Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions only came into force in 2010 and it does not classify cluster bombs as a WMD.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Come on, talking to people is meaningless. You and I both know that when Douma fell government troops dragged off anyone that gave of a whiff of anti Assad sentiment to the torture dungeons. Those people are the ones that the government left behind to be interviewed, and you can be damn sure that those people would be aware every word they said would be relayed back to the government.

talking to people is meaningless... visiting site is meaningless... air strikes on a capital of other country and supporting terrorists are meaningful... we walk different roads, maybe because I personally felt the shock wave of an appartnment building being blasted by terrorists in Moscow in 90s and so many of my wife's relatives were killed in WW II here not far from Moscow that she was lucky to be born...

Talking to people and visiting sites is only useful if you know they can speak freely and nothing is tampered with. Pretending the Syrians left in Douma can speak freely is just laughable. And no, I don't think the air strikes were meaningful, nothing short of a full scale Western invasion and nation building project will be meaningful now.

As for your personal experiences, every family has war stories. My family got bombed by the Germans and the Allies in WW2, big whoop. That doesn't make my opinion magically more relevant. Russia is supporting one of the biggest terrorists in the world today. What you experienced is what Syrians experience every single day at the hands of Syrian and Russian aircraft bombing them.

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Hell, the doctor interviewed wasn't even an eyewitness as Frisk makes clear:

ok, agree he was 300 metres from there, in Douma, and refers to doctors from his clinic... so what?

So did you miss the part where Frisk explicitly says the doctor did not witness anything directly? And that all relevant doctors are conveniently in Damascus? The doctor could be making all of it up for all we know, he's not a credible witness. All he has is convenient information that supports Assad story that he could conveniently tell to a load of journalists shipped in by the Syrian government.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Talking to people and visiting sites is only useful if you know they can speak freely and nothing is tampered with. Pretending the Syrians left in Douma can speak freely is just laughable. And no, I don't think the air strikes were meaningful, nothing short of a full scale Western invasion and nation building project will be meaningful now.

As for your personal experiences, every family has war stories. My family got bombed by the Germans and the Allies in WW2, big whoop. That doesn't make my opinion magically more relevant. Russia is supporting one of the biggest terrorists in the world today. What you experienced is what Syrians experience every single day at the hands of Syrian and Russian aircraft bombing them.

no, US since Afganistan (where they helped mojahedeen taliban overthrow a secular and quite progressive in middle east terms government) ally with and actively supports any force which would ensure war in the region goes on the proper way and no other big power controls the oil-rich and strategically located region... do you recall Carter's advisor Brzeziński, read him how this started in Afganistan and to what purpose, quite enlightening... and do you really believe in West against Dictators? then West guys are quite selective at the least

and, no big whoop, why should there be any?

I don't see how the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (the Afghani government had basically lost all its power when the Soviets tried to intervene) has anything to do with Syrians not being able to speak freely or the only meaningful Western option being a nation building approach.

 elk@work wrote:

WHO statement doesn't mention any field mission, autopsies or soil samples, and draws no conclusions as to who is to blame...

I admit, I got this one confused with last year's gas attack since the dates are so similar.

 elk@work wrote:

air strikes on a capital of other country and supporting terrorists are meaningful... we walk different roads, maybe because I personally felt the shock wave of an appartnment building being blasted by terrorists in Moscow in 90s and so many of my wife's relatives were killed in WW II here not far from Moscow that she was lucky to be born...

No, that's not it. Being I'm someone who got to see one of the 9/11 attacks up close and personal, not on the TV. And I find what you've said utterly repulsive. Further, if you want to bring up WW2, comrade, remember that Ribbentrop Pact? Poland, maybe? You started WW2 on the OTHER side, and probably would have stayed there if not for Hitler stabbing you in the back. 'Poor Us, we had 20m casualties' is not a valid argument in this one.

 elk@work wrote:
it's up to you to call it 'trash' (but why, really?) or take it seriously... to me those two reports are much more real journalism then much else published on the subject... it's there, it's not Russian news, it provides some witness account from the site... no point in bullying me personally

It's trash because of how you use it. Note you continue to just walk away from your previous claim about Red Crescent, when it was proven to be a lie you didn't concede the error and commit to better considering your sources in future. A person who was arguing in good faith would do that without even being asked. Being shown to have used a dishonest source is something honest people feel bad about and look to avoid. And this would lead those people to improve over time, learn which sources are regularly lie and shouldn't be trusted, that kind of thing.

But you don't work like that. Instead you just move on to the next batch of crap, and if someone does the work to show how those sources don't support your false argument, you'll go find some more crap. And we won't ever reach the bottom of the bucket, because the crap is near limitless, while people's patience is not.

For the record, your new sources are junk. The first source is FOX News off its meds, and the second source is actually an interesting article from an excellent reporter, it just doesn't say what you claim it does. And no, this isn't an invite to discuss either. If you try to do that it will only prove you will insist on playing your stupid game no matter what anyone posts in response.

And no, I'm not bullying you. Don't play the sad victim because I'm calling you on your dishonesty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KTG17 wrote:
Between the 2002 Nord-Ost siege, Alexander Litvinenko, Viktor Yushchenko, supporting Assad gas attacks in 2017, again in 2018, the Skripals, are we actually debating whether Russia is responsible for any of this? Are memories that short?

I think the mistake is in seeing it as a debate. There's a handful of people, mostly Russians surprisingly enough, who are posting a string of bad faith nonsense which no-one else is taking seriously.

But it does distract from actually discussing what should be done in this particular instance, and what should be done about Russia in general.

 sebster wrote:


It's trash because of how you use it. Note you continue to just walk away from your previous claim about Red Crescent, when it was proven to be a lie you didn't concede the error and commit to better considering your sources in future. A person who was arguing in good faith would do that without even being asked. Being shown to have used a dishonest source is something honest people feel bad about and look to avoid. And this would lead those people to improve over time, learn which sources are regularly lie and shouldn't be trusted, that kind of thing.

But you don't work like that. Instead you just move on to the next batch of crap, and if someone does the work to show how those sources don't support your false argument, you'll go find some more crap. And we won't ever reach the bottom of the bucket, because the crap is near limitless, while people's patience is not.

For the record, your new sources are junk. The first source is FOX News off its meds, and the second source is actually an interesting article from an excellent reporter, it just doesn't say what you claim it does. And no, this isn't an invite to discuss either. If you try to do that it will only prove you will insist on playing your stupid game no matter what anyone posts in response.

And no, I'm not bullying you. Don't play the sad victim because I'm calling you on your dishonesty.

I thought we were through with Red Crescent.... what I originally wrote is that Red Crescent has neither reported nor confirmed Douma gas attack... something you stated yourself a few posts later... what lie are you talking about? if what you mean is that my post implied Red Crescent positively denied the attack - this is not what I wrote as is even more clear from my next two posts after the first one... please turn down your personal attitude and turn up your critical judgement, and check those posts

I admit I was inaccurate when saying the doctor in Fisk report was an eye witness... but he was certainly a witness to Douma events in broader meaning, as well as other people Fisk refers to... and I admit there were some other inaccuracies in my posts, none intended or deliberate... I fail to see how this makes those two reports 'trash' or discredites the message... I didn't quote, I gave direct links - so anyone could go and see/read it and think for himself , and I hope those with critical (as opposed to hypocritical) judgement would do this

don't waste time lecturing me on morale and discussing my personality - this is really waste of time, I'm not buying it... what I will discuss and argue is that every person with a computer and internet access shoul be responcible enough to understand that 'Russia's track record of evil doing is so unparalleled that it goes without need to prove that Russia did it in Sailsbury' is a hypocrisy made on a pile of lies, misrepresentations and ommissions, exploiting cold war sentiments... any time I read this argument in support of Russian involvement in Skripal case I'd see it as an invitation and relevant to this thread to dispute this specific point... as this is the only publicly available and repeatedly chanted rationale for assigning blame in Skripal case to Russia

 elk@work wrote:
I thought we were through with Red Crescent.... what I originally wrote is that Red Crescent has neither reported nor confirmed Douma gas attack... something you stated yourself a few posts later... what lie are you talking about? if what you mean is that my post implied Red Crescent positively denied the attack - this is not what I wrote as is even more clear from my next two posts after the first one...

Claiming Red Crescent has a large presence in the region but hasn't confirmed the attack is a dishonest representation of Red Crescent's position.

Here is the actual statement from Red Crescent;
"neither the Syrian Arab Red Crescent nor the International Federation are in a position to confirm or deny any attack."

Red Crescent isn't in a position to comment on chemical attacks, it isn't what they're geared to do operationally, and it is something they can't do politically. Your summary ignored all this, and instead just asserted that Red Crescent is big enough that they would likely know of an attack (not necessarily true), and they would act to confirm this politically sensitive matter if they did know it happened (not certain at all).

And even worse, you doubled down on this lie, by trying to talk past my initial rejection of your claim, only to repeat your original claim a page later as if no part of it was proven false.

I admit I was inaccurate when saying the doctor in Fisk report was an eye witness...

You completely mischaracterised the Fisk article. It didn't set out to throw doubt on the chemical attack, and in fact repeated statements from objective organisations confirming the attack. Rather the purpose of the piece was to provide the view of people in Douma, that in the chaos of a city that's been an active war zone, there's little knowledge about what happened, and nor is there that much interest - when you've suffered daily slaughter from conventional weapons, then a relatively small number of deaths from a weapon with an international ban doesn't matter so much as it does to people outside of Douma.

Which is quite an interesting observation that could lead to quite an interesting conversation. But it's a conversation we're not having, because instead of introducing the article as it actually is, you picked out one statement from one observer to try and advance your silly argument. So instead we argue about that.

don,t waste time lecturing me on morale and discussing my personality

It is how you have to be engaged with. Trying to combat each lie as you make it is a waste of time. You operate on what's known as gish gallop, you make a false claim, and by the time that claim has been disproven you've moved on and added two more lies. It works because spamming a bunch of lies is much quicker and easier to do than going through, proving each lie as false.

The only way to address this strategy is to tackle a few of the claims, show them as lies, note this person has shown a pattern of spamming lies, and shouldn't be taken at face value on any of their claims. It isn't practical and shouldn't be necessary to disprove every single lie, instead we should just note someone as a serial liar and ignore them for the sake of productive conversation.

 sebster wrote:

Claiming Red Crescent has a large presence in the region but hasn't confirmed the attack is a dishonest representation of Red Crescent's position.

Here is the actual statement from Red Crescent;
"neither the Syrian Arab Red Crescent nor the International Federation are in a position to confirm or deny any attack."

Your summary was dishonest. And worse, I already explained this, and you tried to ignore that and instead just posted new false claims.

That Red Crescent has a large presence in the region is on their website, and it hasn't reported or confirmed the attack... simple facts, call it whatever you please but not a 'lie' or 'dishonest representation'... I still fail to see what point you're trying to make...

 sebster wrote:

You completely mischaracterised the Fisk article. It didn't set out to throw doubt on the chemical attack, and in fact repeated statements from objective organisations confirming the attack. Rather the purpose of the piece was to provide the view of people in Douma, that in the chaos of a city that's been an active war zone, there's little knowledge about what happened, and nor is there that much interest - when you've suffered daily slaughter from conventional weapons, then a relatively small number of deaths from a weapon with an international ban doesn't matter so much as it does to people outside of Douma.

Which is quite an interesting observation that could lead to quite an interesting conversation. But it's a conversation we're not having, because instead of introducing the article as it actually is, you picked out one statement from one observer to try and advance your silly argument. So instead we argue about that.

again - I gave direct links and didn't quote... you read it one way, I read it other way, somebody else will read it his way... your summary of the article is not without bias as well, so no point in trying to condition me or others to read it your way

 sebster wrote:

It is how you have to be engaged with. Trying to combat each lie as you make it is a waste of time. You operate on what's known as gish gallop, you make a false claim, and by the time that claim has been disproven you've moved on and added two more lies. It works because spamming a bunch of lies is much quicker and easier to do than going through, proving each lie as false.

The only way to address this strategy is to tackle a few of the claims, show them as lies, note this person has shown a pattern of spamming lies, and shouldn't be taken at face value on any of their claims. It isn't practical and shouldn't be necessary to disprove every single lie, instead we should just note someone as a serial liar and ignore them for the sake of productive conversation.

do as you please, just know I don't appreciate it or take it seriously... you're apparently doing it out of your prejudiced attitude, as I see in this thread you're quite ok with the sort of argument used in Russia-to-knives posts lacking substantiation, analysis, reference and sometimes just based on bogus data, but systematically chose to pick for any possible and impossible flaws in what I say... so be it, I don't really care and don't take your personal attacks seriously until I see more consistent and less selective approach on your side

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Further, if you want to bring up WW2, comrade, remember that Ribbentrop Pact? Poland, maybe? You started WW2 on the OTHER side, and probably would have stayed there if not for Hitler stabbing you in the back.

You mean the pact that the USSR signed after the west had refused to cooperate against the Hitler? Which also was signed years after most western countries had their own pact/treaty with Nazi Germany?

Also if you think Nazi Germany and the USSR would have stayed on the same side... there really is nothing I can say

 elk@work wrote:
That Red Crescent has a large presence in the region is on their website, and it hasn't reported or confirmed the attack... simple facts, call it whatever you please but not a 'lie' or 'dishonest representation'... I still fail to see what point you're trying to make...

It was dishonest, because Red Crescent isn't failing to confirm simply because they have no idea if it happened or not. They are remaining decidedly neutral. Ignoring that or talking past it is dishonest.

again - I gave direct links and didn't quote... you read it one way, I read it other way, somebody else will read it his way... your summary of the article is not without bias as well, so no point in trying to condition me or others to read it your way

I am sure my position is biased. But it is not dishonest. Your position, noting only the statement from one doctor and ignoring everything else in the article, was dishonest.

do as you please, just know I don't appreciate it or take it seriously

I'm not looking for your appreciation. I'm looking for everyone to note you're a repeated bullshitter, and treat you accordingly.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
No, that's not it. Being I'm someone who got to see one of the 9/11 attacks up close and personal, not on the TV. And I find what you've said utterly repulsive. Further, if you want to bring up WW2, comrade, remember that Ribbentrop Pact? Poland, maybe? You started WW2 on the OTHER side, and probably would have stayed there if not for Hitler stabbing you in the back. 'Poor Us, we had 20m casualties' is not a valid argument in this one.

Ah you mean the contract both sides used to build up in preparation for war both knew that was coming?

Stabbing in the back as if. That was stabbing to the front both knew that was coming.

 sebster wrote:

 elk@work wrote:
That Red Crescent has a large presence in the region is on their website, and it hasn't reported or confirmed the attack... simple facts, call it whatever you please but not a 'lie' or 'dishonest representation'... I still fail to see what point you're trying to make...

It was dishonest, because Red Crescent isn't failing to confirm simply because they have no idea if it happened or not. They are remaining decidedly neutral. Ignoring that or talking past it is dishonest.

again - I gave direct links and didn't quote... you read it one way, I read it other way, somebody else will read it his way... your summary of the article is not without bias as well, so no point in trying to condition me or others to read it your way

I am sure my position is biased. But it is not dishonest. Your position, noting only the statement from one doctor and ignoring everything else in the article, was dishonest.

do as you please, just know I don't appreciate it or take it seriously

I'm not looking for your appreciation. I'm looking for everyone to note you're a repeated bullshitter, and treat you accordingly.

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."... I suppose it's of British origin )))

 elk@work wrote:

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."... I suppose it's of British origin )))

You can't blame the English for Emerson, he was an American.

 ulgurstasta wrote:

You mean the pact that the USSR signed after the west had refused to cooperate against the Hitler? Which also was signed years after most western countries had their own pact/treaty with Nazi Germany?

Also if you think Nazi Germany and the USSR would have stayed on the same side... there really is nothing I can say

One, I'm fairly certain the only pacts that had 'And we split the countries we mutually invade between us' were limited to Russia, Italy, and Japan. I don't even think Romania got that good of a deal out of their allegiance to the Nazis.

Two: granted, any deal with Russia would have only lasted as long as Stalin thought it was a good idea.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

One, I'm fairly certain the only pacts that had 'And we split the countries we mutually invade between us' were limited to Russia, Italy, and Japan. I don't even think Romania got that good of a deal out of their allegiance to the Nazis.

Two: granted, any deal with Russia would have only lasted as long as Stalin thought it was a good idea.

there was also the Munich pact of 1938 on splitting of Czechoslovakia...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
to be fair, it's not on 'we split the countries we mutually invade between us', but 'we split some other country to be invaded to avoid being invaded ourselves'...

The Sudetenland was given to Germany because it had a majority population of ethnic Germans, unlike the rest of Czechoslovakia. This was absolutely done to appease Hitler, and he did use the opportunity to annex Czechoslovakia shortly afterwards. However, this is far more similar to the situation in Ukraine today, than the Ribbentrop pact in WWII.

 elk@work wrote:

to be fair, it's not on 'we split the countries we mutually invade between us', but 'we split some other country to be invaded to avoid being invaded ourselves'...

Which is more than a little difference. Considering that despite being excluded from the Paris Peace Conference, Russia attended anyway. And the invasion of Poland very much contravened that.

You know, the same contravention that Russia demanded Nazis be hanged for at Nuremberg and Japanese at Tokyo?

Pot, Kettle, Black?

 Haighus wrote:
The Sudetenland was given to Germany because it had a majority population of ethnic Germans, unlike the rest of Czechoslovakia. This was absolutely done to appease Hitler, and he did use the opportunity to annex Czechoslovakia shortly afterwards. However, this is far more similar to the situation in Ukraine today, than the Ribbentrop pact in WWII.

well, if I'm not mistaken Churchill was of quite different oppinion on this pact and its meaning, but I'm not in position to qoute and only mentioned it as it is, in my opinion, is similar to Molotov-Ribbentrop in re-writing borders by external parties to achieve benefits

 elk@work wrote:

well, if I'm not mistaken Churchill was of quite different oppinion on this pact and its meaning, but I'm not in position to qoute and only mentioned it as it is, in my opinion, is similar to Molotov-Ribbentrop in re-writing borders by external parties to achieve benefits

And again redrawing a boarder through diplomacy is one thing and agreeing to mutually invade another country is another. The Czechs agreed to the Munich agreement. Poland most certainly did not agree to be invaded.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

well, if I'm not mistaken Churchill was of quite different oppinion on this pact and its meaning, but I'm not in position to qoute and only mentioned it as it is, in my opinion, is similar to Molotov-Ribbentrop in re-writing borders by external parties to achieve benefits

And again redrawing a boarder through diplomacy is one thing and agreeing to mutually invade another country is another. The Czechs agreed to the Munich agreement. Poland most certainly did not agree to be invaded.

just for the sake of accuracy - Czeck were not invited to Munich and were informed by Britain and France (signatures to Munich pact) after signing that they could either resist Nazi Germany alone or submit... Poland took part in splitting and annexed a piece to itself...

It's all got a bit off topic.

I am just going to assume that elk@work is a professional troll and trying to score brownie points. I can accept being patriotic and supportive of one's country, hell I am of mine, but this is ridiculous.

There was a lot of things that set up WWII. Lots of blame to go around. But Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler did (granted, he got an early start and lasted longer). Reading what elk@work is posting, I imagine next he will be telling m how great Comrade Stalin was (although I see he drifts off after each one of my counter arguments).

The roots of the powers that be in Russia today go back to that very time. Russian leadership just does not care about its own people. And if they don't care about their own people, what do they really care about others? Look at what they did in Kazakhstan during their nuclear testing: 456 tests with little regard for the people living in the area, who to this day are still dealing with health issues and DNA mutations. The Russians are like no other, and are in their own universe really.

And until you can have a free society that can ask questions, and hold people accountable, these things will continue. There just seems to be little guilt in Russia.

So surprise surprise, Russia has been caught in another lie. The OPCW has confirmed that the BZ gas, that Russia said was used to kill Skripal from Swiss 'sources', was only included as a control sample, not the gas that was found in Salisbury.

British outlets seems a bit slow on picking this up with a quick google, so here is my Dutch news source:
https://nos.nl/artikel/2227946-opcw-haalt-skripal-theorie-rusland-onderuit.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KTG17 wrote:
But Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler did (granted, he got an early start and lasted longer).

I just want to say that this statement is questionable at best. Hitler killed more Soviets than Stalin. It just depends which way those that died in WW2 fell, but with Hitler being the agressor he carries the blame.

KTG17 wrote:
I am just going to assume that elk@work is a professional troll and trying to score brownie points.

professional troll with Russian flag and Moscow all over him? very funny ))) are other people here less 'patriotic' where it comes to, just for example, US or UK? I see they're definitely not...

 elk@work wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
I am just going to assume that elk@work is a professional troll and trying to score brownie points.

professional troll with Russian flag and Moscow all over him? very funny ))) are other people here less 'patriotic' where it comes to, just for example, US or UK? I see they're definitely not...

You might want to have your sight checked. Other people don't routinely link to things and claim they say things they don't.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
But Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler did (granted, he got an early start and lasted longer).

I just want to say that this statement is questionable at best. Hitler killed more Soviets than Stalin. It just depends which way those that died in WW2 fell, but with Hitler being the agressor he carries the blame.

Hardly Questionable, official Soviet numbers put WWII losses at 20 million. Numerous historians put Stalin's bodycount at 20-25 million. That's his own people!!! Even if we want to comically suggest he only killed a million of his own people, we would still be talking about him killing A MILLION OF HIS OWN PEOPLE!

KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
But Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler did (granted, he got an early start and lasted longer).

I just want to say that this statement is questionable at best. Hitler killed more Soviets than Stalin. It just depends which way those that died in WW2 fell, but with Hitler being the agressor he carries the blame.

Hardly Questionable, official Soviet numbers put WWII losses at 20 million. Numerous historians put Stalin's bodycount at 20-25 million. That's his own people!!! Even if we want to comically suggest he only killed a million of his own people, we would still be talking about him killing A MILLION OF HIS OWN PEOPLE!

Numerous historians in the past. More current research is revising the number significantly down. We're still talking in the realm of around 5+ million, but nowhere near 25 million, which would mean he had to kill off 1/6th of his whole population, which is a bit much. Doesn't make it any less horrible like you said.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
But Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler did (granted, he got an early start and lasted longer).

I just want to say that this statement is questionable at best. Hitler killed more Soviets than Stalin. It just depends which way those that died in WW2 fell, but with Hitler being the agressor he carries the blame.

Hardly Questionable, official Soviet numbers put WWII losses at 20 million. Numerous historians put Stalin's bodycount at 20-25 million. That's his own people!!! Even if we want to comically suggest he only killed a million of his own people, we would still be talking about him killing A MILLION OF HIS OWN PEOPLE!

Numerous historians in the past. More current research is revising the number significantly down. We're still talking in the realm of around 5+ million, but nowhere near 25 million, which would mean he had to kill off 1/6th of his whole population, which is a bit much. Doesn't make it any less horrible like you said.

official data on casualties is 12mn military, 4.4mn captives and missing, 10.2mn civilians, 26.6mn total
most conservative alternative Russian researchers argue 11.5mn military, 4.5mn civilians, 16mn total

this is an excerpt from the alternative research, it sheds some light on lower figures (sorry for google translate, but it's good enough):
"For 16 years after the war, all the Soviet people's losses in the Great Patriotic War (cumulatively military and civilian) were estimated at 7 million. In February 1946 this figure (7 million) was published in the magazine "Bolshevik" 2. In March 1946 she was also named I.V. Stalin in an interview with a correspondent of the newspaper Pravda. Here is a quote IV. Stalin, published in this newspaper: "As a result of the German invasion, the Soviet Union irretrievably lost in battle with the Germans, and also thanks to the German occupation and the hijacking of Soviet people to German hard labor, about seven million people."

In fact, I.V. Stalin was known for quite a different statistics - 15 million.4 This was reported to him in early 1946 on the results of the work of the commission, led by a candidate for membership in the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) Chairman of the State Planning Committee of the USSR NA. Ascension. Little is known about the work of this commission, and it is unclear what methodology it used to calculate 15 million people's losses. The question is: where do they go, these data? It turns out that in the document presented to him by the commission, I.V. Stalin produced "editorial corrections", correcting 15 million for 7 million. Otherwise, how to explain that 15 million "disappeared", and 7 million were made public and became official data?

On the motives of the act I.V. Stalin can only guess. Of course, there were also motives of a propagandistic nature, and a desire to hide both from our people and the world community the real extent of the Soviet people's losses."

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
But Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler did (granted, he got an early start and lasted longer).

I just want to say that this statement is questionable at best. Hitler killed more Soviets than Stalin. It just depends which way those that died in WW2 fell, but with Hitler being the agressor he carries the blame.

Hardly Questionable, official Soviet numbers put WWII losses at 20 million. Numerous historians put Stalin's bodycount at 20-25 million. That's his own people!!! Even if we want to comically suggest he only killed a million of his own people, we would still be talking about him killing A MILLION OF HIS OWN PEOPLE!

Numerous historians in the past. More current research is revising the number significantly down. We're still talking in the realm of around 5+ million, but nowhere near 25 million, which would mean he had to kill off 1/6th of his whole population, which is a bit much. Doesn't make it any less horrible like you said.

1/6th of the population would be a lot in one go, but it was over a period of 30 years so more feasible in that context. Although I am inclined to agree with you that 25 million is likely on the high side.

 Haighus wrote:
1/6th of the population would be a lot in one go, but it was over a period of 30 years so more feasible in that context. Although I am inclined to agree with you that 25 million is likely on the high side.

A period of 30 years, possibly, but it would severly weaken a state. Most of Stalin's brutality was in between 1932 and 1941. Before and after he didn't have significant actions that caused large scale death. And while WW2 is visible in population statistics, there is nothing in those statistics to point out 25 million dying before 1941. As a frame of reference, 30 million is a decent estimate for the amount of people that died due to policies of Mao, in a country 5 times larger.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Finally got an English article for the OPCW pointing out that the Russian BZ gas claim was false:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/opcw-meets-to-discuss-skripal-nerve-agent-poisoning/2018/04/18/84662e4a-42de-11e8-b2dc-b0a403e4720a_story.html

Guys, maybe it's only obvious to me, but Russian troll is trying for a thread lock, not to actually converse with us, so just put him on ignore before he wins.