- Robert Conquest now "no longer thinks it was consciously intended". Archived Message
Posted by Der
on April 29, 2022, 8:52 am, in reply to "A couple of good papers by Tauger. One refuting some attacks on him."
|
Some of Conquest's earlier remarks (1984 & 1986): Stalin ‘wanted a famine’. (Hearing, (1984) Seminar at American Institute, p 45. Cited in The Years of Hunger - Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933 by RW Davies and Stephen G Wheatcroft, Softcover edition, 2009, p. 441) '[T]he Soviets did not want the famine to be coped with successfully’. (Hearing, ibid, p 61, Cited in Davies, p441) The Ukrainian famine was ‘deliberately inflicted for its own sake’ (The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine, Conquest, R., London, 1986, p196. Cited in Davies, p441) And ‘The main lesson seems to be that the Communist ideology provided the motivation for an unprecedented massacre of men, women and children.’ (Harvest, Conquest p344. Cited in Davies 441) Conquest's later remarks (2003): "Robert Conquest, the most widely cited advocate of the view that the famine was man-made, has clarified his position on this matter and has clearly stated that although he thinks that the famine was caused by the Bolsheviks, who engaged in criminally terroristic measures, he nevertheless does not think that it was consciously intended". (The Years of Hunger, p xvi, Preface to Revised edition). That's bunkum by Davies and Wheatcroft. It's a darn sight more than Conquest "clarif[ying]... his position". Conquest is basically now saying it was not genocide, after all. Also, "In correspondence Dr Conquest has stated that it is not his opinion that ‘Stalin purposely inflicted the 1933 famine. No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put “Soviet interest” other than feeding the starving first – thus consciously abetting it’ (September 2003)." (Ibid, p 441, footnote 145). Davies and Wheatcroft, themselves, in their revised edition of The Years of Hunger, conclude that, "We do not at all absolve Stalin from responsibility for the famine. His policies towards the peasants were ruthless and brutal. But the story which has emerged in this book is of a Soviet leadership which was struggling with a famine crisis which had been caused partly by their wrongheaded policies, but was unexpected and undesirable. The background to the famine is not simply that Soviet agricultural policies were derived from Bolshevik ideology, though ideology played its part. They were also shaped by the Russian pre-revolutionary past, the experiences of the civil war, the international situation, the intransigent circumstances of geography and the weather, and the modus operandi of the Soviet system as it was established under Stalin. They were formulated by men with little formal education and limited knowledge of agriculture. Above all, they were a consequence of the decision to industrialise this peasant country at breakneck speed." (Ibid, p441). Tauger has shown how this whole thing is western propagandists rushing to use the word genocide against official enemies. As usual. Never thought I'd see myself defending the Bolsheviks! But the irritating thing about these lies is that there is no need to make stuff up. Moshe Lewin in his The Soviet Century, 2016, says the same about the ridiculous attempts to inflate the numbers of those sent to the Gulag. Especially when the true figures sent were so massive anyway. |