The source is that it came to you in a dream, lmao. No, nowhere close to 99% of people think the Soviet famine in the 1930s was intentional, it's disputed among liberals at best, and among communists it's near universally understood to be unintentional.

Academia is global, yes, which is why it's baffling that you only consider a fraction of a fraction of the world as legitimate.

No? You keep pretending western liberals are the only opinions that matter, and even among western liberals the your ideas are contested at best.

And yet you maintain the opinion of only a portion of western scholarship as legitimate. You'd be arguing against evolution. Sorry to tell you, but facts are facts, no matter how much you may dislike them.

Nope, not the consensus, considering you only believe western liberals count for consensus.

I don't ignore the 99%, lmao. You only count western opinion for one, and secondly western opinion is contested, with the best research pointing to it not being intentional. You have absolutely nothing.

No, I linked to half a dozen sources affirming my point, and pointed out that even Wikipedia affirms the sources as legitimate. Wikipedia is not a source. You are allergic to scholarly research.

To be clear, Wikipedia isn't my source, it's a link to essentially the western liberal bible affirming that my sources are legitimate scholars respected in their field. My sources are Mark Tauger, Grover Furr, Kotkin, Li Yan, and Shen Lihua. Still, let's copy and paste the 2 paragraphs, including the footnotes:

[a]Researchers who state that the famine was unintentional and did not aim at genocide still agree that the famine was not caused by natural crop failure, and so use words like "man-made famine" and "organised famine" to emphasize this fact.[1][2][3] Most researchers agree that the famine was caused by social factors and government policies.[4]

This states that, among western historians (who are the only ones Wikipedia references, curiously), there is no settled debate on whether it was intentional and thus genocide, or unintentional and due to mismanagement.

Moving forward, here are the paragraphs in the Wikipedia article:

The Holodomor, a 1932–1933 man-made famine,[a] killed 3.3–5 million ethnic Ukrainian people in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (as part of the Soviet Union),[5][6][7] included in a total of 5.5–8.7 million perished in the broader Soviet famine of 1930–1933.[8][9][10] At least 3.3 million ethnic Ukrainians died as a result of the famine in the USSR.[11] Scholars debate whether there was an intent to starve millions of Ukrainians to death or not.[12]

While scholars are in consensus that the cause of the famine was man-made,[a] the topic remains a significant issue in modern politics with historians disputing whether Soviet policies in the era constitute genocide. Specifically, scholarly debate of the question centres around whether or not the Holodomor was intentional and therefore constitutes a genocide under the Genocide Convention.[13] Broadly speaking, Russian historians are generally of the opinion that the Holodomor did not constitute a genocide. Among Ukrainian historians the general opinion is that it did constitute a genocide. Western historians hold varying views.[14] Most scholars who reject the argument that state policy in regard to the famine was genocidal do not absolve Joseph Stalin or the Soviet regime as a whole from guilt for the famine deaths and still view such policies as being ultimately criminal in nature.[15][16][17]

So, in total, Wikipedia does not consider the opinion of non-western scholars to be relevant in any manner, and of the relevant scholars Tauger is referenced as an authority on the matter. Wikipedia is already highly flawed by explicitly rejecting non-western scholars, but even Wikipedia's flawed analysis does not line up with what you say, and in fact lines up with what I've said, which I will copy and paste yet again:

Even serious liberal scholars believe it to have been a combination of adverse weather conditions and mismanagement. For instance, Mark Tauger wrote:

[data] indicate that the famine was real, the result of a failure of economic policy, of the 'revolution from above,' rather than of a 'successful' nationality policy against Ukrainians or other ethnic groups.

Tauger believes it was a failure of economic policy, not an intentional attack on ethnic Ukrainians. The 1930s famine was a combination of drought, flooding, and mismanagement. Further, the Kulaks, wealthy bourgeois farmers, magnified matters by killing their own crops in the midst of a famine rather than letting the Red Army collectivize them. The Politburo was also kept in the dark about how bad the famine was getting:

From: Archive of the President of the Russian Federation. Fond 3, Record Series 40, File 80, Page 58.

Excerpt from the protocol number of the meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party (Bolsheviks) “Regarding Measures to Prevent Failure to Sow in Ukraine, March 16th, 1932.

The Political Bureau believes that shortage of seed grain in Ukraine is many times worse than what was described in comrade Kosior’s telegram; therefore, the Political Bureau recommends the Central Committee of the Communist party of Ukraine to take all measures within its reach to prevent the threat of failing to sow [field crops] in Ukraine.

Signed: Secretary of the Central Committee – J. STALIN

Letter to Joseph Stalin from Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine regarding the course and the perspectives of the sowing campaign in Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.

There are also isolated cases of starvation, and even whole villages [starving]; however, this is only the result of bungling on the local level, deviations [from the party line], especially in regard of kolkhozes. All rumours about “famine” in Ukraine must be unconditionally rejected. The crucial help that was provided for Ukraine will give us the opportunity to eradicate all such outbreaks [of starvation].

Letter from Joseph Stalin to Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.

Comrade Kosior!

You must read attached summaries. Judging by this information, it looks like the Soviet authority has ceased to exist in some areas of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Can this be true? Is the situation in villages in Ukraine this bad? Where are the operatives of the OGPU [Joint Main Political Directorate], what are they doing?

Could you verify this information and inform the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party about taken measures.

Sincerely, J. Stalin

Evidence doesn't point to deliberately killing some of the Soviet Union's most loyal citizens in the breadbasket of the entire USSR, when they desperately needed to advance agricultural production (and did).

All in all, you have no idea what you're talking about and cannot keep your talking points straight.

Your talking points are clear, but they are wrong. As I already linked:

Since you seem to want direct sources, here's a link to 3 PDFs of Tauger's work, and you can check historians like Grover Furr's work on the 1930s famine as well. I simply went with Tauger because he is more accepted among liberal historians as the foremost expert, but if we reference explicitly communist historians there are far more.

For example, Chinese scholars like Li Yan and Shen Lihua both affirm Tauger's point, that there was no deliberate famine, but instead that it was a combination of weather disaster, sabotage, and mismanagement. None of this points to genocide or settler-colonialism, in fact the Soviet government was overwhelmingly supportive of Ukraine throughout its existence and treated it like the poster child of soviet socialism.

Tauger's work is referenced in the scholarly section of Wikipedia's entry on the question of the 1930s famine being genocide. I also linked other historians like Grover Furr, as well as non-western historians that are less likely to be well-known enough for Wikipedia.

This is just for the 1930s soviet famine, I gave far more references for Katyn, for the counterrevolutions in Czechoslovakia and Hungary, and more. You fixate on a single well-respected source and refuse to engage, again, this is no different from MAGA.

You have no idea what you're talking about, though, and it's clear when you get your talking points mixed up and cannot even address scholarly research. Again, this is MAGA-tier.

I suggest you go back and re-read it. It's all there as I said.

No? You're deeply, deeply confused about this entire conversation.

Mark Tauger's point doesn't go against consensus, nor does he rely on the internal documents I referenced in addition. Further, I included many other sources, including Kotkin and Chinese scholars, which you continue to ignore. You have no clue what you're talking about or what I actually said.

No? This was an internal back and forth between branches of the CPSU. Scholarly evidence backs it up as legitimate. What on Earth are you trying to do?

Stalin did not "clear Stalin." Stalin asked the Ukrainian communists why they hid the extent of the famine, and I included them hiding it as well.

No? The CPSU investigated itself and found the Ukrainian communists that hid the extent of famine responsible. Do you think the comments from Stalin were fabricated? What's your actual point?

You should in fact reread this thread. I referenced Chinese scholars, anticommunist western scholars like Kotkin, and more. The archival evidence of Stalin being unaware of the famine isn't Stalin making shit up after the fact, it's a documented instance of the Central Committee being kept in the dark by the Ukrainian Communists and needing to deal with the consequences.

I did in fact read it.

I did read it, it did not disprove the single source it was meant to counter, and moreover it said nothing of the other half dozen I listed.

No, it did not.

Already have, you should.

They did not, in fact, contradict me.

Nah, I clearly gave you half a dozen sources.

You're confused if you think Wikipedia is a source. I gave half a dozen sources, none of them Wikipedia.

Yep, and your claims go against it.

Evidently you don't, because you keep inventing falsehoods.

I've read both, you're wrong.

Please elaborate, everything I have linked backs me up.

You're confused, the scientific consensus aligns with what I said

I've always understood that you have nothing to go off of.

I've already understood it, you haven't so far though.

You have to read 100%, not the 1% that agrees with your political beliefs.

I've read it, you're wrong.

My evidence never contradicted me, you didn't even know what you were saying for the majority of this conversation and got your talking points mixed up.

You haven't posted any evidence, you just rejected what even liberal historians acknowledge.