It doesn’t matter if he personally loved every single Ukrainian that died, the fact is that even if you believe everything that was done to mitigate it was a best effort, and that everything that led to the union at large being essentially helpless to feed its people was an accident, it still paints the picture of a big talker that managed a country into the ground.
At best, in the most forgiving light, Stalin was an incompetent head of state, regardless of how smart he was, and was responsible for a lot of people who died reaching out their hands begging for help while he pulled out his pockets and shrugged. And that would have been the end of it, but no, he goes and waxes poetically about how starving people don’t have freedom while the graves are still fresh.
managed a country into the ground
From 1928 to 1939 (the period of full planning pre-war) industrial output increased 350%.
Because the rapid industrialization and according massive reorganization of the economy and productive capacity of the country was messy and imperfect. And also because famines are only really uncommon in already industrialized economies.
it still paints the picture of a big talker that managed a country into the ground.
I suppose if you squint at it and ignore all the other stuff sure? But the problems with famine relief were mainly local and partially caused by kulak sabotage (and they bragged about how effective that sabotage was, you can look it up), when the central committee understood the extent of the problem measures were quickly taken.
If we look at other facts though, like how successful collective farming was at breaking the cycle of famine and how rapidly the Soviets were able to industrialize, quick enough to defeat nazi-ism lose 1/6 of their population in the fight and still make it to space before anyone else, it paints a much better picture of the competence of soviet democratic economic management.
