Holodomor Recognized

[Admin]

Kruschev is credited for offering the first glimpse of Stalin's genocide to the west, which resulted in more than 10 Million deaths in Ukraine due to articial famine. Only now, since 2003, are we beginning to gain a full appreciation for the magnitude of the atrocities suffered by Ukrainians at the hands of a brutal Stalin regime.

Next time you visit Ukraine in the summertime and notice the massive fields of sunflowers in the countryside - just remember how those sunflowers allowed many to survive the horrors of the Holodomor.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/11/28/2003282102

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L26615963.htm

http://www.ukar.org/famine.html

- Dan

[KenC]

That is incredible.  I had read a little about this before, but not in such graphic detail.  Thanks for sharing.

KenC

[TigerPaws]

[size="4"] Great link Dan thank you, it was not just the Ukraine that suffered under Stalin, the Russian people suffered much as well. Stalin made Hitler look like a chior boy, although the world may never know the true number he killed, reliable estimates run as high at 30 million people.
[/size]

[Elen]

This is a oneside look
 Ukraine asked already in 2003 the UN to admit those events like genocid - for some reasons (do you know them? )has not done that yet.
( PS Numbers from other side - 3,5 millions )

As for 30 million death under Stalin than if you add those like you call them "true" numbers to proved 22 million the USSR lost in WWII then it would appeared that there were no adult population in the USSR to fight Hitler at all
PSS Somehow those who lived here under both Stalin and Hitler ( but not read about them in newspapers) don't share your opinions at all)  
 
 Point is that Stalin was not an angel but there is no need to add sins to him at all - he had enough of his own ones

 Second point is - before making any conclusions about historical events it would not be bad to learn what were before them ( why exactly in 32-33, why at Ukraina , what was another way to get grain for those who lived in towns and what would be with the whole country in the WWII if agricultura would not be dragged with such crule for sure metods at industrial level but would be left at a plow level like those pesants wanted abnd etc) instead of to see those events only like devil nature of Stalin ( and to try to use that now like a resone to make claims to Russia instead to Gerogia for example)

[RacerX]

It's interesting that Stalin apologists devote so much energy in trying to minimize the implications of the mass murder that occurred by insisting the term "genocide" has been incorrectly applied to what was simply an "politically engineered cataclysm."

A good read on the subject can be found here:

http://www.faminegenocide.com/resources/bilinsky.html

[Bruno]

In Hispaniola, Columbus and the Spanish set up a system that made every Indian over the age of 14 responsible for gathering a certain amount of gold each month. They received copper tokens to hang around their necks if they succeeded. If an Indian was caught without a token, the Spanish cut off their hands and let them bleed to death.
Columbus and his followers massacred an entire people. Some estimate that the pre-Columbian population on the island of Hispaniola was as high as 8 million. By 1516, the Indian population dropped to 12,000. Only 200 remained by 1542. Not one Arawak Indian was left alive on the island by 1555.

 
Genocide is something usual in the history of several nation... actual people from America, Germany, Belgium, spain, Russia... are not responsible for the past genocide... they have only a duty to remember it for it not happen again...

[Elen]

It's interesting that Stalin apologists devote so much energy in trying to minimize the implications of the mass murder that occurred by insisting the term "genocide" has been incorrectly applied to what was simply an "politically engineered cataclysm."

A good read on the subject can be found here:
http://www.faminegenocide.com/resources/bilinsky.html

I found no one answer at my question there. Though as I told UN still has another viwpoint than Ukraina You hardly can call UN as Stalin's admiers Tough may be to 2007 year UN will change it's mind as Ukraina is going to send its petition once more in that year.

And speaking about Stalin's "appologists" I offered you to learn about events which leaded to that Stalin's crime and also gave your ideas how that events should be escaped in THOSE particular historical coditions without making a crime against other part of population.

[Admin]

It’s interesting that Stalin apologists devote so much energy in trying to minimize the implications of the mass murder that occurred by insisting the term “genocide” has been incorrectly applied to what was simply an “politically engineered cataclysm.”

A good read on the subject can be found here:
http://www.faminegenocide.com/resources/bilinsky.html

I found no one answer at my question there. Though as I told UN still has another viwpoint than Ukraina You hardly can call UN as Stalin's admiers Tough may be to 2007 year UN will change it's mind as Ukraina is going to send its petition once more in that year.

And speaking about Stalin's "appologists" I offered you to learn about events which leaded to that Stalin's crime and also gave your ideas how that events should be escaped in THOSE particular historical coditions without making a crime against other part of population.[/quote]

Elen,

Based on what you wrote, the numbers killed may have 'only' been 3.5 million - not the 7 million, or 10 million, which others have cited. While I guess I would have to agree that to kill 3.5 million residents is better than killing 7 million residents - I am (and most would be) SHOCKED at the idea that the leader of a country would kill more than 3 million of their own citizens. In this instance, the shock is even worse because of HOW those citizens were killed.

You also invited comments asking for ideas about how Stalin might have controlled the situation. I guess, by extension, you are suggesting that somehow this tactic was acceptable and the results were explicable because there was no better, or no other, way to deal with it.

Well, I am sorry but, that is just difficult to accept (if, indeed, I correctly understand your questions and position).

As I understand it - there was plenty of grain and produce to feed the people. Stalin made the point of removing it and moving it to Russia so as to weaken the 'will' of the Ukrainian peasantry. It is important to remember that Ukraine was a simple country of rural peasants for the most part - who had very little except their farms and their livestock. Stalin, in the de-kulakization initiative, ultimately killed anyone who owned as much as a single cow or chicken - or who had tin covering their sheds - because it signified individual wealth and he was focused on creative the collectives.

It is hard for me to grasp the concept that somehow this was justifiable behavior under any imaginable circumstance. I just cannot seem to 'get my head around it.'

Comments? Seriously, I would LOVE to be educated about why my thinking is off-base - but please do so with facts, and I will try to stick to them as well. Is it the factual basis that you disagree with? If so - which facts are in question??

TIA

- Dan

[BC]

Sure doesn't help but to put things into perspective try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

[RacerX]

The point I raised earlier is that one need not diminish the horror of what occurred in 1930s Ukraine by trying to pigeon-hole the act into fitting a precise definition of genocide, nor should one make irrelevant comparisons as a way of adding unneeded perspective upon it.

For example, referencing that the indigenous population of the USA declined from the low millions to nearly nil over four centuries and then additionally equating disease as "biological genocide," or assimilation into the existing society as "cultural genocide" is simply a way for others to deflect the shame they or their immediate relatives might want to express to the countless dead in Ukraine.

[groovlstk]

I met a Russian woman in Ukraine who informed me that Americans had bad  character because we're all descended from penal colonists who were  exiled from Great Britain. I thought for a time that she had confused  Australia with the US, but she knew about Oz's history and insisted  that her Soviet textbooks told the truth and that US textbooks were  simply propoganda.

I gave up at that point, realizing nothing I could say would sway her, as she'd made her mind up long ago.

There are tons of scholarship and documentation that prove Stalin was probably the worst mass murderer in history.

The Stalin apologists will always accuse the West of a smear campaign  for propaganda purposes. But if you know any scholars personally,  particularly historians, you'll know that they would die for a chance  to argue a case that may cast an important historical figure in a new  light and set conventional wisdom on its collective popka. I have yet  to see anything outside of flimsy historical revisionism, a la  Holocaust deniers, that Stalin was anything less than a monster.

Funny enough, I read a book a decade ago by some scholars who reasoned  that Stalin was poisoned by his top aids because his paranoia convinced  him that a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the US was necessary. Much of  it was supposition, however, and most scholars dismissed it.

[Elen]

As I understand it - there was plenty of grain and produce to feed the people. Stalin made the point of removing it and moving it to Russia so as to weaken the 'will' of the Ukrainian peasantry. It is important to remember that Ukraine was a simple country of rural peasants for the most part - who had very little except their farms and their livestock. Stalin, in the de-kulakization initiative, ultimately killed anyone who owned as much as a single cow or chicken - or who had tin covering their sheds - because it signified individual wealth and he was focused on creative the collectives.

I understand that accept there were something else but not Stalin's crime is very hard for you as the results were really awful But

- the country which was on blockade by no one other but civilizes West had no other recourses to get a grain to feed others except to take that grain like taxes from peasants
You may discuss how big were those taxes and how low prices for grain were but then say where Stalin was supposed to gain money to pay more for that in those times or where else who would be able to get grain.
 - Besides Ukraine was not "special" zone where Stalin took more than  in other areas . 1932-33 were not years when Stalin demanded more than in previous years The weather in 32-32 was not very good but either it was not such terrible like in 20s in Povolshe that Ukrainian peasants would not be able to pay the common tax in grain
 30s years were not the first years of Soviet rule and kolkhozes appeared not in 20s. Peasants had 10 years to proved they just could not feed country with those plow  methods they prefer to use - as it was enough to feed themselves  How other were supposed to live and where the state was supposed to gain money to build industry bothered them little. They just thought that to dictate their own prices on grain was their natural right. From their viewpoint it was so , from viewpoint of those who worked hard in towns trying to build industry in a face of one more new world war such selfish behavior was crime.
 The only one way to broke that situation was to force those peasants to kolkhozes - if you had another ides then share them with me. If the country had more time but not only 20 years between two world wars things would be go not in such harsh and process would not had such many backside effects. But there was not time for that at all
 And for course to break human mentality in one moment could not be done without fight and blood That fight and blood were not only from one side You know about Stalin's crime Let leave alone such "visible" crimes like killing tractorists in kolkhozes ( very common thing in those years) and burning a year stock by kulaks.
 How about those peasants preferred to kill all their own cows and bulls but not to give them to kolkhozes? Even the fact that next year they would not have enough bulls to plough and collect such little that they would not be able to pay taxes to Stalin didn't stop them.
 Yes Stalin could leave them in a peace with taxes when they got almost nothing that year ( mostly due to their own good work) but next year he would get the same all round the country with kulaks who would be control all grain. Fine perspective

  That's on primitive level of explanation of course For detailed explanations you should study a whole historical course. ( with statistic of sown areas and collected grain, with numbers of mass slaughter, with stories about class war in countryside in those times)



 But I think you would not do that any way because it's easy to cry about real terrible end and don't try to find where a start was


PS try to ask yourself how good you are in Soviet history to make your conclusions. And try to understand why even now when no one "secret" about Stalin's crimes those who lives HERE ( a place of his crimes) don't see him only in black light.
PSS about 30 millions of Stalins victims here.
You may belive on any numbers you want as for you it's only numbers on a paper For us they are more "understandable" as we all know how 20 millions (losted in WWII)looked like in real life - it meant almost EVERY one family with losted members and several losts among your friends. Now try to expalain for yourself how it happened that those people who lived right in Stalin's times had not idea about such numbers at all.

[Admin]

As I understand it - there was plenty of grain and produce to feed the people. Stalin made the point of removing it and moving it to Russia so as to weaken the 'will' of the Ukrainian peasantry. It is important to remember that Ukraine was a simple country of rural peasants for the most part - who had very little except their farms and their livestock. Stalin, in the de-kulakization initiative, ultimately killed anyone who owned as much as a single cow or chicken - or who had tin covering their sheds - because it signified individual wealth and he was focused on creative the collectives.

I understand that accept there were something else but not Stalin's crime is very hard for you as the results were really awful But

- the country which was on blockade by no one other but civilizes West had no other recourses to get a grain to feed others except to take that grain like taxes from peasants
You may discuss how big were those taxes and how low prices for grain were but then say where Stalin was supposed to gain money to pay more for that in those times or where else who would be able to get grain.
 - Besides Ukraine was not "special" zone where Stalin took more than  in other areas . 1932-33 were not years when Stalin demanded more than in previous years The weather in 32-32 was not very good but either it was not such terrible like in 20s in Povolshe that Ukrainian peasants would not be able to pay the common tax in grain
 30s years were not the first years of Soviet rule and kolkhozes appeared not in 20s. Peasants had 10 years to proved they just could not feed country with those plow  methods they prefer to use - as it was enough to feed themselves  How other were supposed to live and where the state was supposed to gain money to build industry bothered them little. They just thought that to dictate their own prices on grain was their natural right. From their viewpoint it was so , from viewpoint of those who worked hard in towns trying to build industry in a face of one more new world war such selfish behavior was crime.
 The only one way to broke that situation was to force those peasants to kolkhozes - if you had another ides then share them with me. If the country had more time but not only 20 years between two world wars things would be go not in such harsh and process would not had such many backside effects. But there was not time for that at all
 And for course to break human mentality in one moment could not be done without fight and blood That fight and blood were not only from one side You know about Stalin's crime Let leave alone such "visible" crimes like killing tractorists in kolkhozes ( very common thing in those years) and burning a year stock by kulaks.
 How about those peasants preferred to kill all their own cows and bulls but not to give them to kolkhozes? Even the fact that next year they would not have enough bulls to plough and collect such little that they would not be able to pay taxes to Stalin didn't stop them.
 Yes Stalin could leave them in a peace with taxes when they got almost nothing that year ( mostly due to their own good work) but next year he would get the same all round the country with kulaks who would be control all grain. Fine perspective

  That's on primitive level of explanation of course For detailed explanations you should study a whole historical course. ( with statistic of sown areas and collected grain, with numbers of mass slaughter, with stories about class war in countryside in those times)



 But I think you would not do that any way because it's easy to cry about real terrible end and don't try to find where a start was


PS try to ask yourself how good you are in Soviet history to make your conclusions. And try to understand why even now when no one "secret" about Stalin's crimes those who lives HERE ( a place of his crimes) don't see him only in black light.
PSS about 30 millions of Stalins victims here.
You may belive on any numbers you want as for you it's only numbers on a paper For us they are more "understandable" as we all know how 20 millions (losted in WWII)looked like in real life - it meant almost EVERY one family with losted members and several losts among your friends. Now try to expalain for yourself how it happened that those people who lived right in Stalin's times had not idea about such numbers at all.[/quote]

Elen,

You make some good points - but first I need to address your posting 'style' - which is abrasive.

Several times you address the topic by seeming to challenge me personally. For example:

"I understand that accept there were something else but not Stalin's crime is very hard for you . . ."

"try to ask yourself how good you are in Soviet history to make your conclusions."

"You may belive on any numbers you want as for you it's only numbers on a paper"

Elen, it may be that you are unaware of how those types of comments are received by western readers - so let me tell you. In the first example, you express that you "understand" something which I never stated. My focus is not, and was not, on "Stalin's crime" - it was on the horror of the HUGE numbers of people who died from starvation. The policy decisions and the government interventions which may, or may not, have created this horror is secondary - but warrants discussion.

In the second example, you infer that I am incapable of understanding Soviet history because I did not live it, and have no blood generations which lived it. Actually, I married into bloodlines who DID live it - and it is a frequent topic of discussion (my MIL is here with us now). Further, to suggest that a person cannot possibly understand the historical events of another country because they are distanced from it, is to suggest that attempts at historical understanding be restricted to those who were somehow directly involved or affected. This is, quite candidly, insulting. I am fully-capable of studying the material which is available, and learning from what is written. Now - if you want to address the fact that there is STILL a great deal of information which has NEVER been released by the Soviet governments - sure - this limits ANYONE (YOU too) from fully understanding the events of the past - and learning the historical lessons we should take away from those events.

With due respect Elen - while you have some generations of passed-down word-of-mouth, those relatives of yours who told you about it, are limited in THEIR understanding by the same fact that the Soviet government protected and limited the available information about the events. Surely you recognize this.

Your third quotation evokes a similar reaction. You suggest that I am incapable of understanding the truth because they are only numbers on paper. In point of fact, my wife's mother is an ORIGINAL ethnic Ukrainian - and there are numerous stories of the people in MY FAMILY (now) whom we lost to the Holodomor. Further, I am also capable - as others are - to gain an understanding of the horrors by making an effort to learn of the events and to re-create the events historically so that they may be more fully-documented and understood.

My point is to say - it serves no useful purpose for you to challenge the issues by attacking whether or not I am capable of understanding.

Sticking to the facts - as reported - do you acknowledge, or dispute, the following:

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor)

* Between 5 to 10 million people died from the starvation in 1932/33
* 81% of those were Ukrainians
* USSR exports of grain INCREASED from 1932 to 1933 - in spite of the massive deaths in Ukraine - and MOST of that grain CAME FROM Ukraine
* Even today, the Russian authorities have NOT released all the information available about these events in Ukraine.

It seems to me that the issue now is whether or not this horrible historical TRUTH is classified as "genocide." There are many Ukrainians who believe it was a genocidal purge initiated and executed by Stalin and through his government. There are some (maybe not enough) compelling documents to support this position - as well as historical decisions made by Stalin against Ukrainians that are well-documented and serve to demonstrate his disdain for the Ukrainian peoples.

Understandably, some in Russia do not want these events classified as "genocide."

So that is, it seems, where the debate lies.

Corrections or comments?

- Dan

[RacerX]

Without delving into the UN's motivation for not classifying the situation as genocide - much of which has to do with its earlier placation of the USSR when the genocide definitions were being formulated, it seems to boil down to economics and numbers.  The claim by Stalin supporters is that the famine experienced by Ukrainians during the 1932-33 was widely felt throughout the region and to some extent would have occurred anyway.  However, the fact that the USSR had excess grain to export during this period seems contradictory.  A secondary argument against the geographic genocide label is that most observers felt that Stalin would have seized the grain he needed from any other USSR region, for example Belorussia, had it been available - and in addition he robbed Kazakhstan equally as well, but there's little mention of it.

[Bruno]

Sticking to the facts - as reported - do you acknowledge, or dispute, the following:

According to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor )

Dan, at the top of the article, you can see that these article is disputed...

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holodomor ... it is more interesting, discussion page over the controversial article "Holodomor"

 

[Admin]

Dan, at the top of the article, you can see that these article is disputed...

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holodomor... it is more interesting, discussion page over the controversial article "Holodomor"

Yes, I saw that. Much of the dispute arises NOT from the FACTS represented in the article - but arise from the section on the Wikipedia page addressing the elimination of Ukrainian's cultural/social elite class. There are many who challenge the association of eliminating that elite class, with the Holodomor horrors.

In any case, the general facts of the atrocities seem clear. The underlying motivations remain a matter of debate. Whether or not there were alternatives to the choices made is even murkier. Most of this will probably only be made clear(er) when (or *IF*) the Russians (post-Soviet keepers of the records) ever decide to open their files on the subject.

- Dan

[RacerX]

Assuming there are any files to open!

Interesting to me that my Russian wife's attitude parallels Elen's.  On top of it, she resorts to the somewhat viable argument that much of what the communists told her has now been proven to have been false - who's to say that Khrushchev* amongst others didn't have an axe to grind and simply fabricated many of 'facts' about this horror.

(*Nikita and his family were Ukrainian peasants throughout his early years)

[Elen]

For future - in all my politic discussions "you" - means all of you (if it was russian language it would be obviously - but English one has the same word for both cases)
if I post some of your - Dan's or someothers qoutes - and then write "you" don't take that SUCH personaly - your arguments for me in all cases are just arguments from the West - I heard them in the same or close variations many times So my 'you" is for all of you

Secondary I have not idea how to smooth my English - you should just addapt to it ( or move to Russian language)

*

Between 5 to 10 million people died from the starvation in 1932/33
* 81% of those were Ukrainians

 As for numbers then I can give you mine - they are not little as well to justify Satlin ( 4-4,5 in famine in the whole USSR)We may discuss them by no end and go nowhere
 I told about cases when your ( Western)  numbers are too far from resonable like it was with 30 millions - I gave you - all of you - my point why I thopught they were just unreal.

* USSR exports of grain INCREASED from 1932 to 1933 - in spite of the massive deaths in Ukraine - and MOST of that grain CAME FROM Ukraine

Export of grain (mln tonns Numbers from R Medvedev)
1928 г. - 0,1
1929 7. - 1,3
1930 г. - 4,8
1931 г. - 5,2
1932 г. - 1,8
1933 г. - 1,0

Yes increase because the USA sunk in depression decided to trade with Stalin at least - but not in 32-33  Yes Ukraina because grain didn't grow in Siberia Yes inspite of masssive death (not only in Ukraina )- that's was Stalin nobody denies that.

* Even today, the Russian authorities have NOT released all the information available about these events in Ukraine.

Where do such conclusions go from as all archives were opened in early 90s? I can't reacall that our democrates who were glad in those times to get an access to archives claimed they didn't got what they wanted
because somebody didn't allow them to do that.

My focus is not, and was not, on "Stalin's crime" - it was on the horror of the HUGE numbers of people who died from starvation. The policy decisions and the government interventions which may, or may not, have created this horror is secondary - but warrants discussion.

Horror - yes especially if you would understand an idea there was no onther way to escape it And our country always had to choose who should die that time. And life for one part of populationit meant death to other. Civil war - awful and simple.  If you know how Stalin was supposed to rule that situation then tell me I may only say you how yours ( Westerns) governments could help - give credits to Stalin so he would not squeeze out the last drop from peasants.

In the second example, you infer that I am incapable of understanding Soviet history because I did not live it, and have no blood generations which lived it. Actually, I married into bloodlines who DID live it - and it is a frequent topic of discussion (my MIL is here with us now). Further, to suggest that a person cannot possibly understand the historical events of another country because they are distanced from it, is to suggest that attempts at historical understanding be restricted to those who were somehow directly involved or affected. This is, quite candidly, insulting. I am fully-capable of studying the material which is available, and learning from what is written. Now - if you want to address the fact that there is STILL a great deal of information which has NEVER been released by the Soviet governments - sure - this limits ANYONE (YOU too) from fully understanding the events of the past - and learning the historical lessons we should take away from those events.

a) I think to live in America and be marry to russian wife is far from to live in Russia
b)let your wives expalain you that results of this poll about Stalin's role in history of the USSR, because somehow I'm sure you can't understand by yourself how it could be and have only one explanation - that Soviet government hided many from us ( forgetting that our democrates have told us ALL and even more They had more than 15 years for that already)

c) I belive you are fully-capable of studying the material which is available, and learning from what is written. The question is only what exactly materials you are able to  get there in the West. For example Canadian guy Douglas Tottle  may give you an idea about your sourses where the West got information about events in Ukraina . Find and read his book " Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard" as it's heard for me to re-tell that ( PS prevent sombody's replica In that book Tottle does not deny the fact of famine just show you what sourses of information  the West used)
d) once more "you" - means "western auditory"  and once more I told about numbers of 30 millions And my "ideas" that those who have lived right in Stalin's times and claimed after his death they had not idea about such amount ( wich would be just impossible to hide if they were such like it was posted here) are more close to reality than what your wife tells you.

[Elen]

Well just wonder did an idea that you have though only one-side of story as you can read only at English cross your minds? :?

[Admin]

Well just wonder did an idea that you have though only one-side of story as you can read only at English cross your minds? :?

Of course it crossed my mind. Did it cross yours that 26 nations, some of whom are well-versed in the Russian language (such as Hungary, Lithuania, Estonia, and Ukraine) have ALL formally recognized the famine of 1931/32 as GENOCIDE? Not to mention that the Vatican has ALSO formally recognized the GENOCIDE.

For you to suggest that others, across the world, are failing to see the TRUTH because of being propagandized, is more than a little ludicrous.

This is a subject that has only recently seen the light of day - as the authorities choose to release documents. No-one will know the full 'truth' unless, and until, the entire dossier of files/documents/records is fully revealed and examined. What we DO know - right now - is horrendous and points strongly (if not conclusively) to a Stalin-backed government purge of a particular group of people.

To take Elen's argument - essentially that number of people were going to die as a result of natural factors, and Stalin was merely apportioning which people suffered the greatest loss - though in total, the number of deaths was going to be the same whether Russians, Belarussians, or Ukrainians. Interesting point.

- Dan

[Elen]

Of course it crossed my mind. Did it cross yours that 26 nations, some of whom are well-versed in the Russian language (such as Hungary, Lithuania, Estonia, and Ukraine) have ALL formally recognized the famine of 1931/32 as GENOCIDE? Not to mention that the Vatican has ALSO formally recognized the GENOCIDE.

I know that it was only 26. Also I know in what fairway those countries follow in.

BTW would not mind to put a whole list of those countries?

Ps Vatican ?? What's that? Is that that organisation which had a connections with facists in WWII ? ( as well as many in those countries you mention here from that list)

For you to suggest that others, across the world, are failing to see the TRUTH because of being propagandized, is more than a little ludicrous.

Now my "assuming" seems for me less silly than yours (in the West) when you ( in the West) tell us that we know little about our lifes here because the truth were hidden from us.
Ps go anf find that book I recommend you though

This is a subject that has only recently seen the light of day - as the authorities choose to release documents. No-one will know the full 'truth' unless, and until, the entire dossier of files/documents/records is fully revealed and examined. What we DO know - right now - is horrendous and points strongly (if not conclusively) to a Stalin-backed government purge of a particular group of people.

Why only now It was discussed in 60s when Khuschev came to power and tryied rather hard to show us how Stalin was awful, it was discissed in 90s widely as well, there were even a specail comission wich had a full access to archives ( and member of those commission were far from Stalin's admiers - trust me) You just didn't read our newspapers of those times - that's all

To take Elen's argument - essentially that number of people were going to die as a result of natural factors, and Stalin was merely apportioning which people suffered the greatest loss - though in total, the number of deaths was going to be the same whether Russians, Belarussians, or Ukrainians. Interesting point.

Helen was speaking about fight against classes inside country - where the win of one side meant the death of other one.

 Also Helen offered you to show her a human way wich would be fine for Russia to build economy from zero, feed the whole country and prepare it to one more world war in a period of 20 years and in world's isolation and in a case of civil war inside country.

 Stalin had his way blood one but rather effective What would be yours one? I would wnat to hear out your interesting point

[Bruce]

I've forgotten too much about history to make an intelligent post on this topic.  Sorry.

[Bruce]

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm

Ah, the above is the reminder I needed.  Thanks for getting me to re-educate myself Dan .

[Elen]

Elen, correct me if I am wrong, but if I remember correctly, the motivation for Stalin to starve Western Ukraine is that the majority of Western Ukraine welcomed the nazi's with open arms when they invaded.

You are wrong - if I got you right
First of all Stalin "chose" who to "starve" - if you put that such way though I think that was not so - not by territorial / nationality/ religion/ or what else belonging but only by one  "attribute" - fighting against his policy inside the country as he saw that ( and in that I agree with him ) like a threat to the state.
  It just happened ( by historical reasons) that the majority of such people lived in Western parts of Ukraina wich always was more close to Poland-Germany side - our enternal enemies.
  And yes those people welcomed nazi and worked like supervisors in death camps and gernam police.

Perhaps that was his (Stalin's) cover to eliminate the Kulaks who were against collective farming, or was it?   What would Stalin supporters say?  Is there a case for them?

Stalin's "supporters" say you that those events  - at least a start of them - were not "planned" by Stalin. But I agree he used them in his own goal as well.
In short - and very simplish - it looked like that
There was a plan for gain taxes for that region. For some reasones - not good weather and also due to refusing of people to work at kolhoses farms - crop was not enough to pay those taxes demanded from the centre. ( Mind you other areas - not such rich and good for grain clture did manage to pay those taxes)  And local ( no other but ukrainians mind you) "authorities"  who were in responsible for grain supplies to the state started to take away the last what peasants left for themselves. Because those locals knew perfectly who would be short at a place if they failed with Stalin's plans. When "news" achieved at least Moscow famine was already on a way. Of course Stalin could cansel grain taxes in that area this year and instead send a grain into those region. But that would meant he gave up ( no way for such person like Stalin) and others who had no wish to pay grain taxes as well could do the same next year.( one more chaose in the counry again in times when all and everything was sacrificed in oreder to build an industry ) Aslo for Stalin it was a good chance to weaken a region with strong kulaks resistance.
Ok in short Subject is too complicate. There were also too many others "reasons" and "excuses" from both sides.

[Bruce]

Elen, thanks for your perspective.