>>1502>Yeah no, the famine in Ukraine was no mistake.It was certainly not intentional.
>If it was, they'd have spread the food around.How could they when there were food shortages in other parts of the USSR during the same period?
If you want sources on the famine period, the most comprehensive bourgeois account is "The Years of Hunger" by Davies and Wheatcroft. Two other good reads though are:
*
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-russia&month=0205&week=a&msg=G9gRj0I/eXnblGCPQyYXlA&user=&pw (if you want a good summary of why the Soviets did certain things during the famine in the Ukraine)
*
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/tottlefraud.pdf (on how stories of the famine were turned into "omg stalin is killing them all")
>it was the deliberate attempt of a dictatorial to beat the most rebellious fraction of the population into submission, and freeing up good land for russian colonists.This is the first time I heard that the Soviets sent Russian colonists into the Ukraine after the famine. Do you have a source?
The Soviets had a much more difficult time collectivizing land in Turkmenistan than the Ukraine, doesn't mean they tried deliberately inflicting a famine on the former. The Ukraine was the USSR's breadbasket region, local functionaries arduously denied any reports of food shortages so that they could appear in the best possible light to their superiors.
>Also, I bet you have an explanation as to why it was a great idea to murder untold numbers of moscovite doctors ? They were all ennemies of the revolution, maybe ?"Untold"? A few doctors isn't tens of millions of people lol. Stalin's daughter claimed her dad didn't believe in the charges against the doctors, and more significantly the vigorously anti-Stalin "dissident" Zhores Medvedev claimed it was Stalin himself who was about to put an end to the case before he died.
>You also have a good fucking reason for the Moscow Trials ?A number of persons were found guilty of collaboration with foreign states, sabotage and assassination.
>And the systematic erasing of those condemned from all pictures and photographs ?That practice long predates the Soviets. Considering that such photos were used in propaganda, it didn't make much sense to place them next to people who were in good standing.
To give another example, when China invaded Vietnam in 1979 (in response to the Vietnamese ousting Pol Pot) there was a member of the Vietnamese leadership who defected to the Chinese side. His presence was blotted out of photographs afterwards as a form of punishment. Doesn't mean Vietnam denied he ever existed (nor did the Soviets deny Trotsky, etc. ever existed.)
>Even the USSR denounced his heritage after his death, what fucking more do you need ?That depends on whether or not you think Khrushchev and Brezhnev were great communists and had no self-interested reason whatsoever to condemn Stalin, his policies and his theories.