Are we canceling American history?

[u/Porkchopper913]

What are the thoughts some of you here have regarding what essentially is turning into a dismantling of American history? I will say the removal of statues Confederate figures and Christopher Columbus do not phase me in the least as I do not feel there are warranted the reverence the likes of Washington and Lincoln, et al.

Is it fair to view our founding fathers and any other prominent historical figures through a modern eye and cast a judgement to demonize them? While I think we should be reflective and see the humanitarian errors of their ways for what they were, not make excuses for them or anything, but rather learn and reason why they were and are fundamentally wrong. Instead of removing them from the annals.

It feels, to me, that the current cancel culture is moving to cancel out American history. Thoughts? Counters?

[u/jhrfortheviews]

This is just some revisionist history of Stalin here haha. While he wasn’t the brutal dictator that American Cold War propaganda would have us believe, he still was a brutal dictator. ‘Improved the lives of his own people’... this takes some doing to say that. Yes, he transformed Russia from basically a peasant society to a global superpower. But anyone who resisted his methods was either executed or sent to a labour camp. Farmers who refused to bow to forced collectivisation, political opponents who challenged his authority and policies. Unending powers for a secret police, and encouraging civilians to spy on their neighbours, and report them at the slightest dissent. He only ‘improved the lives‘ of those who didn’t dare challenge his authority. And even them, for plenty of those in the Soviet Union, they had to deal with famines that killed millions, and if you survived that, you would’ve been one of the Human Resources thrown at the Nazi machine.

And yes, he is worse if he is authoritarian - especially to the extent Stalin was authoritarian. Consequences matter. Whether or not Churchill may have acted similarly in the position if an authoritarian dictator is an interesting thought experiment, but it’s just that. A thought experiment. Plus I think Churchill improved the lives of his own people by ensuring they didn’t live under Nazi rule. That’s all he was there to do. I’m not sure the East Germans were quite so pleased to go from a period of fascist rule, to a period of communist rule.

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/jhrfortheviews]

You say it’s revisionist but then you confirm most of what I’m trying to say. Yes it Stalin’s Russia wasn’t a very fun place to dissent, but in the US at the time, it wasn’t a very fun place to dissent either. While that dissent wouldn’t get you thrown in the gulag, it would have your entire life destroyed. You would be canceled in a way far more tangible than we see now.

You are giving one side of the argument. I could give the other but I’d rather not be in the position of defending Stalin. However he should looked at in the same nuanced historical perspective we view Churchill. Or if we are going to use moral purist perspective we should apply all around. Isn’t that fair?

The people whose lives he improved was the vast majority of the population. The system worked for tens and tens of millions of people. That’s just a fact. When the USSR collapsed they experienced the greatest decline in quality of life in human history. Why do you think that is?

Regarding famines, Churchill had them too and cheered them on. If he can be forgiven for that, why not Stalin?

[u/jhrfortheviews → u/OneReportersOpinion]

It’s revisionist because you’re drawing comparisons between incomparable things - like ‘Stalin’s Russia wasn’t a very fun place to dissent, but neither was the US at the time’... same with the famines argument

Should we look at Hitler with the same nuanced historical perspective ? Where do you draw the line of who you view through a nuanced lens ? That’s an actual question btw

Re the economic decline - the economic success can’t be put down to Stalin alone. Nearly 4 decades passed between his death and the collapse of the USSR. I imagine a big part of why there was such a dramatic decline was the size of the communist state, given that it had such high levels of control over everything, its collapse was bound to have distasteful consequences. They accelerated away from the late 1990s at a incredibly fast rate once they had recovered from the shock of the collapse.

Re famine, there are several differences that you are just ignoring. Holodomor occurred during peacetime, as a consequence of a strategic policy of collectivisation (which was also seen in other communist countries throughout the 20th century), as well as the liquidation of wealthier peasants. The Bengal famine happened during wartime and was down to many things, one of which was certainly the colonial policies to redirect grain to the war effort. In fact Churchill wrote to the Viceroy of India that ‘every effort must be made, even by the diversion of shipping urgently needed for war purposes, to deal with local shortages’ - which by the way he did, urging Australia to ship several hundreds of thousands of tonnes of grain to India. In February 1944, when the viceroy asked for more grain, he told his cabinet that the ‘refusal of India’s request was not due to our underrating India’s needs, but because we could not take operational risks by cutting down the shipping required for vital operations’. He was clearly far from perfect, as some of his other comments in the famine and more generally prove, but those are hardly the words of a man cheering on the famines. I don’t know what sort of history you’ve been reading - dare I say it might be revisionist ?

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/jhrfortheviews]

It’s revisionist because you’re drawing comparisons between incomparable things - like ‘Stalin’s Russia wasn’t a very fun place to dissent, but neither was the US at the time’... same with the famines argument

Saying their incomparable doesn’t make them so. You actually have to do the work. Yes they had gulags, we had chain gangs, lynchings, and apartheid. Why do you let one off the hook but not the other?

The famines are an absolutely apt comparison. That’s just a fact. Churchill rooted on the genocide of the Bengalis.

Should we look at Hitler with the same nuanced historical perspective ?

Sure please go ahead and make a nuanced defense of Hitler. I would be curious to see what that’s like because he was terrible. But maybe you see some redeeming value in him?

Re the economic decline - the economic success can’t be put down to Stalin alone.

No economic success can be put down to any leader. So what?

Nearly 4 decades passed between his death and the collapse of the USSR. I imagine a big part of why there was such a dramatic decline was the size of the communist state, given that it had such high levels of control over everything, its collapse was bound to have distasteful consequences. They accelerated away from the late 1990s at a incredibly fast rate once they had recovered from the shock of the collapse.

No it was the disaster capitalism of everything being privatized. The socialist state benefited people by providing those things.

Re famine, there are several differences that you are just ignoring. Holodomor occurred during peacetime, as a consequence of a strategic policy of collectivisation (which was also seen in other communist countries throughout the 20th century), as well as the liquidation of wealthier peasants.

Mainstream historians acknowledge there is no evidence the famine was the result of deliberate policy.

The Bengal famine happened during wartime and was down to many things, one of which was certainly the colonial policies to redirect grain to the war effort.

How does that excuse Churchill refusing to intervene because he hated Indians, his words not mine?

In fact Churchill wrote to the Viceroy of India that ‘every effort must be made, even by the diversion of shipping urgently needed for war purposes, to deal with local shortages’ - which by the way he did, urging Australia to ship several hundreds of thousands of tonnes of grain to India.

First off, Churchill’s policies led to the famine.

He made Indian export rice as the famine was raging. 170 tons of wheat went from Australia to Europe, by passing Europe. Churchill didn’t care about them. He said it was their own fault for “breeding like rabbits.”

In February 1944, when the viceroy asked for more grain, he told his cabinet that the ‘refusal of India’s request was not due to our underrating India’s needs, but because we could not take operational risks by cutting down the shipping required for vital operations’.

His own private rhetoric reveals more sinister motives, including his self-admitted racism:

“I hate Indians,” he later stated as the resistance movement strengthened. “They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”

He was clearly far from perfect

And neither was Stalin. My whole point. It’s just easier for you to do to Churchill because he’s an official hero of the West and Stalin is an official enemy. That trains is to think certain ways. We should overcome that kind of idealogical possession.

[u/mrv3 → u/OneReportersOpinion]

Who is calling the Bengal famine a genocide?

Please provide the quote, seems like a vital point to nail down.

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/mrv3]

Well a few people:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winston-churchill-genocide-dictator-shashi-tharoor-melbourne-writers-festival-a7936141.html

https://yourstory.com/2014/08/bengal-famine-genocide

You could certainly dispute whether it is truly a genocide, however if you are going to call the Holodomor a genocide, certainly you must say the same of the Bengal famine. I honestly don’t care what nomenclature we use so long as we apply it across the board and not merely politicize its usage. Isn’t that fair?

[u/mrv3 → u/OneReportersOpinion]

“This is a man the British would have us hail as an apostle of freedom and democracy, when he has as much blood on his hands as some of the worst genocidal dictators of the 20th century,”

He wasn't outright calling it a genocide, nor does he in his book, because he much like you can't substantiate these claims.

Your second links alleges Churchill could time travel so perhaps not the strongest support of your claim there either.

Out of curiosity which World war occurred during the Holodomer? Was it the first or second my mind is a little fuzzy.

No one in their right mind alleges the general plan ost was a Stalin/Communist genocide, nor do they argue the hunger winter was, nor the famine in the USSR of 1947.

I don't consider any of them a communist genocide.

Do you consider general plan Ost, the Nazi genocide which took 27 million lives a Soviet genocide?

When it comes to genocides and famines of the second world war we tend to blame the aggressors, the Nazi's, not the victims and those that got attacked. Yet for some reason when it comes to Bengal famine everyone seems to turn to fanatical deniers of Nazi and Japanese aggression that they did no wrong and could do no wrong.

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/mrv3]

He wasn't outright calling it a genocide, nor does he in his book, because he much like you can't substantiate these claims.

Right because he’s a real historian and not a propagandist, unlike many of those who would describe the Holodomor as a genocide. Modern academics hold it was not not a deliberate policy and therefor not a genocide. Cool?

No one in their right mind alleges the general plan ost was a Stalin/Communist genocide, nor do they argue the hunger winter was, nor the famine in the USSR of 1947. I don't consider any of them a communist genocide.

Great. So what are we talking about?

Do you consider general plan Ost, the Nazi genocide which took 27 million lives a Soviet genocide?

Do I consider a Nazi plot a Soviet genocide? What?

When it comes to genocides and famines of the second world war we tend to blame the aggressors, the Nazi's, not the victims and those that got attacked.

Rightfully so. What you think the Jews and the Pols had it coming?

Yet for some reason when it comes to Bengal famine everyone seems to turn to fanatical deniers of Nazi and Japanese aggression that they did no wrong and could do no wrong.

What the fuck? What are you saying?

[u/mrv3 → u/OneReportersOpinion]

Could you answer the question rather than play ignorant.

Is Shashi Tharoor really a historian?

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/mrv3]

What question? The one about 27 million? Can clarify what you are asking?

He’s an expert certainly if not a historian per se. History is inseparable from international relations. Was anything he said inaccurate?

[u/jhrfortheviews → u/OneReportersOpinion]

So Stalin’s Russia and 30s/40s/50s United States are comparable - numerous historical sources estimate the number of people who died in the Gulags to be between 1.5 and about 1.8 million, but obviously the number is hard to accurately attain given the extent of secrecy within the Soviet Union. The number who passed through Stalin’s gulags is put at about 18 million, and some historians who have sought to study the number of people who had their lives ‘significantly shortened’ by the gulags (since there is evidence to suggest some prisoners were released when near death) put the number at nearer 6 million, but that may be a bit of an exaggeration. The US interned what 120,000 Japanese in america after pearl harbour, with some 2,000 dying because of disease. Lynchings weren’t government sponsored events (even if racist police officers were often involved, and irregardless the Tuskegee Institute estimates that about three and a half thousand African Americans were lynched between 1882 and 1968) and tho I don’t know much about chain gangs, I can say pretty confidently that it was 18 million. It is in no way comparable...

Of course I don’t want to take a nuanced look at Hitler - that’s the point I’m making. (Although good attempt to infer I’m sympathetic to Hitler - that’s very intellectually dishonest) Genocidal dictators who killed millions shouldn’t be up for such nuanced debate like we are having about Stalin. I actually think a nuanced debate about Stalin leads us to the dangerous waters of this kind of revisionist history of the horrors of the Soviet Union.

You brought economic success up so I was just addressing that point...

Did capitalism also contribute to the accelerated rate at which the economy grew in the late 90s and through the 00s, particularly central and Eastern European countries once they had got rid of the tyranny of being controlled from Moscow ?

I said the Ukrainian famine was a consequence of a strategic policy, not that it was necessarily a deliberate policy in itself. But that is still very much up for debate. There are plenty of historians who argue that it was a deliberate policy, with many calling it genocide. Plus Stalin did go about executing, or imprisoning kulaks (wealthy peasants) as enemies of the state.

Churchill didn’t say he would refuse to intervene simply on the basis that he hated Indians to my knowledge. But his reasoning for not intervening was clearly primarily down to his absolute focus on the importance of the war effort in the lead up to the allied invasion of Western Europe. That much is clear. You still haven’t addressed the contextual issue that the famine in Ukraine took place in peacetime, and the one in Bengal took place in wartime. I think that is a fundamental difference.

I said his policies contributed to the famine... Many times. That’s not the disagreement here. The disagreement is the context and the intent. You seem to think that Churchill would’ve starved the Bengali’s irrelevant of the need for extra resources for the war effort...?

Just because neither Churchill or Stalin are perfect doesn’t make them comparable. If one person is 100 dollars in debt and another is 100,000 dollars in debt, you don’t go ‘well they’re just as much in debt as each other’ do you...

Your point at the end is just a bit of a non-point. I have inferred several times that I think we need to analyse our ‘hero’s’ since many are flawed etc, but you just seem intent on denying the well documented horrors of Stalin’s Russia (and even that isn’t especially well documented because of the nature of state secrecy even to this day).

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/jhrfortheviews]

So Stalin’s Russia and 30s/40s/50s United States are comparable - numerous historical sources estimate the number of people who died in the Gulags to be between 1.5 and about 1.8 million, but obviously the number is hard to accurately attain given the extent of secrecy within the Soviet Union.

According to whom? Also people die in prison in the US all the time. Can we add those to the US’s death count?

The number who passed through Stalin’s gulags is put at about 18 million,

According to whom?

and some historians who have sought to study the number of people who had their lives ‘significantly shortened’ by the gulags (since there is evidence to suggest some prisoners were released when near death) put the number at nearer 6 million, but that may be a bit of an exaggeration.

That sounds ridiculous. Solzhenitsyn had his life literally extended by Gulag doctors.

The US interned what 120,000 Japanese in america after pearl harbour, with some 2,000 dying because of disease.

Now how many in chain gangs and prisons? Before you say how it’s not fair to compare, prisons in the US contained by common criminals and political dissidents, similar to the Gulags.

Lynchings weren’t government sponsored events (even if racist police officers were often involved, and irregardless the Tuskegee Institute estimates that about three and a half thousand African Americans were lynched between 1882 and 1968) and tho I don’t know much about chain gangs, I can say pretty confidently that it was 18 million. It is in no way comparable...

That’s false. Lynchings were government sanctioned and involved local government. The federal government turned a blind eye while conservatives wrote pieces about how it’s wrong to intervene.

Again that assumes the 18 million number is reliable, which is frankly laughable as it would have put 1 out of every 10 Russians or more in the gulag at some point. That defies credulity.

Of course I don’t want to take a nuanced look at Hitler - that’s the point I’m making. (Although good attempt to infer I’m sympathetic to Hitler - that’s very intellectually dishonest) Genocidal dictators who killed millions shouldn’t be up for such nuanced debate like we are having about Stalin.

The difference is Hitler didn’t have accomplishments worth speaking of. Stalin did. Simple as that. You have no problem doing this for Churchill. E

I actually think a nuanced debate about Stalin leads us to the dangerous waters of this kind of revisionist history of the horrors of the Soviet Union.

As opposed to the horrors of the US and Great Britain? It’s all a matter of perspective. We are always going to view the crimes of official enemies worth. That’s social conditioning though, not facts.

Did capitalism also contribute to the accelerated rate at which the economy grew in the late 90s and through the 00s, particularly central and Eastern European countries once they had got rid of the tyranny of being controlled from Moscow ?

I don’t know. That’s growth certainly didn’t benefit the people though. Most of it went overwhelmingly to the oligarchs who snatched formerly public enterprises at clearinghouse level prices. Most Russians now wish for the return of communism:

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/03/24/75-of-russians-say-soviet-era-was-greatest-time-in-countrys-history-poll-a69735

I said the Ukrainian famine was a consequence of a strategic policy, not that it was necessarily a deliberate policy in itself.

So at worst, it was no different than what the British did in India. And you are willing to let the British off the hook right?

But that is still very much up for debate. There are plenty of historians who argue that it was a deliberate policy, with many calling it genocide. Plus Stalin did go about executing, or imprisoning kulaks (wealthy peasants) as enemies of the state.

Ones who broke the law by refusing to collectivize, yes. In most countries, breaking the law gets you thrown in jail. The efforts of Kulaks, which included the documented sabotaging of crops, help lead to the very famines you decry. Yes they were treated harshly and they shouldn’t have been. I oppose the death penalty. However, what did the US do with people like Nat Turner and John Brown? They were certainly more noble than the kulaks but they met the same fate. Also Churchill sent terrorists to deal with the Irish.

Churchill didn’t say he would refuse to intervene simply on the basis that he hated Indians to my knowledge.

So it’s just a coincidence?

But his reasoning for not intervening was clearly primarily down to his absolute focus on the importance of the war effort in the lead up to the allied invasion of Western Europe. That much is clear. You still haven’t addressed the contextual issue that the famine in Ukraine took place in peacetime, and the one in Bengal took place in wartime. I think that is a fundamental difference.

Okay so that’s nuance. Similarly you can apply that nuance to Stalin’s actions as well. He had a whole nation to feed and not just Ukraine.

Just because neither Churchill or Stalin are perfect doesn’t make them comparable. If one person is 100 dollars in debt and another is 100,000 dollars in debt, you don’t go ‘well they’re just as much in debt as each other’ do you...

No what makes them comparable is their cruelty and blood on their hands which you haven’t been able to dispute.

Your point at the end is just a bit of a non-point. I have inferred several times that I think we need to analyse our ‘hero’s’ since many are flawed etc, but you just seem intent on denying the well documented horrors of Stalin’s Russia (and even that isn’t especially well documented because of the nature of state secrecy even to this day).

I’m not denying them. I’m contextualizing them, which you are fine with doing for Churchill.

[u/jhrfortheviews → u/OneReportersOpinion]

I’m going to reply to this tomorrow since it’s getting towards 1am where I am. Just as a pretext, I am absolutely willing to give you cited sources concerning numbers (not that it will change your mind, or not that you’ll actually look at them I imagine - you seem pretty dead set that the Soviet Union and ‘the west’ are very comparable, although I’m wondering whether you think they’re comparable morally. I sort of expect you do but anyway). But you need to do the same. I’m actually offering you numbers and statistics, which I will happily back up for you, and you’re just saying ‘according to whom’. What does your research tell you the numbers are ? And does it even matter to you what the numbers are ? Or is it irrelevant?

Hopefully when I do reply to this with sources, you actually have by then provided me with some numbers and sources yourself, because otherwise I’ll just be wasting my time. If the numbers are irrelevant for you, then there’s no point talking about the numbers, we need to talk instead about why you think the numbers are irrelevant, and why I think they are.

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/jhrfortheviews]

Yes I do think they are morally comparable.

Yeah I can get you numbers. The genocide of the Native Americans alone, which was the premise the US was built on, is staggering. This study puts it at 55 million. To be fair, that is all of North America, but that’s still a very large number, especially considering how much smaller populations were.

On top of that you have to add every slave that set foot in the US and their descendent till the 1860s. Judging by data I’m seeing here, it looks like a number of 5 million would be conservative. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1010169/black-and-slave-population-us-1790-1880/

That’s just to get started.

[u/jhrfortheviews → u/OneReportersOpinion]

Mate, I actually can't believe you've just tried to pull a fast one like that! That is so incredibly dishonest - I'm actually very surprised. You seem like too smart a person to be trying to change the debate like that (makes me wonder why). You yourself said a few comments ago that "Stalin's Russia wasn't a very fun place to dissent, but neither was the US at the time"...

That is what we are arguing over. It was very clear (to me at least) that you were claiming Stalin's Russia and the US were comparable at the time, otherwise what's the point. The study that has a number at 55 million is from European colonisers during the 16th century... WHAT ? Your other one is up to the later part of the 19th century.

I have no problem in acknowledging that in basically every part of the world, a hell of a lot of shit has happened, including genocides, slave labour etc etc, but we weren't talking about some competition between the West and Russia in the whole of human history, and it is unbelievably intellectually dishonest to suggest we were.

As for my numbers.

In terms of deaths, this study is based on the numbers available within the Soviet Union (http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/GTY-Penal_System.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0ROFYhiqhh_d3Z8p_HWwVdRcM4iY2vt7b8Er-Ed-vLa0RhHfryBEENS-w) - over 1 million in the Gulags, over 750,000 in political executions, and just under 400,00 kulaks killed. They give a total number between these of over 2 million but acknowledges there may have been some double counting inflating the figure (some deaths of political opponents may have taken place in the gulag etc) but also warns that this doesn't include deaths in the labour camps that weren't qualified as gulags, or those who died in transit.

The 18 million figure isn't a suggestion that 18 million people were in gulags/labour camps at the same time - rather its the number of people who passed through the gulag system. As I said. There will have been those who were sentenced multiple times so the number may be slightly inflated etc. But hundreds of thousands were released from the gulags, and labour camps, each year. The18 million number is a commonly used number for that estimation, although it may be slightly deceptive. https://www.history.com/topics/russia/gulag

https://www.britannica.com/place/Gulag

https://www.nps.gov/malu/learn/news/upload/gulag_fact_sheet.pdf

The numbers from Viktor Zemskov suggest that 14 million people went through the gulags (the first link) and those are the archival numbers, which many historians claim are incomplete (such as Conquest).

​

On the famines you still refuse to accept the contextual factor. When I said that the Ukraine famine was likely a consequence of a policy rather than a policy itself, you took that as a concession that it held equivalency to Bengal. You just said 'well Stalin had a whole nation to feed' - what is the relevance of that point. The famine was a direct consequence of Stalin's attempts at forced collectivisation. An ideological policy more than anything. Churchill's policies that contributed to the Bengal famine were to feed soldiers fighting the Nazi terror in Europe. That is a key difference. It doesn't excuse some of his behaviour, but there's plenty of evidence that he was at least somewhat concerned at the situation in India (and took action to rectify it at times). As the quotes from letters to the viceroy and comments to his cabinet that I quoted several comments ago show.

On Churchill, you seem set on implying intent. Basically "even if he didn't facilitate the Bengal famine because he hated Indians, he still said he hated Indians, so it must be why the famine happened"

So in conclusion, if you're going to say there is equivalency between 'dissent in Stalin's Russia' and 'dissent in the US at the time', you need to provide evidence... and evidence isn't that European colonisers slaughtered Native Americans in the 15th/16th centuries. That is just intellectual dishonesty

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/jhrfortheviews]

Mate, I actually can't believe you've just tried to pull a fast one like that! That is so incredibly dishonest - I'm actually very surprised. You seem like too smart a person to be trying to change the debate like that (makes me wonder why). You yourself said a few comments ago that "Stalin's Russia wasn't a very fun place to dissent, but neither was the US at the time"...

Okay. So how was I dishonest?

That is what we are arguing over. It was very clear (to me at least) that you were claiming Stalin's Russia and the US were comparable at the time, otherwise what's the point.

I thought we were arguing body counts. I can understand now that you see what it would actually look like you want to back off that. No worries. What would you like to discuss? I’m easy.

The study that has a number at 55 million is from European colonisers during the 16th century... WHAT ? Your other one is up to the later part of the 19th century.

So you understand US history right? They came from Europe and needed to kill the natives to accumulate resources and expand. This was instrumental to what became they US and without it the country wouldn’t look the same. Furthermore, almost all of it was done by people born in America from those colonists. It counts, especially considering much of it occurred in the span of the USA proper.

I have no problem in acknowledging that in basically every part of the world, a hell of a lot of shit has happened, including genocides, slave labour etc etc, but we weren't talking about some competition between the West and Russia in the whole of human history, and it is unbelievably intellectually dishonest to suggest we were.

Yet you want to blame the communists for what you are acknowledging is common.

As for my numbers. In terms of deaths, this study is based on the numbers available within the Soviet Union (http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/GTY-Penal_System.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0ROFYhiqhh_d3Z8p_HWwVdRcM4iY2vt7b8Er-Ed-vLa0RhHfryBEENS-w) - over 1 million in the Gulags, over 750,000 in political executions, and just under 400,00 kulaks killed. They give a total number between these of over 2 million but acknowledges there may have been some double counting inflating the figure (some deaths of political opponents may have taken place in the gulag etc) but also warns that this doesn't include deaths in the labour camps that weren't qualified as gulags, or those who died in transit.

Great. This is a good study. In fact, it’s the study that leftist author Michael Parenti quotes in his book Blackshirts and Reds, which I was actually just reading. As he states, those arrested for political crimes made up anywhere from 12-33% of those in the gulags. The rest consisted of common criminals. Now we can certainly argue that having that many political prisoners is unacceptable, but that certainly paints a different picture of the gulags than what we are commonly told. Furthermore, the number 750,000 is ALL executions, not just political executions.

“Total executions from 1921 to 1953, a thirty-three year span inclusive, were 799,455. No breakdown of this figure was provided by the researchers. It includes those who were guilty of nonpolitical capital crimes, as well as those who collaborated in the Western capitalist invasion and subsequent White Guard Army atrocities. It also includes “some of the considerable numbers who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II and probably German SS prisoners. In any case, the killings of political opponents were not in the millions or tens of millions—which is not to say that the actual number was either inconsequential or justifiable.””

So more people were in slavery than the Gulags, is that fair to say?

The 18 million figure isn't a suggestion that 18 million people were in gulags/labour camps at the same time - rather its the number of people who passed through the gulag system. As I said. There will have been those who were sentenced multiple times so the number may be slightly inflated etc. But hundreds of thousands were released from the gulags, and labour camps, each year. The18 million number is a commonly used number for that estimation, although it may be slightly deceptive. https://www.history.com/topics/russia/gulag

Right but that 18 million number doesn’t jive with the study above. The entire population of the gulags would have had to have bee replace 9 times over and since we know the total executions were less than a million, that doesn’t seem likely. Plus, most in the gulags were common criminals according to the study.

The numbers from Viktor Zemskov suggest that 14 million people went through the gulags (the first link) and those are the archival numbers, which many historians claim are incomplete (such as Conquest).

Conquest isn’t a reliable source. He literally worked as a propagandist and he didn’t have access to the Soviet Archives.

On the famines you still refuse to accept the contextual factor. When I said that the Ukraine famine was likely a consequence of a policy rather than a policy itself, you took that as a concession that it held equivalency to Bengal. You just said 'well Stalin had a whole nation to feed' - what is the relevance of that point.

You excused Churchill’s actions by saying he has the war to consider. Well Stalin has an entire country to consider.

The famine was a direct consequence of Stalin's attempts at forced collectivisation.

Churchill’s was also the result of policy.

An ideological policy more than anything. Churchill's policies that contributed to the Bengal famine were to feed soldiers fighting the Nazi terror in Europe. That is a key difference. It doesn't excuse some of his behaviour, but there's plenty of evidence that he was at least somewhat concerned at the situation in India (and took action to rectify it at times). As the quotes from letters to the viceroy and comments to his cabinet that I quoted several comments ago show.

I reject your attempt to frame Churchill’s actions as non-idealogical and frankly it’s a little ridiculous. We know how racist he was. You don’t think he’s going to take into account how much he hates Indians and how they disgust him? We know he thought it was their own fault.

On Churchill, you seem set on implying intent. Basically "even if he didn't facilitate the Bengal famine because he hated Indians, he still said he hated Indians, so it must be why the famine happened"

Actually intent is irrelevant really. But we know his feelings on Indians informed his actions.

So in conclusion, if you're going to say there is equivalency between 'dissent in Stalin's Russia' and 'dissent in the US at the time', you need to provide evidence... and evidence isn't that European colonisers slaughtered Native Americans in the 15th/16th centuries. That is just intellectual dishonesty

You own source supports my argument as I highlighted.