>Population of Ukraine in 1994
52 million people
>Population of Ukraine in 2016
42 million people
How does this happen.
How does a state manage to fail so miserably to cause this kind of devastation.
Literally lost more people than during WWII
Comparatively Belaruse and Polish populations stayed Stable and didn't change much, but why was Ukraine so depopulated in 25 years?
They all left for the west
Nobody wants to live next to Russia proxy war.
cheap airplane tickets happened
But as I said, Belaruse and Poland were in the same situation and their populations stayed almost the same.
Poles even have free travel within the EU but as we can see there is nothing comparable to the devastation that happened in Ukraine.
Wtf happened in the ukraine that was so bad to make 20% of your population to disappear in 25 years.
after the kulags, the soviets started treating ukranians like punching bags. Maybe it was a Russian strategy after the fall of the USSR to sabotage the country and slowly replace their population and make it majority Russian.
They took refugee in Russia mainly but also Poland and Hungary.
Or to to bring resources consequently to the industrial complexes in the Ural that are necessary to build up a war mashinery while it's clear that the Kulags on the outside border will got overrun by Germany anyway and everything there lost very fast.
> while it's clear that the Kulags on the outside border will got overrun by Germany anyway
Yes, I'm sure they killed the farmers and let millions of ukranians starve to death because they would've been overrun by the nazis anyway.
They took their food and delivered it to the Ural for the workers of the heavy industry.
The farmers themselves were left for starvation after they opposed their food being collected by the state.
I don't see this as a right thing to do. But Stalin was not a man that allowed to oppose him. And if this could be avoided to let the farmers starve I think yes. But if this was a direct act to get rid of a unbeloived ethnicity I think no. Stalin killed many people without that any ethnic pattern visible.
>The farmers themselves were left for starvation after they opposed their food being collected by the state.
Stalin was a fucking idiot. I'm not even arguing the retarded loging behind the irrational communist hatred towards what essentially were middle-class peasants and the fact that they deported, culled and enslaved millions of them, but the fact that 3 to 5 millions of unrelated ukranians died of starvation during the process of "dekulakisation" goes to show that even from a pragmatic point of view, this was stupid. They fucked with the people they were supposed to protect and lost millions in potential manpower for workforce and soldiering in the process.
I never undrestood the excuses communists do for Stalin just because he "gilled a lot of nadzis :DDDD". A less insane dictator who was less of an idealogue could have done a better job.
the powah of capitalism
You have to understand that the SU was in an heavy urge to build shit up for a war with Germany as fast as possible. Pillow politics would have lad to Russia fighting Germans Tanks with shovels and German Airplanes with thrown stones.
What Stalin did was the consequent build of key industries no matter the costs.
He won against the Nazis. Would you risk more soft build up that goes slower and gives the Germans the posibility to win and genocide and enslave all of the people you're supposed to protect?
They are all here
Thank you Poland for helping my Aunt.
She builds waching mashines in Lodz now. :D
the demographic catastrophe began immediately after the fall of the soviet union and has nothing to do with the current conflict (2014 is not even shown on the graph)
>would you slaughter millions to potentially save some other millions in the case of a potential war?
lol. Yeah, because there was no other way of dealing with the threat of war. Survival of the state at all costs and risks, right? I have the legit impression that even the nazies would have killed less slavs.
I really like how you cut out the Holodomor
>I have the legit impression that even the nazies would have killed less slavs.
You underestimate the Nazis. Their arch enemy was the communism. The Generalplan Ost was a signed docement that basically was about: Kill all children, women and old people in the conquered slav countries and use the workable man as slaves to set up an infrastructure for future German settlers.
We don't know if they would have really done this so consequently. But would you risk it?
most ukrainian women moved to to turkey to whore around and marry alpha kurds
The collapse is due to the fact that the Communist system crashed. Healthcare was no longer universal and not "free" anymore. Deathrates skyrocketed and with economic uncertainty, people started to postpone having childeren.
>m. The Generalplan Ost was a signed docement that basically was about: Kill all children, women and old people in the conquered slav countries and use the workable man as slaves to set up an infrastructure for future German settlers.
try actually reading the surviving documents it before spewing such shit
Poland has been a sovereign nation (even though under control of Soviet union) for far longer than Ukraine. Ukrainians just don't know how to run a country yet
Ukrainian refugees welcome in Finland.
>You underestimate the Nazis. Their arch enemy was the communism.
Nazi Germany signed a bunch of deals with the USSR before the war. I wouldn't call them their "arch enemy". Do you think that way because nazis culled the communists in germany? The USSR did the same with their political adversaries, so it would be ridiculous for them to be "arch-enemies" just because of that. You seem to view WW2 as a fight between good vs evil.
>why would you risk it
Because it isn't fucking true, the nazis didn't kill or deport all Polish people or ukranians as they invaded them. In fact, most didn't complain much when the nazis took over, as it was not like the germans treated them worse then the russians under Stalin.
If anything, they (the communist party and its leadership) were protecting themselves, using the corpses of millions as their shields. How many polish officers they killed in Katyn, the paranoid butchers? Over 22k. And why did they do that, as a ruthless mesure to stop the evil Nazis? That's just naive. You'll have to excuse me for not seeing Stalin as a benevolent savior.
>Do you think that way because nazis culled the communists in germany?
No I say this because I know what German Faschism is about. It's an ideological hatred. You can read on it. I won't write it down.
>Because it isn't fucking true, the nazis didn't kill or deport all Polish people or ukranians as they invaded them.
They killed many of them. One says they just hadn't enough time and needed the resources to fight the soviet Army.
>arch enemy
He took this from one of Hitler's speech 'Order for a last stand on the east'.
>No I say this because I know what German Faschism is about. It's an ideological hatred. You can read on it. I won't write it down.
Couldn't you say the same about the marxists? The subsequent slaughther, persecution and enslavement of religious people, ethnic minorities and other undesireables that the soviets did also goes to show how hate-filled the execution of a marxist state was. They paved the road to their theoretical utopia with corpses in an ocean of blood. No one killed more than the soviets and the maoists.
You can speculate that the nazis would have killed more people all you want and that may or not be true in speculation land, but the truth is the red soviets developed an ideology of murderous hatred and copious carnage that ultimetely killed more people in all periods of its existence than the nazis could ever hope to accomplish.
>Comparatively Belaruse and Polish populations stayed Stable and didn't change much, but why was Ukraine so depopulated in 25 years?
Our population isn't stable at all, it's just that for every Pole leaving for the West there's a Ukrainian ready to move in here.
Marxism is actually not about the slaughter of anyone.
It happens because of issues comming up with people that disagree. Marxists rarely have anything to coop with disagreement.
>red soviets developed an ideology of murderous hatred and copious carnage that ultimetely killed more people
Now the discussion gets ridiculous.
>Marxism is actually not about the slaughter of anyone
Neither is christianity, technically. However, heretics tended to be purged in certain parts of european christian history. The marxists were even more brutal in their pursuit of ideological purity.
>Now the discussion gets ridiculous.
Ah, so you're like a reverse Sup Forumsack? instead of "muh 6 gorillon" holocaust denial you'll deny the millions of deaths perpetrated by marxists states. I guess the discussion really did get ridiculous.
You shouldn't bring emotions into history.
Many gruesome things happened in the past. It's rarely an emotion causing them.
Views are different in different places. Le Stalin killed le 89654 ganzillion. Is not interesting to discuss.
Many numbers are highly exegerated already by Stalin himself and further by the western propaganda.
Real views on history have always to be done in an distant unbiased manner.
I want to add:
Hitlers barbarism in the 20th century would have been Adolf the greats conquest 2000 yerars before.
You way of judging manipulates your view. Just view and don't judge. I like history not ethics.
You brought up "ideological hatred" yourself, and the whole time you appeared to justify Stalin's atrocities in the name of fighting the ebin evil nazis. It's funny that you're claiming unbiased, objective historical neutrality now when the whole time you were signaling your ideological preference.
The way you argued at first looked something like this to me: "ya, they would have come to teh SU and they would have killed everyone and eaten all the slav babies. Trust me on this, I know their true evil nature, it can't possibly be propaganda from their side as well". So don't complain when I do the same.
I don't give a fuck about protecting the fucking nazis and will gladly denunce their evil doings, but your failing to properly condemn the atrocities of the marxist states on the guise of historical objectivity is hypocritical at best, blindly ideologue at worst.
>ideological hatred"
The Nazi believe is social darwinistic. In communism everyone is equal what allows the bad parts of a society to flourish and degenerate the whole after time. (from the social darwinist view).
Fascists and communists can't coexist because of this. It's in both ideologies that prevent them.
>justify Stalin's atrocities
I just see rationality in those. If you look at the Russian situation at the beginning of Stalin and at the end. Then you see besides a country that was murdered all over also one that is from a underdevolep place with the majority not even know how to read and write to a world superpower, indutrialized and an population that's going to be leading in several science fields through an widely obtainable higher eductaional system.
This asks in question the popular picture of Stalin the Barbar. I don't see him as a barbar.
This is what happens when your entire economy is tied to the grand nigger: Russia. Their lack of diversification out of pro-russian corruption let them having a weak economy with very little long term prospects.
Why is Belarus doing well then, population wise it has changed marginally, whereas Ukraine literally turned into black hole.
>ukraine
Bump
>tfw Drumpf would most likely not accept very many Ukrainian refugees
At least when Russia annex it they can easily repopulate it with Chechens and Russian women.