That Every Accusation Against Joseph Stalin And The Soviet Union In Timothy Snyder’s Bloodlands Is False and Khrushchev Lied: The Evidence that Every “revelation” of Stalin’s (and Beria’s) “crimes” in Nikita Khrushchev’s Infamous “secret Speech” to the 20th Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956, is Provably False) that contests it. I would argue that (aside from the aforementioned Grover Furr and presumably some Russian historians) the “constitutes genocide” side is the more heavily politicized.

A lot of scholarship regarding the Soviet famine as a genocide has come out of the University of Alberta’s Canadian Institute for Ukrainian Studies (CIUS), which makes sense given that Alberta has Canada’s highest concentration of Ukrainian-Canadians. What was often overlooked until recently is that the U of A chancellor from 1982 to 1986 and co-founder of the CIUS, Peter Savaryn, was an SS veteran, having volunteered for the 14th Waffen SS Division ‘Galizien’, and that a lot of scholarship coming out of the U of A has served to whitewash the 14th SS and paint it as a group of Ukrainian freedom fighters. In actuality, the 14th SS spent most of its time on anti-partisan actions, including the suppression of the Slovak National Uprising. The Galician division would not have experienced the famine, as Galicia was controlled by Poland before the war.

You’re probably balking at the mention of Nazis point since Putin poisoned the well on this discussion by invading Ukraine under the pretext of “denazification”, but this is real history. The Ukrainian-Canadian community’s particular problem stems from the importation of Waffen SS veterans, particularly the 14th SS, after the war. The reason we did this comes down to cold war politics - the Ukrainian-Canadian community before and during the war was very left wing, operating Ukrainian Labour Temples across the country, with the Ukrainian Labour Hall in Winnipeg was being during the general strike of 1919 as a meeting place and printing house for the strikers. The government imported the nationalists as a locus reliable anticommunists after the war in order to effect a hostile takeover of the Ukrainian-Canadian community, and suppress the left more broadly. Following the war, imported Ukrainian nationalists attacked Ukrainian Labour Temples and disrupted meetings, culminating in the 1950 bombing of the Ukrainian Labour Temple in Toronto during a Thanksgiving concert. The operators of the labour temple, the Association of United Ukrainian Canadians (AUUC), blamed imported SS veterans for the bombing, while the competing nationalist organization, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress (UCC) claimed that the AUUC bombed themselves as a false-flag.

Long story short, the plan was successful. The UCC became the leading Ukrainian-Canadian organization, while the AUUC declined amidst cold war suppression of anyone associated with communism. The Ukrainian-Canadian community became reliably nationalist and anticommunist, and SS veterans like Savaryn became leading figures. It is in this milieu that the idea that the famine was a “terror famine” developed.

There was an inquiry into the importation of SS veterans in 1985 - the conclusion was that the 14th SS was cleared of all wrongdoing, and contravening the decision of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, the Galician division was not a criminal organization. The rest of the report was sealed, and the government has to this day refused to unseal it. Why would they refuse to release the full report if the SS veterans were so innocent? Because it would reveal that they imported SS veterans on purpose to suppress the left, and that many leading figures in the Ukrainian-Canadian community were Nazi war criminals. Aside from the embarrassment this would cause the government, it would have also undermined anticommunist propaganda efforts.

Back to the famine itself, Stalin and his government don’t come out squeaky-clean of course. They were extremely paranoid about kulaks hoarding grain and resisting collectivization, and in that air of paranoia and oppression, nobody enforcing the grain quotas was going to disobey orders. People starved and died needlessly, but once the famine ended, it ended. This doesn’t constitute genocide, let alone an equivalent to the Holocaust. The idea that it was equivalent to the Holocaust, the “double genocide theory”, is used by various eastern European nationalists to whitewash their participation in the Holocaust - the most extreme end of it has Lithuanian nationalists claiming that they were only retaliating against the “Judeo-Bolshevists” when they killed 95% of Lithuania’s Jewish population, a rate unsurpassed in any other country.

Stalin made a lot of mistakes, but the crimes of his opponents, not only the Nazis themselves but the imperialist powers, were so much worse and numerous that Stalin’s crimes pale in comparison. All in, Joe Steel did more good than bad.

It’s cheaper, easier on logistics, and it does its job fine. The Ukraine war has proved, once again, that no tank is invincible, and the greatest danger to tanks is from dedicated antitank weapons rather than other tanks.

Rot in hell you Nazi freak

So, all of them?

Permabanned for “harassment”

It’s ammo’s job to detonate, you just don’t want it detonating too early, or in the wrong place.

They were using racist language! They called me a racist!

You didn’t answer my question, and you are a dumbass. The “proof” you linked is just more baseless assertions, and none of them support the idea that any slogan calling for a free Palestine is actually coded language that actually refers to expelling all the Jews.

Really, it’s just projection. The Israeli project is the expulsion of all Arabs from Gaza and the West Bank, and they’ve said it openly. To quote Yoav Gallant, “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly… There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed.” That quote encapsulates both statement of intent to commit genocide, as well as genocidal dehumanization. Yet it’s always pro-Palestinian speech that’s suppressed and criminalized - pro-Israel speech is not subjected to the same “actually, this means this” standard, despite how the Israeli state is both genocidal in intent and actively undertaking genocide.

The famine hit all the major grain producing regions of the USSR, not just Ukraine, so it was awfully unspecific for being a targeted act of genocide.

They were exporting grain to fund their program of rapid industrialization, there was a crop failure, and they still exported the grain. Once it became clear to the Soviet government that there was a famine, they reversed course, but the damage was done. This was callous, an atrocity even, but it does not constitute genocide. The idea that it was a genocide was concocted by Ukrainian nationalist exiles (themselves SS veterans) after the war and used to equivocate Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia for cold war propaganda.

This is the correct answer. The autoloader also enabled them to remove one crew member, thus reducing interior space and increasing armor thickness for the same weight. Contemporary western tanks like the M60 didn’t have blowout panels either, so the argument that ‘the Bolshevik hordes have no regard for the lives of their peasant conscripts, while the enlightened west spares no expense to protect its precious troops’ holds no water

Overblown. Leopard 2s also throw their turrets when the ammo gets hit. Abrams have the blowout panels in the turret, improving survivability, but there is no tank in which having your ammunition detonate is going to be a good time.

The T-72 (the T-90 is just a highly upgraded T-72) remains an effective tank that can be produced in large numbers and has lower logistical requirements than the 70-ton Western heavy MBTs. It’s the same distinction as in WW2 between Shermans and T-34s vs. the German heavies - yes, at the immediate tactical level, the heavier tank is better, but at the operational and strategic levels, the lighter tank that’s available in large numbers and has a lower logistical requirement is superior

Recognized by who, dumbass?

Comparing the all time number one genocide to something that isn’t a genocide is Holocaust denial