Kasz216 said:
mai said:
Kasz216 said:
mai said:
| Kasz216 said:
Quote on what? That the policy existed?
|
A quote from the text you referred that talks about actual policy in place, do not force your opponent to do all the legwork for you.
Food requisition wasn't in place in, say, 1930-31, the first year of harvest well below expected. Relationships between kolkhoz'es and Soviet government were based on contract agreements at the time (eventually replaced by compulsory deliveries).
UPD: hell, even wiki has an article about it: Contracting in USSR. As I've said, first eduacte yourself.
|
Well if we're using Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Holodomor#Extensive_export_of_grain_and_other_food
quit being silly and argueing things you don't believe and know aren't true.
|
So you've admitted the fact that food requisitions haven't been used at the time? I don't need wiki to know that contracting was the main way for Soviet government to get grain and other food from kolkhoz'es, e.g.:
"Постановление Комиссии исполнения при СНК СССР от 06.04.1931 "О выполнении директив по контрактации яровых посевов в 1931 г. (в части зерновых, льна и конопли)"
"USSR SNK executive commission resolution from 06.04.1931 "On the implementation of guidelines for contracting spring sowing of 1931 (grain, flax and hemp)"
Source
May I ask you to stay on topic? In other words if you have a thesis -- defend it, not stealthy change it with another. If you want to present another thesis, so do it properly with your own words.
|
See, this is what i'm talking about. The "thesis" has always been the same. The Russians took out tons of food from the ukraine, and blacklisted the villiages with the worst famines who couldn't pay the taxes, sentencing them to an even surer death.
This is something you don't actually deny, and you actually know that holomodor was an active genocide, so you try to dance around with silly pedantic semantics. People don't stop to argue with you because they can't. They stop argueing with you for the same reason you stop argueing against a holocaust denier or someone who doesn't believe in evolution.
Eventually it stops being fun.
Like I said before, not going to re-deep dive all this info and put it out piece by piece. We BOTH know your wrong, and you are just attempting to troll people.
|
These are not theses, this is hypothesis, based on what exactly?
UPD: And it's counterproductive to discuss opponent's motives, ad hominem arguments are not real arguments.
