WI: President Bilbo deports 12 million African Americans to Liberia

[CHKeeley]

Your source is from a revisionist historian aiming to deflate the number of deportations under the Stalinist regime.

Your source is, again, from the revisionist school, which makes it non-credible by definition.

This really is a fantastical claim. Do you know what the revisionist school of Soviet historiography is?

The author of my cited book has contributed to a collection called Red Holocaust, he has written a book called Years of Silence on repression of ethnic Germans, he has written an article on racism under Stalin, his entire speciality is on the Soviet repressive apparatus… but here you come just randomly accusing him of deflating numbers?? This really must be some kind of trolling. You are just throwing out wild and baseless accusations of apologia.

Being a member of the revisionist school in no way makes you “non-credible by definition”, the top historians in the field are revisionists (Fitzpatrick, Suny, Getty, Viola, etc.) and neither Conquest nor Kotkin nor any other Soviet historians of a different school honestly believes that they are apologists. Revisionist isn’t even really a debate anymore.. That is because we have the archive… it’s pretty damn easy in any peer review to see if numbers are deflated because we have the archive. I can compare this book to other books based in the archive. The book I have cited is based in the archive. You have absolutely no grounds whatsoever to accuse it of apologia and “deflating numbers”.

Ethnic cleansing and mass deportations definitely does not involve "trials and individualized processes of transportation".

Yes, that is my entire point. Ethnic cleansing and mass deportations are categorically distinct from the penal colony system in which kulaks and class enemies were sent through.

Stalinist mass deportations were even bigger than 12 million

So cite a source or point me towards something that actually includes context and not a half snipped Montefiore quote. Your quote doesn’t even explicitly make itself clear what deportations it is discussing. The subject of our debate is at the end of a long sentence and you won’t provide a more full quotation so I can even see what the context for it is.

I don’t think what I am asking you to do is difficult at all. I can cite four or five other books If you would like me to. I would hope you could extend the same courtesy to prove how solid your argument here is. Otherwise you are just wasting time and running this in circles.

 

[rainsfall]

This really is a fantastical claim. Do you know what the revisionist school of Soviet historiography is?

Prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the archival revelations, some historians estimated that the numbers killed by Stalin's regime were 20 million or higher.[5][6][7] After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives was declassified and researchers were allowed to study it. This contained official records of 799,455 executions (1921–1953),[8] around 1.7 million deaths in the Gulag,[9][10] some 390,000[11] deaths during the dekulakization forced resettlement, and up to 400,000 deaths of persons deported during the 1940s,[12] with a total of about 3.3 million officially recorded victims in these categories.[13] According to historian Stephen Wheatcroft, approximately 1 million of these deaths were "purposive" while the rest happened through neglect and irresponsibility.[2] The deaths of at least 5.5 to 6.5 million[14] persons in the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 are sometimes, though not always, included with the victims of the Stalin era.[2][15]

"1 million deaths" is outright fantasy.

The author of my cited book has contributed to a collection called Red Holocaust, he has written a book called Years of Silence on repression of ethnic Germans, he has written an article on racism under Stalin, his entire speciality is on the Soviet repressive apparatus… but here you come just randomly accusing him of deflating numbers?? This really must be some kind of trolling. You are just throwing out wild and baseless accusations of apologia.

Some historians believe that the official archival figures of the categories that were recorded by Soviet authorities are unreliable and incomplete.[1] In addition to failures regarding comprehensive recordings, as one additional example, Canadian historian Robert Gellately and Montefiore argue that the many suspects beaten and tortured to death while in "investigative custody" were likely not to have been counted amongst the executed.[73][74] Conversely, Wheatcroft states that prior to the opening of the archives for historical research, "our understanding of the scale and the nature of Soviet repression has been extremely poor" and that some specialists who wish to maintain earlier high estimates of the Stalinist death toll are "finding it difficult to adapt to the new circumstances when the archives are open and when there are plenty of irrefutable data" and instead "hang on to their old Sovietological methods with round-about calculations based on odd statements from emigres and other informants who are supposed to have superior knowledge."[75][3] British historian Michael Ellman argues that mass deaths from famines should be placed in a different category than the repression victims, mentioning that throughout Russian history famines and droughts have been a common occurrence, including the Russian famine of 1921–22, which occurred before Stalin came to power. He also states that famines were widespread throughout the world in the 19th and 20th centuries in countries such as China, India, Ireland, and Russia.[15] Ellman compared the behaviour of the Stalinist regime vis-à-vis the Holodomor to that of the British government (towards Ireland and India) and the G8 in contemporary times. According to Ellman, the G8 "are guilty of mass manslaughter or mass deaths from criminal negligence because of their not taking obvious measures to reduce mass deaths" and Stalin's "behaviour was no worse than that of many rulers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries."[15] Ben Kiernan, an American academic and historian, described Stalin's era as "by far the bloodiest of Soviet or even Russian history".[76]

Being a member of the revisionist school in no way makes you “non-credible by definition”, the top historians in the field are revisionists (Fitzpatrick, Suny, Getty, Viola, etc.) and neither Conquest nor Kotkin nor any other Soviet historians of a different school still honestly believes that they are apologists. That is because we have the archive… it’s pretty damn easy in any peer review to see if numbers are deflated because we have the archive. The book I have cited is based in the archive. You have absolutely no grounds whatsoever to accuse it of apologia and “deflating numbers”.

Debunking the revisionist school narrative:

Further, serfdom in early modern Russia was part of a whole complex of controls over the population that had the goal of limiting not only the geographical but also the economic and social mobility of almost the entire population, rural and urban, as for example in the elaborate regulations of the 1649 law code. The Soviet system of the 1930s, by contrast, was oriented toward social mobility, promoting and educating workers and peasants to responsible posts. For example, no Russian peasant ever came close to becoming a Russian emperor before 1917, but under the Soviet regime four men of peasant origin came to rule that country: Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Gorbachev. Many other former peasants and workers moved up to high positions; while some tragically ended up victims of the great Communist witch hunts of the 1930s to the 1950s, most did not, and held positions that they would never have attained under the servile system. Even those who stayed in the farms in many cases attained technical knowledge and skills (despite the influence of Lysenko) and used it to bring about a significant increase in farm production in the 1950s to 1970s. To describe the kolkhoz as a revival of serfdom as Davies and Wheatcroft do here is a substantial distortion of historical fact.

Yes, that is my entire point. Ethnic cleansing and mass deportations are categorically distinct from the penal colony system in which kulaks and class enemies were sent through.

No, they are not even Montefiore describes the liquidation of kulaks and other class enemies as "mass deportations". Ethnic cleansing is part of Stalinist mass deportations.

So cite a source or point me towards something that actually includes context and not a half snipped Montefiore quote. I don’t think what I am asking you to do is difficult at all. I can cite four or five other books If you would like me to. I would hope you could extend the same courtesy to prove how solid your argument here is. Otherwise you are just wasting time and running this in circles.

There, argument debunked:

Beal, the American, reported to the Chairman of Ukraine’s Central Executive Committee (the titular President), Petrovsky, who replied: “We know millions are dying. That is unfortunate but the glorious future of the Soviet Union will justify it.” By 1933, it is estimated that 1.1 million households, that is seven million people, lost their holdings and half of them were deported. As many as three million households were liquidated. At the start of this process in 1931, there were 13 million households collectivized out of roughly 25 million. By 1937, 18.5 million were collectivized but there were now only 19.9 million households: 5.7 million households, perhaps 15 million persons, had been deported, many of them dead.

 

[vizzer]

Even assuming you got political support for it, I'm not sure it's logistically possible.

The traffic from the US to Liberia in this scenario would be so large that a dedicated fleet of ships would be needed. And not a small fleet, either.

Taking the USS HENDERSON as representative of what might be done as a 'migrant' ship, you're looking at each ship carrying 1,600 to 2,000 people at 12 knots. That means each ship transporting people to Liberia makes about 8.5 voyages a year, once you've allowed for loading and unloading in port. You'd need in the region of 800 ship-years to do the job. To do it in 20 years, that'd mean building 40 ships just for this job. Just keeping up with population growth would require deporting in the region of 90,000 Americans to Africa every year, requiring the services of six such ships - one ship sailing from (say) Charleston every week.

To go full on "Nazi" those being deported could be made to pay for their passage.

 

[CHKeeley]

Debunking the revisionist school narrative:

This really is emblematic of your argumentative style. You proclaim you’ve “debunked the revisionist school narrative” (pray tell, what is the revisionist school narrative?) by citing an unsourced article discussing a criticism of R. W. Davies and Wheatcroft (the very same Wheatcroft critiquing Conquest and older non-revisionist historians in your previous quote) about their comparison of the collective farm to serfdom. I swear you just google searched the word distortion in relation to a Soviet history and pasted the chunk of text into the conversation because..

what in gods name does a critique of a comparison of a kolkhoz to a peasant mir have anything to do at all with “debunking revisionism”???

Is this supposed to be a quote from Fitzpatrick that shows she’s actually a dirty red who praises the Soviet system?? I have no idea because you have given me no other information. Not even an citation.

It’s hilarious because in your wikipedia pull, Wheatcroft is explicitly critiquing the older anti-revisionist position that still lingers today!! His argument about ‘old Sovietological estimates’ and writing based on emigre hearsay is a critique of Conquest and others. Davies and Wheatcroft themselves have been considered heirs to the old revisionist school for the positions they have taken over Soviet industry in their volumes on the Industrialization of Soviet Russia. Your own quotes aren’t even uniformity supporting this grand narrative you are entirely fabricating about the existence of academic boogeymen who seek to apologize for Stalinism that my innocuous sourcing of J. Otto Pohl (a researcher dedicated to studying Stalinist repression!!) is now somehow apart of because it suits your argument.

The quote mining and throwing them at me with no supporting argument when often they are only spuriously related to what you are attempting to make them say is ridiculous. You’ve dug through the Wikipedia page called “Excess Mortality in the USSR under Joseph Stalin” to find supporting quotes and yet entirely ignored anything that you felt contradicted you. You mined for quote specifically critiquing the use of archives and yet the first words on the page say the following:

“The scholarly consensus affirms that archival materials declassified in 1991 contain irrefutable data far superior to sources used prior to 1991 such as statements from emigres and other informants.”

Curious that you left that out. Scholarly consensus must be code for apologist conspiracy, eh?

 

[rainsfall]

This really is emblematic of your argumentative style. You proclaim you’ve “debunked the revisionist school narrative” (pray tell, what is the revisionist school narrative?) by citing an unsourced article discussing a criticism of R. W. Davies and Wheatcroft (the very same Wheatcroft critiquing Conquest and older non-revisionist historians in your previous quote) about their comparison of the collective farm to serfdom. I swear you just google searched the word distortion in relation to a Soviet history and pasted the chunk of text into the conversation because..

Source: JSTOR. You know what the revisionist school narrative is, you are avoiding that question yourself.

what in gods name does a critique of a comparison of a kolkhoz to a peasant mir have anything to do at all with “debunking revisionism”???

That the liquidation of the kulak class can be considered a part of Stalinist mass deportations.

Is this supposed to be a quote from Fitzpatrick that shows she’s actually a dirty red who praises the Soviet system?? I have no idea because you have given me no other information. Not even an citation.

McMeekin.

It’s hilarious because in your wikipedia pull, Wheatcroft is explicitly critiquing the older anti-revisionist position that still lingers today!! His argument about ‘old Sovietological estimates’ and writing based on emigre hearsay is a critique of Conquest and others. Davies and Wheatcroft themselves have been considered heirs to the old revisionist school for the positions they have taken over Soviet industry in their volumes on the Industrialization of Soviet Russia. Your own quotes aren’t even uniformity supporting this grand narrative you are entirely fabricating about the existence of academic boogeymen who seek to apologize for Stalinism that my innocuous sourcing of J. Otto Pohl (a researcher dedicated to studying Stalinist repression!!) is now somehow apart of because it suits your argument. The quote mining and throwing them at me with no supporting argument when often they are only spuriously related to what you are attempting to make them say is ridiculous.

I have sourced McMeekin multiple times here.

Since I sincerely believe at this point that this is being done in bad faith and since this is derailing your thread, I’m going to quietly exit this discussion. Cheers..

I mean, it's you who started it.

 

[DougM]

How in the world do you think the poorest of the poor have the money to pay for shipping themselves and there families to Africa?

As i stated elswhere this idiotic idea is on the order of WW2 in terms of scale and man power.

As for Canada and GB embargoing the US. You are NOT avoiding that. You are suggesting the biggest human tragedy in HISTORY up to that point and second only to the Holocaust. Canada and GB (and most of the rest of the world) WILL NOT support this.

I think perhaps it is time for the moderators to lock this mess down,

A) it is from a poster/member with little to no track record who seams to have joined just to make this rediculus and insulting topic.
B. the OP has give ZERO explanation of how /why this POD could come a out
C. the OP has give zero explanation of how it could physically happen or be paid for.
D. The OP has given Zero explanation of why/how the average US citezen will put up with it this implying that the Average American is beyond “racist”. and is will to all but kill off millions of blacks. This is inflamatory and disgusting.
E. the OP is now suggesting that Canada and GB will be perfectly willing to put up with this as well. Thus increasing the number of peaople and countries who are perfectly willing yo watch the mass upheavel of 12 million and the probable death of millions of those.
F. the OP has been asked repeatedly to explain how tgis could come about, how it could physically be done and how ut could be paid for and why the people of the US would accept it and why the people of Africa would allow the masses to be dumped on them and any number of other questions that and has give no actual replies. The only thing he keeps posting is that Stalin did something similar (while he keeps seaming yo change the numbers to fit) and ignoring that it is easier to ship by train then by ship. And much easier to ship internally then to for e them in another country located on another contient.

Thus based on these various reasons (and others). I ask that this thread either get locked or at least moved off the main board and into ABS land.
As it both insulting and not realistic and does not present a very good image of this board to other.

 

[rainsfall]

As for Canada and GB embargoing the US. You are NOT avoiding that. You are suggesting the biggest human tragedy in HISTORY up to that point and second only to the Holocaust. Canada and GB (and most of the rest of the world) WILL NOT support this.

I mean, Britain and France didn't even sanction Germany up until 1939!

 

[rfmcdonald]

I mean, Britain and France didn't even sanction Germany up until 1939!

It is worth noting that, if things get to the point where the US is deporting a double-digit percentage of its population to another continent, other world democracies are surely not going to be doing well.

 

[David T]

Bilbo couldn't even prevent Pat Harrison from winning re-election in the 1936 Senate primary in MS! https://www.nytimes.com/1936/08/26/...ary-by-2-to-1-mississippi-senator-swamps.html But he's going to become dictator of the United States with powers equal to Hitler's or Stalin's...Sure.

 

[rfmcdonald]

How in the world do you think the poorest of the poor have the money to pay for shipping themselves and there families to Africa?

As i stated elswhere this idiotic idea is on the order of WW2 in terms of scale and man power.

As for Canada and GB embargoing the US. You are NOT avoiding that. You are suggesting the biggest human tragedy in HISTORY up to that point and second only to the Holocaust. Canada and GB (and most of the rest of the world) WILL NOT support this.

I think perhaps it is time for the moderators to lock this mess down,

A) it is from a poster/member with little to no track record who seams to have joined just to make this rediculus and insulting topic.
B. the OP has give ZERO explanation of how /why this POD could come a out
C. the OP has give zero explanation of how it could physically happen or be paid for.
D. The OP has given Zero explanation of why/how the average US citezen will put up with it this implying that the Average American is beyond “racist”. and is will to all but kill off millions of blacks. This is inflamatory and disgusting.
E. the OP is now suggesting that Canada and GB will be perfectly willing to put up with this as well. Thus increasing the number of peaople and countries who are perfectly willing yo watch the mass upheavel of 12 million and the probable death of millions of those.
F. the OP has been asked repeatedly to explain how tgis could come about, how it could physically be done and how ut could be paid for and why the people of the US would accept it and why the people of Africa would allow the masses to be dumped on them and any number of other questions that and has give no actual replies. The only thing he keeps posting is that Stalin did something similar (while he keeps seaming yo change the numbers to fit) and ignoring that it is easier to ship by train then by ship. And much easier to ship internally then to for e them in another country located on another contient.

Thus based on these various reasons (and others). I ask that this thread either get locked or at least moved off the main board and into ABS land.
As it both insulting and not realistic and does not present a very good image of this board to other.

I think that this is not a POD in itself but rather a second-order consequence of an earlier POD. In that sense, there are flaws.

This said, 20th century history has plenty of examples where previously stable countries that were, if not democratic, then pluralistic went and became totalitarian terrors. Taisho Japan went and became a mass-murdering terror that tried to conquer Asia; Russia ended up seeing direct and indirect mass murder on a huge scale; Italy and many of the Austro-Hungarian successor states were looking for a second round; a Germany that was a famously law-abiding country with a durable constitutional tradition became an empire run by a lawlessness that challenged fundamental concepts of what people and societies could do.

Arguing that the United States was not so much on a solider ground than these and also luckier but that it was intrinsically better is, I think, a mistake. American democracy has been durable in our history, but things could have been different. It is frankly not at all impossible to imagine circumstances in which black people, once a class of people held as hereditary slaves and evolving after their liberation into an oft-ghettoized population held in deep content and terrible poverty and often subject to savage and popular violence, might not be seen as threats to be done away with. There are plenty of examples of situations where, despite often good relations with individuals belonging to particular groups, these people would be able to turn away from these people, or even join in genocidal violence. Rwanda comes to mind in my lifetime, as does Yugoslavia, et cetera.

 

[rfmcdonald]

The big problem with this discussion is that it is badly phrased. The election to the US presidency of a Bilbo who actually carries out a mass deportation of black Americans can come about only as a consequence of earlier events that make this practicable. This is not implausible—institutions can decay and norms dissolve under the right circumstances—but we do need to explain what happened to bring things to that point.

 

[rfmcdonald]

I would also note that quite a few ethnic cleansings and genocides have had terrible economic consequences, short-run and long-run. I would argue that the British ethnic cleansing of the Acadians, begin in 1755 and sustained over years, not only was morally wrong but an economically disastrous move that set back the development of the Maritimes by centuries. The destruction of the very productive agricultural economy of the Acadians in Nova Scotia wrecked a key component of the regional economy, to say nothing about the costs of waging a needless war against people who otherwise could have come to some arrangement. This did not matter: What mattered to the British authorities at the time was that the French Acadians were colonial subjects tracing their origins to a hostile rival who happened to be occupying space that they preferred to be occupied by loyal and more culturally compatible subjects. They were in the way of a greater good.

It goes without saying that mass deportations of African-Americans would be economically disastrous. So what, from the perspectives of the deporters? They would be undertaking this act because of their sincere belief that African-Americans posed a deep threat to them, that they represented a sort of contamination that had to be fought fiercely, and that their sufferings did not matter at all. The particular POD proposed may be insufficient, but the outcome is not impossible at all.

 

[rfmcdonald]

This really is a fantastical claim. Do you know what the revisionist school of Soviet historiography is?

The author of my cited book has contributed to a collection called Red Holocaust, he has written a book called Years of Silence on repression of ethnic Germans, he has written an article on racism under Stalin, his entire speciality is on the Soviet repressive apparatus… but here you come just randomly accusing him of deflating numbers?? This really must be some kind of trolling. You are just throwing out wild and baseless accusations of apologia.

Beyond that, I would just add that I know Otto Pohl from the blogosphere of old. Based on that experience, I knew Pohl to be not at all someone interested in minimizing or otherwise dismissing Soviet deportations. If anything, Pohl was clear in consistently try to establish that these deportations could be fairly described as "ethnic cleansing" or even as outright genocides.

I cannot speak to the specific numbers. I can say that, based on what I know of the man and his work, I would be profoundly surprised if he was trying to minimize Soviet crimes.

 

[wilji1090]

It was mentioned that Bilbo was a highly controversial figure within the DNC and how he barely won the party's nomination in segregationist Mississippi. But I'd like to propose an alternative solution borrowing a bit from A World of Laughter, A World of Tears.

So as some people mentioned Murray is more likely to win the nomination in a primary where Smith's Catholicism is likely to hurt him (they'd be likely remembering the 1928 general election) and Murray did have popular support within the state of Oklahoma, especially after the Red River Toll Bridge War, combine that with his intense dislike of political machines like Tammany Hall and Bilbo probably would not challenge Murray, especially in the sense that he'd want to be the power behind Murray's throne. So it's entirely possible that Bilbo becomes a cabinet member of a Murray Administration. Given that Murray's Three C's speech would do quite a bit to get people like Hearst on board and help whip up support in the South (a given) and even potentially appeal to angry northerners, combined with a rustic populist appeal I could see Murray calling for the creation of a Department of Racial Affairs or something similarly named for the official purpose of examining racial tensions within the country, but then getting Bilbo in to help draft a plan for a voluntary exodus to Liberia; all the while instituting nationwide segregation into a series of legislation similar to the New Deal but broader in scope (not an impossible task if you use legal arguments made in SCOTUS cases like Plessy v. Ferguson and the like).

Basically, it'd be a way of saying, "Look, we're not FORCING you to leave, but if you're going to stay... you're going to play by OUR rules. And we're going to make sure you hate them as much as possible."

I dunno, anyone else have a thought on this?

 

[CHKeeley]

Beyond that, I would just add that I know Otto Pohl from the blogosphere of old. Based on that experience, I knew Pohl to be not at all someone interested in minimizing or otherwise dismissing Soviet deportations. If anything, Pohl was clear in consistently try to establish that these deportations could be fairly described as "ethnic cleansing" or even as outright genocides.

I cannot speak to the specific numbers. I can say that, based on what I know of the man and his work, I would be profoundly surprised if he was trying to minimize Soviet crimes.

Frankly, I don’t think the user I was talking to had ever even heard of Pohl. It was just an odd attempt to dismiss my argument and my citation. But that’s interesting - does the blog still exist? I would love to read it. Sometimes it’s nice to just read casual thoughts from scholars rather than full monographs.

 

[rfmcdonald]

Frankly, I don’t think the user I was talking to had ever even heard of Pohl. It was just an odd attempt to dismiss my argument and my citation. But that’s interesting - does the blog still exist? I would love to read it. Sometimes it’s nice to just read casual thoughts from scholars rather than full monographs.

He wrote at Blogspot under his full name of J Otto Pohl. It has been years, and I do not what he is doing now. Nice guy; his blog was concerned almost as much as tenure as with anything else.

But yes. I am familiar with what he said, and unless he has radically changed his mind on key issues, he has been consistent in demonstrating that many Soviet deportations can also be viewed as ethnic cleansing s or even as acts of genocide. The way he fit the Crimean Tatar deportation into generations of official Russian hostility towards an untrusted minority in a strategic border land convinced me. He tried very hard to prove things. If he said numbers were lower that others claimed, you would have to prove to me that he did so with bad intent (or, frankly, that he made mistakes).

Bringing this back to the subject at hand, I would say that Pohl's work is relevant in demonstrating that 20th century mass deportations and like crimes tended to be carried out despite the economic costs. Why would the Soviet Union strip Crimea of its indigenous population, causing immense problems in post-war reconstruction? It did so because it deeply distrusted the Crimean Tatars and thought that they should be removed from a vulnerable spot in the Soviet homeland.

 

[Dan1988]

Marcus Garvey for dictator of Liberia?

President Edwin Barclay, the True Whig Party, and the rest of the Liberian government would not approve. (As bad as Liberia was in those days, from an American POV it was a good enough ally that no one would dare want to upset Monrovia and have it find a reason to break off Liberian-American relations.) Even the British would support the Republic of Liberia against that sort of American insanity, even if it means exerting resources otherwise used for Sierra Leone and the rest of the British West African colonies.

 

[CalBear]

FDR loses the 1928 NY gubernational election, ending his political career.

The 1932 DNC deadlocks between Smith and Ritchie(with Garner having already withdrawn), leading Hearst and Raskob to realise that their preferred candidate, Smith, cannot win. Realizing that a prolonged deadlock will lead to the abolition of the two-thirds rule and the nomination of an arch-interventionist in the mold of Baker or McAdoo, Raskob, with Hearst's consent, decides to nominate a conservative, Southern Democratic segregationist as a dark horse option for the nomination, passing over Byrd over foreign policy issues and eventually settling on either Gov. William H. Murray of Oklahoma or Gov. Theodore G. Bilbo of Mississippi. After all, Raskob and Hearst were planning on recruiting Gov. Eugene Talmadge of Georgia to run against Roosevelt for the Democratic nomination in 1936.

Either Murray or Bilbo get nominated by the Democrats in 1932, and proceed to win in November against an incredibly unpopular Hoover.

What would the 1930s and 1940s under a conservative, Southern Democratic segregationist President have looked like? Of course, there is no New Deal here.

Let's clear something up.

Are you, in fact, championing this sort of population transfer?

 

[rainsfall]

It is worth noting that, if things get to the point where the US is deporting a double-digit percentage of its population to another continent, other world democracies are surely not going to be doing well.

Global communist revolution?

Let's clear something up.

Are you, in fact, championing this sort of population transfer?

Definitely not.

President Edwin Barclay, the True Whig Party, and the rest of the Liberian government would not approve. (As bad as Liberia was in those days, from an American POV it was a good enough ally that no one would dare want to upset Monrovia and have it find a reason to break off Liberian-American relations.) Even the British would support the Republic of Liberia against that sort of American insanity, even if it means exerting resources otherwise used for Sierra Leone and the rest of the British West African colonies.

It would be pretty easy to overthrow the Liberian Whigs.

 

[rainsfall]

This really is emblematic of your argumentative style. You proclaim you’ve “debunked the revisionist school narrative” (pray tell, what is the revisionist school narrative?) by citing an unsourced article discussing a criticism of R. W. Davies and Wheatcroft (the very same Wheatcroft critiquing Conquest and older non-revisionist historians in your previous quote) about their comparison of the collective farm to serfdom. I swear you just google searched the word distortion in relation to a Soviet history and pasted the chunk of text into the conversation because..

what in gods name does a critique of a comparison of a kolkhoz to a peasant mir have anything to do at all with “debunking revisionism”???

Is this supposed to be a quote from Fitzpatrick that shows she’s actually a dirty red who praises the Soviet system?? I have no idea because you have given me no other information. Not even an citation.

It’s hilarious because in your wikipedia pull, Wheatcroft is explicitly critiquing the older anti-revisionist position that still lingers today!! His argument about ‘old Sovietological estimates’ and writing based on emigre hearsay is a critique of Conquest and others. Davies and Wheatcroft themselves have been considered heirs to the old revisionist school for the positions they have taken over Soviet industry in their volumes on the Industrialization of Soviet Russia. Your own quotes aren’t even uniformity supporting this grand narrative you are entirely fabricating about the existence of academic boogeymen who seek to apologize for Stalinism that my innocuous sourcing of J. Otto Pohl (a researcher dedicated to studying Stalinist repression!!) is now somehow apart of because it suits your argument.

The quote mining and throwing them at me with no supporting argument when often they are only spuriously related to what you are attempting to make them say is ridiculous. You’ve dug through the Wikipedia page called “Excess Mortality in the USSR under Joseph Stalin” to find supporting quotes and yet entirely ignored anything that you felt contradicted you. You mined for quote specifically critiquing the use of archives and yet the first words on the page say the following:

“The scholarly consensus affirms that archival materials declassified in 1991 contain irrefutable data far superior to sources used prior to 1991 such as statements from emigres and other informants.”

Curious that you left that out. Scholarly consensus must be code for apologist conspiracy, eh?

Frankly, I don’t think the user I was talking to had ever even heard of Pohl. It was just an odd attempt to dismiss my argument and my citation. But that’s interesting - does the blog still exist? I would love to read it. Sometimes it’s nice to just read casual thoughts from scholars rather than full monographs.

He wrote at Blogspot under his full name of J Otto Pohl. It has been years, and I do not what he is doing now. Nice guy; his blog was concerned almost as much as tenure as with anything else.

But yes. I am familiar with what he said, and unless he has radically changed his mind on key issues, he has been consistent in demonstrating that many Soviet deportations can also be viewed as ethnic cleansing s or even as acts of genocide. The way he fit the Crimean Tatar deportation into generations of official Russian hostility towards an untrusted minority in a strategic border land convinced me. He tried very hard to prove things. If he said numbers were lower that others claimed, you would have to prove to me that he did so with bad intent (or, frankly, that he made mistakes).

Bringing this back to the subject at hand, I would say that Pohl's work is relevant in demonstrating that 20th century mass deportations and like crimes tended to be carried out despite the economic costs. Why would the Soviet Union strip Crimea of its indigenous population, causing immense problems in post-war reconstruction? It did so because it deeply distrusted the Crimean Tatars and thought that they should be removed from a vulnerable spot in the Soviet homeland.

Beyond that, I would just add that I know Otto Pohl from the blogosphere of old. Based on that experience, I knew Pohl to be not at all someone interested in minimizing or otherwise dismissing Soviet deportations. If anything, Pohl was clear in consistently try to establish that these deportations could be fairly described as "ethnic cleansing" or even as outright genocides.

I cannot speak to the specific numbers. I can say that, based on what I know of the man and his work, I would be profoundly surprised if he was trying to minimize Soviet crimes.

I have referenced the anti-revisionist scholar McMeekin throughout here.