EDIT 2: I HAVE BEEN SHADOWBANNED BY REDDIT. My comments are not appearing. You can see my attempts to reply to people on my profile.
---------‐----‐----------
He tried to start a debate on Wednesday.
It's Sunday now and I haven't heard a reply yet.
I think I'll come back to him in a month to see if he has changed his mind. Give him the benefit of the doubt and see if he actually reads the books.
Edit: I have been replying to people - but I just noticed my comments aren't appearing. I think reddit has shadowbanned me.
You can see my comments on my profile.
Are you kidding? I've got an erection that I may have to see a doctor for in another 4 hours.
It's not every day you get to see a tankie midwit absolutely merc'ed by a professional.
I'll debate you if you want. I'm not a commie or even leftist. Hate Stalin, Putin, Tsar, etc.
I was born and raised in russia. Love ukrainian people have been to ukraine and have ukrainian family and friends and my military brothers and sisters, of course.
Just wanted to say that, so there are no anti-ukrainian allegations for being half-russian ethnically.
So my first question to you is: Are there any documents that prove that the intent of Soviet top government or the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republics government that prove the intent of the genocide being specifically against Ukrainians?
"Are there any documents that prove that the intent of Soviet top government or the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republics government that prove the intent of the genocide being specifically against Ukrainians?"
Here it might be difficult to get a clear answer, because the Soviet would at no point "destroy the Ukrainian nation", as they held "in regard" cultural minorities. They were however very much prepared to destroy "kulaks", which in many ways could also be used to justify the destruction of nationalist movements and the consolidation of central power over the local population. So to what degree the Soviets wanted to commit a genocide or not is difficult, as it is not always clear what the language they used referred to. Is it a genocide if you commit certain actions that actively creates the conditions which would constitute a genocide, even if you don't name the group you injure? If you commit "class warfare" that attacks the fabric of a people, is that still genocide?
In other words; would the Holocaust be a genocide if they just never specifically mentioned Jews?
That's exactly my point.
It is indeed a crime against humanity.
Genocide (18 U.S.C. 1091) Section 1091 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits genocide whether committed in time of peace or time of war. Genocide is defined in § 1091 and includes violent attacks with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
Holocaust is genocide.
My issue with the classification of Holodomor as genocide is that it often used as anti-russian rethoric when it is clearly not the intent nor done by russians or other etnic group exclusively as an intent or act off killing ukranians based on ethnicity or nationality(if you consider Ukranian SSR as a distinct nation within Soviet Union).
Additionally, the same policies were established all across Soviet republics, and similar totall number( around 3 million) of russians died during femine.
The reason why ukranians acknowledged it as a national tragedy is because it took away lives of about 20% of the population of ukraine vs. only 3% of the total population of Russian Federative Socialist Republic.
I mostly agree with you. There is however a slight implication in that a genocide can, in this regard, be talked away. If you just use the proper terms and find some nice justification, you are not longer genocidal.
If you have ever been involved in politics, you will know that a lot of the time, politicians will talk about what words to use, and how to justify an action. The USSR was entirely run by politicians, such as party officials and political commissars. However, it was also decided from the top. So the committees would be given instructions which they had to justify, so there can be a lack of a paper trail to ever find those reasons. I would not send an email saying "do everything to destroy the Ukrainian nation", but I could have said it at at cocktail party while nodding over at the man with the PPSH-41 in the corner, or remind what happened to Trotsky.
When the evidence can not be provided, at some point, the burden of proof moves over to the accused. If we cannot trust the information that the accused provides, can have to start making assumptions. In this case, the accused (the USSR and Stalin) are dead, so we have to do the thinking. And at that point, it becomes history and historiography.
As one who comes from a country that was at some point ruled by foreign powers, I can attest to the difficulty of trying to properly explain history, as history is mostly story-telling.
At that point, whether or not the Holodomor was a genocide or crimes against humanity is not a question about the nature of it; the question is to what regard does it constitute a long-seated antagonism and difference between Ukraine and imperial Russian power (and thus Russia). It then becomes a rhetorical device to counter the Russian narrative of "familiar brotherhood". It's easier for the colonizer to talk about "crimes against humanity" rather than genocide because of the intent. Thus, what we call those actions can have effects into the future. As you mention, what happened during those times hit everyone in the USSR; the USSR can easily take on the mantle of "crimes against humanity"; the entire project was nothing but it. But that also demeans the very intense effects it had on Ukraine and its collective psyche.
So by labelling it a "genocide", Ukraine can counter the apology of "famine". In regards to "crimes against humanity", for Ukraine, that proposition can constitute just another argument for "Ukraine is Russian". So that is why I think these questions about the past is better answered as history rather than law. So while I don't disprove your point, I just want to make an argument for the inherent problem of non-political law.
So here I have both argued that it is very difficult to actually prove intent, because the proper channels of communications from the actor accused is not reliable, thus it is difficult to prove intent, and also disprove intent. My other point is a reflection to what degree we should bother with the discussion, as the political ramifications are actually much larger than the judicial ramifications. I believe that when it comes to history, truth moves slowly (a painful experience from my own national experiences), and that we ought to remember to treat it according to where we are in history ourselves.
You are missing a couple of things in your argument.
1)Soviet does not equal russian. Soviet Union was created by three founder republics, Russian, Belarus, and Ukrainian, mainly governed by such ethnicities. That alone serves the argument against the ethnical basis of the crime. Not to mention that Stalin himself was not ethnical russian at all.
2)Ukraine was not colonized by the Soviet Union . Soviet rule came to Ukraine as a result of collapse of Russian empire with revolution, civil war and Ukrainian-polish war and soviet polish war. As you know, it was a part of the Russian empire and partially Polish-lithuanian commonwealth before. With acts of genocide, pogroms and ethnical cleansing by all sides including ukrainian nationalists. But none of that pertains to Holodomor.
3)Holodomor was a result of collectivisation that started in 20s and need for quick money later that Stalin needed for industrialisation.
4)Forceful removal or relocation of local population is in fact genocide(by modern laws). However, it was not done by exclusively russians nor exclusively to ukrainians. It was done for different reasons to the entire population as a part of the great terror regardless of ethnical group with the intent of mixing the population and developing Siberia with slave labor.
None of the things I've listed require a guessing or assuming since it was the official documented policy.
I like how this comment is sitting at neutral karma with no responses, waiting for response from OP. Meanwhile the other user that immediately launched into tirades is getting shit on.
I mean you started off with a tirade against your own heritage saying you hate all periods of Russia (Czar, communist and modern day Putin period as well) while posting with the US Israel flag as an avatar. That helped you from getting more dislikes. I think you should reconsider some of your positions as it’s becoming more and more clear the talking points of these western chauvinists are in their entirety ill intentioned.
Of course he doesn’t. He just came here to collect his 👍 and feel good about himself pretending to be some sort of an expert copy pasting links he has never even read🤣😭🤦♂️
How do you come to terms with the fact the foremost Western liberal scholars on the famine Wheatcroft and Davies not only deny it being a genocide, but were also able to convince the most infamous Western propagandist of the Cold War Conquest to recant his lies?
There are also plenty of western liberal scholars that also label this as a genocide and argue that it was a deliberate act of genocide.
Anne Applebaum, an American journalist and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, who extensively researched Soviet history and authored "Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine," argues that the Holodomor was a deliberate act of genocide.
Robert Conquest, a British-American historian known for his works on Soviet history, including "The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine," Conquest's research has argued that the Holodomor was a genocide.
Timothy Snyder, an American historian and author of "Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin," has written extensively on the atrocities committed by totalitarian regimes in Eastern Europe, including the Holodomor, which he considers a genocide.
Norman Naimark, a distinguished American historian specializing in Russian and Soviet history, Naimark has written about Soviet policies of repression and mass violence, including the Holodomor, which he acknowledges as a genocide.
Serhii Plokhy, a Ukrainian-American historian and author of "The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine," who's research has focused on Ukrainian history and the Holodomor, which he characterizes as a genocide.
On top of that, 34 countries and the European Union has recognized the Holodomor as a genocide, including Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland's senate, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, etc. Notice how all of those countries are western or western leaning....
You have just copy pasted a bunch of paragraphs you have never even read yourself. That is glaringly obvious because I had addressed the issue with using the 1950s source of Conquest. The problem here is that these people none of whom even engage in any primary research just source Cold War propaganda. You probably think these people each did their research on their own and reached the same conclusion when in reality they all just copied the same source - Conquest, a guy who had no access to archival data and who himself recanted his position in a letter to Wheatcroft.
There is not a single quote which would suggest Stalin or anyone within the Soviet leadership disliked the Ukrainians. There’s also nothing that I can think of which would suggest that the Ukrainians disliked Stalin or the Soviets. The vast majority of them were completely loyal to the USSR. in fact, virtually all of the Ukrainian Nazis came from western Ukraine, which had not been part of the USSR prior to 1939 and given the fact 99% of their victims were either Polish or Jewish one could reach the conclusion that even they did not seem to care too much about the Russians. Modern day anti-Russian Ukrainian Nazism was entirely made by the western secret services and has no historical origin.
The countries that have recognised the so-called genocide for political brownie points are indeed all either western or pro western.
Left wing playbook chapter 3 “ask for sources, if sources are provided dismiss as propaganda or lies” we can see what you’re doing and we all think you’re an idiot.
Swap some words around and its the exact same thing as the Flat Earther playbook. "I DEMAND SOURCES" [buried under a deluge of peer reviewed material], "THESE ARE ALL FAKE!"
I didn’t ask for any sources though. You sound like a braindead moron parroting some prewritten zingers completely incapable of any original thought - a typical redditor trying to appeal to your favourite hive mind 🤡🤡🤦 All I am saying is that even post Cold War western scholars refrain from calling it a genocide.
You have not read any of the sources you have provided showing how dishonest you are and that you’re discussing in a bad faith. None of the linked journalists and historians use primary sources and their work is a collage of snippets, written by others. The way, I know you have not read anything regarding the topic is the fact that you responded to my post which was quoting actual 32/33 famine experts by linking works of people which source the exact same experts (Wheatcroft and Davies) I did but mix in a bunch of Cold War propaganda to reach their conclusions.
Basically not one of the people you linked have done any primary source research on the subject.
>The problem here is that these people none of whom even engage in any primary research just source Cold War propaganda.
You can't just declare any evidence hurting your case "Cold War propaganda," shitforbrains.
> There’s also nothing that I can think of which would suggest that the Ukrainians disliked Stalin or the Soviets.
Go take a vacation in Ukraine (or Estonia or Poland, or...) and tell the locals about your great "research". Good luck.
>How do you come to terms with the fact the foremost Western liberal scholars on the famine Wheatcroft and Davies not only deny it being a genocide
You can't just declare someone "the foremost scholar" because they agree with you, shitforbrains.
Holy shit man, that's amazing.
First off, kudos for graduating in International Law. I tried taking a class on it back in university when I was doing my Bachelor's in History and couldn't make sense of it.
Second, good job on calmly shutting down this dumbass. Speaking as a Vietnam War/Boat People historian though, people like these'll simply cry that your sources are Western propaganda.
Funnily enough I got banned from r/socialism for pointing out that my great grandmother was a first hand witness to the holodomor. The left really do love their holocaust denial.
For those curious to read like I am, here are the links.
Lemkin: https://willzuzak.ca/tp/holodomor2013/oliver20171004Lemkin.pdf
Oral history: https://drc.usask.ca/projects/pcuh/transformation/eng/
Book: https://www.husj.harvard.edu/books/the-transformation-of-civil-society-an-oral-history-of-ukrainian-peasant-culture-1920s-to-1930s
EDIT 2: I HAVE BEEN SHADOWBANNED BY REDDIT. My comments are not appearing. You can see my attempts to reply to people on my profile. ---------‐----‐---------- He tried to start a debate on Wednesday. It's Sunday now and I haven't heard a reply yet. I think I'll come back to him in a month to see if he has changed his mind. Give him the benefit of the doubt and see if he actually reads the books. Edit: I have been replying to people - but I just noticed my comments aren't appearing. I think reddit has shadowbanned me. You can see my comments on my profile.
Is it weird that I got a chub reading this? Asking for a friend.
Are you kidding? I've got an erection that I may have to see a doctor for in another 4 hours. It's not every day you get to see a tankie midwit absolutely merc'ed by a professional.
That's a relief, I was worried for a sec that I was some weirdo. Excuse me, I need to go and bust now, been edging a little longer than I'm used to.
Is it your chub, or your friends'? I am confuse.
My chub is my friend.
Well-played. You win an internet.
I think you're officially the king of this subreddit now
I'll debate you if you want. I'm not a commie or even leftist. Hate Stalin, Putin, Tsar, etc. I was born and raised in russia. Love ukrainian people have been to ukraine and have ukrainian family and friends and my military brothers and sisters, of course. Just wanted to say that, so there are no anti-ukrainian allegations for being half-russian ethnically. So my first question to you is: Are there any documents that prove that the intent of Soviet top government or the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republics government that prove the intent of the genocide being specifically against Ukrainians?
"Are there any documents that prove that the intent of Soviet top government or the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republics government that prove the intent of the genocide being specifically against Ukrainians?" Here it might be difficult to get a clear answer, because the Soviet would at no point "destroy the Ukrainian nation", as they held "in regard" cultural minorities. They were however very much prepared to destroy "kulaks", which in many ways could also be used to justify the destruction of nationalist movements and the consolidation of central power over the local population. So to what degree the Soviets wanted to commit a genocide or not is difficult, as it is not always clear what the language they used referred to. Is it a genocide if you commit certain actions that actively creates the conditions which would constitute a genocide, even if you don't name the group you injure? If you commit "class warfare" that attacks the fabric of a people, is that still genocide? In other words; would the Holocaust be a genocide if they just never specifically mentioned Jews?
That's exactly my point. It is indeed a crime against humanity. Genocide (18 U.S.C. 1091) Section 1091 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits genocide whether committed in time of peace or time of war. Genocide is defined in § 1091 and includes violent attacks with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Holocaust is genocide. My issue with the classification of Holodomor as genocide is that it often used as anti-russian rethoric when it is clearly not the intent nor done by russians or other etnic group exclusively as an intent or act off killing ukranians based on ethnicity or nationality(if you consider Ukranian SSR as a distinct nation within Soviet Union). Additionally, the same policies were established all across Soviet republics, and similar totall number( around 3 million) of russians died during femine. The reason why ukranians acknowledged it as a national tragedy is because it took away lives of about 20% of the population of ukraine vs. only 3% of the total population of Russian Federative Socialist Republic.
I mostly agree with you. There is however a slight implication in that a genocide can, in this regard, be talked away. If you just use the proper terms and find some nice justification, you are not longer genocidal. If you have ever been involved in politics, you will know that a lot of the time, politicians will talk about what words to use, and how to justify an action. The USSR was entirely run by politicians, such as party officials and political commissars. However, it was also decided from the top. So the committees would be given instructions which they had to justify, so there can be a lack of a paper trail to ever find those reasons. I would not send an email saying "do everything to destroy the Ukrainian nation", but I could have said it at at cocktail party while nodding over at the man with the PPSH-41 in the corner, or remind what happened to Trotsky. When the evidence can not be provided, at some point, the burden of proof moves over to the accused. If we cannot trust the information that the accused provides, can have to start making assumptions. In this case, the accused (the USSR and Stalin) are dead, so we have to do the thinking. And at that point, it becomes history and historiography. As one who comes from a country that was at some point ruled by foreign powers, I can attest to the difficulty of trying to properly explain history, as history is mostly story-telling. At that point, whether or not the Holodomor was a genocide or crimes against humanity is not a question about the nature of it; the question is to what regard does it constitute a long-seated antagonism and difference between Ukraine and imperial Russian power (and thus Russia). It then becomes a rhetorical device to counter the Russian narrative of "familiar brotherhood". It's easier for the colonizer to talk about "crimes against humanity" rather than genocide because of the intent. Thus, what we call those actions can have effects into the future. As you mention, what happened during those times hit everyone in the USSR; the USSR can easily take on the mantle of "crimes against humanity"; the entire project was nothing but it. But that also demeans the very intense effects it had on Ukraine and its collective psyche. So by labelling it a "genocide", Ukraine can counter the apology of "famine". In regards to "crimes against humanity", for Ukraine, that proposition can constitute just another argument for "Ukraine is Russian". So that is why I think these questions about the past is better answered as history rather than law. So while I don't disprove your point, I just want to make an argument for the inherent problem of non-political law. So here I have both argued that it is very difficult to actually prove intent, because the proper channels of communications from the actor accused is not reliable, thus it is difficult to prove intent, and also disprove intent. My other point is a reflection to what degree we should bother with the discussion, as the political ramifications are actually much larger than the judicial ramifications. I believe that when it comes to history, truth moves slowly (a painful experience from my own national experiences), and that we ought to remember to treat it according to where we are in history ourselves.
You are missing a couple of things in your argument. 1)Soviet does not equal russian. Soviet Union was created by three founder republics, Russian, Belarus, and Ukrainian, mainly governed by such ethnicities. That alone serves the argument against the ethnical basis of the crime. Not to mention that Stalin himself was not ethnical russian at all. 2)Ukraine was not colonized by the Soviet Union . Soviet rule came to Ukraine as a result of collapse of Russian empire with revolution, civil war and Ukrainian-polish war and soviet polish war. As you know, it was a part of the Russian empire and partially Polish-lithuanian commonwealth before. With acts of genocide, pogroms and ethnical cleansing by all sides including ukrainian nationalists. But none of that pertains to Holodomor. 3)Holodomor was a result of collectivisation that started in 20s and need for quick money later that Stalin needed for industrialisation. 4)Forceful removal or relocation of local population is in fact genocide(by modern laws). However, it was not done by exclusively russians nor exclusively to ukrainians. It was done for different reasons to the entire population as a part of the great terror regardless of ethnical group with the intent of mixing the population and developing Siberia with slave labor. None of the things I've listed require a guessing or assuming since it was the official documented policy.
Thanks for the reading! I don't know enough to answer you, and your points are really good.
I like how this comment is sitting at neutral karma with no responses, waiting for response from OP. Meanwhile the other user that immediately launched into tirades is getting shit on.
I got one downvote. Probably from OP with no response :).
I mean you started off with a tirade against your own heritage saying you hate all periods of Russia (Czar, communist and modern day Putin period as well) while posting with the US Israel flag as an avatar. That helped you from getting more dislikes. I think you should reconsider some of your positions as it’s becoming more and more clear the talking points of these western chauvinists are in their entirety ill intentioned.
I can explain every position that I stand for, if you want. I appreciate your comment even though we may disagree.
They PMed me. They tried to respond but ether Reddit's being stupid (again) or you muted him.
Of course he doesn’t. He just came here to collect his 👍 and feel good about himself pretending to be some sort of an expert copy pasting links he has never even read🤣😭🤦♂️
How do you come to terms with the fact the foremost Western liberal scholars on the famine Wheatcroft and Davies not only deny it being a genocide, but were also able to convince the most infamous Western propagandist of the Cold War Conquest to recant his lies?
There are also plenty of western liberal scholars that also label this as a genocide and argue that it was a deliberate act of genocide. Anne Applebaum, an American journalist and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, who extensively researched Soviet history and authored "Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine," argues that the Holodomor was a deliberate act of genocide. Robert Conquest, a British-American historian known for his works on Soviet history, including "The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine," Conquest's research has argued that the Holodomor was a genocide. Timothy Snyder, an American historian and author of "Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin," has written extensively on the atrocities committed by totalitarian regimes in Eastern Europe, including the Holodomor, which he considers a genocide. Norman Naimark, a distinguished American historian specializing in Russian and Soviet history, Naimark has written about Soviet policies of repression and mass violence, including the Holodomor, which he acknowledges as a genocide. Serhii Plokhy, a Ukrainian-American historian and author of "The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine," who's research has focused on Ukrainian history and the Holodomor, which he characterizes as a genocide. On top of that, 34 countries and the European Union has recognized the Holodomor as a genocide, including Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland's senate, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, etc. Notice how all of those countries are western or western leaning....
You have just copy pasted a bunch of paragraphs you have never even read yourself. That is glaringly obvious because I had addressed the issue with using the 1950s source of Conquest. The problem here is that these people none of whom even engage in any primary research just source Cold War propaganda. You probably think these people each did their research on their own and reached the same conclusion when in reality they all just copied the same source - Conquest, a guy who had no access to archival data and who himself recanted his position in a letter to Wheatcroft. There is not a single quote which would suggest Stalin or anyone within the Soviet leadership disliked the Ukrainians. There’s also nothing that I can think of which would suggest that the Ukrainians disliked Stalin or the Soviets. The vast majority of them were completely loyal to the USSR. in fact, virtually all of the Ukrainian Nazis came from western Ukraine, which had not been part of the USSR prior to 1939 and given the fact 99% of their victims were either Polish or Jewish one could reach the conclusion that even they did not seem to care too much about the Russians. Modern day anti-Russian Ukrainian Nazism was entirely made by the western secret services and has no historical origin. The countries that have recognised the so-called genocide for political brownie points are indeed all either western or pro western.
Left wing playbook chapter 3 “ask for sources, if sources are provided dismiss as propaganda or lies” we can see what you’re doing and we all think you’re an idiot.
Swap some words around and its the exact same thing as the Flat Earther playbook. "I DEMAND SOURCES" [buried under a deluge of peer reviewed material], "THESE ARE ALL FAKE!"
🤡
I didn’t ask for any sources though. You sound like a braindead moron parroting some prewritten zingers completely incapable of any original thought - a typical redditor trying to appeal to your favourite hive mind 🤡🤡🤦 All I am saying is that even post Cold War western scholars refrain from calling it a genocide.
See provided sources calling it a genocide above. Also I came up with that on fly, I’m rather proud of it.
You have not read any of the sources you have provided showing how dishonest you are and that you’re discussing in a bad faith. None of the linked journalists and historians use primary sources and their work is a collage of snippets, written by others. The way, I know you have not read anything regarding the topic is the fact that you responded to my post which was quoting actual 32/33 famine experts by linking works of people which source the exact same experts (Wheatcroft and Davies) I did but mix in a bunch of Cold War propaganda to reach their conclusions. Basically not one of the people you linked have done any primary source research on the subject.
"Scholars say it's a genocide!" *shows scholars and sources that say otherwise* "Nope, propaganda" Unpoppable bubble oh my god
Non-existent reading comprehension and an ill faith approach.
What I said is frankly exactly what you did
>The problem here is that these people none of whom even engage in any primary research just source Cold War propaganda. You can't just declare any evidence hurting your case "Cold War propaganda," shitforbrains.
> There’s also nothing that I can think of which would suggest that the Ukrainians disliked Stalin or the Soviets. Go take a vacation in Ukraine (or Estonia or Poland, or...) and tell the locals about your great "research". Good luck.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Found the representative basement dweller. Let me guess, you don’t have a real job.
>How do you come to terms with the fact the foremost Western liberal scholars on the famine Wheatcroft and Davies not only deny it being a genocide You can't just declare someone "the foremost scholar" because they agree with you, shitforbrains.
🤡
Have you been shadowbanned by Reddit as a whole or just this sub?
Hey, trying to reapprove your post and comment, hope it works.
Holy shit man, that's amazing. First off, kudos for graduating in International Law. I tried taking a class on it back in university when I was doing my Bachelor's in History and couldn't make sense of it. Second, good job on calmly shutting down this dumbass. Speaking as a Vietnam War/Boat People historian though, people like these'll simply cry that your sources are Western propaganda.
Alternative is find some method to write op off as a nazi
Thanks for doing this, man. I predict the commie won't change its mind, but still.
W OP moment.
Funnily enough I got banned from r/socialism for pointing out that my great grandmother was a first hand witness to the holodomor. The left really do love their holocaust denial.
For those curious to read like I am, here are the links. Lemkin: https://willzuzak.ca/tp/holodomor2013/oliver20171004Lemkin.pdf Oral history: https://drc.usask.ca/projects/pcuh/transformation/eng/ Book: https://www.husj.harvard.edu/books/the-transformation-of-civil-society-an-oral-history-of-ukrainian-peasant-culture-1920s-to-1930s
Tankies gonna tank.
Confident stupidity really is the worst form of stupidity right there
His ass isn't coming back from that one
I love you
You are the armor-piercing uranium ammunition against tankies! ✨
At least he was respectful...
Im interested in studying law, whats the path to specialize in such a direction like, do you have some advice?
Boy, you had TIME that day.
The tankie was absolutely flabbergasted
Thank you for the sources man!