Category Archives: Siberia

An Example of Anti-White Propaganda: “White Men Raped Their Way around Most of the World”

Chinedu: And yet hundreds of millions of people, populating entire continents and regions, are the products of white rape.

That was a long time ago though, was it not? Anyway, the newest theory on Black-White mixes in the US is that most came after the Civil War and most were consensual even before the Civil War. Yes there were rapes but they were not common. Heading up until the Civil War, in the 1830’s-1860’s, there were many White men working for money in the fields next to the slaves. There were many unions derived from this close contact. Further, many Black females desired to have sex with the slaveowners in order to become house Negroes, etc. Southern White culture was very conservative and Southern wives did not take well to their husbands taking up Black mistresses. Most White Black unions post Civil War were obviously consensual.

There is no reason to think that things were any different in Mexico, Honduras, Belize, Nicaragua, Panama, anywhere in the Caribbean, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina or even Brazil.

We have no reports of mass rapes of Black women by White men in any of those places.

I am not aware of any mass rape of Black women by White men in Colonial Africa, even in South Africa. The problem in the East was exacerbated by Islamic slavery, and I suppose many of those were rapes, or maybe they were consensual. No one seems to be able to figure this out when it comes to slaves. Probably your best case for mass rape of Black women by White men would be in the Middle East, especially Arabia and then Mesopotamia and the Levant. And I am quite sure this was the case in North Africa as well.

There isn’t any more raping of Black women by White men anywhere on Earth and certainly there is no mass raping.

As far as raping Indian women, this is very hard to figure. I know that here in California, many Whites simply married Indian women and become squawmen who were much derided by their fellow men. These unions were quite consensual. There were some rapes in this area and maybe some enslavement but it was mostly consensual. Before we had Spaniards and missions run by priests in which there was almost zero rape. The Spaniards did not even do much to Indians other than capture them and send them to missions.

As far as the rest of the US, I have no idea, but I have not heard a lot of reports of mass rape of Indian women by White men in the records. The breeding seems to be once again White men taking Indian brides and becoming squawmen. In Canada there was little to no rape or mass rape.

It is often said that the mass unions of Mexico were the product of rape but no one knows if this was true. There were very few Spaniard males and many Indian women. The Spaniards hardly had to rape with 100-1 or 1000-1 ratios.

I do not know much about the colonization of Central America to comment. However, Costa Rica tried to keep itself delberately White for a long time. Also the Indians were wiped out very early. Obviously there was mass mixing through this whole region, but I know nothing about the details.

I have not heard many reports of rape or mass rape in the Caribbean. Yes there was mass rape in the beginning in the context of a genocide, but Caribbean people now have little Indian blood. Barbadians are 1% Indian. Cubans are probably even less. Jamaicans, Haitians, Dominicans, Dominican Republicans, etc. have almost no Indian blood. Puerto Ricans have a lot of Indian blood, but I do not know how it got there.

Yes Whites conquered Indian nations in South America. Obviously a process of mestizisation occurred there, but I have no details on it. The wars were short and over with quickly. The mestizisation process appears to have been slow and I have no details on how it even worked. In Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, the Guyanas, I have no details at all. In Brazil what little I heard was that it was mostly consensual. An early Brazilian colonist, a Portuguese man, was reported to have twenty quite happy Indian wives. This was said to be pretty normal. In the 1800’s there was a Banquismo campaign, a very racist compaign intended to mass import Whites from Europe to swamp out and breed out Indians but mostly Blacks. Apparently it worked quite well.

In Argentina, the Black-White mating was so unrapey that many Blacks present in Argentina in the late 1800’s seem to have vanihsed into thin air. Argentines are now 3% Black, so you can imagine what really happened to the Blacks. Much the same happened in Uruguay.

In Mexico it was much the same thing. Mexico was pretty Black in 1820. In 100 years, there was little left. Now there’s almost nothing left and Mexicans are 4% Black. They are quite Blacker in other areas such as Veracruz. It doesn’t sound like a lot of rape went on in these “vanishings.”

In Chile the Indians were slowly bred in after the wars in the late 1800’s and now Chileans are maybe 20% Indian. In Argentina, the Indians were also defeated but many remained in the Pampas and the gaucho was typically a mostly White mestizo, the product of unions between Whites and Indians on the Plains.

Peru and Guatemala are still heavily Indian. Bolivia is probably mostly Indian.

There is not much evidence of mass White rape of non-Whites in Asia either. We have no reports of such from the Russian East or Siberia. We have no such reports from Malaysia, Indonesia or India either, and there were few Whites or Dutchmen anyway. Nor do we have reports of such from Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia. Nor do we have mass rape reports from the Philippines, where Spanish colonists were apparently few in number. There are also no reports from the US colonization of the Philippines.

Although it would not surprise me, I would like to see some data that the mass mixing of Aborgines and Whites in Australia was the result of rape. Aborigines are now 50% White on average and their 85 IQ’s reflect that. The 64 IQ reports are from unmixed Aborigines.

I have not heard any reports of mass rapes of Maori women by Whites in New Zealand.

Hawaii was indeed colonized by Whites, but I have not heard any reports of mass rape.

I do not know much about the history of Polynesia.

Central Asia is mass mixed between Mongol type Asians and Whites but there is no evidence that Whites mass raped Asians. In fact, much of the mixing may have been the other way around, as Mongols mass raped the Iranid Whites already present in those places. So in one place on Earth where we do have evidence of mass rape producing White-non-White mixes, it was the Whites who were getting raped and not the other way around!

Possibly the best case for mass rape of non-Whites by Whites may have been with Aryan Whites and Australoid South Indians in India. There was a lot of interbreeding, but there was also a Hell of a lot of rape especially were South Indian women were enslaved and made to serve as temple prostitutes for Aryan men. Even today Australoid Dalit women are commonly raped by more Aryan and higher caste men.

All in all, I do not think there is much remaining evidence for mass rape of non-Whites by Whites. There were a lot of unions in the last 500 years for sure but most were consensual.

334 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Americas, Amerindians, Argentina, Argentines, Asia, Australia, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, Christianity, Colombia, Colonialism, Cubans, Dominicans, East Indians, Ecuador, Eurasia, Europeans, Guatemala, Guyana, Haitians, Hispanics, History, India, Indonesia, Islam, Jamaicans, Jamaicans, Laos, Latin America, Malaysia, Maori, Mestizos, Mexicans, Mexico, Middle East, Mixed Race, NE Asia, North Africa, North America, Oceanians, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Political Science, Polynesians, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Russia, SE Asia, Siberia, Sociology, South America, South Asia, South Asians, Spaniards, Uruguay, US, USA, Venezuela, Vietnam, Whites

Some Unbelievable Propaganda Against “Racemixing”

RL: Defects in what way?

Race Realist: In a study of 100,000 mixed-race adolescent school children, those who identified themselves as such had higher health and behavior instances than those of one race. The effect was still observed even when SES and other factors were controlled for. A problem with an obvious genetic component.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/

Yet another study done on white-Asian mixes notes that they have a two times higher rate to be diagnosed with psychological problems such as anxiety, depression and substance abuse.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/uoc–baa081108.php

It was found, in agreement that black-white mixes engaged in more risky behavior than did mono-racial children. They also observe that mixed-race adolescents are stark outliers in comparison to whites and blacks, which still holds true despite being raised in similar environments to mono-racial children.

http://www.msu.edu/~renn/RHE-_mixed_race.pdf

Black and white couples also conceive children at around half the success of white male/female couples. And the aforementioned bone marrow/blood transfusion problems.

That’s all 100% sociological. We do not have a lot of mixed race people in this country, so the kids have some psychological stuff. But if you look at places were mixed race people are everywhere or even the norm, you see no such behavioral problems, and I’ve never heard of any health problems.

Whites and Asians are mixed to Hell in Central Asia all the way to Mongolia and Siberia. Any problems? Nope. Whites and Australoids are mixed to Hell in India. Any problems? Of course not. Asians and Australoids are mixed in Japan (20% Australoid). Any problems? Of course not. Asians and Australoids are also mixed in Philippines, Indonesia, coastal Papua New Guinea, Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia? Any problems? Of course not. Whites, Australoids and Asians are mixing heavily now in Singapore and have been for some time in Malaysia in general. Any problems? Of course not. The entire Southeast Asian stock was created by recent mass-mixing of Australoids and Asians? Any issues? Of course not.

Whites and Indians are mixed to Hell all over Latin America. Any problems or issues? Well, of course not. Whites and Blacks are mixed all over the Caribbean, the Middle East and North Africa? Any problems? Well, of course not. White, Indians and Blacks are mixed in Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Brazil. And even in Argentina. Any problems? Well, of course not.

Where are all these horrible health and behavioral problems you guys keep yelling about? They don’t exist.

Black and white couples also conceive children at around half the success of white male/female couples. And the aforementioned bone marrow/blood transfusion problems.

Has this stopped people from making babies in the US, the Caribbean, Latin America, North Africa and nations of South Africa and Namibia?

Is it really that hard to get a blood transfusion? Give me some evidence that there is a huge problem with getting a blood transfusion in Latin America or anywhere on Earth for that matter due to race.

In a study of 100,000 mixed-race adolescent school children, those who identified themselves as such had higher health and behavior instances than those of one race. The effect was still observed even when SES and other factors were controlled for. A problem with an obvious genetic component.

There is no genetic component there, obvious or otherwise. There’s a sociological and cultural component that’s 100% of the problem and a genetic component that’s 0% of the problem.

Have any physicians ever noted how the racemixing that produced these kids caused any particular health problem? What particular health problem was caused by say mixing of Blacks and Whites? What particular health problem was caused by mixing of Asians and Whites?

116 Comments

Filed under Africa, Americas, Amerindians, Anthropology, Argentina, Asia, Asians, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, Brazil, Caribbean, Central America, Colombia, Ecuador, Europeans, Health, India, Japan, Latin America, Malaysia, Mestizos, Mixed Race, Namibia, NE Asia, North Africa, North America, Panama, Philippines, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, Siberia, Singapore, Sociology, South Africa, South America, South Asia, Southwest Africa, USA, Venezuela, Whites

Caucasian/Non-Caucasian Mixing Zones Around the World

The heavy Caucasian-non-Caucasian mixing zone is from North Africa across Arabia, and then in a belt from the Urals in the north down through the Stans to Afghanistan, Pakistan and North India in the south and all the way to Siberia and even East Turkestan in China to the east.

One can say that there is a White/non-White mixing zone of recent origin in the Americas mostly from Mexico south in Mesoamerica down to Latin America all the way down to Chile, Uruguay and Argentina in the south, with more admixture to the north and much less at the south. Mesoamerica is quite thoroughly admixed or mestized as is Colombia, Venezuela, Peru and Paraguay. In Colombia, the Whites are also quite admixed with Black.

There is a White/Black mixing zone in the Caribbean and the Guyanas down to Brazil. In the Caribbean, White genes have been pretty much washed out by Black ancestry, and the Caribbean is quite a Black place. The same has occurred in Belize and to a lesser extent in Panama, both of which are seriously mulattized. Even Dominican “Whites” would probably not qualify as White to most people as they seem to have too much Black in them to be considered White. There are definitely White Puerto Ricans though and there are many White Cubans. The Guyanas are so mulattized that there are not many Whites left, similar to the Dominican Republic.

In North America, there has not been a lot of White/non-White mixing. The heavily mixed people are mostly recent immigrants from Mesoamerica, mostly from Mexico. Otherwise, Whites in the US, Canada and even Alaska have not mixed much with Indians, Inuits or Blacks.

Hawaii can be considered a White/non-White mixing zone of extremely recent origin as by this time most of the population is seriously admixed. The admixture is generally White/Asian mixes of all different sorts.

The Whites in New Zealand, Australia and even Europe are not much admixed other than recent immigrants in Europe, though there is some Asian/White admixture in the Sami. Nevertheless, I regard the Sami as Whites. Black-White mixing in Southern Europe is very negligible, despite the rantings and false science of Nordicists. Iranians are White. Turks are a bit admixed, but still they are overwhelmingly White.

There has been quite a bit of White/Black mixing in South Africa and Namibia, more than you might ever expect. The Namibian Whites in particular are quite admixed. Quite a few are so admixed that one wonders if they could be properly called White anymore as they tend to be in the “border zone” of Whiteness.

49 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Africa, Americas, Argentina, Asia, Australia, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Europe, Europeans, French Guyana, Guyana, India, Iranians, Latin America, Mexico, Middle East, Mixed Race, Namibia, NE Asia, Near Easterners, North Africa, North America, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Siberia, South Africa, South America, South Asia, Southwest Africa, Turks, Uruguay, USA, Whites

More on the Finest Mixed Race of Them All – The “Hapa”

S. D. writes: Eastern Europeans have some Asian blood in them-Charles Bronson was an example-all the way West to Hungary (Named after Huns from Northern China).

Finns, though blonde, also derive some ancient Asian genes through the Lapps who were apparently present when the Germanic tribes migrated Northwards in antiquity.

The Filipino ruling-class are Eurasians.

My point is this ain’t nothing new under the sun, folks,

The grandchild of a white male and an Asian female that is 1/4 Asian looks no different than an Eastern European.

That is why the continent is called Eurasia.

Japanese are some ancient mixture of Caucasoid Ainu from Russia and ancient migrations from Korean peninsula (In this instance the Asians exterminated the whites).

Manchurian Chinese are Eurasians from the steppes of Soviet Siberia.

What is the big deal?

I love a lot of mixed race people because I think a lot of mixed race people are even more beautiful than those of the pure races that formed them. Further, some races that are not very attractive to me can create very beautiful people by mixing with another race. Even some mixed Aborigine-White women can be quite beautiful. One is a famous Australian model.

East Europeans do not have much Asian blood in them – maybe 3% in Czechs and not a whole lot more in your average Russian. It’s less than 12% at any rate. Finns and Turks are 7% Asian, a bit more.

Go look up some photos of people like the Mansi and the Khanty. Very, very mixed Asian-White to the point where you see people with blue eyes and blond hair next to people who look very Asiatic – very strange looking but somehow beautiful.

Some of the groups around the Altai like the Altai people and the Khakas are also extremely mixed – more or less 50-50 in those cases but really more like 40-45% White and 55-60% Asian. These are the ancestors of most Amerindians.

Tatars and Bashkirs are also extremely mixed, although I believe they are mostly White. Nevertheless some of the women look very Asiatic.

Turkmen are also very mixed – I think they might be 40% Asian.

The Ainu are not Caucasoids either by genes of by skulls. On skulls they are Australoids – basically depigmented Northern Veddoids – and on genes are they are simply Asians. People think they are Caucasoids because Veddoids have look somewhat Caucasoid themselves and a depigmented Veddoid can look (falsely) quite Caucasoid and also because the mix between an Australoid and a Mongoloid or Paleomongoloid can often appear mysteriously quite Caucasoid in phenotype. Check out the Ainu and the Veddoids, some Polynesians, Papuans and even Aborigines, some Southeast Asians such as some Khmers, and especially the Taiwanese aborigines who often look very “Caucasoid.”

Northern Chinese may well have Caucasoid in them from way back, but the genes are no longer present. Mongolians have more White in them – they are 14% Caucasoid.

23 Comments

Filed under Ainu, Amerindians, Anthropology, Asians, Chinese (Ethnic), Eurasia, Europeans, Finns, Khmer, Mixed Race, Mongolians, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Papuans, Physical, Polynesians, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asians, Siberia, Taiwanese Aborigines, Turks, Whites

The Australoid-Mongoloid Transition in Asia and the Americas

The first Amerindians from 9-14,000 YBP were Australoids. All of Asia was Australoid until 9,000 YBP. North Asia transitioned away from Australoid at that time, but the transition out of Australoid happened much later in south.

For instance, the full transition did not occur until 2,200 YBP in Vietnam, and in all probability, Filipinos, Malays, Indonesians, Nicobar Islanders, Taiwanese aborigines, Montagnards, some Thai hill tribes, Nagas and probably others never fully transitioned over and hence are referred to as Paleomongoloids. The lack of full transition in the south is due to the Australoid-Mongoloid transition occurring so much later down there.

Whether Amerindians are a Paleo or Neo Mongoloids has never been completely answered. The Na Dene people in the Far North may be more Neo. There were still a few Australoid tribes at contact, and an Australoid tribe called the Pericua lasted for some time in Baja California. Whatever is left of the Yaghan and other Patagonian tribes may well be Australoids also.

However, the Eskimo or Inuit people are full Neomongoloids as are the peoples of Siberia.

10 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Filipinos, Indonesians, Inuit, Malays, NE Asia, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, Siberia, Taiwanese Aborigines, Thai, Vietnam, Vietnamese

Repost: New Movie about the Fake Holodomor

Those of you who are not familiar with the Holodomor lie that holds that 7-10 million Ukrainians were deliberately starved to death by Stalin in 1932-1933 in order to break their will because they opposed collectivization might want to read up on what really happened in those years. Note that I will accept a figure of 390,000 Ukrainians killed during that period, but I don’t think any of those were deliberately starved.

But oh no, the anti-Communist crazies, the Ukrainian nationalists and the Russia-haters have to have their precious “7-10 million murdered” figure. Read up down below to see why these scumbags, most of whom are unrepentant Nazis, are so enamored of that number. My observation is that “Ukrainian nationalist” and “Nazi” are pretty much synonyms.

Some idiot Hollywood filmmakers, some of them Ukrainians, are behind Holodomor: The Movie, a new documentary about the fake Holodomor of 1932-33, the fake deliberate famine that never even happened.

Looking over the story line, there are problems already.

Worst genocide in the history of mankind. Not true. First of all, it wasn’t a genocide. Second, the figures are wrong.

7-10 million died, presumably all Ukrainians. Not true. There were probably about 5.4 million deaths, most actually due to disease and not starvation. People weakened by lack of food fell prey to disease epidemics, particularly cholera. Sanitation was still rudimentary in the USSR at this time, and the antibiotic era only began after WW2. Before the antibiotic era, those afflicted with epidemic diseases often just died.

The movie implies that only Ukrainians died. This is not true. There was a famine over the entire land. People died in Moscow and Siberia.

The movie implies that Ukrainians as a people were deliberately targeted for genocide. Not true. As noted, starvation occurred throughout the land. In particular, the Russian regions near the Ukraine had death rates as high as the Ukrainians. If the Ukrainians were specifically targeted for genocide, why was the death rate just as high among the Slavs of the Lower Volga?

The movie tells the usual lie – there was a bumper harvest in 1932-1933, but the USSR confiscated the crops in order to kill off the Ukrainians, many of whom were protesting collectivization. It’s not true. The famine occurred because there was a famine harvest. The harvest simply collapsed in those years. Some of it was due to weather, but mostly an epidemic of wheat rust spread throughout the land. The Ukrainians also were destroying many of their own crops, setting them on fire, or harvesting them and then leaving them in piles to rot in the rain.

Anti-government guerrillas were rampaging through the Ukraine, attacking collective farms, killing collective farmers, raping women. In early 1932, there were multiple armed attacks occurring every day. For several years prior, the Ukrainians had been killing their own farm animals. They had destroyed about 50% of the livestock in the USSR. This contributed to the famine since many of these animals were used for food, but also, the horses were used to plow the fields.

The government did not “confiscate the bountiful harvest.” It was a real problem with the Ukrainians destroying the food and farm animals, so it’s true that the state sent soldiers and agents down there to seize grain before it could be destroyed. The grain unfortunately was needed to feed the cities, in particular the army. Ukrainians died disproportionately because this was where the crop failure due to wheat rust was the worst.

It’s not true that the Ukrainians were locked in a prison to starve. It was a very difficult time. The crop had failed, with a famine harvest. People were desperately trying to flee the Ukraine to go to other parts of the USSR. In fact, people were on the move all of the USSR, mostly looking for food. It was a great big mess, because workers need to stay in one place for any work to get done.

If the Ukrainians all left the Ukraine, there would be another famine harvest the next year since there would be no workers in the fields to grow crops. So, yes, they did try to prevent people from moving around, but people kept moving around anyway.

Fortunately, the next year was a bumper crop.

There were no 7-10 million deliberate killings (genocide) in the Ukraine in 1932-33. It’s true that there were 390,000 state killings associated with dekulakization in the Ukraine in 1932-33. If the Ukrainians wish to play that up, they can be my guest. But they seem to have an intellectual hard-on for that juicy 10 million dead number.

How did the “7-10 million” figure pop up?

The figure kept going up, because the Ukrainians kept raising it. After WW2, it was decided that the Nazis had killed 6 million Jews. The Ukrainians were upset about this because it made their Holodomor seem lesser.

Plus, the Ukrainian nationalists who play up the Holodomor were deeply involved in Nazism and mass Jew-killing genocide in the Ukraine after the Germans invaded. The Ukrainian nationalists had Jewish blood of the Holocaust all over their hands, and now the Holocaust was beating their precious Holodomor in the numbers racket too. Something had to be done.

The 7 million figure was tossed out. Why? To outdo the 6 million of the Jewish Holocaust and beat the Jews at the numbers game. Also, to play up the “Stalin was worse than Hitler” card, since the Ukrainians were so deeply in bed with the Nazis, this was meant to minimize Nazism as a lesser evil.

To this day, Ukrainian nationalist groups are some of the nastiest anti-Semites out there, more or less unrepentant Nazis. The fake Holodomor thing is part and parcel of their Nazi anti-Semitic project, since supposedly a bunch of Soviet Jews are the ones who “genocided the Ukrainians.”

Over time, they kept adding onto this, and now we have this inflated 7-10 million figure.

One would think that the Ukrainian nationalists could come up with at least one document showing proof of this Holodomor of theirs. The Soviet archives have been opened, including the secret archives of the KGB. It’s all out there for anyone to look at.

With the Nazis, researchers have been able to go over their documentation scrupulously and find documents showing that the Nazi leadership was behind the Holocaust, as much as they tried to cover it up with euphemisms. That the Ukrainians can’t come up with one piece of paper to prove their case is telling.

What’s strange is that the collectivization project is probably what saved the world from Nazism. The USSR of the 1930’s was involved in breakneck industrialization, since Stalin knew that the Nazis and or the West were going to attack them. They had industrialize quickly or be destroyed. The buildup of the USSR during that period was one of the greatest and most extensive national developmental projects in history.

Collectivization was needed to feed the workers in the cities and to free up workers from the fields. Previously, Russian farmers farmed small, unproductive farms that barely grew enough food for one family. This wasn’t going to feed an industrial society, so collectivization was done. The result of this world-shattering developmental project was that the USSR was able to defeat the Nazis. 89% of Germans killed in the war were killed by the USSR. For all intents and purposes, the USSR won the war for us and saved the world from Hitler.

This website takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support my work.

11 Comments

Filed under Agricutlure, Anti-Semitism, Asia, Cinema, Death, Ethnic Nationalism, Eurasia, Europe, European, Europeans, Fascism, Germany, Health, History, Illness, Jews, Modern, Nationalism, Nazism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Russia, Siberia, Ukraine, Ukrainians, USSR, War, World War 2

There Is No Such Thing As the Holodomor

Stary Wylk writes:

The Holodomor was starving Ukrainians through crop seizure, not mass deportations. Those came later.

The Holodomor never even happened. And murderous deportations were indeed part of the process that killed many people in that region in 1932.

The starvation was just as bad as in the Ukraine if not worse in a number of other places including the Lower Volga and western Kazakhstan. The Kazakhs supported Stalin, and the Russians of the Rostov were fanatical Stalin supporters. Also the Holodomor hit the east of the Ukraine where the Russians live very hard. Support for Stalin was and is still strong in this area. 1 million people died in Siberia. There were a lot of deaths in Moscow. Did Stalin unleash a “terror famine” in Eastern Ukraine, the Rostov, the Lower Don, western Kazakhstan, Siberia and even Moscow? Of course not.

There was no terror famine. There was a famine harvest. In one year, the harvest collapsed and was only 50% of normal.

You can argue why that happened.

Crops had to be seized because the Ukies were setting their crops on fire and piling them in the fields to get rained on until they molded. The kulaks killed half the livestock in the USSR in the years leading up to the Holodomor. This made things worse, as there was a shortage of horses to plow fields and livestock to eat.

Also the Ukies waged an insurgency where they were attacking the collective farms, burning crops, killing livestock and raping and murdering collective farm workers. At the height there were 20-30 attacks a day going on. All of this was going on in the context of the Holodomor. Actually many deaths occurred in the context of a vicious counterinsurgency campaign combined with some very cruel mass deportations of Ukies to Siberia. 390,000 Ukrainians were killed in this savage counterinsurgency/deportation campaign. If you want to add that to Stalin’s kill total, I would not object.

Ukraine suffered the most deaths, but that was where the harvest collapse was worst. 90% of food exports back from the state for famine relief went to the Ukraine that year.

There was no terror famine!

2 Comments

Filed under Agricutlure, Asia, Death, Eurasia, Europe, European, Health, History, Livestock Production, Modern, NE Asia, Nutrition, Regional, Russia, Siberia, Ukraine, USSR

Why the “Stalin Killed 20-40 Million People” Line Is Not True

Sam writes:

The Macon Telegraph says,”…It is estimated that between 20 to 40 million people, mostly Russians, were killed by Stalin during his dictatorship (1924-1953)…”

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin
By Timothy Snyder

“…unlike the Germans, the Soviets killed a greater number of civilians during peacetime than during war…”

Museum of Communism FAQ

“…So many millions perished within the Gulag Archipelago for so many reasons, or for no reason. With a minimum of 5,000,000 slave laborers from 1931 to 1950, and a minimum death toll of 10% per year – both improbably low figures – one can conclude that Stalin’s camps claimed a minimum of 10,000,000 victims, and easily two or three times as many….”

“…grain in 1932 in the Ukraine was for the first time taken from the peasants and stored in urban granaries: officials realized that once starvation set in the peasants would try to eat the seed grain. The Ukrainian-Russian border was carefully guarded to keep Russian grain out of the famine-stricken Ukraine and starving Ukrainians out of Russia. Government grain stockpiles were available, but unused.

This mixture of ruthless methods resulted in the starvation deaths of about 7 million people: 5 million in the Ukraine, 1 million in the North Caucasus region, and 1 million elsewhere. On top of this, a similar collectivization campaign carried out against the nomads of Kazakhstan led to 1 million further deaths…”

So 17 million not counting executions.

Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Primary Megadeaths of the Twentieth Century

Estimates high and low. Scholars beginning to rest on 20 million at lowest.

Everything written above about the Holodomor is not true. Anyway the death toll was just as high in the staunchly pro-Soviet Rostov and Lower Don District. Did the USSR deliberately starve its own staunchest supporters. 1 million died in Siberia. Did the USSR deliberately starve 1 million people in Siberia. Many died in Soviet cities, including Moscow. Did the USSR starve its own urban citizens? What for?

Less grain actually taken in 1932 than in the previous year! So much for stealing all the grain. More grain was actually requisitioned back in 1932 than in the previous year! So much for the “they would not give them any food” argument. All over the USSR, people were moving around here and there, trying to escape famine conditions and get to a place where the food was more plentiful. They tried to stop all of this internal migration by putting checks at the borders, but it didn’t work very well. They especially wanted to stop people from migrating out of Ukraine, as then they would have no rural population in their grain belt to grow grain.

The next year, 1933, was a bumper harvest. If they were trying to starve people, why have a famine one year and a bumper harvest the next? Makes no sense. In the previous five years, the kulaks had killed half the livestock in the USSR. This was a big reason for the famine right there. And in Ukraine, people were setting their mature grain fields on fire. They would harvest all of their grain and pile it in a big pile in a field until it got rained on, and then it would mold.

The Ukrainians had an insurgency where they were attacking collective farms, killing the workers, raping the women, killing all the livestock and setting the crops on fire. In early 1932, there were 20-30 armed attacks occurring every day in the Ukraine. So as you can see, this was all happening in the background of a civil war.

Bloodlands is a terrible book, and Mr. Snyder is a hardline anti-Communist. His statement that Stalin killed more in peacetime than he did in wartime while Hitler killed more in wartime than he did in peacetime is irrelevant. Hitler didn’t kill many people before he went to war. So what? Is there something special about peacetime killings versus wartime killings? What’s  the difference. Stalin killed more in peacetime than Hitler, so he’s worse? That’s an argument?

The Macon Telegraph is wrong. There were no 20-40 million killed. Megadeaths is wrong. There were no 20 million minimum killed. Caplan the libertarian is wrong. There were no 17 million+ deaths.

Here are the figures for peacetime deaths from 1926-1953:

Executions:          900,000
Deaths in the gulag: 1.2 million
Anti-kulak campaign: 390,000

How do we know those figures are correct? Because they are from the Soviet Archives, that’s why. With the fall of the USSR in 1991, the Soviet Archives were opened for the first time and available to historians. For the next decade, historians argued about the figures in the archives, which are listed above. Yes, the Soviets kept track of every execution and every death in gulags. Or at least deaths per month or deaths per year. Like the Germans, they wrote it all down.

There have been many arguments against the figures above. Most of them boil down to, “Commies lie. The Soviets were Commies, so they lied. Therefore the figures are no good.”

There are some better arguments that the figures do not include the population transfers during World War 2. Another interesting argument is that the gulag figures are not good because the gulags tended to release people, if at all, when they were in very bad shape, and they often died soon after and were not counted.

I have not kept up on the debate.

The people throwing around the figures of 17+, 20+, and 20-40 million do not know what they are talking about. All of those figures were calculated by the West before we had access to the Soviet Archives. It turns out that the earlier Western figures were wild exaggerations, basically untruths, which were written up and used by the West as Cold War propaganda. The West had no idea how many people were killed by Stalin or the USSR, so they just came up with one wildassed guess after another. All of the figures above are discredited because those people are not the experts who are studying the matter.

The only place where rational people are discussing how many died during the USSR is among Sovietologists in the history journals. The debate began in the early 1990’s and may be ongoing for all I know, but I do not think the Archives figures have been successfully challenged yet.

6 Comments

Filed under Agricutlure, Asia, Caucasus, Cold War, Death, Eurasia, Europe, European, History, Modern, NE Asia, Near East, Regional, Russia, Siberia, Ukraine, USSR, War, World War 2

Minority Languages in Siberia

John writes:

I read that the ancestors of modern day Aboriginal Canadians/Americans still live in parts of Siberia but they are fading away linguistically and culturally due to Russian culture, do you know anything about this? I know that the indigenous people of Russia were all Mongoloid and Siberia was all Mongoloid type people before the Russians came. So how is it that Russia is not causing harm to these cultures?

Russia has a pretty progressive attitude towards these folks. None of them are separatists, so there is not much to worry about. Russia doesn’t settle it with Russians because no Russian wants to go live in Siberia. I suspect they might even let some of these groups separate because I am not sure how much Russia cares about all these frozen wastes.

I just wrote a huge paper on these groups that will appear soon in a new book.

Russia lets all of these groups use their languages as much as they want to. They can study them in schools, or they can even use them as a medium for instruction as long as kids end up fluent in Russian too. They can declare one or more of their languages as official state languages alongside Russian. They can use the language alongside Russian in government and universities. They can have newspapers, magazines, TV and radio in their languages. The USSR supported language rights, and the new Russia has more or less inherited that mindset.

Quite a few of even the small groups related to Amerindians still speak their languages. For instance, the Altai languages are still widely spoken. Children are still being raised as native speakers in some of these languages. However, many are on their way out with most speakers age 40+. Some languages have only elderly speakers and are moribund.

Speakers of these languages often suffer from lack of funds for learning materials in the schools, and their media productions either lack funding or tend to get shut down due to financial issues.

7 Comments

Filed under Altaic, Amerindians, Culture, Education, Eurasia, Europeans, Language Families, Linguistics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russia, Russians, Siberia, Siberians, Sociolinguistics

Who Were the Ancient Central Asians?

Sacae writes:

Rob, were the ancient central Asians White just like Europeans, were they Slavic?

Hi, the ancient IE people from the steppes were very, very White. Whether or not there were Asiatics living in these places, I have no idea. My opinion is that the Asiatic infusion is relatively recent, in the last ~3,000 years, possibly associated with Mongolic invasions, Genghis Khan and whatnot. There has been proven Asiatic-Caucasian breeding in the steppes for 2-3,000 years now, but before that, it does not seem like there is a lot of it. Siberia is an ancient zone of interbreeding between these major races.

Slavic is a linguistic term and has no relevance beyond 2-3,000 years ago. The progenitors of the Slavs in the Rus where red-haired Scandinavians, possibly due to a Scandinavian invasion and conquest of this region. The Viking types conquered the region and the native Slavs, instead of fighting them, simply retreated into the forest where they led surreptitious lives. This may have been the beginnings of the Slav “slave race” theory of Slavs not wanting to fight and just surrendering to invaders.

16 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Europe, Europeans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Siberia, Whites