The notion that Stalin caused the death of millions of people

Rebuttals:Firstly, I would like to apologise to any readers for not correctly editing part of the first witness testimony...I was very tired when I edited that and forgot to use the quotation marks and writing style.**************************Con states that he has no problem with the definition (of responsible) and the inclusion of the fact that Stalin nationalised the farming sector, which to me presents an issue.Taking into account the definition, and this nationalism that was created by Stalin...it does not really take a great stretch of the imagination to at least consider the idea that Stalin was responsible for this great famine, if not to conclude exactly that. Con can simply not just accept this definition and the nationalisation of Ukrainian farmland; and yet deny any correlation between the famine that was yet to follow.When one governing body decides to implement a policy--the repercussions and results of that policy (good or bad) are what follow after. In the case of Stalin nationalising farms, it was starvation that followed. I would not necessarily get into the motivations or ulterior reasoning on Stalin's behalf in this debate, but, the point is that as the one who introduced this policy--he was the one to bare the responsibility of what occurred after it.Before proceeding to his own argument, Con then gives his analysis of each of my sources. He claims the third one does not have enough additional evidence, but to my knowledge, a source does not necessarily have to be backed up with yet another source. One source for one assertion should be sufficient--and this is reputable historical website. Many of the Kulaks were indeed sent to Siberia, and parts of the Ural's/Kazakhstan. What happened to the Kulaks is in fact no historical secret, and what Stalin did is widely referred to as the 'dekulakization'.In 1930, Stalin actually made this quote about his elimination of the Kulaks:'In order to oust the 'kulaks' as a class, the resistance of this class must be smashed in open battle and it must be deprived of the productive sources of its existence and development. ... That is a turn towards the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class.'The reason I'm using this is to also illuminate his plans for diminishing the basic needs of farmers, note that he uses terms such as 'productive sources', 'existence' and 'development'...and how he wishes to to 'deprive' them of these three crucial things. (7.) Stalin, Joseph: Concerning the Policy of Eliminating the Kulaks as a Class, Krasnaya Zvezda, January 21, 1930, Collected Works, Vol. 12, p. 189On the fourth source, Con agrees that this is a quote directly from Stalin--but argues that it doesn't prove a mass genocide. However, it does very much show that Stalin wanted to remove the Kulaks...which, ultimately led to a mass genocide of people. It began with their deportation and diminishing of rights, then the mass starvation of the lesser wealthy peasant farmers occurred.Using the example of 'gleaning' (using crops that are left over and redistributing them), this was basically criminalized by Stalin. Any farmers who gleaned faced a penalty of death, or at the very least--a harsh prison sentence. This is relevant because it shows there was an agenda, for whatever reason, to minimise and limit the rights of Ukrainian farmers and their ability to operate their farms as they wished; also pointing to one of the ways they were deprived of food.Another law was enacted in 1932, while the famine was taking place, which was to prevent any theft of 'socialist property'; which essentially meant that starving Ukrainians could not steal or use state-owned produce. (8.) Andrew Gregorovich, Genocide in Ukraine 1933, part 4: How Did Stalin Organize the Genocide?, Ukrainian Canadian Research & Documentation Centre, Toronto 1998.In fact, 54,645 people were imprisoned under this law. And 2,110 received death sentences. (9.) http://www.law.edu.ru...Con then addresses the fifth source used, but again--a source is a source and his rebuttals should really have been left for round three anyway. For some reason, Con thinks it's a problem that source five also uses a source from TheHistoryPlace, but this is really irrelevant. They are both valid sources and both highlight deportation numbers.Regarding survivor testimony, Mykhaylo Naumenko does in fact come up on a Google search, with his testimony. As for the woman, Con has spelled it incorrectly. Olena Mukniak is in fact referenced elsewhere (10.) http://maidan.org.ua...Additional testimony from others can be found here (11.) https://m.youtube.com...And another one...One of the survivors in this testimony, Maria Kachmar, states how her father was taken to Siberia.Another survivor, Maria Firman, tells how her mother just died in bed...likely from starvation.These witness accounts fully go into how the Russians were purposely depriving Ukrainian farmers of food--with one the last survivors in the testimony, Natalia Demyanenko, staing how anyone crossing the border to seek food, was shot. Her own sister was shot and injured. (12.) https://m.youtube.com...Now regarding the NKVD, Con claims there is yet again no evidence of responsibility on their behalf. However, crimes committed by the NKVD went on for years within the Soviet Union--once again, there is really no secret.The book 'Silent Memories, Traumatic Lives' references how the NKVD also had a hold over schools in the Ukraine at that time and how both spiritually and physically, children were crushed. (13.) Silent Memories, Traumatic Lives, the Holodomor Years, p.84**************Con then proceeds to his own opening argument, and asserts that it was the Kulaks who caused the Holodomor and not Stalin. With his reasoning being that the Kulaks slaughtered livestock, but, while some of this did occur...it occurred before the great famine of 1932-1933 and can be no means account for such an enormous number of people starving.And one must consider who most of the Kulaks were deported, or relocated (some of these actually included German Kulaks) and that while people are dying of hunger en masse, Stalin was still exporting Ukraine's crops.Although, the quotas that he set the Ukraine were impossible to reach. This is provoked Stalin so much that any remaining produce that was left, he ordered to be taken away.One Soviet author wrote this:'All the grain without exception was requisitioned for the fulfillment of the Plan, including that set aside for sowing, fodder, and even that previously issued to the kolkhozniki as payment for their work.' (14.) Execution by Hunger: the Hidden Holocaust, by Miron Dolot, p.xiCon also argues that if Stalin had caused the famine, other areas in the Soviet Union would've somehow been exempt. But this logic surely fails as other places did indeed suffer famine, but also as a result of Stalin's new collectivization policy. If anything it proves that the Ukrainians, wealthy farmers and non-wealthy farmers alike, did not choose to inflict such damage on themselves.The book Democratic Changes and Authoritarian Reactions in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova states the occurrence of this in later years:'Moldova's peasantry was subjected to forced collectivization, which saw some 10,000 or more deported as Kulaks. The suppression of class enemies, mass famine and starvation, and then the collectivization campaign, appear to be no greater in scope or more brutal than anywhere else in the Soviet Union.' (this was referencing 1940's collectivization only.)Earlier, it does indeed state how people died of 'hunger and malnutrition related diseases' due to the 'failure of Party leaders to reduce compulsory grain collections.' (P.258, of that book) Cons Sources:1. This source is a Stalin archive, with 805 pages to read in total. I have looked at the titles of each chapter to see exactly what Con is referring to but given the high number of pages...it isn't easy. I will nevertheless read it over later. What does concern me is that each source doesn't seem to numerically correspond with the other.2. This is the source that I used. 3.) This particular source presents a problem to readers as it is entirely in Russian...so the vast majority of people reading this debate will not what it's saying; as Con hasn't even translated the contents. Also, I have acknowledged in this debate that some of the Kulaks killed livestock in rebellion, so that the source mentions this (in Russian) doesn't really mean anything. I am contending that this did NOT cause a minimum of 7 million to die...in light of everything else I've written in my arguments.And anyway, the source also verifies what I said about grain being exported, the strict implementations in place, and the *fact* that Ukrainian farmers were punished for wanting to keep their grain. It in fact gives much away.For example, one part of the source says:'In addition to these measures, the following were also applied: confiscation of all or part of surplus grain products, confiscation of a part of the property in the amount of 2 to 1000 rubles. And so on.'There are indeed strong elements of Soviet propaganda the entirety of this source, primarily against the Kulaks, but it fully validates what I have said on as to the harshness of collectivization and the fact that farmers did indeed have their produce taken away, without any say on their behalf...and that many were fined. Towards the end of the source, there are actually witness testimonies of that. During a 1929 excerpt, one farmer says: 'I am currently with my family, which consists of me, (a) disabled wife, and six children aged between one and 14 years, we are left homeless, without equipment and without land, why are we doomed to be hungry and poor?' I have now ran out of the character limit, so some more of this source, and Cons following sources I will address in the next round.