1944-Soviet expulsion of the Crimean Tatars

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/aljazeeraworld/2012/05/2012517132318999379.html

A bunch of women, children and red army veterans got shipped to Uzbekistan for siding with the Nazis. Collective punishment is at once unnecessarily cruel and totally inefficient. This shows some of the problems with an unaccountable, bureaucratic regime ... it can make instantaneous decisions like this without regard to the fact that it will shatter the lives of the people impacted and with little or no avenue for the common person to challenge it.

[Omsk]

Aljazeera? Hmh good source, i wonder will they rant how the "Russian Ortodox Ruler Stalin" ruined the Tatar collaborationists.

On a more serious note, you can read this to get a simple view:

... It was not till June 28, 1946, nearly three years later, that they [the Russian people] learned about it.... The Secretary of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Socialist Federal Republic, then Bakhmurov, [made] the announcement.
“Comrades,” he said, “the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR places before you for confirmation the draft of a law to abolish the Chechen-Ingush ASSR and for the transformation of the Crimean ASSR into the Crimean province.... During the Great Fatherland War, when the peoples of the USSR were heroically defending the honor and independence of their Fatherland in the struggle against the German-Fascists conquerors, many Chechens and Crimean Tatars, giving ear to German agents, entered volunteer units organized by the Germans and together with the German armies fought against units of the Red Army. On German instructions, they set up saboteur bands for the struggle against the Soviet regime in the rear. The main body of the population of the Chechen-Ingush and Crimean Tatar ASSR's offered no resistance to these traitors to the Fatherland. For this reason the Chechens and Crimean Tatars have been transported to other parts of the Soviet Union. In the new regions they have been given land as well as the requisite state assistance for their economic establishment....”
Tokaev, Grigori. Comrade X. London: Harvill Press,1956, p. 268

Another similar note:
But the real story of Sevastopol was of how the Soviet authorities treated collaborators. The Crimean Tartars had welcomed the arrival of the Germans. They had hunted down Russian soldiers in disguise, had formed a police force under German control, had been active in the Gestapo, and had supplied the Wehrmacht with soldiers. Now the moment of reckoning had arrived. The whole Crimean tartar community of something between 300,000 and 500,000 men, women, and children was rounded up and sent into exile in Central Asia, and they have never been allowed to return.
Knightley, Phillip. The First Casualty. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975, p. 263

And a historical note about the role of collaborationists in the south of the Soviet Union and their role in the war: This danger was revealed in all its amplitude in the Northern Caucasus. Despite the capture of Rostov on the Don, Mannstein, cut off from the bulk of the Wehrmacht, was still holding the Northern Caucasus. His army was revictualled by way of the Straits of Kertch; and he was able to form more and more numerous detachments of Cossacks from Terek and Kuban, of Tartars from the Crimea, of native Caucasians and of volunteers. When these troops withdrew they were followed by a great proportion of the population.
Delbars, Yves. The Real Stalin. London, Allen & Unwin, 1951, p. 332

And don't think that the Tatars were the only collaborationists, there were Bulgarian, Greek and Uzbek figures too, and the mass realizing measures connected with proletarian state security were also a move there.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

A Jewish banker ripped me off, so it's ok to punish all Jewish people ... A Black guy raped a relative, so it's ok to go punish all Black people ... you know, the deeds of a few people does not justify petty prejudice towards an entire category of people. That's kind of the whole point of antiracist politics.

If someone was a Nazi collaborator, you could prove that THEY in particular are collaborators and punish them. It is racist to assume that an entire ethnic group are all collaborators and punish them collectively. Obviously collaborators were a major threat, but to put the blanket description on them as collaborators and punish them collectively for it is an obvious injustice. Do explain, how did 5 year old and 70 year old folks collaborate with the Nazis? Or those who had joined the Red Army and risked their lives for the USSR? The Soviet state and the Red Army was acting out the same kinds of atrocities of ethnic relocation reminiscent of the worst kinds of governments when they instituted this policy.

[eyeheartlenin]

I think the Crimean Tatars are only one example of collective punishment under Stalin's rule. From something I read years ago, I got the impression there were several nationalities in the USSR that suffered reprisals during Stalin's lifetime; official measures against Soviet Jews, considered a nationality, during the Stalin years, have already been discussed on revleft. The only other thing I remember concretely is that Soviet Karelia was downgraded from a republic of the USSR to the next level.

EDIT: In 1940, the entire Finnish population of the Karelian areas ceded by Finland to the USSR as a result of war, was evacuated from Soviet territory to Finland (which eventually may have been a great relief for the Finns). Those Karelian areas were then settled by members of non-Finnish nationalities from other parts of the USSR. So Stalin, who, under Lenin's direction, had written about the national question decades before, deprived the Karelian Finns of their territory.

[ComradeOm]

And don't think that the Tatars were the only collaborationists, there were Bulgarian, Greek and Uzbek figures too, and the mass realizing measures connected with proletarian state security were also a move there.And Finns and Koreans and Chinese and Lithuanians and Latvians and Estonians and Poles and Jews and Germans and Kalmyks and Balkars and a lot more that I can't remember off hand. Quite a lot of these occurred pre-war (in the infamous 'national operations' of the 1930s) and the brutal deportation/exile campaigns continued right up to the 1950s

But really there's little to add to Omsk's post. The facts are there. The Soviet state deliberately and consciously directed repression measures and mass violence against select ethnic groups because of the chauvinistic belief that certain national minorities were inherently untrustworthy and treasonous. Merely being the wrong nationality was enough to have you arrested and possibly executed during the national operations. I've written a short post about this before (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-racisti-t170581/index.html?p=2424211)

Really, whether or not you find this acceptable tends on how repulsive you find the profiling and persecution of individuals based on their ethnic background

I'm fairly sure that if I were to claim that all Polish immigrants in Ireland today were, by virtue of their nationality, untrustworthy fascists who should be deported, imprisoned or shot... well, I'd be banned within minutes. Hopefully. However it seems perfectly acceptable to make such charges and defend such blatantly chauvinist policies in the context of 1930s/1940s European forced population transfers

[Omsk]

And Finns and Koreans and Chinese and Lithuanians and Latvians and Estonians and Poles and Jews and Germans and Kalmyks and Balkars and a lot more that I can't remember off hand. Quite a lot of these occurred pre-war (in the infamous 'national operations' of the 1930s) and the brutal deportation/exile campaigns continued right up to the 1950s


Yes obviously, and the measures were the same.


However, the rest of your post is just you attacking a false argument, which i didn't make. The nationality was not the point, and you said it yourself in your post, the main reason was collaboration with the Fascists and anti-Soviet behaviour.Nothing more.No secret agenda, no 'ethnic' reasons, just a clear as water political and ideological background along with Fascist collaboration.

[ComradeOm]

No, nationality was the primary criterion used to select victims during the national operations. Hence the use of targeted campaigns and 'lines' against specific national groups; that is, the targeting of specific nationalities that were deemed to be untrustworthy. Mere membership of one of those 'national contingents' was enough to place an individual under immediate suspicion and, given the relentless extortions from the centre (particularly January 1938), likely danger of arbitrary arrest and execution. It was a focusing of the lens of repression on a series of specific ethnic groups*

(There was, notably, never any Great Russian operation. National operations were reserved for those minorities that the Stalinist leadership remained distrustful of)

Of course the justification for all this was uncovering fascist conspiracies of the sort dreamt up by Ezhov. He personally authored the report that conjured up a vast Polish underground network, one so capable that it remained unheard of and undiscovered since the Revolution. Suddenly (how surprising) other regions began to discover massive 'insurrectionary groups' with detailed histories going back to the Civil War. These reports almost invariably copied Ezhov's template and in some cases his exact words. Fiction

*Which was the prime reason for the introduction of the nationality field to the internal passport in 1938. Ezhov remarked at the time that it was "impermissible to write in the passport of a German or a Pole that he is Russian, Ukrainian or Belorussian, even if he was born in the Russian, Ukrainian or Belorussian Republic"


No secret agenda, no 'ethnic' reasons, just a clear as water political and ideological background along with Fascist collaborationSo why did it take a specifically Polish operation to execute 100,000+ Poles (or "Polish filth" to quote Stalin)? Why could this not have been incorporated into the concurrent anti-Soviet campaigns?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

However, the rest of your post is just you attacking a false argument, which i didn't make. The nationality was not the point, and you said it yourself in your post, the main reason was collaboration with the Fascists and anti-Soviet behaviour.Nothing more.No secret agenda, no 'ethnic' reasons, just a clear as water political and ideological background along with Fascist collaboration.


When a few Crimean Tatars join the Nazis, all Crimean Tatars are guilty? And I suppose when a black man commits a rape, its OK to punish all black people in the city for the deed? Tell me, why then were Crimean tatars in the red army punished? How did they, or little old women and small children, manage to "collaborate" with Nazis? I find it amazing that you are oblivious to the obvious racism of your argument.

[Igor]

And don't think that the Tatars were the only collaborationists, there were Bulgarian, Greek and Uzbek figures too, and the mass realizing measures connected with proletarian state security were also a move there.

I can't fucking believe this. Most of you guys are at least in denial regarding the ethnic violence in USSR or acknowledge they were pretty bad excesses but you can't faults in your homeboy Stalin to the extent where you're a-ok with racial profiling? Your logic is no different from American internment camps for the Japanese or the Finnish internment camps for Russians during the war, but I guess you condemn that shit because it's done by the imperialists and not the good guys.

The people's stick quote by Bakunin really couldn't be more spot on.

[Prometeo liberado]

I can't fucking believe this. Most of you guys are at least in denial regarding the ethnic violence in USSR or acknowledge they were pretty bad excesses but you can't faults in your homeboy Stalin to the extent where you're a-ok with racial profiling? Your logic is no different from American internment camps for the Japanese or the Finnish internment camps for Russians during the war, but I guess you condemn that shit because it's done by the imperialists and not the good guys.

The people's stick quote by Bakunin really couldn't be more spot on.

On the contrary, the Japanese people did not organize their own hunting parties inside the U.S. borders looking for soldiers. They didn't organize an alternative police force funded by Imperial Japan. They didn't organize to make war within the U.S. You should know better than to make these types of posts. Hate Stalin, just don't bend and omit facts while trying to make your point. People tend to dismiss shit like that as petty bitterness.

[Art Vandelay]

On the contrary, the Japanese people did not organize their own hunting parties inside the U.S. borders looking for soldiers. They didn't organize an alternative police force funded by Imperial Japan. They didn't organize to make war within the U.S. You should know better than to make these types of posts. Hate Stalin, just don't bend and omit facts while trying to make your point. People tend to dismiss shit like that as petty bitterness.

Then how were 5 year olds and the elderly, as already asked multiple times by SCM and conviently ignored by you Russian jingoists, collaborating with the Nazis? The amount of blatant Russian patriotism on revleft is discusting and laughable considering I am supposed to be surrounded by internationalists :rolleyes:.

[Comrade Hill]

The Soviet state deliberately and consciously directed repression measures and mass violence against select ethnic groups because of the chauvinistic belief that certain national minorities were inherently untrustworthy and treasonous. Merely being the wrong nationality was enough to have you arrested and possibly executed during the national operations. I've written a short post about this before (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-racisti-t170581/index.html?p=2424211)


Your "short post" is a very inadequate and incomplete source. To add to that, the source that you use in your "short post" is extremely questionable. The source that you provide, also, mentions nothing about "executions" of innocents. Here is the actual policy regarding the Crimean Tatars.


[Decree of the State Defense Committee, May 11, 1944, signed by Stalin, on deportation of Crimean Tatars to Uzbekistan]

During the Patriotic War many Crimean Tatars betrayed the Motherland, deserted Red Army units that defended the Crimea, and sided with the enemy, joining volunteer army units formed by the Germans to fight against the Red Army. As members of German punitive detachments during the occupation of the Crimea by German fascist troops, the Crimean Tatars particularly were noted for their savage reprisals against Soviet partisans, and also helped the German invaders to organize the violent roundup of Soviet citizens for German enslavement and the mass extermination of the Soviet people.

The Crimean Tatars actively collaborated with the German occupation authorities, participating in the so-called Tatar national committees, organized by the German intelligence organs, and were often used by the Germans to infiltrate the rear of the Red Army with spies and saboteurs. With the support of the Crimean Tatars, the "Tatar national committees," in which the leading role was played by White Guard-Tatar emigrants, directed their activity at the persecution and oppression of the non-Tatar population of the Crimea and were engaged in preparatory efforts to separate the Crimea from the Soviet Union by force, with the help of the German armed forces.

Taking into account the fact cited above, the State Defense Committee decrees that:

1. All Tatars are to be banished from the territory of the Crimea and re-settled permanently as special settlers in regions of the Uzbek SSR....

The following procedure and conditions of resettlement are to be established:

a) The special settlers will be allowed to take with them personal items, clothing, household objects, dishes and utensils, and up to 500 kilograms of food per family.

... Exchange receipts will be issued in every populated place and every farm for the receipt of livestock, grain, vegetables, and for other types of agricultural products.

By July 1 of this year, the NKVD, People's Commissariat of Agriculture, People's Commissariat of the Meat and Dairy Industries, People's Commissariat of State Farms, and People's Commissariat of Procurement are to submit to the USSR Council of People's Commissars a proposal on the procedure for repaying the special settlers, on the basis of exchange receipts, for livestock, poultry, and agricultural products received from them.

... d) To each convoy of special settlers, the People's Commissariat of Public Health is to assign, within a time frame to be coordinated with the NKVD, one physician and two nurses, as well as an appropriate supply of medicines, and to provide medical and first-aid care to special settlers in transit;

e) The People's Commissariat of Trade will provide all convoys caring special settlers with hot food and boiling water on a daily basis....

... e) To grant plots of farm land to the newly arrived settlers and to help them build homes by providing construction materials;...

... 4. Seven-year loans of up to 5000 rubles per family, for the construction and setting up of homes, are to be extended by the Agricultural Bank to special settlers sent to the Uzbek SSR, in their places of settlement.

5. Every month during the June-August 1944 period, equal quantities of flour, groats, and vegetables will be allocated by the USSR People's Commissariat of Procurement to the Uzbek SSR Council of People's Commissars for distribution to the special settlers.

Flour, groats, and vegetables are to be distributed free of charge to the special settlers during the June-August period, as re-payment for the agricultural products and livestock received from them in the areas from which they were evicted.

Koenker and Bachman, Eds. Revelations from the Russian Archives. Washington: Library of Congress, 1997, p. 205-207


Really, whether or not you find this acceptable tends on how repulsive you find the profiling and persecution of individuals based on their ethnic background


This accusation of racism is pretty over the top and childish. These deportations were not based on race, they were based on a real danger they were posing to the Soviet system. Children, women, and all were not "ruthlessly punished" as you keep on implying. They were resettled in other areas with compensation.



I'm fairly sure that if I were to claim that all Polish immigrants in Ireland today were, by virtue of their nationality, untrustworthy fascists who should be deported, imprisoned or shot... well, I'd be banned within minutes. Hopefully. However it seems perfectly acceptable to make such charges and defend such blatantly chauvinist policies in the context of 1930s/1940s European forced population transfers

That's a pretty irrelevant analysis. Perhaps it would've been more relevant, if you left out the people being "shot" and "imprisoned" for their nationality, and if you added in that the Polish immigrants were setting up their OWN COMMITTEES to collaborate with war enemies. However, that would be impossible, because allowing the innocent nationalities who don't collaborate with Nazis to find good lives in other countries, is still chauvinism! In order to not be a chauvinist, we must let the guilty Nazi collaborators off the hook as well. Then they can continue to collaborate with the enemy, thousands of Soviet citizens and Jews can die, and we can all be a group of multinational, non-chauvinist people who will live happily ever after. What a joke!

[Zealot]

The amount of blatant Russian patriotism on revleft is discusting and laughable considering I am supposed to be surrounded by internationalists :rolleyes:.

Because all Marxist-Leninists are Russians! Yeah, I'm laughing too.

[harte.beest]

Wasn't this all occurring during world war 2? Couldn't Stalin just have easily murdered all those "innocent women and children"? Not only were these people on valuable land, but most were working with Hitler? Is that right? Were talking about 200,000 people who were sent to Uzbekistan, right?, not hell. Honestly, Uzbekistan is a very beautiful country, and I would rather live in Uzbekistan than alot of places in the US (Arizona for example) and it also seems the Tatars, are more concerned with national pride then their own lives, if so many are leaving and going back to their, as the article, puts it "shacks"?


Would we even be talking about this, if Stalin had just murdered those people and bombed the hell out of them? I'm sorry but it seems Stalin did these people a favor.

[Igor]

Because all Marxist-Leninists are Russians! Yeah, I'm laughing too.

You don't need to be Russian to be supportive of Russian jingoism and seriously, the extent to which some people are ready to defend every single Soviet atrocity really has some pretty nasty jingoist stench to it occasionally.

And I honestly don't care if there were supposedly "hunting parties" gathered up by some people who were of these ethnic groups. I would, if these measures actually were targeted at these people responsible, but no, that's not the case. The measures were targeted at entire populations, and were really about full-on racial profiling. Among leftists, that shit wouldn't fly even remotely anywhere... but the Soviet Union. Because uh I don't know. They were so very revolutionary I guess so they get a free pass on all the shit rest of us are trying to bring down.

[Igor]

Would we even be talking about this, if Stalin had just murdered those people and bombed the hell out of them? I'm sorry but it seems Stalin did these people a favor.

You think it's a favour to not murder and bomb people?

what

what.

[hatzel]

Okay can I just ask right now...is this going to be the Red Army rape thread all over again? Perhaps I ask more as a warning (you know, telling you guys not to take it down that road), though perhaps I'm also asking what exactly the difference is between these two historical actions, asking so that we might all remember what you guys are getting yourselves into with these kinds of positions (if you carry on)...

[Omsk]

I am pretty sure the comrades who took a more, delicate, approach to this issue are more than enough aware and informed about that certain thread, (By me, no more no less.) and i am sure they will keep their arguments in line with both board policy and generally correct Marxist-Leninist perception of facts.

[Comrade Hill]

Igor. This so called "racial profiling" allowed innocents to resettle in other areas, and many nationalities were satisfied with their conditions. It wasn't just a "small fraction" of the population that was collaborating, it was quite a large portion of the Crimean Tatars, even the ones in the Red Army.

It's really quite pathetic that as a supposed "leftist," you apologize for these acts of betrayal and nationalism, while continuing to agree with bourgeois historians and the press. The Crimean Tatars set themselves up for their own deportation, it wasn't racial profiling. With your extremely short and bitter posts it demonstrates that you don't know much about what people are talking about here.

If you would simply put down your race emotionalism and look at the details, you will see that given the conditions, it was justified. Like Molotov said, there wasn't really much time to look at the details, it was a matter of life and death.

If you think this is all somehow relevant to racial profiling that goes on nowadays then you are beating a dead horse. Its pretty naive to think that we are somehow going to profile blacks or Hispanics, just because a situation happened 70 years ago where the Soviet system was threatened by the nationalism and collaboration of other races with the war enemy, and they had to take quick measures, with those measures not even being all that "hurtful" to the innocents of these races.

I think I've said enough in this thread. I really don't give a shit what anybody's response to this is, whether you all are going to call me a Russian chauvinist or a racist, it's really all irrelevant to me. I know I'm not a chauvinist, and I know the deportations had nothing to do with racial prejudices, because people in the USSR have always enjoyed universal suffrage and discrimination was always a very punishable offense, racial discrimination is against Marxist-Leninist principles.

[ComradeOm]

Your "short post" is a very inadequate and incomplete source. To add to that, the source that you use in your "short post" is extremely questionable. The source that you provide, also, mentions nothing about "executions" of innocents. Here is the actual policy regarding the Crimean TatarsYou'll have to give me reasons why. Why are Werth and Doering-Manteuffel unsatisfactory sources? I'm sure you'd say the same about Wheatcroft or Hagenloh, whom I'd also point you towards


This accusation of racism is pretty over the top and childish. These deportations were not based on race, they were based on a real danger they were posing to the Soviet systemYes, the perception that these ethnic groups as a whole posed a threat to "the Soviet system". How is that not racism? How can you justify collectively punishing an entire nationality as anything but racism?


Children, women, and all were not "ruthlessly punished" as you keep on implying. They were resettled in other areas with compensation. No, they were deported to 'special settlements' (спецпоселение) in which they fell under the administration of the NKVD and were forced to provide compulsory labour to the latter

And of course these relocations were not painless; in some cases they can hardly even be called 'relocations'. The campaigns against the Poles, for example, saw over 200,000 Poles killed between 1939 and 1941. In the case of the Chechens, the forced deportation led to mortality rates of 20+%. This was not some peaceful and benign resettlement


However, that would be impossible, because allowing the innocent nationalities who don't collaborate with Nazis to find good lives in other countries, is still chauvinism! In order to not be a chauvinist, we must let the guilty Nazi collaborators off the hook as wellNo, in order not to be a chauvinist you should not condone campaigns of mass violence against specific ethnicities just because some individuals were suspected of anti-Soviet crimes. Seems simple enough, no? Branding all Tartars, as an example, as traitors and deporting the entire population is... well, entirely racist. It is a form of collective punishment, one that inflicts on many the consequences of the crimes of the few on the basis of national identity

Again, the assumption underlining your reactionary stance is that an entire nationality was "setting up their OWN COMMITTEES to collaborate with war enemies" and therefore worthy of punishment. I really shouldn't have to describe just how chauvinistic a worldview that is

[Prometeo liberado]

Then how were 5 year olds and the elderly, as already asked multiple times by SCM and conveniently ignored by you Russian jingoists, collaborating with the Nazis? The amount of blatant Russian patriotism on revleft is disgusting and laughable considering I am supposed to be surrounded by internationalists :rolleyes:.

Either way a "Stalinist", whatever that means today, to you, can't win. If the children are left behind then "Stalinist" separated and destroyed families. Care for them and take responsibility for them and we are destroying their native culture, correct? Go back to the books son, it only gets worse.

[Art Vandelay]

Either way a "Stalinist", whatever that means today, to you, can't win. If the children are left behind then "Stalinist" separated and destroyed families. Care for them and take responsibility for them and we are destroying their native culture, correct. Go back to the books son, it only gets worse.

That is simply not true, I am perfectly willing to admit the mistakes and successes of every tendency so I am not sure where you are coming from with this; nice strawman though, interestingly enough you still haven't addressed anything raised by any poster in the thread.

[Prometeo liberado]

That is simply not true, I am perfectly willing to admit the mistakes and successes of every tendency so I am not sure where you are coming from with this; nice strawman though, interestingly enough you still haven't addressed anything raised by any poster in the thread.

I'm pretty sure I took apart your analogy of the American internment victims and the counter-revolutionaries that the Red Army had to deal with. Then I went on to show your maneuvering of terms to prove a point that didn't exist. Now if this is not addressing, not once but twice, a poster here than maybe said user just isn't posting. We call that trolling.

p.s. Do you even know what the term strawman means?

[Comrade Hill]

You'll have to give me reasons why. Why are Werth and Doering-Manteuffel unsatisfactory sources? I'm sure you'd say the same about Wheatcroft or Hagenloh, whom I'd also point you towards


Mass crimes under Stalin? The "murderous Ukraine famine?" He "contributed" to the Black Book of Communism? Nicholas Werth has written all about these things. He is a reactionary source. His research also has nothing to do with the policy on the caucasians and the non-caucasian traitors.

Doering-Manteuffel I don't know much about. Don't know much about the other two guys either. Since you posted Nicholas Werth I don't see why your other sources would somehow be more reliable.



Yes, the perception that these ethnic groups as a whole posed a threat to "the Soviet system". How is that not racism? How can you justify collectively punishing an entire nationality as anything but racism?


Well it is racism if you that's what you make the situation to be. Since you downplay the role of betrayal by these groups, I can't really help you.



No, they were deported to 'special settlements' (спецпоселение) in which they fell under the administration of the NKVD and were forced to provide compulsory labour to the latter


Yes, all labor in the settlements were all performed FOR THE NKVD. After that they all died, and the NKVD laughed in their tummies.

All jokes aside, you are being redundant. I said in my original post that the Crimean Tatars were put under the administration of the NKVD. It seems like you didn't read it.



And of course these relocations were not painless; in some cases they can hardly even be called 'relocations'. The campaigns against the Poles, for example, saw over 200,000 Poles killed between 1939 and 1941. In the case of the Chechens, the forced deportation led to mortality rates of 20+%. This was not some peaceful and benign resettlement


Sounds like more comicbook fairytales about the "Stalinist terror" from your reactionary sources. And I'm not sure what happened to the Poles has anything to do with this conversation. That was the Warsaw uprising, am I correct?



No, in order not to be a chauvinist you should not condone campaigns of mass violence against specific ethnicities just because some individuals were suspected of anti-Soviet crimes. Seems simple enough, no? Branding all Tartars, as an example, as traitors and deporting the entire population is... well, entirely racist. It is a form of collective punishment, one that inflicts on many the consequences of the crimes of the few on the basis of national identity


Really? It was the crimes of a few?



Again, the assumption underlining your reactionary stance is that an entire nationality was "setting up their OWN COMMITTEES to collaborate with war enemies" and therefore worthy of punishment. I really shouldn't have to describe just how chauvinistic a worldview that is

Well it's even more chauvinistic to act like these people were somehow all innocent angels, who should've been left alone to try and overthrow the USSR with the help of Nazis. In my opinion, socialism comes before nationality. Clearly you believe the opposite. Now here comes the race emotionalism and more reactionary sources.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The Crimean Tatars set themselves up for their own deportation, it wasn't racial profiling.


I know I'm not a chauvinist, and I know the deportations had nothing to do with racial prejudices, because people in the USSR have always enjoyed universal suffrage and discrimination was always a very punishable offense, racial discrimination is against Marxist-Leninist principles.You don't see the obvious contradiction in these statements? In fact, your first statement is itself internally contradictory ... you have profiled ALL Tatars as traitors based on their race and then said "it wasn't racial profiling".

"Many French people collaborated with Nazis, I suppose the entire French population should have been deported to Siberia. No that's not racism, that's Marxist-Leninism. It's not racism because Marxist-Leninism is against racism, ergo it cannot be racist." This argument in defense of the Soviet State's actions is completely devoid of reason and self-criticism that it is simply stunning. What next, a defense of Red Army rapes and the ban on homosexuality or abortion? Of course, it would be tendency baiting to say that anybody who disagreed with that should be called out as using bigoted or chauvinistic reasoning ...

[Art Vandelay]

I'm pretty sure I took apart your analogy of the American internment victims and the counter-revolutionaries that the Red Army had to deal with.

It wasn't even my analogy.


Then I went on to show your maneuvering of terms to prove a point that didn't exist.

What is this even referring to?


p.s. Do you even know what the term strawman means?

Ad Hominem.

[Qavvik]

.

[Prometeo liberado]

interestingly enough you still haven't addressed anything raised by any poster in the thread.

This.

It wasn't even my analogy.

Then this? You say I won't address the posts on this thread and when I do you dismiss it as "..wasn't even my..", exhausting.:confused:

[ComradeOm]

Doering-Manteuffel I don't know much about. Don't know much about the other two guys eitherSo the problem is your ignorance. Do you know Gregory, Binner, Pohl, SR Davies, McLoughlin, Petrov, Ellman... but, well, if you haven't heard of Wheatcroft then it's unlikely that you'd read what any of those have to say on the national operations

Really, you don't even know what the Polish operation was (which, no, is not the Warsaw Uprising). You haven't heard of the deportation and execution of hundreds of thousands of Poles 1937-41. You almost certainly know nothing about other, and lesser known, pre-war campaigns against the Koreans, Greeks, Bulgarians, Central Asian peoples, etc. The only thing you do have is a copy of Stalin's Chechen order

You are arguing from a position of complete (self-imposed) ignorance. There's only so must I can say against that


Yes, all labor in the settlements were all performed FOR THE NKVD. After that they all died, and the NKVD laughed in their tummiesStrawman. The special settlements (which did often see higher than average mortality rates) were part of the NKVD forced labour programme. Deportation, aside from being disruptive and often lethal, was essentially a sentence of forced labour passed on an entire community


Well it's even more chauvinistic to act like these people were somehow all innocent angels, who should've been left alone to try and overthrow the USSR with the help of Nazis. In my opinion, socialism comes before nationality. Clearly you believe the opposite. Now here comes the race emotionalism and more reactionary sources.Well, more like scorn. Your statement is so completely doublethink that I really don't know where to start. Let's try

The Stalinist regime ordered the deportation of an entire ethnic group to special labour settlements. Many, if not most, of those individuals deported had committed no crime against the Soviet state, particularly the women and children. This was unquestionably (really, don't even try to question it) an act of collective punishment that assumed that an entire national minority was inherently untrustworthy or guilty

Yet you somehow believe that objecting to this is a nationalist or chauvinistic act. Ethnic cleansing is socialist but, well, not ethnic cleansing is nationalist? Does your mind really work like this?

I suppose it does. Push a Stalinist far enough and you always return to the same article of faith: the USSR was socialist and therefore any crimes committed in its name are acceptable or even virtuous. It's a work of circular logic that's really impenetrable to reason or discussion. Most people would wonder if a state that waged numerous persecution campaigns against national minorities (and yes, this is clearly a grossly chauvinist policy) was actually socialist, you simply adjust your definition of socialism to include ethnic cleansing

[Omsk]

And I'm not sure what happened to the Poles has anything to do with this conversation. That was the Warsaw uprising, am I correct?


No, he is either talking about one of Yezhovs operations in which a large number of Poles including the Polska Organizacja Wojskowa agents and other reactionaries were arrested, but that took time much before 1941, so he either made a honest mistake in years, or he is trying to say that the Soviet Union used such measures far into the Great War, which is not true.


And the "Warsaw Uprising" was an event that happened much, much later, so he is not talking about that.



You haven't heard of the deportation and execution of hundreds of thousands of Poles 1937-41


It did not last to 1941. And it was not in the hundreds of thousands.

[ComradeOm]

It did not last to 1941. And it was not in the hundreds of thousands.It did. There were two waves: the initial Polish line of the mass operations from 1937-38 and the subsequent extension of the violence into previously Polish territory following the NAP with Nazi Germany. In the latter wave alone (ie, from 1939-41) between 400,000 and 600,000 Poles were arrested and deported. (Wheatcroft, The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings)

[RedTrackWorker]

This thread summarizes most of what is wrong with revleft and certainly most of what is wrong with Stalinists today.

Consider:

I know I'm not a chauvinist, and I know the deportations had nothing to do with racial prejudices, because people in the USSR have always enjoyed universal suffrage and discrimination was always a very punishable offense, racial discrimination is against Marxist-Leninist principles.

Really, we're supposed to believe that we're wrong because
a) you know you're not a chauvinist
b) you know you're right
c) the USSR had universal suffrage ("always"!)
d) discrimination was "punishable" (as was reading Trotsky)
e) it's against "M-L" principles (and they've never violated principles!)

There are as many errors as words....

Then:

Since you posted Nicholas Werth I don't see why your other sources would somehow be more reliable.

Nope. Not how it works.



Since you downplay the role of betrayal by these groups, I can't really help you.

Ethnic groups don't "betray" as a group. To punish them as a group is typical of all the worst stuff about capitalism and class society, and it was key to Stalin gutting the workers' state of its class content, along with reinforcing the bourgeois family and other things. It's a model in how to restore capitalist relations in fact and you defend it as "socialist."

[harte.beest]

The Stalinist regime ordered the deportation of an entire ethnic group to special labour settlements. Many, if not most, of those individuals deported had committed no crime against the Soviet state, particularly the women and children. This was unquestionably (really, don't even try to question it) an act of collective punishment that assumed that an entire national minority was inherently untrustworthy or guilty

This was not "ethnic cleansing" suggesting that it was, is insulting to actual victims of ethnic cleansing, it's the same logic someone might present to defend real ethnic cleansing, they did not single out any racial minority from the world and enslave and persecute them, they did not go into Moscow and arrest people of a certain race, or because of their skin color.

Also, Stalin did not round people up like the Jews in Germany, or even the Japanese in America. It's nowhere near the same thing. Tatars are not a race anyway, there were millions of Tatars in Russia, so why did only these 200,000 Crimean ones get singled out? At worst, Stalin was a "culturalist", not a racist.

The "infamous National Operations" you referred to earlier, were not biased against race either.

According to the State Security central authorities’ accountancy, over 335,000 persons were sentenced in the course of the National Operations. The largest contingent (140,000) was trapped in the Polish Operation. Out of this number, 111,000 (or 79%) were executed. Some 55,000 were sentenced under Order n° 00439 (the German Operation), 76% of whom (or 42,000 persons) were executed. In the course of the Kharbin
Operation, 33,000 persons were sentenced, of whom 65% (21,200) were executed. The Latvian Operation ended in 22,000 sentences (75% – or 16,500 – in the first category). For the Greek, Romanian, Finnish and Estonian "mass operations", statistics run until mid-September 1938. At that time, the number of people sentenced in each of the four mass operations was respectively: 11,260 (9,450 sentenced to death); 6,300 (4,020 sentenced to death); 7,023 (5,724 sentenced to death); 5,680 (4,672 sentenced to death).

Unfortunately, we do not know exactly how many members of the diaspora nationalities were arrested, sentenced and executed, since not everyone arrested in the Polish Operation, for example, was a Pole or a Soviet citizen of Polish origin, nor were all arrested Poles or Soviet citizens of Polish origin included in the Polish Operation. For instance, through September 1938 in Belorussia, Soviet citizens of Polish origin made up only 43% of those arrested in the Polish Operation, whereas Soviet citizens of German origin made up 76% of the German Operation, and Soviet citizens of Latvian origin 75% of the Latvian Operation. In Moscow, through July 1938, Soviet citizens of Polish origin made up 57% of those arrested in the Polish Operation (Martin, 2001: 339).

For the Polish and the German Operations, NKVD central statistics, discovered by N. Okhotin, A. Roginski and N. Petrov, give information on the number of people arrested and sentenced in the different regions of the USSR. Not surprisingly, the largest group (40% of all people arrested in the process of the Polish Operation; 39% of all people arrested in the process of the German Operation) came from the Ukraine, and in particular from its western border districts, where there lived a large Polish community and a smaller German one. Tens of thousands of peasants, industry and railway workers, employees and engineers were arrested for no reason other than that they lived and worked "too close to the enemy". For the same reason, Bielorussian provinces accounted for 17% of the arrested under Order n° 00485. Surprisingly, at first sight, Western Siberia, Southern Urals, North Caucasus, Kazakhstan and the Far-East showed high numbers of arrests: in these unruly regions, with large numbers of deportees and social outcasts, high quotas of "anti-Soviet" and "socially harmful elements" to "repress", local NKVD officials tended to fill in "national lines" (another piece of police jargon) with their usual victims, who had little in common with those targeted by Orders 00439, 00485 or 00593 (Okhotin & Roginskii, 1999; Petrov & Roginskii, 2003).

A remarkable feature of the National Operations should be underlined: until May 1938, the NKVD leadership did not seem concerned by the ethnic origin of those arrested; information concerning their nationality and ethnic origin was systematically collected only after September 1938, when "special troïki" were set up to "finish off" the National Operations. Thus, we know that among the 36,768 individuals sentenced under Order n° 0048" (Polish Operation) by the "special troïki" between September and November 1938, Poles and soviet citizens of Polish origin represented 55% of the total, Bielorussians 15%, Ukrainians 13%, Russians 9% and Jews 4%.

According to N. Okhotin and A. Roginski, Poles and Soviet citizens of Polish origin represented about 70% of the 140,000 persons sentenced under Order n° 00485 (that is 98,000 persons). Altogether, during the Great Terror, approximately 120,000 Poles and Soviet citizens of Polish origin were arrested and sentenced. With one-fifth of its total group repressed, Soviet citizens of Polish origin paid the heaviest toll of all ethnic minorities forming the "Great Soviet family". Soviet citizens of German origin represented 69% of the 55,000 persons sentenced under Order n° 00439 (that is 38,000 people). Altogether, during the Great Terror, approximately 72,000 Soviet citizens of German origin were arrested and sentenced – that is 5% of the Soviet Germans. A remarkable feature should be stressed at this point: relatively few Soviet Germans living in the Autonomous Republic of the Volga Germans (by far the largest community of soviet citizens of German origin) were arrested in the course of the German Operation. In 1937-1938, Soviet citizens of German origin living in the Autonomous Soviet Republic of the Volga Germans seem to have been considered as "better integrated" in the Soviet system than individuals of German origin scattered in "sensitive" border areas or in industrial towns (German, 1996). Ethnicity as such was not the prime criteria, as it would be two or three years later, when entire ethnic groups would be deported (among them, all Soviet Germans).

http://massviolence.org/The-NKVD-Mass-Secret-National-Operations-August-1937?cs=print#outil_sommaire_2

[Omsk]

It did. There were two waves: the initial Polish line of the mass operations from 1937-38 and the subsequent extension of the violence into previously Polish territory following the NAP with Nazi Germany. In the latter wave alone (ie, from 1939-41) between 400,000 and 600,000 Poles were arrested and deported. (Wheatcroft, The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings)

Wheatcroft is notorious for his minsconceptions and lies, so i wouldn't throw around his quotes too much. The thing is, this is coming from an anti-communist perspective, basically, because the arrests of the Poles after the Soviets returned the stripes of land to the peoples authority, the violence and arrests were on a class level, directed at either the kulaks, the reactionaries, or the clergy and the noblemen and intellectuals of reactionary Poland, this of course, included Ukrainian priests or rich-landowners. And the 400.000-600.000 people who were 'arrested' and 'deported' are also a sign of S. Wheatcroft's bias, because the number of those who were arrested before the outbreak of WWI (German invasion on the USSR.) does not go over 90.000-100.000.The number of those who were moved and who died during the mass moving of population on the other hand, will remain a mystery for us.

[ComradeOm]

This was not "ethnic cleansing"...What else would you call the forced relocation of entire ethnic groups from certain geographic areas? Say, for example, the removal of the Soviet Korean population from the Far East to Central Asia

And how is that unlike the internment of the Japanese in the US?


The "infamous National Operations" you referred to earlier, were not biased against race eitherThe clue is in the name: they were indeed directed against 'national contingents'

Ironically of course the local NKVD administrations were so eager to a) meet their quotas and b) remove any 'socially dangerous elements' from their jurisdictions, that they used the national operations as a cover to clean their houses. This was contrary to Moscow's instructions and suggests that prior to the mid-1930s national identity was not a major differentiator at the lower levels of Soviet society. Even within the NKVD the instructions to persecute specific ethnic groups was a novel development and it took time for the secret police to widen their net beyond the populations that they'd been repressing for a decade

Hence the importance of the measures in 1938 to re-energise the national operations, such as the amending of passports to include national markings. Contrary to oft-heard talk of 'excesses' this came from the top. In Jan 1938 the Politburo expanded the scope of the national operations as part of a series of orders that, to quote Hagenloh, "made it clear to local NKVD officials that wholesale repressions of 'national' cohorts, regardless of any punative involvement in anti-Soviet conspiracies, was to replace repressions of 'kulak' and 'criminal' cohorts as the policy of the day"

[Art Vandelay]

Then this? You say I won't address the posts on this thread and when I do you dismiss it as "..wasn't even my..", exhausting.:confused:

Seeing as how you were addressing me, I assumed you would be referencing my posts, I guess I was wrong. Perhaps I can ask my question again now:

How were 5 year olds and the elderly collaborating with the nazi's?

How was this anything but repercussions on entire populations, based on their ethnicity, due to the actions of a small percent of said population.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

This was not "ethnic cleansing" suggesting that it was, is insulting to actual victims of ethnic cleansing, it's the same logic someone might present to defend real ethnic cleansing, they did not single out any racial minority from the world and enslave and persecute them, they did not go into Moscow and arrest people of a certain race, or because of their skin color.

Also, Stalin did not round people up like the Jews in Germany, or even the Japanese in America. It's nowhere near the same thing. Tatars are not a race anyway, there were millions of Tatars in Russia, so why did only these 200,000 Crimean ones get singled out? At worst, Stalin was a "culturalist", not a racist.

This thread is bringing up the worst attempts at moral equivocation I've seen in a long time. "No, rounding up an entire group of people based on their ethnic background and not based on anything that they ever did as individuals, forcing them on to cattle cars without food or medicine for 2 weeks, and then depositing them in an unknown land far from their home isn't 'ethnic cleansing'" ... buddy that is a textbook case of ethnic cleansing.

......


This was not "ethnic cleansing" suggesting that it was, is insulting to actual victims of ethnic cleansing, it's the same logic someone might present to defend real ethnic cleansing, they did not single out any racial minority from the world and enslave and persecute them, they did not go into Moscow and arrest people of a certain race, or because of their skin color.You don't know what the words "Ethnic" or "Cleansing" mean, or what the two terms refer to when combined together. An ethnic group is NOT the same as a race but any traditionally bound cultural, national and linguistic grouping, as broadly defined.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ethnic


relating to a population subgroup (within a larger or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or cultural tradition:Thus to say that the Crimean Tatars were not selected by their ethnicity is obviously false from the fact that every single Crimean Tatar was assumed guilty and exiled.

oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cleanse?q=cleansing


make (something, especially the skin) thoroughly clean: this preparation will cleanse and tighten the skin (as adjective cleansing) a cleansing cream
rid of something unpleasant or defiling:http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ethnic%2Bcleansing?q=ethnic+cleansing




the mass expulsion or killing of members of one ethnic or religious group in an area by those of another.



Thus to say "The Tatars in Moscow were not enslaved" has nothing to do with the cleansing of the Crimea. Ethnic cleansing has to do with expelling an entire group from a particular area by whatever means, to cleanse the area and make it "clean" from whatever is "dirtying" it, in the case of the Soviet Government, the Tatars. Ethnic cleansing by definition targets both a particular group and area.



Also, Stalin did not round people up like the Jews in Germany, or even the Japanese in America. It's nowhere near the same thing. Tatars are not a race anyway, there were millions of Tatars in Russia, so why did only these 200,000 Crimean ones get singled out? At worst, Stalin was a "culturalist", not a racist. Race and Ethnicity are not the same thing, nor is Genocide the same as Ethnic Cleansing. They did round people up in the same way as both the Germans and Americans - they did not send them to death camps the way the Germans did, but they did send them to labor camps and denied them the right to move home, and the act of deportation itself left a stunningly high proportion of them dead before they even were able to arrive at their new "homes". That they were more specific in the area of choice had nothing to do with whether or not this was "ethnic cleansing". The Crimean Tatars were singled out ... wait for it ... because they were TATARS in CRIMEA, that is what makes this the ETHNIC CLEANSING of Crimea.

When Andrew Jackson rounded up all the Cherokee and forced them on the trail of tears, that was ethnic cleansing. It didn't matter that he targeted only a few tribes of Native Americans and not all tribes. It only matters that a particular group was isolated by the State and forced into exile.

[Omsk]

The Crimean Tatars were singled out ... wait for it ... because they were TATARS in CRIMEA, that is what makes this the ETHNIC CLEANSING of Crimea.



Fascist cleansing. And it was not only the Crimean Tatars, everyone in the region who was an ally of the Nazis met the same end, Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, etc etc.

[Prometeo liberado]

Seeing as how you were addressing me, I assumed you would be referencing my posts, I guess I was wrong. Perhaps I can ask my question again now:

How were 5 year olds and the elderly collaborating with the nazi's?

How was this anything but repercussions on entire populations, based on their ethnicity, due to the actions of a small percent of said population.

Remember the "Exhausting" part of my last post? Well here we go again, I answered this question already. You are either not reading and just reacting or have a limited memory, either way, go away.

[Comrade Hill]

Why do the Crimean Tatars still exist on a large scale if it was an ethnic cleansing? How would exterminating/punishing most of their population on individual terms NOT be ethnic cleansing? How is preventing this from happening ethnic cleansing? How does the transfer of a nationality equate to the destruction of a nationality?

Honestly comrades, these revisionists are a waste of time and breath, I suggest moving on from this and doing something more productive. These revleft kiddies are going to continue rambling on about the evil Stalinism, and then putting out reactionary sources as their backup, while ironically calling us chauvinists. The NKVD operations of the late 1930s have nothing to do with the deportation of the Crimean Tatars, ComradeOm and many others are trying to change the subject of the thread. Arguing with these people is a complete waste of time. Let the little revleft kiddies have their fun. Clearly, history is not the main focus of discussion here.

ComradeOm, my ignorance of reactionary sources is not the problem, the problem is you think knowing reactionary sources somehow makes you more intelligent. Your historical rubbish about how the Yezhovschina in the late 1930s was somehow a Stalinist plot shows that your research is extremely lacking and incomplete. RedTrackWorker, as a Trotskyist, you have no room to talk about what problems are "facing the left." I will not be responding to this thread anymore.

[Ismail]

For what it's worth, Molotov, who after 1957 was disgraced along with the rest of the "Anti-Party Group" for opposing Khrushchev, responded to the issue in 1970.

Felix Chuev, his interviewer of sorts for decades, asked him: "How do you explain the forced resettlement of entire ethnic groups during the war?"

Molotov replied, "Oh, so we have become wise after the event, have we? Now we know everything, anachronistically mix up events, squeeze time into a single point. Everything has its history. The fact is that during the war we received reports about mass treason. Battalions of Caucasians opposed us at the fronts and attacked us from the rear. It was a matter of life and death; there was no time to investigate the details. Of course innocents suffered. But I hold that given the circumstances, we acted correctly."
(Albert Resis (ed). Molotov Remembers: Inside Kremlin Politics. Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee, Inc. 1993. p. 195.)

[harte.beest]

What else would you call the forced relocation of entire ethnic groups from certain geographic areas? Say, for example, the removal of the Soviet Korean population from the Far East to Central Asia

And how is that unlike the internment of the Japanese in the US?

It's different because they weren't taking them from the whole country just from one individual area during a wartime. That is different from America because they went into small towns, and big cities all over their own country. If they had arrested all the Japanese living in Hawaii, and left all the other Japanese in mainland America alone, then it would be the same. What America did was far worse. And I'm sure plenty of old Japanese died during the internment, as well, from simple lack of medical care. There was no punishment for being a Tatar anywhere else in Russia. Honestly, this reminds me of an argument, I once had with a holocaust denier


Even within the NKVD the instructions to persecute specific ethnic groups was a novel development and it took time for the secret police to widen their net beyond the populations that they'd been repressing for a decade

Alright yes it did, but the fact that it wasn't created, or started as a racist movement, and that it was never officially racist, doesn't mean it was "secretly racist". As you said they didn't even record nationalities till 1938. A few members of the police in modern America, are in the KKK, and have a secret racist agenda, that doesn't mean the whole police force of the USA for decades has been racist



Thus to say "The Tatars in Moscow were not enslaved" has nothing to do with the cleansing of the Crimea. Ethnic cleansing has to do with expelling an entire group from a particular area by whatever means, to cleanse the area and make it "clean" from whatever is "dirtying" it, in the case of the Soviet Government, the Tatars. Ethnic cleansing by definition targets both a particular group and area.

Race and Ethnicity are not the same thing, nor is Genocide the same as Ethnic Cleansing. They did round people up in the same way as both the Germans and Americans - they did not send them to death camps the way the Germans did, but they did send them to labor camps and denied them the right to move home, and the act of deportation itself left a stunningly high proportion of them dead before they even were able to arrive at their new "homes". That they were more specific in the area of choice had nothing to do with whether or not this was "ethnic cleansing". The Crimean Tatars were singled out ... wait for it ... because they were TATARS in CRIMEA, that is what makes this the ETHNIC CLEANSING of Crimea.

Technically but so what? According to you then, every single war, that has ever been fought in the history of the world, is a form of "ethnic cleansing". So I guess I'm not mad at all then, since that's all you think "ethnic cleansing" means. I guess the "War on drugs" in America is ethnic cleansing, as well, then isn't it? Since it effect minorities more, right? Hell, technically, "ethnic cleansing" could mean giving all the people of one ethnicity, a really good bubble bath


When Andrew Jackson rounded up all the Cherokee and forced them on the trail of tears, that was ethnic cleansing. It didn't matter that he targeted only a few tribes of Native Americans and not all tribes. It only matters that a particular group was isolated by the State and forced into exile.

The word "ethnic cleansing" implies genocide, Trail of Tears, again, is not the same, they moved them out of "the country", they said this race "cannot live in our country" so if your neighbor was of native American descent, then they had to pack up and leave. They did not say all the native Americans in Rhode island have to leave, but the ones living in Virginia are just fine

If your neighbor in Moscow was Tatar, then they did not have to leave and go to Uzbekistan.

Stalin should've just murdered all these people, if I had choice between moving to Uzbekistan and death I'd consider being deported a huge favor. This is war were talking about, they should've just been a blip in history, "On March 1st 1944 the Island of Crimea was bombed, over 200,000 died." End of story

But give them all free houses, and then all of a sudden, you're accused of being a racist. :rolleyes:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Fascist cleansing. And it was not only the Crimean Tatars, everyone in the region who was an ally of the Nazis met the same end, Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, etc etc.

Yes and when the USA arrests all Arabs and Muslims it is just Terrorist cleansing.


Why do the Crimean Tatars still exist on a large scale if it was an ethnic cleansing? How would exterminating/punishing most of their population on individual terms NOT be ethnic cleansing? How is preventing this from happening ethnic cleansing? How does the transfer of a nationality equate to the destruction of a nationality?


This response is pathetic. There are still Armenians in Turkey, it does not in any way, shape or form, mean that there was not ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing is any kind of mass killing OR forced resettlement, and it does not need to refer to any attempt to wipe an ethnic group off of the earth. All it refers to is a desire to remove all people from a particular area by any means necessary. It can still be "ethnic cleansing" regardless of whether people escape, are overlooked, or migrate, or because there are other populations of the ethnic group.

Punishing people on individual terms is not ethnic cleansing because you are punishing people for their individual actions, not for being members of a group. This fact is blindingly obvious ...


Technically but so what? According to you then, every single war, that has ever been fought in the history of the world, is a form of "ethnic cleansing". So I guess I'm not mad at all then, since that's all you think "ethnic cleansing" means. I guess the "War on drugs" in America is ethnic cleansing, as well, then isn't it? Since it effect minorities more, right? Hell, technically, "ethnic cleansing" could mean giving all the people of one ethnicity, a really good bubble bath

Um, how the heck does that follow? Not all wars include the forced resettlement of particular ethnic groups, and any which do are wars which involve ethnic cleansing.


The word "ethnic cleansing" implies genocideNo, it doesn't.


Trail of Tears, again, is not the same, they moved them out of "the country", they said this race "cannot live in our country" so if your neighbor was of native American descent, then they had to pack up and leave. They did not say all the native Americans in Rhode island have to leave, but the ones living in Virginia are just fineAnd that is ethnic cleansing.


If your neighbor in Moscow was Tatar, then they did not have to leave and go to Uzbekistan.That is irrelevant.


Stalin should've just murdered all these people, if I had choice between moving to Uzbekistan and death I'd consider being deported a huge favor.Wow, the reasoning level here just keeps getting worse and worse. "Ethnic cleansing is OK because genocide is worse" ... yeah, I'll forcefully kick you out of your home, force you onto a cattle car where you can't eat for two weeks and might die due to bad conditions, then send you to a remote town, removed from much of one's friends and family, in a different climate for years without any recourse for returning home or demanding restitution ... but hey, it's better than being killed, so that makes it OK.

Ismail-the reality is that this was a policy of collective punishment at a time when the Nazis had clearly begun to lose the war, and that after the war there was no attempt to give restitution to the population or help them home. In fact the opposite happened. What was worse, the process of population relocation was particularly brutal, and the process left many innocents dead along the way. Molotov's argument in substance is no different from the argument used by the Americans who interned the Japanese, who had fears of a "fifth column" but lacked the "time" and "resources" to actually deal with the people as individuals.

Ultimately, there is no justification for what happened to many of the children, the elderly, and the loyal Red Army soldiers who were all from this ethnic group.

[ComradeOm]

The word "ethnic cleansing" implies genocide...No, that would be genocide. We're talking of ethnic cleansing: the forced removal of an ethnic group from a specific geographic area. It is very different from genocide, which is something that nobody in this thread has accused the Soviet state of

Really, I can only assume that you and Hill are being wilfully obtuse. Because the alternative is that you just don't understand what these terms mean. The Soviet state 'cleansed' particular regions, typically border ones, of specific ethnic groups. What part of this do you not understand?


If your neighbor in Moscow was Tatar, then they did not have to leave and go to Uzbekistan.No, because Moscow is not in the Crimea. This is not difficult...

But your Tartar neighbour In Moscow would face potential arrest by the police. The national operations (which are different from the specific mass deportations) saw Greeks, Bulgarians, etc, living throughout the USSR's cities subject to NKVD persecutions and repression

Edit:

The fact is that during the war we received reports about mass treason. Battalions of Caucasians opposed us at the fronts and attacked us from the rear. It was a matter of life and death; there was no time to investigate the detailsAnd when threatened the Soviet state reacted in the same fashion as it had in the 1930s: with blunt violence directed against an entire national minority. The circumstances do not excuse a resort to ethnic cleansing. Not from a socialist perspective

[Omsk]

Yes and when the USA arrests all Arabs and Muslims it is just Terrorist cleansing.


What poor logic. The USSR fought real Fascists, who attacked it and caused millions of deaths, the threath of Fascism was very real. And plus, the US is a bourgeois state.

[seventeethdecember2016]

I guess the Soviets were just supposed to forgive Fascists for their crimes against the Soviet state. Further, they should of all held hands and pronounced their mutual friendships. This is following the logic of some RevLeft members on this thread.

Although another question arises. Why would they be relocated to Central Asia, with other Tartar groups. I would guess since the relocation was necessary, they'd want the Crimean Tartars to feel comfortable in their new setting.

[A Marxist Historian]

Igor. This so called "racial profiling" allowed innocents to resettle in other areas, and many nationalities were satisfied with their conditions...



Ah yes, that's what Andrew Jackson said when he "resettled" the Iroquois. On the Iroquois "Trail of Tears" about half of them died. Wasn't quite that bad when the Chechens and the Tatars etc. were "resettled," but close.

The assertions that all, or even most, Chechens and Tatars and so forth collaborated with the Nazis are simply lies.

The highest percentage of actual Nazi collaboration was, firstly with the Baltic nationalities, and secondly with the Ukrainians. But, since these were white Europeans, Stalin had to carry out a much more "moderate" policy.

And besides, as Stalin allegedly told Khrushchev (according to Khrushchev at any rate) "not even I can kill sixty million Ukrainians."

-M.H.-

[RedTrackWorker]

Stalin should've just murdered all these people, if I had choice between moving to Uzbekistan and death I'd consider being deported a huge favor. This is war were talking about, they should've just been a blip in history, "On March 1st 1944 the Island of Crimea was bombed, over 200,000 died." End of story

If I wanted to read garbage like this, I'd visit fascist websites. But I don't want to read garbage like this. I'm fine debating with Marxists and even liberals and hell conservatives and neo-cons, but I don't see the need to debate with those who advocate stuff like "they should've just been a blip in history" and advocate murdering "all [those] people".

...and unless I missed it, none of the Stalinists on the thread have distanced themselves from this genocidal-logic?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What poor logic. The USSR fought real Fascists, who attacked it and caused millions of deaths, the threath of Fascism was very real. And plus, the US is a bourgeois state.

What, do you think al Qaeda aren't "real Terrorists"? There was a reason the CIA paid groups like them in the 80s ... they are very good at recruiting young naive people for the end purpose of killing other people. Everyone from the Russians to the Chinese to NATO to the Iranians recognize groups like al Qaeda as "real terrorists", I don't see how that is a claim in question.

The threat of fascism was real, the assertion that all Crimean Tatars were fascist however was totally baseless and it is so blatantly bigoted to try to defend that claim.


I guess the Soviets were just supposed to forgive Fascists for their crimes against the Soviet state. Further, they should of all held hands and pronounced their mutual friendships. This is following the logic of some RevLeft members on this thread.


And we return to this obviously bigoted assumption that all Crimean Tatars were fascists ...

[harte.beest]

Um, how the heck does that follow? Not all wars include the forced resettlement of particular ethnic groups, and any which do are wars which involve ethnic cleansing.

Wow, the reasoning level here just keeps getting worse and worse. "Ethnic cleansing is OK because genocide is worse" ... yeah, I'll forcefully kick you out of your home, force you onto a cattle car where you can't eat for two weeks and might die due to bad conditions, then send you to a remote town, removed from much of one's friends and family, in a different climate for years
Name one war, that ever happened, that does not fit your description of what ethnic cleansing means. Genocide is almost a synonym for ethnic cleansing. I was saying the "trail of tears" is ethnic cleansing while these deportations were not. Ethnic cleansing, is okay when the only other option is to kill them all, are saying Stalin had more then those two options? If so what are they?


No, that would be genocide. We're talking of ethnic cleansing: the forced removal of an ethnic group from a specific geographic area. It is very different from genocide, which is something that nobody in this thread has accused the Soviet state of

The majority of Tatars where Jew hating Muslims, they came from Turkey. They were Muslims sent to Uzbekistan, and guess what, they not only, look a like, pray alike, but they even speak the same language. So let's not have pity party as if these people were peace loving Tibetans, sent to live in a desert

again Uzbekistan is a beautiful place:
http://www.visit-uzbekistan.com/uzbekistan/images/cities/tas_skyscraper_view_sm.jpg


The definition of ethnic cleansing by the UN:

"the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

They did not, pick out one race in Crimea, and declare them a supreme race.


According to 2001 Ukrainian Census, the population of Crimea was 2,033,700.The ethnic makeup was comprised the following self-reported groups: Russians: 58.32%; Ukrainians: 24.32%; Crimean Tatars: 12.1%; Belarusians: 1.44%; Tatars: 0.54%; Armenians: 0.43%; and Jews: 0.22%.

Other minorities are Black Sea Germans, Romani people, Bulgarians, Poles, Azerbaijanis, Koreans, Greeks and Italians.


The did not single out the Tatars.


In 1944, 70,000 Greeks and 14,000 Bulgarians from the Crimea were deported to Central Asia and Siberia, along with 200,000 Crimean Tatars and other nationalities.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#Demographics

Oh yeah and WW2 was going on, I'm going to say this 9 more times because that alone should defeat this entire argument.

[ComradeOm]

The majority of Tatars where Jew hating Muslims, they came from Turkey. They were Muslims sent to Uzbekistan, and guess what, they not only, look a like, pray alike, but they even speak the same language. So let's not have pity party as if these people were peace loving Tibetans, sent to live in a desertWell it's a good thing that we've already established that you're not a racist :rolleyes:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Name one war, that ever happened, that does not fit your description of what ethnic cleansing means.

That's not an argument. Even if every war in history involved ethnic cleansing, that wouldn't make you correct. History is littered with small wars that didn't involve anything like ethnic cleansing, and that in of itself would not be a justification for any kind of policy ... rapes happened in many wars, that doesn't make sexual assault OK.


Genocide is almost a synonym for ethnic cleansing. You saying this is so does not make it so. I don't know any intellectually credible person who would make such a categorical claim.


I was saying the "trail of tears" is ethnic cleansing while these deportations were not.That doesn't even make sense, the parallels between the cases are so blindingly obvious.


Ethnic cleansing, is okay when the only other option is to kill them all, are saying Stalin had more then those two options? If so what are they?
"Ethnic cleansing is wrong except when it's not". There was not only one possible solution, this is weak rationalization



The majority of Tatars where Jew hating Muslims, they came from Turkey. They were Muslims sent to Uzbekistan, and guess what, they not only, look a like, pray alike, but they even speak the same language. So let's not have pity party as if these people were peace loving Tibetans, sent to live in a desert
"Jew hating Muslims" ... no, really, this argument isn't based on bigotry and ethnicity at all :rolleyes:



again Uzbekistan is a beautiful place:
http://www.visit-uzbekistan.com/uzbekistan/images/cities/tas_skyscraper_view_sm.jpg

What the heck is that supposed to prove? NYC has a good skyline, that doesn't mean that everywhere in the USA is wonderful. Nor does that have anything to do with the issue of autonomy about where to live.



The definition of ethnic cleansing by the UN:

"the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

They did not, pick out one race in Crimea, and declare them a supreme race.
Gah, again, ethnicity =/= race.



The did not single out the Tatars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#Demographics
What do the demographics in 2001 have to do with Soviet policy in 1944??? There are Jewish people in Germany, so I suppose that proved the Holocaust never happened! It's not like all the Crimean Tatars wouldn't want to return some day or anything ... the video I originally put up was about the long and arduous attempt by Crimean Tatars to return after the Soviets removed some of the barriers on movement. All Tatars were forcefully removed from the area, that was the whole point of the policy. That many later returned more speaks to the fact that those Tatars really did not like living in Uzbekistan and missed their place of birth.



Oh yeah and WW2 was going on, I'm going to say this 9 more times because that alone should defeat this entire argument.No, it doesn't, it has nothing to do with this. You repeating it over and over again won't make it more relevant either.

[Rocky Rococo]

I never would have become a leftist if I had believed it was an appropriately leftist thing to round up entire communities at gunpoint and herd them into boxcars for "relocation to the east". I always thought that was a right-wing sort of project. Perhaps I've been wrong all these years?

[Raúl Duke]

I find this thread seriously absurd and even deranged...

It seems some 'comrades' find it "oh so" imperative and paramount to clear the "good name" of Stalin and the USSR on nearly everything as if the whole socialist project depended on this. This whole thread has been a whole new low for the past-obsessed "Marxist-Leninists" plus an indication of how out of touch they are.

So far all I'm seeing here is good people (like Sinister Cultural Marxist) pointing out the ethnic discriminatory logic that some here are espousing/defending and then they flipping out with double speak and circular logic to explain how it isn't discriminatory because they (the ethnic group) were "all actual fascists." :rolleyes: Seriously? Are you people for real?

I would understand if you used a more "it was war, they were confused" route of argument (which one person somewhat raised by quoting Molotov) but to seriously be defending ethnic cleansing all because it was done by an allegedly "socialist" government is ridiculous.

[Omsk]

What, do you think al Qaeda aren't "real Terrorists"? There was a reason the CIA paid groups like them in the 80s ... they are very good at recruiting young naive people for the end purpose of killing other people. Everyone from the Russians to the Chinese to NATO to the Iranians recognize groups like al Qaeda as "real terrorists", I don't see how that is a claim in question.


The German Wehrmacht of the Third Reich is hardly comparable to a terrorist group.


The threat of fascism was real, the assertion that all Crimean Tatars were fascist however was totally baseless and it is so blatantly bigoted to try to defend that claim.


Of course not. They wanted their republic, and they wanted to use the Fascist invasion in an attempt to betray the people of the USSR and the Party, much like the Chechen collaborators, who also met a similar fate. You must understand that when these events took place it was not in your nice warm home in 2012, but in a war situation when decisions much 'harsher' than this one took place and when everything was at stake.

And plus, you clueless people, no insinuations were made that absolutely every-single-one of the Tatars were in fact collaborators, but a huge number of them were, and the mentioned event was the Soviet reaction to a nation-wide revolt against the proletarian state.

[Ismail]

Grover Furr in his book on Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" has a section on the subject of nationalities. The Vegan Marxist posted it in the M-L group in May 2011, so I'll repost it:

Here's another section of Grover Furr's latest great work, detailing extensively the level of dishonesty throughout Khrushchev's "secret speech":


Chapter 6.


Of Plots and Affairs


39. Deportations of nationalities

Khrushchev:

Comrades, let us reach for some other facts. The Soviet Union is justly considered as a model of a multinational state because we have in practice assured the equality and friendship of all nations which live in our great Fatherland.

All the more monstrous are the acts whose initiator was Stalin and which are rude violations of the basic Leninist principles of the nationality policy of the Soviet state. We refer to the mass deportations from their native places of whole nations, together with all Communists and Komsomols without any exception; this deportation action was not dictated by any military considerations. ...

Not only a Marxist-Leninist but also no man of common sense can grasp how it is possible to make whole nations responsible for inimical activity, including women, children, old people, Communists and Komsomols, to use mass repression against them, and to expose them to misery and suffering for the hostile acts of individual persons or groups of persons.Khrushchev is not "revealing" these deportations; they were well known at the time they happened. What was "new" was his three accusations against Stalin here: (1) the deportations were made "without any exception"; (2) the deportations were "not dictated by any military consideration;" (3) "whole nations" were punished "for the hostile acts of individual persons or groups of persons." These are the "revelations" we will deal with.

Khrushchev mentions Karachai, Kalmyks, Chechen-Ingush, Balkars. For some reason he does not mention Crimean Tatars or Volga Germans. The events leading up to these deportations, the deportations themselves, and the aftermath, are extremely well documented in Soviet archives. Though none of this archival information was published until after the end of the USSR, Khrushchev undoubtedly had access to it. He, or his aides, had to know that each of the criticisms Khrushchev made was false.

1. Examples of exceptions to the deportations are cited by Pykhalov, from Soviet documents published by N.F. Bugai, the main Russian expert on this question and an extremely anti-Stalin researcher.

2. The military necessity for the deportations was to secure the Red Army's rear. In each of the cases of the deported nationalities, very large parts of the population were either actively or passively aiding the Germans in rebelling against the Soviet government, and constituted a serious danger to Soviet forces. In addition, the Soviets could not be sure that the German armies would not push eastward again in 1944, as they had done in each of the three previous years.

According to Bugai and A.M. Gomov, who are hostile to Stalin and do not approve of the deportations at all,

...the Soviet government had by and large allocated its priorities correctly, basing those priorities on its right to maintain order behind the front lines, and in the North Caucasus in particular.128In the "Secret Speech" Khrushchev noted with an attempt at humor:

The Ukrainians avoided meeting this fate only because there were too many of them and there was no place to which to deport them. Otherwise, he would have deported them also. (Laughter and animation in the hall.)This was supposed to be a joke, since Khrushchev did not seriously claim Stalin had wanted to deport the Ukrainians. But perhaps Khrushchev mentioned the Ukrainians for a reason, because, as he knew, a tiny number of Ukrainians, most of whom had entered the Soviet Union along with the Nazis and who had abetted the Nazis' crimes, was in revolt, on the Nazis' side and against the Soviet Union. This caused huge problems in the rear of the Red Army as it advanced westward towards Poland and Germany in 1944-45.129 In the light of the massive nature of the anti-Soviet rebellions going on in Chechen-Ingushia and among the Crimean Tatars, the Soviets had every reason to fear that the same thing would have occurred there.

3. The question of whether whole nationalities should have been deported or not resolves down to two points. First, how massive were the rebellions among these ethnic groups? Were they so massive that they involved a majority of the population? We'll cite evidence below that, in the case of two of these nationalities that we pick for examples here, the rebellions were massive, involving much more than half the population.

Second, there is also the question of genocide. To split up a small national group that is tightly knit by a unique language, history, and culture, is in fact to destroy it.

In the case of the Chechen-Ingush and the Crimean Tatars, collaboration with the Nazis was massive, involving most of the population. To try to isolate and punish "only the guilty" would have been to split the nation up, and would likely have indeed destroyed the nationality. Instead, the national group was kept together, and their population grew.

I assume that my readers, like I myself, support punishing individuals for the crimes of individuals. However, the Nazi collaboration of these groups was so massive that to punish the individuals involved would have endangered the survival of these ethnic groups as groups. It would have meant depleting these groups of young men, through imprisonment and execution, leaving very few young men for the young women to marry.

Deportation kept these groups intact. The deportations themselves were almost completely free of casualties. This enabled the populations of these groups to increase in future years, right up to the present. So their cultures and languages, and in fact their existence as peoples, did in fact remain alive. Furthermore, they became so well established in the places of their deportation that many of them never returned to their aboriginal areas when they were permitted to do so.

Here is the conundrum: to punish only the individuals guilty of desertion or Nazi collaboration would have been consistent with Enlightenment views of individual, not collective, punishment -- views that I myself share. But it would also have led to a greater evil: the destruction of these ethnic groups as "peoples" - in short, in genocide!

Crimean Tatars

The Crimean Tatars were deported en masse. Many documents concerning their deportation have been published in Russia, from formerly classified Soviet archives. Naturally, they have been published by anti-communist researchers, whose commentaries are very tendentious. But the documents themselves are very interesting!

In 1939 there were 218,000 Crimean Tatars. That should mean about 22,000 men of military age - about 10% of the population. In 1941, according to contemporary Soviet figures, 20,000 Crimean Tatar soldiers deserted the Red Army; By 1944 20,000 Crimean Tatar soldiers had joined the Nazi forces and were fighting against the Red Army.

So the charge of massive collaboration sticks.130 The question is: What should the Soviets have done about this?

They could have done nothing - let them all go unpunished. Well, they weren't going to do that!

They could have shot the 20,000 deserters. Or, they could have imprisoned - deported - just them, the young men of military age. Either would have meant virtually the end of the Crimean Tatar nation, for there would have been no husbands for the next generation of young Tatar women.

Instead, the Soviet government decided to deport the whole nationality to Central Asia, which they did in 1944. They were given land, and some years of relief from all taxation. The Tatar nation remained intact, and had grown in size by the late 1950s.

The Chechens and Ingush

In 1943 there were about 450,000 Chechens and Ingush in the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (CHASSR). This should have meant about 40,000-50,000 men of age for military service. In 1942, at the height of the Nazis' military successes, 14576 men were called to military service, of whom 13560, or 93%, deserted and either hid or joined rebel or bandit groups in the mountains.

There was massive collaboration with German forces on the part of the Chechen and Ingush population. On February 23 2000 Radio Svoboda interviewed Chechen nationalists who boasted proudly of a pro-German anti-Soviet armed rebellion in February 1943, when the German penetration towards the Caucasus was at its greatest.

The problem with this account is that it lies by omission. The revolt in question took place, but it was under a Nazi flag, and with the goal of a Nazi alliance.

Casualties among the deportees during the deportation were low. - 0.25% of those deported, according to Bugai and Gomov.

NKVD records attest to 180 convoy trains carrying 493,269 Chechen and Ingush nationals and members of other nationalities seized at the same time. Fifty people were in the course of the operation, and 1,272 died on the journey. (p. 56)Since it happened in the winter, and during the fiercest war in European, perhaps world, history, that figure does not seem very high.

But that is not our concern here, which is simply to verify or disprove Khrushchev's accusations. Khrushchev claimed: (1) that the national groups were deported "without any exception;" (2) there was no military reason for the deportations; (3) that the collaboration and treason were the "acts of individual persons or groups of persons." All three of these assertions of Khrushchev's are false: (1) exceptions existed; (2) as did military reason; and (3) there was massive, not merely individual, betrayal. Khrushchev's assertions were not truthful. The question of exceptions is covered by the quotations in the Appendix.

Notes:

128. N.F. Bugai And A.M. Gonov. "The Forced Evacuation of the Chechens and the Ingush." Russian Studies in History. vol. 41, no. 2, Fall 2002, pp. 43-61, at p. 59.

129. Zhukov, IU. Stalin: Tainy Vlasti. Moscow: Vagrius, 2005, pp. 432-3.

130. Researcher J. Otto Pohl, an extremely anticommunist author, has argued from German sources that not all these men joined Nazi forces. See "The False Charges of Treason against the Crimean Tatars." (International Committee for Crimea, Washington, DC, 18 May 2010). But even if true this makes no difference. The Soviets could not have known this; desertion was still a serious offense; and most men would have joined anti-Soviet partisan or bandit groups.

(Furr, Grover. "Of Plots and Affairs." Khrushchev Lied. Kettering, Ohio: Erythrós and Media, 2011. 99-103. Print.)

[ComradeOm]

Casualties among the deportees during the deportation were low. - 0.25% of those deported, according to Bugai and GomovTypical Furr. He ignores the same historian (Bugai) when the latter produces documentation showing that the Chechen special settlements suffered mortality rates ranging from 15-23% in the three years immediately following their deportation

He also ignores the swath of information pertaining to the brutality of the deportation itself, data that seriously undermines Bugai's low figures. But one should not expect Furr to mention the NKVD directive to "liquidate" any deportee judged to be "‘untransportable" (netransportabel’nyi) or the NKVD report of 23 Feb 1944 in which the NKVD admitted to burning 700 Chechens to death in a locked church. Or indeed any other accounts that suggest that several thousand may have been murdered during the deportation process itself (Burds, The Soviet War against ‘Fifth Columnists’: The Case of Chechnya, 1942–4)

In both cases Furr is simply being his dishonest self, cherry-picking from sources in order to make his own apologist case and with scant to actual history

[seventeethdecember2016]

And we return to this obviously bigoted assumption that all Crimean Tatars were fascists ...
I'm sorry, did I say Crimean Tatars?

It should also be noted that the scope of Crimean collaboration with Nazi invaders was great enough that strict measures had to be taken. By golly innocent Crimean were taken, even Stalin acknowledged that, but the situation, at the time, was so dire that it was the only option.

Typical Furr. He ignores the same historian (Bugai) when the latter produces documentation showing that the Chechen special settlements suffered mortality rates ranging from 15-23% in the three years immediately following their deportation

He also ignores the swath of information pertaining to the brutality of the deportation itself, data that seriously undermines Bugai's low figures. But one should not expect Furr to mention the NKVD directive to "liquidate" any deportee judged to be "‘untransportable" (netransportabel’nyi) or the NKVD report of 23 Feb 1944 in which the NKVD admitted to burning 700 Chechens to death in a locked church. Or indeed any other accounts that suggest that several thousand may have been murdered during the deportation process itself (Burds, The Soviet War against ‘Fifth Columnists’: The Case of Chechnya, 1942–4)

In both cases Furr is simply being his dishonest self, cherry-picking from sources in order to make his own apologist case and with scant to actual history

I believe Furr was trying to answer this:
(1) that the national groups were deported "without any exception;" (2) there was no military reason for the deportations; (3) that the collaboration and treason were the "acts of individual persons or groups of persons."

If Furr added your assessments, whether authentic or not, they wouldn't make any strides in disproving Khrushchev, and, in fact, they would be a redundant to the topic entirely.
Remember, Furr's book is about Khrushchev's Secret Speech, not how life was for deportees on route to Central Asia.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The German Wehrmacht of the Third Reich is hardly comparable to a terrorist group.
.

Except these people weren't in the German Wehrmacht. People were deported who were in the Red Army and who were innocent civilians. That's the whole fucking point. It's not like little old Tatar, Kalmyk and Chechen ladies had Tiger tanks in their basement ready for when the Red Army wasn't looking.



Of course not. They wanted their republic, and they wanted to use the Fascist invasion in an attempt to betray the people of the USSR and the Party, much like the Chechen collaborators, who also met a similar fate.
"They" wanted "Their" republic ... this is obviously the basis of a racist and bigoted judgement towards an entire group.

The Soviet state betrayed the Crimean Tatars and Chechens by deporting all of them regardless of their actual guilt, and putting them through harsh circumstances where many died. The fact that some Crimean Tatars and Chechens sided with the Nazis in no way, shape or form justifies the actions towards the general group. It is a colossal betrayal of the people by the State to declare them all traitors, force them onto cattle cars and appropriate their homes. It is a far worse betrayal than anything that collaborators could have done to help the Nazis.

Even if a sizable portion of a group ends up joining the fascists, you don't punish the entire ethnic group, you do a material and historical analysis of why it happened and address those problems instead of just deporting a whole group of people. You address the needs and the problems of that people. That is socialism ... collective punishment on the other hand is not.


You must understand that when these events took place it was not in your nice warm home in 2012, but in a war situation when decisions much 'harsher' than this one took place and when everything was at stake.This is a dangerous line of argument. The stress of wartime is not a pretext to commit atrocities.



And plus, you clueless people, no insinuations were made that absolutely every-single-one of the Tatars were in fact collaborators,AND THAT IS WHAT MAKES THIS AN ACT OF REPREHENSIBLE COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT!


but a huge number of them were, and the mentioned event was the Soviet reaction to a nation-wide revolt against the proletarian state(1) That's not a pretext for ethnic cleansing

(2) What is a "nation-wide revolt" ... what are the characteristics of that? Obviously, Crimean Tatars fighting with Partisans and the Red Army were not in a "nation wide revolt", nor were the Tatar workers who continued to farm or work and produce goods for Soviet society. Nor were the Tatars who were too old or young to worry themselves with politics.


I'm sorry, did I say Crimean Tatars?


Isn't that sort of the implicit fact in responding to the topic of the Crimean Tatars?



It should also be noted that the scope of Crimean collaboration with Nazi invaders was great enough that strict measures had to be taken. By golly innocent Crimean were taken, even Stalin acknowledged that, but the situation, at the time, was so dire that it was the only option.
Racial and ethnic profiling is never the appropriate option.

[Ismail]

He ignores the same historian (Bugai) when the latter produces documentation showing that the Chechen special settlements suffered mortality rates ranging from 15-23% in the three years immediately following their deportation

He also ignores the swath of information pertaining to the brutality of the deportation itself, data that seriously undermines Bugai's low figures. But one should not expect Furr to mention the NKVD directive to "liquidate" any deportee judged to be "‘untransportable" (netransportabel’nyi) or the NKVD report of 23 Feb 1944 in which the NKVD admitted to burning 700 Chechens to death in a locked church. Or indeed any other accounts that suggest that several thousand may have been murdered during the deportation process itself (Burds, The Soviet War against ‘Fifth Columnists’: The Case of Chechnya, 1942–4)I emailed Furr and he replied with the following:

There was a serious Soviet famine in 1946-7. It had nothing to do with deportations. Evidently this guy is unaware of it

What "data" about "brutality" am I "ignoring"? Where is it published? If he knows of such "data", why does he fail to identify it? What, specifically, do Bugai & Gomov cite that I am supposedly "ignoring"?

I am unaware of any such NKVD "order". Please ask where I can consult it.

The "700 burned" story has been refuted as a forgery. Tell him to check on this himself. I have done so.

"Several thousand MAY have been murdered'? Meaning they also may NOT have been? I.e. this is a rumor? Historians do not accept rumor as evidence.

(Burds' work is a secondary source at best. What is Burds' evidence?)

[Omsk]

Except these people weren't in the German Wehrmacht. People were deported who were in the Red Army and who were innocent civilians. That's the whole fucking point. It's not like little old Tatar, Kalmyk and Chechen ladies had Tiger tanks in their basement ready for when the Red Army wasn't looking.


What poor demagogy. These people were in the Anti-Soviet armed force, and the Nazis even formed armed units out of those who decided that they want a pan-Islamist reactionary country and not the Peoples Soviet Union. The number of those who were against the Red Army was huge.



"They" wanted "Their" republic ... this is obviously the basis of a racist and bigoted judgement towards an entire group.

Gah, you shouldn't even try, - they wanted a reactionary state and they wanted Islamism, that was the moving force in the South, among the Chechen anti-socialist fighters, and there was huge nationalism in those groups, so there is nothing racist in my view. Of course, when i say "they" i mean those who fought for this 'republic' (Or kingdom) and the number of those who fought was great, plus, the number of those who wished an republic like that was probably even greater.


It is a far worse betrayal than anything that collaborators could have done to help the Nazis.

This is simply horrid oversimplification to the point where it is offensive. The collaborators wanted a Nazi victory, and a Nazi victory would have been a catastrophe beyond human imagination, nothing could be comparable to the horrors of a Nazi victory in the East.


Even if a sizable portion of a group ends up joining the fascists, you don't punish the entire ethnic group, you do a material and historical analysis of why it happened and address those problems instead of just deporting a whole group of people. You address the needs and the problems of that people. That is socialism ... collective punishment on the other hand is not.

And this is the middle of the greatest conflict in the history of mankind.


AND THAT IS WHAT MAKES THIS AN ACT OF REPREHENSIBLE COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT!


Most does not equal all, but it does mean a lot, and in this case, it was a true problem for the state.



(2) What is a "nation-wide revolt" ... what are the characteristics of that?

A huge number of people who went into open rebellion in an attempt to seize power and to try and create a nation state on the ashes of a defeated USSR, in hopes that the Wehrmacht could defeat the Red Army, in this southern national wide-revolt, thousands of people turned to the enemy of the proletarian state, and those who could not fight directly fought with other measures, some refused to give the Red Army troops food, some refused to assist them in their problems, some showed openly hostile behaviour and decided that they should try and 'wait it out' and see who would win instead of joining the Red Army .


Obviously, Crimean Tatars fighting with Partisans and the Red Army were not in a "nation wide revolt" There were a lot of defectors, and the number of those who remained loyal to the USSR was minimal.


nor were the Tatar workers who continued to farm or work and produce goods for Soviet society. Have you heard of strikes, sabotages, the formation of local anti-Soviet committees, i'm afraid you didn't.


Nor were the Tatars who were too old or young to worry themselves with politics.

Neither were they the concern.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What poor demagogy. These people were in the Anti-Soviet armed force, and the Nazis even formed armed units out of those who decided that they want a pan-Islamist reactionary country and not the Peoples Soviet Union. The number of those who were against the Red Army was huge.


You accuse me of poor demagogy and you are justifying racist collective punishment based on an orientalist and Islamophobic equation of the whole group with the deeds of a portion.



Gah, you shouldn't even try, - they wanted a reactionary state and they wanted Islamism, that was the moving force in the South, among the Chechen anti-socialist fighters, and there was huge nationalism in those groups, so there is nothing racist in my view. Of course, when i say "they" i mean those who fought for this 'republic' (Or kingdom) and the number of those who fought was great, plus, the number of those who wished an republic like that was probably even greater.
Anybody who actually fought for such a Republic could have been held responsible independently of everybody else in the whole ethnic group!



This is simply horrid oversimplification to the point where it is offensive. The collaborators wanted a Nazi victory, and a Nazi victory would have been a catastrophe beyond human imagination, nothing could be comparable to the horrors of a Nazi victory in the East.
This is very idealist ... socialist policy makers should not institute policies based on what a group "wants" but on what it is capable of and its particular material and historical conditions. Nothing that any group Crimean tatars could have done in 1944 would have led to a Nazi victory. What any collaborators would have "wanted" is meaningless. Also, like most people around the world at the time, the true nature of Nazi ambition was purposefully hidden. The Germans supported the Nazis in a wide margin, why should Berlin not have been depopulated and replaced by Russians? As for oversimplification ... you're the one who can't even answer in a reliable way what portion "collaborated", and how many of these "collaborators" were still siding with the Nazis by 1944 and how many had abandoned the Nazis. It should be remembered that many groups initially sided with the Nazis out of ignorance of their true intentions. Many ethnic groups had Nazi sympathizers, and some were loyal citizens of states which openly sided with the fascists like Romania. However, this didn't mean that de-Nazification for these people needed to consist of brutal deportation to a far-away desert.



And this is the middle of the greatest conflict in the history of mankind.
That does not matter. It being WWII did not justify Japanese and German internment.



Most does not equal all, but it does mean a lot, and in this case, it was a true problem for the state.
Not a problem which had to be dealt with by ethnic cleansing. Why weren't they allowed to return after the war? Why were their houses given to Russians and Ukrainians? Why were they taken all the way to Uzbekistan, or not punished for their individual choices instead of the choices of other people in their ethnic group?



There were a lot of defectors, and the number of those who remained loyal to the USSR was minimal.
"A lot" does not justify punishing the entire ethnic group.



Neither were they the concern.Yes and they lost their homes and were separated from family members anyways.

[Omsk]

You accuse me of poor demagogy and you are justifying racist collective punishment based on an orientalist and Islamophobic equation of the whole group with the deeds of a portion.


Oh now the Soviets were Islamophobic too? Oh come one, you said that just because i mentioned a portion of the reactionaries in the South were Islamists, i doubt you even heard about that problem before.. Why don't you get to the point, you can call the Soviets "Nazis" while your at it. It was not racist, because there was no policy the USSR followed in this case in which they persecuted or mass transported just the Tatars, their concern was the Fascists, and these Fascists were of various nationality.


Anybody who actually fought for such a Republic could have been held responsible independently of everybody else in the whole ethnic group!

Whole families were involved in such anti-Soviet activity, plus, let's take a rough look on the situation of the period - it was impossible for the Soviet authorities to actually persecute the Fascists and single them out, because it would affect the families of those who were on the side of the Nazis anyway. It was an extremely difficult situation.


This is very idealist ... socialist policy makers should not institute policies based on what a group "wants" but on what it is capable of and its particular material and historical conditions. Nothing that any group Crimean tatars could have done in 1944 would have led to a Nazi victory.

The Caucasus was an important strategic goal for the Hitlerite hordes, the oil fields of Baku and the link for the East, and the nationalities were not moved because of something they did in 1944, but for what they did before, when the Hitlerite flag was almost at the top of Stalingrad.


Also, like most people around the world at the time, the true nature of Nazi ambition was purposefully hidden.

Ah how little you know. Hitler made his plans open and known to all when the war started, and even before that, don't be so naive, everyone who supported the Nazis in that period deserves no attention, they knew what were the plans of the Hitlerite hordes and what were their intentions, it was not secret.


The Germans supported the Nazis in a wide margin, why should Berlin not have been depopulated and replaced by Russians?

What authority did the USSR have over East Germany,or war-time Germany? None. Your sentence and it's content is pure fantasy and a waste of time.


As for oversimplification ... you're the one who can't even answer in a reliable way what portion "collaborated", and how many of these "collaborators" were still siding with the Nazis by 1944 and how many had abandoned the Nazis.

This is about the role of the traitors and the full extent of the Anti-Peoples anti-Soviet war : ... A number of Caucasian and near-Caucasian people had shown themselves disloyal. The Chechens, Ingushes, the Balkarians, the people of Karachay, the Tatars of Crimea and the Kalmyks had indeed fought equally against the Nazis and the Soviet 'imperialisms'. The Karachay people had openly welcomed the Germans under General Kleist and the prime mover in this astonishing act had been none other than the Chairman of the Provincial Executive Committee of the Soviets of the Karachay Autonomous Province. The Crimean Tatars were still working together with the Germans exterminating all the Russians they could, especially the Party members. There was an anti-Soviet partisan war in progress.
Tokaev, Grigori. Comrade X. London: Harvill Press,1956, p. 245

This danger was revealed in all its amplitude in the Northern Caucasus. Despite the capture of Rostov on the Don, Mannstein, cut off from the bulk of the Wehrmacht, was still holding the Northern Caucasus. His army was revictualled by way of the Straits of Kertch; and he was able to form more and more numerous detachments of Cossacks from Terek and Kuban, of Tartars from the Crimea, of native Caucasians and of volunteers. When these troops withdrew they were followed by a great proportion of the population.
Delbars, Yves. The Real Stalin. London, Allen & Unwin, 1951, p. 332

The German Ost-battalions were entirely made up of these disloyal Soviet people.


It should be remembered that many groups initially sided with the Nazis out of ignorance of their true intentions.

Tell that to small children who believe such stories.


Many ethnic groups had Nazi sympathizers, and some were loyal citizens of states which openly sided with the fascists like Romania. However, this didn't mean that de-Nazification for these people needed to consist of brutal deportation to a far-away desert.

You do realize that the Soviet state could not just 'deport' people from other countries in the after war period, that would cause a boost for nationalism and hate toward the liberators. However, similar things happened in Yugoslavia, where the collaborationites also tried to escape the country, and were forced to flee by the partisans, yet no one mentions this as 'ethnic cleansing' of 'Serbs,Croats' etc etc - but an action against Fascist terrorists.



Not a problem which had to be dealt with by ethnic cleansing. Why weren't they allowed to return after the war? Why were their houses given to Russians and Ukrainians? Why were they taken all the way to Uzbekistan, or not punished for their individual choices instead of the choices of other people in their ethnic group?

This is the full Decree of the State Defense Committee:

During the Patriotic War many Crimean Tatars betrayed the Motherland, deserted Red Army units that defended the Crimea, and sided with the enemy, joining volunteer army units formed by the Germans to fight against the Red Army. As members of German punitive detachments during the occupation of the Crimea by German fascist troops, the Crimean Tatars particularly were noted for their savage reprisals against Soviet partisans, and also helped the German invaders to organize the violent roundup of Soviet citizens for German enslavement and the mass extermination of the Soviet people.

The Crimean Tatars actively collaborated with the German occupation authorities, participating in the so-called Tatar national committees, organized by the German intelligence organs, and were often used by the Germans to infiltrate the rear of the Red Army with spies and saboteurs. With the support of the Crimean Tatars, the "Tatar national committees," in which the leading role was played by White Guard-Tatar emigrants, directed their activity at the persecution and oppression of the non-Tatar population of the Crimea and were engaged in preparatory efforts to separate the Crimea from the Soviet Union by force, with the help of the German armed forces.

Taking into account the fact cited above, the State Defense Committee decrees that:

1. All Tatars are to be banished from the territory of the Crimea and re-settled permanently as special settlers in regions of the Uzbek SSR....

The following procedure and conditions of resettlement are to be established:

a) The special settlers will be allowed to take with them personal items, clothing, household objects, dishes and utensils, and up to 500 kilograms of food per family.

... Exchange receipts will be issued in every populated place and every farm for the receipt of livestock, grain, vegetables, and for other types of agricultural products.

By July 1 of this year, the NKVD, People's Commissariat of Agriculture, People's Commissariat of the Meat and Dairy Industries, People's Commissariat of State Farms, and People's Commissariat of Procurement are to submit to the USSR Council of People's Commissars a proposal on the procedure for repaying the special settlers, on the basis of exchange receipts, for livestock, poultry, and agricultural products received from them.

... d) To each convoy of special settlers, the People's Commissariat of Public Health is to assign, within a time frame to be coordinated with the NKVD, one physician and two nurses, as well as an appropriate supply of medicines, and to provide medical and first-aid care to special settlers in transit;

e) The People's Commissariat of Trade will provide all convoys caring special settlers with hot food and boiling water on a daily basis....

... e) To grant plots of farm land to the newly arrived settlers and to help them build homes by providing construction materials;...

... 4. Seven-year loans of up to 5000 rubles per family, for the construction and setting up of homes, are to be extended by the Agricultural Bank to special settlers sent to the Uzbek SSR, in their places of settlement.

5. Every month during the June-August 1944 period, equal quantities of flour, groats, and vegetables will be allocated by the USSR People's Commissariat of Procurement to the Uzbek SSR Council of People's Commissars for distribution to the special settlers.

Flour, groats, and vegetables are to be distributed free of charge to the special settlers during the June-August period, as re-payment for the agricultural products and livestock received from them in the areas from which they were evicted.

Koenker and Bachman, Eds. Revelations from the Russian Archives. Washington: Library of Congress, 1997, p. 205-207

You should read it, it reveals a lot about the very event itself. As for "why Uzbekistan?" - it was near enough and there were special plans for agricultural development.

[ComradeOm]

I emailed Furr and he replied with the following:No, I'm not going to argue with this idiot himself. He does my head in as it is when his garbage is regurgitated by fools on this site. The below is the best you get


There was a serious Soviet famine in 1946-7. It had nothing to do with deportations. Evidently this guy is unaware of itOr I could be someone who is aware that mortality rates in the NKVD administrated places of exile were significantly times higher than those in civilian areas. Seriously, where else in the USSR was there a mortality rate of 20% during these years? See both Wheatcroft (Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression...) and Ellman (The 1947 Soviet famine...) for some comments on the shocking notion that those reliant on the NKVD suffered disproportionally from famine


What "data" about "brutality" am I "ignoring"? Where is it published? If he knows of such "data", why does he fail to identify it? What, specifically, do Bugai & Gomov cite that I am supposedly "ignoring"?

I am unaware of any such NKVD "order". Please ask where I can consult it.

The "700 burned" story has been refuted as a forgery. Tell him to check on this himself. I have done soBurds. The 700 dead comes from multiple sources (see paper) and "[l]imited documentation from Soviet archives confirms that more than 700 Chechens were killed in Khaibakh, but the details of the massacre have not yet been released"


"Several thousand MAY have been murdered'? Meaning they also may NOT have been? I.e. this is a rumor? Historians do not accept rumor as evidence.Or, and this is shocking, there are multiple reports that have not been proven beyond doubt. Because the latter, as Furr would know if he was a professional historian, is rarely quite so accommodating. The idea that historians deal exclusively in fact is Rankean nonsense

[harte.beest]

Still a large minority of Ukrainians, as well as Jews and Poles, survived the Soviets did not declare anyone a supreme race

Census 1939 — 1,123,800 (49.6% Russians, 19.4% Crimean Tatars, 13.7% Ukrainians, 5.8% Jews, 4.5% Germans, 1.8% Greeks, 1.4% Bulgarians, 1.1% Armenians, 0.5% Poles)

Census 1959 — 1,201,500 (71.4% Russians, 22.3% Ukrainians, 2.2% Jews, 0.1% Poles)


The fastest train in WW2 was German, and traveled at 125 mph, Uzbekistan is is 1800 miles from Crimea. It did not take two weeks.
http://www.germansteam.co.uk/FastestLoco/fastestloco.html


From May to November (First 6 months) 10,105 Crimean Tatars died of starvation in Uzbekistan (7% of deported to Uzbek SSR)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BCrg%C3%BCn


Crimea is has one of the bloodiest histories in Eastern Europe, many Crimeans consider the Soviet's heroes:

During the Russian Civil War following the overthrow of the Russian Empire, Crimea changed hands a number of times and was a stronghold of the anti-Bolshevik White Army. It was in Crimea that the White Russians led by General Wrangel made their last stand against Nestor Makhno and the Red Army in 1920.

Approximately 50,000 White prisoners of war and civilians were summarily executed via shooting or hanging after the defeat of general Wrangel at the end of 1920.This is considered one of the largest massacres in the Civil War.

On 18 October 1921, the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was created as part of the Russian SFSR which, in turn, became part of the Soviet Union. Crimea experienced two severe famines in the 20th century, the Famine of 1921–1922 and the Holodomor of 1932–1933.

During World War II, Crimea was a scene of some of the bloodiest battles. The Germans suffered heavy casualties in the summer of 1941 as they tried to advance through the narrow Isthmus of Perekop linking Crimea to the Soviet mainland.

Once the German army broke through, they occupied most of Crimea, with the exception of the city of Sevastopol, which held out from October 1941 until 4 July 1942 when the Germans finally captured the city. From 1 September 1942, the peninsula was administered as the Generalbezirk Krim (general district of Crimea) und Teilbezirk (and sub-district) Taurien.

In spite of heavy-handed tactics by the Nazis and their allies, the Crimean mountains remained an unconquered stronghold of the native resistance until the day when the peninsula was freed from the occupying force in 1944.

On 18 May 1944, the entire population of the Crimean Tatars was forcibly deported in the "Sürgün" (Crimean Tatar for exile) to Central Asia by Joseph Stalin's Soviet government as a form of collective punishment on the grounds that they had collaborated with the Nazi occupation forces
Ukrainian government does not consider this a genocide despite numerous demands:
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1063760.html

The Nazis killed more people in their first invasion of the capitol city, then died during the soviet deportation.
The Germans claimed over 90,000 Red Army soldiers had been taken prisoner, and an even greater number killed.

Soviet accounts claim that there were very few Soviet troops who survived the German onslaught;

Von Manstein himself records that the Soviets preferred to blow themselves up along with the German soldiers closing in on their positions rather than surrender. Von Manstein ascribed this behavior to the ruthlessness of the "commissars" and to the basic "contempt for human life of this Asiatic power".

Although a success in the end, the operation had taken much longer than the Germans had imagined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sevastopol
(I guess it's just a blip in history)

.....WW2

[seventeethdecember2016]

Isn't that sort of the implicit fact in responding to the topic of the Crimean Tatars?
I was speaking more generally, but if your going to diminish my standing by making such assessment, I suppose it's acceptable.



Racial and ethnic profiling is never the appropriate option.
Ethnic profiling? We are talking about a large scale rebellion during a setting where Soviet citizens were dying in the millions. The fact that you expect some kind of sympathy is laughable. There is absolutely no logic in your position.
Forgive the Soviets for being Pragmatic.

As Ismail illustrated in his quote, deportation was actually the most generous of the punishments that could have been employed, as other options would have likely ended those ethnic groups.

[Ismail]

No, I'm not going to argue with this idiot himself.He seems to concur in regards to you. He replied as follows:

In his reply he admits he has no evidence and has not bothered to locate any.

All he does is cite secondary sources and imply that they are "right" -- I guess -- and so I am "wrong".

But citing secondary sources is not evidence.

If what I write, and what Wheatcroft/Ellman/Burds (or anyone else) writes disagree, the only way to resolve this is to study the primary source evidence.

And that is what he has not done, nor even claims to have done.

Wheatcroft (usually), Ellman (sometimes) cite evidence. Research is checking the evidence.

It seems that Burds admits he has no evidence for the alleged massacre.

Rumors are not evidence. Nor can rumors "corroborate" each other.

He is dishonest. He has NO evidence to support his claims that I am wrong. Much less that I "typically" shade the truth.

There's no point discussing with dishonest ideologues. And there are a great many such abusive, dishonest, and ignorant people like him.

[PhoenixAsh]

Stalin should've just murdered all these people, if I had choice between moving to Uzbekistan and death I'd consider being deported a huge favor. This is war were talking about, they should've just been a blip in history, "On March 1st 1944 the Island of Crimea was bombed, over 200,000 died." End of story



infraction for advocating genocide




"The majority of Tatars where Jew hating Muslims, they came from Turkey. They were Muslims sent to Uzbekistan, and guess what, they not only, look a like, pray alike, but they even speak the same language. So let's not have pity party as if these people were peace loving Tibetans, sent to live in a desert"


And another one for predjudiced language.

[Art Vandelay]

infraction for advocating genocide

Revleft only gives out infractions for advocating genocide?

[Igor]

A bad rape joke? Banned. Open advocation of genocide? Well yeah ok fella just don't do that again.

great policy guys

[Omsk]

This thread is for discussion related to the large-scale population transfer of the post-WWII period, not for chatter about board policy.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It really is quite disturbing, the thought of some of you people actually being in any sort of position of power, ever. :rolleyes:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

hs20/20-harte beest is not the only one who has used racially loaded or ethnically prejudiced language to describe this situation. I find it disturbing how Stalinists are allowed to be blatantly racist on this forum and anybody who calls them on it is accused of baiting tendencies, etc.


Oh now the Soviets were Islamophobic too? Oh come one, you said that just because i mentioned a portion of the reactionaries in the South were Islamists, i doubt you even heard about that problem before.. Why don't you get to the point, you can call the Soviets "Nazis" while your at it. It was not racist, because there was no policy the USSR followed in this case in which they persecuted or mass transported just the Tatars, their concern was the Fascists, and these Fascists were of various nationality.


I was accusing you of orientalism and islamophobia, not the "Soviets". Although the Soviets were being racist by seeing the entire Crimean Tatar ethnic group as a threat instead of just a minority of collaborators. It was CLEARLY racist since only PARTICULAR groups were expunged from the Crimea, not the whole population.



The Caucasus was an important strategic goal for the Hitlerite hordes, the oil fields of Baku and the link for the East, and the nationalities were not moved because of something they did in 1944, but for what they did before, when the Hitlerite flag was almost at the top of Stalingrad.
So it was an act of retributive justice, except not against the people who actually did the deeds but the whole population. In 1944, there was no real risk of "Hitlerite hoardes" taking over Azerbaijan, so there was no real risk in not exiling these groups.



Ah how little you know. Hitler made his plans open and known to all when the war started, and even before that, don't be so naive, everyone who supported the Nazis in that period deserves no attention, they knew what were the plans of the Hitlerite hordes and what were their intentions, it was not secret.
This is just silly ... it is easy for someone in 2012 to say that "Hitler made his plans open" but he never did. The holocaust, the invasion of Russia, and the genocidal policies towards people in Eastern Europe all came as a surprise to everybody involved.

Also drop all of this "Great Man" theory of history nonsense ... Hitler was not the same Nazi Regime.



What authority did the USSR have over East Germany,or war-time Germany? None. Your sentence and it's content is pure fantasy and a waste of time.
Umm, this statement makes no sense. The Red Army occupied Germany. They could have deported whoever the hell they wanted to.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5np0zWVi4NI/TakOaCQfTdI/AAAAAAAABRY/z26Br5n2kGE/s1600/Soviet+flag+Reichstag.jpg



This is about the role of the traitors and the full extent of the Anti-Peoples anti-Soviet war : ... A number of Caucasian and near-Caucasian people had shown themselves disloyal. The Chechens, Ingushes, the Balkarians, the people of Karachay, the Tatars of Crimea and the Kalmyks had indeed fought equally against the Nazis and the Soviet 'imperialisms'. The Karachay people had openly welcomed the Germans under General Kleist and the prime mover in this astonishing act had been none other than the Chairman of the Provincial Executive Committee of the Soviets of the Karachay Autonomous Province. The Crimean Tatars were still working together with the Germans exterminating all the Russians they could, especially the Party members. There was an anti-Soviet partisan war in progress.
Tokaev, Grigori. Comrade X. London: Harvill Press,1956, p. 245

This danger was revealed in all its amplitude in the Northern Caucasus. Despite the capture of Rostov on the Don, Mannstein, cut off from the bulk of the Wehrmacht, was still holding the Northern Caucasus. His army was revictualled by way of the Straits of Kertch; and he was able to form more and more numerous detachments of Cossacks from Terek and Kuban, of Tartars from the Crimea, of native Caucasians and of volunteers. When these troops withdrew they were followed by a great proportion of the population.
Delbars, Yves. The Real Stalin. London, Allen & Unwin, 1951, p. 332

The German Ost-battalions were entirely made up of these disloyal Soviet people.
That neither answers what portion collaborated, whether the people who were rounded up and deported were the actual collaborators, or whether the collaborators were still a threat in 1944. Nor does it establish the need to exile these people. Nobody has once given a possible negative consequence of leaving the population there, aside from the vague assumption that people need to go punished.



Tell that to small children who believe such stories.
That's not even an argument.



You do realize that the Soviet state could not just 'deport' people from other countries in the after war period, that would cause a boost for nationalism and hate toward the liberators.
Why on earth could they not deport people from other countries? A sizable portion of Germany was given to Poland, and the Germans there were deported. Many Germans were deported from parts of Eastern Europe.

Deporting the Crimean Tatars caused long-term resentment by that nationality and dislike towards the Soviet government ... usually that happens when you force people from their home at gunpoint, no matter whether your government is "Foreign" or otherwise.


However, similar things happened in Yugoslavia, where the collaborationites also tried to escape the country, and were forced to flee by the partisans, yet no one mentions this as 'ethnic cleansing' of 'Serbs,Croats' etc etc - but an action against Fascist terrorists.If fascists were arrested, that is one thing. If whole families were driven from their homes based on ethnic reasons, then that was ethnic cleansing.



You should read it, it reveals a lot about the very event itself. As for "why Uzbekistan?" - it was near enough and there were special plans for agricultural developmentAll it reveals is the language the USSR used to describe the event. It does not have anything to do with the events on the ground.


Still a large minority of Ukrainians, as well as Jews and Poles, survived the Soviets did not declare anyone a supreme race


Ukrainians, Russians and Poles are all Slavs fyi, but that is completely irrelevant ... the issue is that the Russians expelled all people from a couple of particular groups and not others.



The fastest train in WW2 was German, and traveled at 125 mph, Uzbekistan is is 1800 miles from Crimea. It did not take two weeks.
Um, what???



From May to November (First 6 months) 10,105 Crimean Tatars died of starvation in Uzbekistan (7% of deported to Uzbek SSR)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BCrg%C3%BCn
Oh, so you admit 10,000 people died of starvation, regardless of whether or not they were guilty of anything.



Crimea is has one of the bloodiest histories in Eastern Europe, many Crimeans consider the Soviet's heroes:

During the Russian Civil War following the overthrow of the Russian Empire, Crimea changed hands a number of times and was a stronghold of the anti-Bolshevik White Army. It was in Crimea that the White Russians led by General Wrangel made their last stand against Nestor Makhno and the Red Army in 1920.

Approximately 50,000 White prisoners of war and civilians were summarily executed via shooting or hanging after the defeat of general Wrangel at the end of 1920.This is considered one of the largest massacres in the Civil War.

On 18 October 1921, the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was created as part of the Russian SFSR which, in turn, became part of the Soviet Union. Crimea experienced two severe famines in the 20th century, the Famine of 1921–1922 and the Holodomor of 1932–1933.

During World War II, Crimea was a scene of some of the bloodiest battles. The Germans suffered heavy casualties in the summer of 1941 as they tried to advance through the narrow Isthmus of Perekop linking Crimea to the Soviet mainland.

Once the German army broke through, they occupied most of Crimea, with the exception of the city of Sevastopol, which held out from October 1941 until 4 July 1942 when the Germans finally captured the city. From 1 September 1942, the peninsula was administered as the Generalbezirk Krim (general district of Crimea) und Teilbezirk (and sub-district) Taurien.

In spite of heavy-handed tactics by the Nazis and their allies, the Crimean mountains remained an unconquered stronghold of the native resistance until the day when the peninsula was freed from the occupying force in 1944.

On 18 May 1944, the entire population of the Crimean Tatars was forcibly deported in the "Sürgün" (Crimean Tatar for exile) to Central Asia by Joseph Stalin's Soviet government as a form of collective punishment on the grounds that they had collaborated with the Nazi occupation forces
Uh, what on earth is all that supposed to prove?


Ukrainian government does not consider this a genocide despite numerous demands:
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1063760.html
So?



The Nazis killed more people in their first invasion of the capitol city, then died during the soviet deportation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sevastopol
(I guess it's just a blip in history)

.....WW2So it is fine to commit an act of ethnic cleansing as long as you kill fewer people than the other person? What kind of absurd argument is that?



Ethnic profiling? We are talking about a large scale rebellion during a setting where Soviet citizens were dying in the millions. The fact that you expect some kind of sympathy is laughable. There is absolutely no logic in your position.


Yes, it is "Ethnic profiling". By definition it was ... the Soviets determined a person's guilt as a "rebel" or "collaborator" based on their ethnic background. This is a completely logical position, you are the one being illogical as you are not even applying terms in accordance with their actual definitions.



Forgive the Soviets for being Pragmatic."Pragmatism" would have been arresting people who could have actually been proven to be collaborators and leaving everyone else alone.



As Ismail illustrated in his quote, deportation was actually the most generous of the punishments that could have been employed, as other options would have likely ended those ethnic groups.All Ismail's quote showed which was new was that the Soviets simply assumed all men who deserted the Red Army was "collaborators" and that is how they determined the number of collaborators. It was not the "most generous punishment" that could have been employed by any standard. Ismail's quote certainly did not prove the necessity of punishing them, let alone show it is the most "generous" one.

[doesn't even make sense]

All Ismail's quote showed which was new was that the Soviets simply assumed all men who deserted the Red Army was "collaborators" and that is how they determined the number of collaborators. It was not the "most generous punishment" that could have been employed by any standard. Ismail's quote certainly did not prove the necessity of punishing them, let alone show it is the most "generous" one.

Is it that weird for a country engaged in total war to frown upon desertion? It's not such a stretch to equate desertion to collaboration if you're fighting say, I don't know, Nazis or something like that. If we're talking desertion and collaboration internal exile doesn't strike as all that draconian in historical terms.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Put simply, deportation of ethnic groups, due to their ethnicity, is not something that I will ever support. And I don't think any genuine Socialist would, either. And I don't think that sort of shit should be tolerated anywhere, on any message board, in any left grouping IRL, in any propaganda piece, anywhere. It's horrendous.

But then again, this is what happen when Capitalists, under the guise of 'fermenting communism', take state power.

[Omsk]

hs20/20-harte beest is not the only one who has used racially loaded or ethnically prejudiced language to describe this situation. I find it disturbing how Stalinists are allowed to be blatantly racist on this forum and anybody who calls them on it is accused of baiting tendencies, etc.


All right stop trying to get people banned. There was no "racism" in my posts anywhere, so stop trying to slander people. Unless, you can find me the exact post where a member posted racist content (Be precise.)


I was accusing you of orientalism and islamophobia, not the "Soviets". Although the Soviets were being racist by seeing the entire Crimean Tatar ethnic group as a threat instead of just a minority of collaborators. It was CLEARLY racist since only PARTICULAR groups were expunged from the Crimea, not the whole population.

It's really laughable, im not an 'Islamophobe" (Btw, this is a nice way of "winning" discussions - by trying to get the other debater banned because you constantly hit your head in the wall.)

And the other part of your post is even better, you really made my morning, if they deported the entire population of Crimea, it would have been any better, because it wouldn't be racist? How interesting. And another note - the Tatars were not the only ones who were moved from certain parts of Crimea, many other nationalities were also moved to other parts of the USSR, so the allegation of racism simply don't hold.


In 1944, there was no real risk of "Hitlerite hoardes" taking over Azerbaijan, so there was no real risk in not exiling these groups.

They were not moved because there was a huge threat to Baku or some other strategic goal in 1944, but because of what they did before, during the German occupation and because the Nazis left a strong Fifth-Column behind them, which they themselves boasted about, and a strong threat of Islamists,anti-communists, and secessionists remained there.



This is just silly ... it is easy for someone in 2012 to say that "Hitler made his plans open" but he never did. The holocaust, the invasion of Russia, and the genocidal policies towards people in Eastern Europe all came as a surprise to everybody involved.

Stop your pathetic Nazi collaborator apologism and read this:

At his first meeting with all of the leading generals and admirals of the Reich on February 3, 1933, Hitler spoke of "conquest of Lebensraum in the East and its ruthless Germanization" as his ultimate foreign policy objectives


It was a well known plan, and it was known to everyone, because he wrote about it in "Mein Kampf" . ( Even if we follow your idiotic logic and say that it was a complete mystery and that the real intentions of Nazis were not 'known' - it would still be absurd, because of the Einsatzgruppen which were common from the start of the war in the East, and it would have been more than obvious after Babi Yar and Rumbula.


Also drop all of this "Great Man" theory of history nonsense ... Hitler was not the same Nazi Regime.

They were all Nazis and they all had the same plans, which they adopted from Hitler. End of story.


Umm, this statement makes no sense. The Red Army occupied Germany. They could have deported whoever the hell they wanted to.

..

Do you know that they wanted to create a socialist part of Germany, also known as, "East Germany" by any chance? Or did you missed that while you were searching for your border-line excusatory arguments for the Nazi collaborators.

Quote:
This is about the role of the traitors and the full extent of the Anti-Peoples anti-Soviet war : ... A number of Caucasian and near-Caucasian people had shown themselves disloyal. The Chechens, Ingushes, the Balkarians, the people of Karachay, the Tatars of Crimea and the Kalmyks had indeed fought equally against the Nazis and the Soviet 'imperialisms'. The Karachay people had openly welcomed the Germans under General Kleist and the prime mover in this astonishing act had been none other than the Chairman of the Provincial Executive Committee of the Soviets of the Karachay Autonomous Province. The Crimean Tatars were still working together with the Germans exterminating all the Russians they could, especially the Party members. There was an anti-Soviet partisan war in progress.
Tokaev, Grigori. Comrade X. London: Harvill Press,1956, p. 245

This danger was revealed in all its amplitude in the Northern Caucasus. Despite the capture of Rostov on the Don, Mannstein, cut off from the bulk of the Wehrmacht, was still holding the Northern Caucasus. His army was revictualled by way of the Straits of Kertch; and he was able to form more and more numerous detachments of Cossacks from Terek and Kuban, of Tartars from the Crimea, of native Caucasians and of volunteers. When these troops withdrew they were followed by a great proportion of the population.
Delbars, Yves. The Real Stalin. London, Allen & Unwin, 1951, p. 332

The German Ost-battalions were entirely made up of these disloyal Soviet people.

That neither answers what portion collaborated A large portion of trained soldiers, almost all of those of Tatar background and who know how many civilians.


whether the people who were rounded up and deported were the actual collaborators

If they were all moved than i guess that those who were collaborators were also moved.


or whether the collaborators were still a threat in 1944

A strong Fifth-Column existed, but one of the main reasons was the past collaboration during the 1941-2 events and later.


Nobody has once given a possible negative consequence of leaving the population there

All right i will - ethnic violence and a strong fifth column which would have acted on the behalf of the new anti-Soviet power and which would eventually act against the Soviet proletarian dictatorship.



That's not even an argument.

Read what i wrote a couple of lines above, you can even learn something too.



Why on earth could they not deport people from other countries? A sizable portion of Germany was given to Poland, and the Germans there were deported. Many Germans were deported from parts of Eastern Europe.

What does this even mean, you are support of the Soviet moving the German population? Look - the Soviets took a neutral stance in the first post-war years, they helped the communist parties gain power and popularity over the bourgeois parties, (Because only Albania and Yugoslavia had proper real size and influential communist parties.) and they sent material aid to various republics, and they ultimately wanted peace - and prosperity for their new allies, so they couldn't have just came in with force and decided to deport large portions of the populations, that was left for the new leaderships of each country to decide, and some did deport Germans, like Yugoslavia.


Deporting the Crimean Tatars caused long-term resentment by that nationality and dislike towards the Soviet government ... usually that happens when you force people from their home at gunpoint, no matter whether your government is "Foreign" or otherwise.


What gunpoint? This was not some train-hoarding with civilians.



If fascists were arrested, that is one thing. If whole families were driven from their homes based on ethnic reasons, then that was ethnic cleansing.

Fascism was also the main problem in the post-WWII SU, and various groups which were Fascist collaborators were persecuted,regardless of the nationality of the groups. (The Russian collaborators were all executed.)


All it reveals is the language the USSR used to describe the event. It does not have anything to do with the events on the ground.

And you know about "the events on the ground" Don't make me laugh.I read reports of several Soviet officials and documents of the NKVD which suggest that there were few or no incidents during the transfer.


the Soviets determined a person's guilt as a "rebel" or "collaborator" based on their ethnic background.

Of course not, but by archives and documentation, and this claim is completely false, because the Tatars were not the only Soviet nationality which was persecuted for Fascists collaboration, there were countless others, which collaborated with the invader and which were consequentially persecuted. Russians, Volga Germans, Ukrainians, Poles, Tatars, Chechens, etc etc.


is not something that I will ever support

Nobody cares about you. And the rest of your post is also very un-Marxist if i might add.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Is it that weird for a country engaged in total war to frown upon desertion? It's not such a stretch to equate desertion to collaboration if you're fighting say, I don't know, Nazis or something like that. If we're talking desertion and collaboration internal exile doesn't strike as all that draconian in historical terms.

Frowning upon desertion is one thing, ethnic cleansing is something else


All right stop trying to get people banned. There was no "racism" in my posts anywhere, so stop trying to slander people. Unless, you can find me the exact post where a member posted racist content (Be precise.)


You said Crimean Tatars were collaborators in your very first response, despite the fact that many Crimean Tatars did not collaborate. You made a categorical statement about a group of people. Categorical statements about ethnic groups are ... well ... racist. So is supporting the punishment of the entire group from the act of a few.



It's really laughable, im not an 'Islamophobe" (Btw, this is a nice way of "winning" discussions - by trying to get the other debater banned because you constantly hit your head in the wall.)

...

Stop your pathetic Nazi collaborator apologism and read this:
.This is obvious hypocrisy ... if you're not Islamophobic, I'm definitely not an "apologist" for collaborators.

I'm not trying to get you banned, but it is playing on Islamophobia to stress the "Islamic" nature of the Tatars and rebels, even if that motivated some of them. The Ustase were Catholic fanatics, but I never see that component of their ideology stressed in the same way.



And the other part of your post is even better, you really made my morning, if they deported the entire population of Crimea, it would have been any better, because it wouldn't be racist? How interesting. And another note - the Tatars were not the only ones who were moved from certain parts of Crimea, many other nationalities were also moved to other parts of the USSR, so the allegation of racism simply don't hold.
Um what? Where on earth did I say they should have deported the whole population!?!?! I am saying that they should have deported NOBODY and that only those with proven Nazi links should have faced any issues.

Crimean Tatars were not the only nationality victimized by this racially prejudiced ethnic cleansing, but that does not make what happened to them acceptable.



They were not moved because there was a huge threat to Baku or some other strategic goal in 1944, but because of what they did before, during the German occupation Then there was no materially immediate need to move the Tatars!


and because the Nazis left a strong Fifth-Column behind them, which they themselves boasted about, and a strong threat of Islamists,anti-communists, and secessionists remained there.Ah, the 5th column, always a convenient excuse to impose a punishment to a collective group of people. Any actual traitors could have been dealt with independently of victimizing the entire ethnic group, and it presupposes that the several years of Nazi brutality had no impact whatsoever on their level of support among these supposedly sympathetic de,ographics.



At his first meeting with all of the leading generals and admirals of the Reich on February 3, 1933, Hitler spoke of "conquest of Lebensraum in the East and its ruthless Germanization" as his ultimate foreign policy objectives


It was a well known plan, and it was known to everyone, because he wrote about it in "Mein Kampf" . ( Even if we follow your idiotic logic and say that it was a complete mystery and that the real intentions of Nazis were not 'known' - it would still be absurd, because of the Einsatzgruppen which were common from the start of the war in the East, and it would have been more than obvious after Babi Yar and Rumbula.



They were all Nazis and they all had the same plans, which they adopted from Hitler. End of story.
Of course everybody in the world had read about that meeting of German generals, as well as Mein Kampf!!! Especially Tatar farmers in Crimea, who often had spotty levels of literacy and education, long hours of difficult agricultural labor and a limited access to good media. Mein Kapmpf after all was in print and distributed all over the Soviet Union ... well, aside from my heavy sarcasm, I'd like to point out that no political leaders in history actually followed through on their entire political manifesto or the statements made in military meetings. It seems very simplistic to say "well, the politician said it in the past, so everyone should have realized they would do it".

It was actually acts like that of the Einstatzgruppen which over time did prove the nature of the Nazis to many of those who had sided with the fascists, but until their real nature was revealed many in Eastern Europe were naive about the real intentions and goals of the Nazis, especially because the 30s had been a particularly difficult decade in that part of the world.

The reality is that you are adopting a vague and moralistic form of idealism which seems to pretend perfect knowledge on the part of the Tatar people, as well as a complete lack of any material conditions which might have caused a group of them to side with the fascists.



Do you know that they wanted to create a socialist part of Germany, also known as, "East Germany" by any chance? Or did you missed that while you were searching for your border-line excusatory arguments for the Nazi collaborators.
So it is OK to be a German who worked in Nazi arms factories, fought in the Nazi army, and may have even voted for Hitler, but if you are a Crimean Tatar who deserted the Red Army, it is time to go to Uzbekistan! Note, I'm not actually saying the Germans should have been deported, but that the reasons that the Germans were not deported were the same reasons why the Tatars should not have been deported. The point is that socialism is something which the Tatars, Germans and Russians all deserved equally, and forced deportation works to alienate those people from Socialism and Leftwing struggle. Instead, it becomes a reactionary imposition against them.


A large portion of trained soldiers, almost all of those of Tatar background and who know how many civilians.
That is not a portion but a vague generalization.


If they were all moved than i guess that those who were collaborators were also moved.In addition to INNOCENT PEOPLE


A strong Fifth-Column existed, but one of the main reasons was the past collaboration during the 1941-2 events and later.
So then this was an act of punishment, yet was done collectively to people based on their ethnic background and not their individual deeds. More importantly, there was no material necessity in moving them.


All right i will - ethnic violence and a strong fifth column which would have acted on the behalf of the new anti-Soviet power and which would eventually act against the Soviet proletarian dictatorship.That is a big assumption. In particular, it is a presupposition that the groups with supposedly "disloyal" tendencies could not have been fixed with a less labor intensive and more humanitarian process of education and politicization.


What does this even mean, you are support of the Soviet moving the German population? Look - the Soviets took a neutral stance in the first post-war years, they helped the communist parties gain power and popularity over the bourgeois parties, (Because only Albania and Yugoslavia had proper real size and influential communist parties.) and they sent material aid to various republics, and they ultimately wanted peace - and prosperity for their new allies, so they couldn't have just came in with force and decided to deport large portions of the populations, that was left for the new leaderships of each country to decide, and some did deport Germans, like Yugoslavia.Why not take a similar approach to the Tatars and other groups which allegedly had all of these collaborators come from their ranks? The decision to go soft on nationalities which actually had *states* which supported Nazis, like Hungarians, Germans and Romanians was an approach which actually helped both sides more than deportation. Deporting the Tatars however only further alienated them from the Soviet government.


What gunpoint? This was not some train-hoarding with civilians.You think the Crimean Tatars had an option to say "no, I don't feel like moving"?


Fascism was also the main problem in the post-WWII SU, and various groups which were Fascist collaborators were persecuted,regardless of the nationality of the groups. (The Russian collaborators were all executed.)The towns where Russian collaborators were from were not shipped to Uzbekistan.


And you know about "the events on the ground" Don't make me laugh.I read reports of several Soviet officials and documents of the NKVD which suggest that there were few or no incidents during the transfer.Did you ever get the Crimean Tatar POV???


Of course not, but by archives and documentation, and this claim is completely false, because the Tatars were not the only Soviet nationality which was persecuted for Fascists collaboration, there were countless others, which collaborated with the invader and which were consequentially persecuted. Russians, Volga Germans, Ukrainians, Poles, Tatars, Chechens, etc etc.How is that relevant? The point is that there were different levels of "proof" needed to be worthy of punishment for different groups. Crimean Tatars, Chechens and Kalmyks merely had to be from than ethnic group who lived in the wrong place to be deemed "guilty". The fact that people from other groups were also punished does not alter the fact that what went on was ethnic cleansing.

[Andropov]

First off im not stating The Soviets Policy of forced resettlement was right or wrong, im a Marxist, I place no stock in moralising, I leave that to the Liberals.
When analysing their policy we must not divorce our analysis from their respective contexts.
Within the context of the USSR at the time of the October Revolution there was a widespread fear and prejudice towards "Orientals", a fear that mother Russia would be over run by the eastern hordes as such. Now obviously that was Imperial propaganda at the time but its effects ran deep in the general consciousness of many Russians and citizens of the USSR.
Within this context these "Orientals" were portrayed in racist imagery and many negative stereotypes.
So those who were responsible for the October Revolution, the membership of the Bolsheviks and their entourage grew out of this context and its climate of fear for the "Orientals".
For many of these people they were not completely immune to their contexts and it goes some of the way in explaining why they were willing to either approve or turn a blind eye to the forced resettlements.
Now also we must weigh the various factors within this context at the time of some of the deportations.
WW2 was a fight for survival for the USSR, if it did not win the consequences would be extreme, indeed it saw what would be in store if it lost from what was done in NAZI occupied territory in the likes of Belorussia.
The consequences were grave and having what would seem like a willing vanguard for your enemy in your rear was something that could be gravely dangerous for the USSR's war effort.
With the NAZI's recruiting directly out of these populations and an unhealthy proportion of them forming reactionary units for their own ends and in direct conflict with the Soviets it was a critical problem for them to resolve.
So when coupled with many Bolsheviks own prejudices from their own respective contexts and the threat faced from these populations then a resettlement was perfectly acceptable considering the consequences of a NAZI victory.
Obviously given the benefit of historical hindsight and with our very own updated 21'st century liberalism many will call it "wrong" and moralise away but within the context the USSR found itself in, the context these people grew out of and the enormous stakes at play their decision can be understood. Obviously it would have been more progressive to try and weed out the reactionarys and leave the populations untouched but considering the limited resources at their disposal at the time a prolonged guerilla war was not exactly what the Soviets needed.

[Igor]

Understanding context is always important, of course, but doesn't mean we shouldn't make moral judgements. Proper analysis shouldn't lure us to the trap it does for so many people; understanding the context in which things that could be considered wrong were done shouldn't lead to the idea that wrong and right doesn't exist, that everything could be justified by its context, not merely explained. Doing otherwise has nothing to do with "liberalism".

[danyboy27]

First off im not stating The Soviets Policy of forced resettlement was right or wrong, im a Marxist, I place no stock in moralising, I leave that to the Liberals.
When analysing their policy we must not divorce our analysis from their respective contexts.
Within the context of the USSR at the time of the October Revolution there was a widespread fear and prejudice towards "Orientals", a fear that mother Russia would be over run by the eastern hordes as such. Now obviously that was Imperial propaganda at the time but its effects ran deep in the general consciousness of many Russians and citizens of the USSR.
Within this context these "Orientals" were portrayed in racist imagery and many negative stereotypes.
So those who were responsible for the October Revolution, the membership of the Bolsheviks and their entourage grew out of this context and its climate of fear for the "Orientals".
For many of these people they were not completely immune to their contexts and it goes some of the way in explaining why they were willing to either approve or turn a blind eye to the forced resettlements.
Now also we must weigh the various factors within this context at the time of some of the deportations.
WW2 was a fight for survival for the USSR, if it did not win the consequences would be extreme, indeed it saw what would be in store if it lost from what was done in NAZI occupied territory in the likes of Belorussia.
The consequences were grave and having what would seem like a willing vanguard for your enemy in your rear was something that could be gravely dangerous for the USSR's war effort.
With the NAZI's recruiting directly out of these populations and an unhealthy proportion of them forming reactionary units for their own ends and in direct conflict with the Soviets it was a critical problem for them to resolve.
So when coupled with many Bolsheviks own prejudices from their own respective contexts and the threat faced from these populations then a resettlement was perfectly acceptable considering the consequences of a NAZI victory.
Obviously given the benefit of historical hindsight and with our very own updated 21'st century liberalism many will call it "wrong" and moralise away but within the context the USSR found itself in, the context these people grew out of and the enormous stakes at play their decision can be understood. Obviously it would have been more progressive to try and weed out the reactionarys and leave the populations untouched but considering the limited resources at their disposal at the time a prolonged guerilla war was not exactly what the Soviets needed.
Dude, that basically the same thing modern fascists say for the holocaust and the other heinous crimes committed during WWII.

The soviet state had a huuge part of responsability in the deportations of all those populations, it would be misleading to believe it was all the fault of the former imperial administration or the pressure of WWII. After all, they gave the orders, not the imperials.

it would be like blaming Otto von Bismark for the holocaust.

[Raskolnikov]

..or the pressure of WWII...

That could be certainly a factor within the affair - hell if people forget about Operation Vistula (or don't know about it). Which is basically Poland resettling Ukrainian minorities to the North West part of the country because the UPA threat and attacks.

And so they decided to remove the base-of-support for the UPA. That was the reasoning behind it.

Not the best idea. But one must wonder what are the 'opposing thoughts' as to how to solve that problem the UPA posed and how to stop their murdering of civilians.

As to oppose something one must not only stand against it, but also propose a contrary idea as how the situation might have been better if said idea was implemented. Without that then you're just opposing it and it becomes fruitless.

[Sir Comradical]

The USSR was fighting for its life in a war that kiled 25 million people so I'm willing to overlook this crime especially given that the regime wasn't kind to collaborators in general regardless of their nationality. When you read about these conflicts it becomes clear from the standpoint of those on the ground, that some villages can be broadly described as fifth column strongholds and if ethnic chauvinism is motivating collaboration, then unfortunately under such desperate conditions, I can see why deportation would be necessary.

There is a precedent for collective punishment at least in principle. Didn't Trotsky take the families of officers hostage as insurance against betrayal? Sure nothing actually happened, no family member was ever hurt, but they didn't know that and for those affected the threats felt genuine. During times of war, when defending the workers' state is priority, even the most genuine and otherwise principled revolutionaries will be compelled to act in such a way. The only question that matters is whether such policies will in any way be conducive to victory.

[danyboy27]

That could be certainly a factor within the affair - hell if people forget about Operation Vistula (or don't know about it). Which is basically Poland resettling Ukrainian minorities to the North West part of the country because the UPA threat and attacks.

And so they decided to remove the base-of-support for the UPA. That was the reasoning behind it.

Not the best idea. But one must wonder what are the 'opposing thoughts' as to how to solve that problem the UPA posed and how to stop their murdering of civilians.

As to oppose something one must not only stand against it, but also propose a contrary idea as how the situation might have been better if said idea was implemented. Without that then you're just opposing it and it becomes fruitless.

The bulk of soviet collaborators where russian, and the involvement of ethnic groups was symbolic at best.
Even tho some member of various ethnic groups helped the german, the biggest contribution of manpower and auxiliaries in the SS and the german army on the eastern front came from the russian and the ukrainians, not the korean or the tartar or the chechen.

[Ismail]

As a note, Furr decided to send a message to me giving sources as to the falsity of the "700" claim:

There are a number of refutations of it. Here are two:

* Pykhalov, Igor. Местечковые страсти в чеченских горах. In his book (with A. Diukov), Velikaia obolgannaia voina, 2., chapter 2.

* Nikita Mendkovich. Khaibakhskoe delo. http://nnm.ru/blogs/gaalnixrlz/nikita-mendkovich-haybahskoe-delo/

(this was in fact published in the online journal "Aktual'naia Istoriia", "Current History" -- but I can't get that to come up today on my computer!).

Pykhalov is the better of the two. He points out that the supposed note from Beria to Stalin about this massacre in the village ("aul", name of villages in Chechnia), Khaibakh, is a forgery. It begins with the words "For your eyes only." This is an American expression, never used in Russian documents, where the phrase is "sovershenno sekretno" (= "top secret.").

[A Marxist Historian]

The bulk of soviet collaborators where russian, and the involvement of ethnic groups was symbolic at best.
Even tho some member of various ethnic groups helped the german, the biggest contribution of manpower and auxiliaries in the SS and the german army on the eastern front came from the russian and the ukrainians, not the korean or the tartar or the chechen.

Yeah. Remember General Vlasov?

Ought Stalin to have sent all the Russians to camps, seeing as General Vlasov was a traitor and he formed a whole "Russian Liberation Army" under Nazi command with lots and lots of soldiers in it?

Certainly graver treason than anything some small band of Chechens might have been up to?:rolleyes:

And then you have the Koreans, like, say, Kim Il Sung, who spent quite a bit of the war in Siberia, no doubt plotting with the Japanese...

-M.H.-

[Omsk]

The bulk of soviet collaborators where russian, and the involvement of ethnic groups was symbolic at best.


Proportionally, the Chechens and other nationalities gave simply too much men to the Nazis, not to mention that their efforts were minimal.


Even tho some member of various ethnic groups helped the german, the biggest contribution of manpower and auxiliaries in the SS and the german army on the eastern front came from the russian and the ukrainians, not the korean or the tartar or the chechen.

Yes, but they also gave the most in the struggle, while the nationalities in the south were some-what passive.

Not to mention that people like Israilov and other reactionaries served as the leaders of the Fifth-Colum in the CCCP : This is what he wrote in the critical days of the 20th century.

"I have decided to become the leader of a war of liberation of my own people. I understand all too well that not only in Checheno-Ingushetia, but in all nations of the Caucasus it will be difficult to win freedom from the heavy yoke of Red imperialism. But our fervent belief in justice and our faith in the support of the freedom-loving peoples of the Caucasus and of the entire world inspire me toward this deed, in your eyes impertinent and pointless, but in my conviction, the sole correct historical step. The valiant Finns are now proving that the Great Enslaver Empire is powerless against a small but freedom-loving people. In the Caucasus you will find your second Finland, and after us will follow other oppressed peoples."


"For twenty years now, the Soviet authorities have been fighting my people, aiming to destroy them group by group: first the kulaks, then the mullahs and the 'bandits', then the bourgeois-nationalists. I am sure now that the real object of this war is the annihilation of our nation as a whole. That is why I have decided to assume the leadership of my people in their struggle for liberation

However, when the historical revisionist process started, people were brainwashed with stories like the "Khaibakh massacre" and other examples.

I will answer the longer post and continue the conversation i had with a user here, but i doubt it will be anytime soon, i have a huge amount of work on my hands.

[danyboy27]

Proportionally, the Chechens and other nationalities gave simply too much men to the Nazis, not to mention that their efforts were minimal.

what do you mean too much men?

is there a fixed amount of people who need to serve for a group to justify a complete deportation?

the deportation of whole ethic and cultural groups where more or less a pick and choose thing.

they could have decided to do the same with the cossack and yet they still accepted to have them in the red army despite the high rate of defection to the german side.

[danyboy27]

Yes, but they also gave the most in the struggle, while the nationalities in the south were some-what passive.

Not to mention that people like Israilov and other reactionaries served as the leaders of the Fifth-Colum in the CCCP : This is what he wrote in the critical days of the 20th century.

"I have decided to become the leader of a war of liberation of my own people. I understand all too well that not only in Checheno-Ingushetia, but in all nations of the Caucasus it will be difficult to win freedom from the heavy yoke of Red imperialism. But our fervent belief in justice and our faith in the support of the freedom-loving peoples of the Caucasus and of the entire world inspire me toward this deed, in your eyes impertinent and pointless, but in my conviction, the sole correct historical step. The valiant Finns are now proving that the Great Enslaver Empire is powerless against a small but freedom-loving people. In the Caucasus you will find your second Finland, and after us will follow other oppressed peoples."

"For twenty years now, the Soviet authorities have been fighting my people, aiming to destroy them group by group: first the kulaks, then the mullahs and the 'bandits', then the bourgeois-nationalists. I am sure now that the real object of this war is the annihilation of our nation as a whole. That is why I have decided to assume the leadership of my people in their struggle for liberation

However, when the historical revisionist process started, people were brainwashed with stories like the "Khaibakh massacre" and other examples.

I will answer the longer post and continue the conversation i had with a user here, but i doubt it will be anytime soon, i have a huge amount of work on my hands.

the ethnic contengencies where for the most part relayed to logistic tasks like carrying the wounded, driving tractors or sucking at doing anti-partisan struggle and guarding prisonner camps.

of course there was some who fought alongside the german but the performance of these units ranged from ok to verry poor.

[Omsk]

they could have decided to do the same with the cossack and yet they still accepted to have them in the red army despite the high rate of defection to the german side.



The cossacks were dealt with much before WWII, during the Civil War years, thus the major problem was removed before it could explode during the German invasion, and the cossacks which did join the Axis armies were actually not so near the East, as the main combat brigades were actually deployed on the Balkans front to fight the Yugoslav partisans which were organized on a national-level and which were fully prepared to wege a full front-war against the Nazi invaders, so the German heavy brigades needed scouts and 'partisan-hunters' - and the cossack traitors were the perfect group for such a role. They actually had two brigades which had about 8 regiments + auxiliary troops - Recon Battalion, Artillery Regiment, Engineer Battalion, Signal Battalion, Supply Section, Medical Battalion. They were well know for their bloodthirsty commanders who were especially brutal in the anti-partisan war. They also were a part of the German troops which fought in Operation Rösselsprung.

The point is that the cossacks in the Red Army (The loyal ones.) were actually never fully trusted, and they were never allowed to create a big number of units, but were split and sent to various normal-service Red Army units so that the chances of an organized insurrection and rebellion would be minimal. And the ones which did defect were executed in the post-war period either at spot, when caught armed (They almost always tried to fight or brake out.) or later after a military trial. As for the disloyal nationalities of the USSR, the fact alone that some 98 battalions were formed speaks for itself. The Tatars, for an example were organized into the huge Waffen Gebirgs Brigade der SS (tatarische Nr1.) It was organized toward the end of the war, when the Germans were in need of help. Before the battle of Stalingrad, the Tatars were active in anti-partisan actions or in regular brigades of the East.




the ethnic contengencies where for the most part relayed to logistic tasks like carrying the wounded, driving tractors or sucking at doing anti-partisan struggle and guarding prisonner camps.
of course there was some who fought alongside the german but the performance of these units ranged from ok to verry poor.


Actually not, they were especially brutal when they fought with the Soviets

[Teacher]

Obviously the proper course of action in 1944 would have been for Stalin to dissolve the Red Army, resign his position and use passive resistance (such as drum circles) against the Nazis when they came in.

Seriously, it is pointless to argue with certain people on here, above all narks like ComradeOm.

[Sir Comradical]

Obviously the proper course of action in 1944 would have been for Stalin to dissolve the Red Army, resign his position and use passive resistance (such as drum circles) against the Nazis when they came in.

Seriously, it is pointless to argue with certain people on here, above all narks like ComradeOm.

While you and I disagree with the same people, this is an unprincipled criticism. No one here is saying pacifism > violent resistance.

[PhoenixAsh]

Obviously the proper course of action in 1944 would have been for Stalin to dissolve the Red Army, resign his position and use passive resistance (such as drum circles) against the Nazis when they came in.

Seriously, it is pointless to argue with certain people on here, above all narks like ComradeOm.

warning. keep the debate on topic.

[danyboy27]

Obviously the proper course of action in 1944 would have been for Stalin to dissolve the Red Army, resign his position and use passive resistance (such as drum circles) against the Nazis when they came in.

Seriously, it is pointless to argue with certain people on here, above all narks like ComradeOm.

Nobody here is saying how the russian army should have acted back then.
Its the past, we obviously cant change that.

But Criticizing the past is essential in order to build a better future, and i think we can all agree here that there are a lot of thing that went awfully wrong with the way the soviet union bureaucracy acted toward certain group of peoples.

this is precisely why conservatism(of any form) is so freaking wrong; these people just dont care about past mistake and just keep repeating history over and over and over and over.

[Omsk]

this is precisely why conservatism(of any form) is so freaking wrong; these people just dont care about past mistake and just keep repeating history over and over and over and over.

This is completely devoid of any actual content, because a situation like the one in the 1941-1944 USSR is simply not likely, so it won't be a process of 'repeating a past mistake' - another thing, it was not a mistake, because it was not something which could have been done in any other way.

[danyboy27]

This is completely devoid of any actual content, because a situation like the one in the 1941-1944 USSR is simply not likely, so it won't be a process of 'repeating a past mistake' - another thing, it was not a mistake, because it was not something which could have been done in any other way.

This is exactly everyone said after WWI.
''the war to end all war''
Remember?

And it was a mistake in almost every way possible.
I dont really think it was useful to the eastern front to waste ressources and time to displace a whole ethnic group on the basis that some of them betrayed the soviet state.
Strangely The cossacks got a free pass on this one, they where allowed in he soviet army despite the fact that there where a lot of them working for the germans.

Emergency can make governements and people do dumb mistake.

[Omsk]

I dont really think it was useful to the eastern front to waste ressources and time to displace a whole ethnic group on the basis that some of them betrayed the soviet state.
Strangely The cossacks got a free pass on this one, they where allowed in he soviet army despite the fact that there where a lot of them working for the germans.




I explained the question of the cossacks in a couple of posts above.

[PhoenixAsh]

I am having ideological difficulties with this debate. On the one hand I am not against arguments based on frame of mind in the period discussed and on the other hand I am having huge difficulties with some of the arguments which seem and appear to claim that collective guilt and punishment can be based on ethnicity.

Wether or not this is done in the course of protecting a workers state is in my opinion not really an argument...it seems to me that the workers state seems to regard some workers more deserving of protection than others...and seems to exclude other workers entirely.

I think this debate is interesting....but I also see this debate as linked to the conduct of the US in intering Japanese citizens in really abject conditions and see this in the same light as Nazi's collectively punishing communists and socialists and putting them in concentration camps. Both were done under exactly the same arguments.

I fail to see hos being a supposed workers state the USSR is somehow entitled or more justified than those countries in their conduct instead of being somehow more required to conduct itself according to a higher and better standard.

[Invader Zim]

I am having ideological difficulties with this debate. On the one hand I am not against arguments based on frame of mind in the period discussed and on the other hand I am having huge difficulties with some of the arguments which seem and appear to claim that collective guilt and punishment can be based on ethnicity.

The 'frame of mind' argument does not work in this context. What the Soviet Officials did was against the moral and ethical notions dictated by their own society at that time. Which is why they depicted the regime as being both just and benevolent in its propaganda, while in practice, behaved in an entirely different fashion.

The 'frame of mind' dominating the Nazi mindset allowed Nazis to justify their horrendous crimes (including ethnic cleansing, prior to the policy of extermination decided upon in late 1941) - that does not make Nazi policy defensible either to modern interpretation or indeed to contemporary interpretation. Again, the Nazis portrayed themselves in one fashion and behaved in another.

Both regimes were ultra reactionary, and any modern defense of ethnic cleansing is abhorrent and should not be tolerated within modern society at all, let alone on a platform for radical leftwing discussion. It has no place here and neither do its proponents.

[A Marxist Historian]

I am having ideological difficulties with this debate. On the one hand I am not against arguments based on frame of mind in the period discussed and on the other hand I am having huge difficulties with some of the arguments which seem and appear to claim that collective guilt and punishment can be based on ethnicity.

Wether or not this is done in the course of protecting a workers state is in my opinion not really an argument...it seems to me that the workers state seems to regard some workers more deserving of protection than others...and seems to exclude other workers entirely.

I think this debate is interesting....but I also see this debate as linked to the conduct of the US in intering Japanese citizens in really abject conditions and see this in the same light as Nazi's collectively punishing communists and socialists and putting them in concentration camps. Both were done under exactly the same arguments.

I fail to see hos being a supposed workers state the USSR is somehow entitled or more justified than those countries in their conduct instead of being somehow more required to conduct itself according to a higher and better standard.

Indeed.

And, be it noted, the American Stalinist party, the CPUSA, enthusiastically supported putting Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, including even some of its own members.

And was all in favor of Hiroshima too.

-M.H.-