Was the Holodomor Genocide?

[Misha]

Does that mean you feel the Irish were commiting genocide on their own people ?

Shadow, when the famine occurred in Ireland, the Irish were ruled from London and the large landowners in Ireland were English and Protestant. Ireland was a colony in Great Britain as Ukraine was in effect a Russian colony in the Soviet Union. It was the indifference (perhaps one could even say hatred) of the rulers for the ruled that was exacerbated the famine.

The fact of the matter is that the British cared little for Irish Catholics, and could not be bothered to stop the famine. This from the BBC:

"This set of ethnic prejudices, which have now been abundantly documented, had the general effect of prompting British ministers, civil servants, and politicians to view and to treat the Catholic Irish as something less than fully human. Such prejudices encouraged the spread of 'famine fatigue' in Britain at an early stage, and they dulled or even extinguished the active sympathies that might have sustained political will - the will to combat the gross oppression of mass evictions, to alleviate the immense suffering associated with reliance on the poor-law system, and to grapple with the moral indefensibility of mass death in the midst of an absolute sufficiency of food." (Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_07.shtml)

The famine in Ireland was also seen by many British officials as a means of bringing about radical change. According from the BBC:

"A leading exponent of this providentialist perspective was Sir Charles Trevelyan, the British civil servant chiefly responsible for administering Irish relief policy throughout the famine years. In his book The Irish Crisis, published in 1848, Trevelyan described the famine as 'a direct stroke of an all-wise and all-merciful Providence', one which laid bare 'the deep and inveterate root of social evil'. The famine, he declared, was 'the sharp but effectual remedy by which the cure is likely to be effected... God grant that the generation to which this great opportunity has been offered may rightly perform its part...' This mentality of Trevelyan's was influential in persuading the government to do nothing to restrain mass evictions - and this had the obvious effect of radically restructuring Irish rural society along the lines of the capitalistic model ardently preferred by British policy-makers." (Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_06.shtml).

To answer your question, some Irish and others would certainly say that the Irish Famine was a form of passive genocide. One million died and millions more were forced to emigrate as a consequence of the famine. 

[Shadow]

Misha, one could argue that Stalin did not care about the Ukrainians other than that he needed the area under his control.
As such the situations are very comparable.
Also in 1933 help efforts to stop the famine were started, if late.
There for it is no surprise that the Ukrainians consider it genocide, just like the Irish.

The reality shows that in 1932 and 1933 the production dropped dramatically. As a result of the famine and the measures taken, from 1934 the production was back up. There is no doubt that Stalin was a paranoid, maniacal dictator. There is also no doubt that other leaders might have taken other measures in the same situation.

[Misha]

Also in 1933 help efforts to stop the famine were started, if late.

Shadow, you seem to be disregarding the cause of the famine in Ukraine. The peasants in Ukraine and a few other regions of the Soviet Union starved because the Soviet Union confiscated all food at gunpoint. Yes, there might have been production decreases, but enough food was produced in the regions hit by the famine to feed the villagers that starved. The famine occurred in the countryside where the food was produced and the deaths were concentrated in the countryside as opposed to the nearby cities where no food was produced. The famine stopped when the Soviets left enough food for the villagers to eat. It had nothing to do with "help efforts."

[Shadow]

Shadow, you seem to be disregarding the cause of the famine in Ukraine. The peasants in Ukraine and a few other regions of the Soviet Union starved because the Soviet Union confiscated all food at gunpoint. Yes, there might have been production decreases, but enough food was produced in the regions hit by the famine to feed the villagers that starved. The famine occurred in the countryside where the food was produced and the deaths were concentrated in the countryside as opposed to the nearby cities where no food was produced. The famine stopped when the Soviets left enough food for the villagers to eat. It had nothing to do with "help efforts."

I am well aware of the cause for the famine. And it does compare to the Irish situation. Production is taken away at gunpoint from those who do not cooperate freely. When taken at gunpoint, what is left is not enough to survive.
What I do not see is that it was an active attempt of genocide targetted at Ukrainians as a group.

[Misha]

What I do not see is that it was an active attempt of genocide targetted at Ukrainians as a group.

The Irish case is one where British colonialism and policies set a stage where a famine could occur and when the famine occurred British (mainly English) were indifferent and did nothing. As a consequence, over a million people died.

In the Soviet case, Soviet officials confiscated foods in predominantly ethnic Ukrainian Ukraine and and as a consequence, ethnic Ukrainians predominantly suffered. Was it planned specifically to crush Ukrainians, we will likely never know as the perpetrators are now long dead and you are unlikely to find any documentation specifically stating that they were out to kill Ukrainians. However, at some point, it is logical to presume that if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. This IMHO is such a case. You are no likely to find a written letter signed by Stalin saying that his goal is to kill as many Ukrainian peasants as possible through starvation, but based on the facts one can argue is that is what was achieved irregardless of the intentions.

[ScottinCrimea]

I'm sorry, but seeing the deaths of millions of Ukrainians as just an unfortunate consequence of some poor economic policy decisions by Mr. Stalin or as a convenient way to quiet their resistance to collectivization just doesn't cut it.

What limited documents that have been obtained show a clear intent to target ethnic Ukrainians.  What we are hearing from many here is the way the Russian government has chosen to depict it for years.  As more information becomes available and the truth contradicting the party line documented, this line of argument continues to fall.

[BC]

10.9 million children under five die in developing countries each year. Malnutrition and hunger-related diseases cause 60 percent of the deaths

Other sad facts here:
http://www.wfp.org/aboutwfp/facts/index.asp?section=1&sub_section=5

Read some other material indicating that more or less it's like this:

1/3 of the inhabitants of this planet are well or overfed, 1/3 malnourished and the rest are starving..

And this is 2008.

As long as we are throwing numbers out there..

[Misha]

BC, who exactly are you quoting? Yes, sadly millions die every year due to malnutrition. But, should that be used as a justification by a state to starve deliberately its citizens? Would it be okay for a leader of a state to say: "Yes, we starved X thousand/million, but hey, people die all the time of malnutrition so we aren't really guilty of anything."

[Sculpto]

This comes from the United Human Rights website: http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/Ukraine_famine.htm

Ukraine Famine - 1932-1933 - 7,000,000 Deaths

Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union, set in motion events designed to cause a famine in the Ukraine to destroy the people there seeking independence from his rule. As a result, an estimated 7,000,000 persons perished in this farming area, known as the breadbasket of Europe, with the people deprived of the food they had grown with their own hands.

The Ukrainian independence movement actually predated the Stalin era. Ukraine, which measures about the size of France, had been under the domination of the Imperial Czars of Russia for 200 years. With the collapse of the Czarist rule in March 1917, it seemed the long-awaited opportunity for independence had finally arrived. Optimistic Ukrainians declared their country to be an independent People's Republic and re-established the ancient capital city of Kiev as the seat of government.

However, their newfound freedom was short-lived. By the end of 1917, Vladimir Lenin, the first leader of the Soviet Union, sought to reclaim all of the areas formerly controlled by the Czars, especially the fertile Ukraine. As a result, four years of chaos and conflict followed in which Ukrainian national troops fought against Lenin's Red Army, and also against Russia's White Army (troops still loyal to the Czar) as well as other invading forces including the Germans and Poles.

By 1921, the battles ended with a Soviet victory while the western part of the Ukraine was divided-up among Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia. The Soviets immediately began shipping out huge amounts of grain to feed the hungry people of Moscow and other big Russian cities. Coincidentally, a drought occurred in the Ukraine, resulting in widespread starvation and a surge of popular resentment against Lenin and the Soviets.



To lessen the deepening resentment, Lenin relaxed his grip on the country, stopped taking out so much grain, and even encouraged a free-market exchange of goods. This breath of fresh air renewed the people's interest in independence and resulted in a national revival movement celebrating their unique folk customs, language, poetry, music, arts, and Ukrainian orthodox religion.

But when Lenin died in 1924, Joseph Stalin, one of the most ruthless humans ever to hold power, succeeded him. To Stalin, the burgeoning national revival movement and continuing loss of Soviet influence in the Ukraine was completely unacceptable. To crush the people's free spirit, he began to employ the same methods he had successfully used within the Soviet Union. Thus, beginning in 1929, over 5,000 Ukrainian scholars, scientists, cultural and religious leaders were arrested after being falsely accused of plotting an armed revolt. Those arrested were either shot without a trial or deported to prison camps in remote areas of Russia.

Stalin also imposed the Soviet system of land management known as collectivization. This resulted in the seizure of all privately owned farmlands and livestock, in a country where 80 percent of the people were traditional village farmers. Among those farmers, was a class of people called Kulaks by the Communists. They were formerly wealthy farmers that had owned 24 or more acres, or had employed farm workers. Stalin believed any future insurrection would be led by the Kulaks, thus he proclaimed a policy aimed at "liquidating the Kulaks as a class."

Declared "enemies of the people," the Kulaks were left homeless and without a single possession as everything were taken from them, even their pots and pans. It was also forbidden by law for anyone to aid dispossessed Kulak families. Some researchers estimate that ten million persons were thrown out of their homes, put on railroad box cars and deported to "special settlements" in the wilderness of Siberia during this era, with up to a third of them perishing amid the frigid living conditions. Men and older boys, along with childless women and unmarried girls, also became slave-workers in Soviet-run mines and big industrial projects.

Back in the Ukraine, once-proud village farmers were by now reduced to the level of rural factory workers on large collective farms. Anyone refusing to participate in the compulsory collectivization system was simply denounced as a Kulak and deported.

A propaganda campaign was started utilizing eager young Communist activists who spread out among the country folk attempting to shore up the people's support for the Soviet regime. However, their attempts failed. Despite the propaganda, ongoing coercion and threats, the people continued to resist through acts of rebellion and outright sabotage. They burned their own homes rather than surrender them. They took back their property, tools and farm animals from the collectives, harassed and even assassinated local Soviet authorities. This ultimately put them in direct conflict with the power and authority of Joseph Stalin.

Soviet troops and secret police were rushed in to put down the rebellion. They confronted rowdy farmers by firing warning shots above the their heads. In some cases, however, they fired directly at the people. Stalin's secret police (GPU, predecessor of the KGB) also went to work waging a campaign of terror designed to break the people's will. GPU squads systematically attacked and killed uncooperative farmers.

But the resistance continued. The people simply refused to become cogs in the Soviet farm machine and remained stubbornly determined to return to their pre-Soviet farming lifestyle. Some refused to work at all, leaving the wheat and oats to rot in unharvested fields. Once again, they were placing themselves in conflict with Stalin.

In Moscow, Stalin responded to their unyielding defiance by dictating a policy that would deliberately cause mass starvation and result in the deaths of millions.

By mid 1932, nearly 75 percent of the farms in the Ukraine had been forcibly collectivized. On Stalin's orders, mandatory quotas of foodstuffs to be shipped out to the Soviet Union were drastically increased in August, October and again in January 1933, until there was simply no food remaining to feed the people of the Ukraine.

Much of the hugely abundant wheat crop harvested by the Ukrainians that year was dumped on the foreign market to generate cash to aid Stalin's Five Year Plan for the modernization of the Soviet Union and also to help finance his massive military buildup. If the wheat had remained in the Ukraine, it was estimated to have been enough to feed all of the people there for up to two years.

Ukrainian Communists urgently appealed to Moscow for a reduction in the grain quotas and also asked for emergency food aid. Stalin responded by denouncing them and rushed in over 100,000 fiercely loyal Russian soldiers to purge the Ukrainian Communist Party. The Soviets then sealed off the borders of the Ukraine, preventing any food from entering, in effect turning the country into a gigantic concentration camp. Soviet police troops inside the Ukraine also went house to house seizing any stored up food, leaving farm families without a morsel. All food was considered to be the "sacred" property of the State. Anyone caught stealing State property, even an ear of corn or stubble of wheat, could be shot or imprisoned for not less than ten years.

Starvation quickly ensued throughout the Ukraine, with the most vulnerable, children and the elderly, first feeling the effects of malnutrition. The once-smiling young faces of children vanished forever amid the constant pain of hunger. It gnawed away at their bellies, which became grossly swollen, while their arms and legs became like sticks as they slowly starved to death.

Mothers in the countryside sometimes tossed their emaciated children onto passing railroad cars traveling toward cities such as Kiev in the hope someone there would take pity. But in the cities, children and adults who had already flocked there from the countryside were dropping dead in the streets, with their bodies carted away in horse-drawn wagons to be dumped in mass graves. Occasionally, people lying on the sidewalk who were thought to be dead, but were actually still alive, were also carted away and buried.

While police and Communist Party officials remained quite well fed, desperate Ukrainians ate leaves off bushes and trees, killed dogs, cats, frogs, mice and birds then cooked them. Others, gone mad with hunger, resorted to cannibalism, with parents sometimes even eating their own children.

Meanwhile, nearby Soviet-controlled granaries were said to be bursting at the seams from huge stocks of 'reserve' grain, which had not yet been shipped out of the Ukraine. In some locations, grain and potatoes were piled in the open, protected by barbed wire and armed GPU guards who shot down anyone attempting to take the food. Farm animals, considered necessary for production, were allowed to be fed, while the people living among them had absolutely nothing to eat.

By the spring of 1933, the height of the famine, an estimated 25,000 persons died every day in the Ukraine. Entire villages were perishing. In Europe, America and Canada, persons of Ukrainian descent and others responded to news reports of the famine by sending in food supplies. But Soviet authorities halted all food shipments at the border. It was the official policy of the Soviet Union to deny the existence of a famine and thus to refuse any outside assistance. Anyone claiming that there was in fact a famine was accused of spreading anti-Soviet propaganda. Inside the Soviet Union, a person could be arrested for even using the word 'famine' or 'hunger' or 'starvation' in a sentence.

The Soviets bolstered their famine denial by duping members of the foreign press and international celebrities through carefully staged photo opportunities in the Soviet Union and the Ukraine. The writer George Bernard Shaw, along with a group of British socialites, visited the Soviet Union and came away with a favorable impression, which he disseminated, to the world. Former French Premier Edouard Herriot was given a five-day stage-managed tour of the Ukraine, viewing spruced-up streets in Kiev and inspecting a 'model' collective farm. He also came away with a favorable impression and even declared there was indeed no famine.

Back in Moscow, six British engineers working in the Soviet Union were arrested and charged with sabotage, espionage and bribery, and threatened with the death penalty. The sensational show trial that followed was actually a cynical ruse to deflect the attention of foreign journalists from the famine. Journalists were warned they would be shut out of the trial completely if they wrote news stories about the famine. Most of the foreign press corp yielded to the Soviet demand and either didn't cover the famine or wrote stories sympathetic to the official Soviet propaganda line that it didn't exist. Among those was Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Walter Duranty of the New York Times who sent one dispatch stating "...all talk of famine now is ridiculous."

Outside the Soviet Union, governments of the West adopted a passive attitude toward the famine, although most of them had become aware of the true suffering in the Ukraine through confidential diplomatic channels. In November 1933, the United States, under its new president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, even chose to formally recognized Stalin's Communist government and also negotiated a sweeping new trade agreement. The following year, the pattern of denial in the West culminated with the admission of the Soviet Union into the League of Nations.

Stalin's Five Year Plan for the modernization of the Soviet Union depended largely on the purchase of massive amounts of manufactured goods and technology from Western nations. Those nations were unwilling to disrupt lucrative trade agreements with the Soviet Union in order to pursue the matter of the famine.

By the end of 1933, nearly 25 percent of the population of the Ukraine, including three million children, had perished. The Kulaks as a class were destroyed and an entire nation of village farmers had been laid low. With his immediate objectives now achieved, Stalin allowed food distribution to resume inside the Ukraine and the famine subsided. However, political persecutions and further round-ups of 'enemies' continued unchecked in the years following the famine, interrupted only in June 1941 when Nazi troops stormed into the country. Hitler's troops, like all previous invaders, arrived in the Ukraine to rob the breadbasket of Europe and simply replaced one reign of terror with another.


 

[BC]

BC, who exactly are you quoting? Yes, sadly millions die every year due to malnutrition. But, should that be used as a justification by a state to starve deliberately its citizens? Would it be okay for a leader of a state to say: "Yes, we starved X thousand/million, but hey, people die all the time of malnutrition so we aren't really guilty of anything."

The quote was an excerpt from info in the link.

The reason I posted it is three fold:

First, that as long as there are have and have nots, the have not will starve.

Second, it is my understanding that Holodomor, along with many other famines were not state secrets, but instead known by those well outside political borders with powers and ability to do something about it, but decided to do little or nothing.

Third, most famines are usually confined to by geographic, social, or other inhabitant groups.

This thread I assume is trying to discuss who or what was responsible, but aren't bystanders just as responsible for the deaths involved? 

If not, the parallel I draw is that famine has happened throughout history and is considered by society as an 'tolerable acceptable risk' of being born in the wrong place, at the wrong time, just as many thousands of deaths each year on highways is tolerated for the privilege or maybe even luxury of being able to drive cars.

If I read correctly, famine during the period of Holodomor extended well beyond the borders of Ukraine, which may have forced leaders to make some tough choices, just like those being made even today (and doing nothing is a choice).

I'm not trying to minimize the pain and suffering during Holodomor (as a parent I could think of nothing worse), but trying to throw in another perspective.  I personally do not find enough evidence to support that Holodomor was genocide and even think that the word 'Genocide' is used a bit too broadly.

[Misha]

The quote was an excerpt from info in the link.

The reason I posted it is three fold:

First, that as long as there are have and have nots, the have not will starve.

Again, this is more than a question of "haves" and "have nots." The Soviet Union confiscated all food which led to starvation.

Second, it is my understanding that Holodomor, along with many other famines were not state secrets, but instead known by those well outside political borders with powers and ability to do something about it, but decided to do little or nothing.

The only solution would have been to invade the Soviet Union. The Holodomor was a result of the policies of the Soviet Union and the only solution would have been to overthrow the state.

Third, most famines are usually confined to by geographic, social, or other inhabitant groups.

This thread I assume is trying to discuss who or what was responsible, but aren't bystanders just as responsible for the deaths involved? 

Of course famines are confined to geographic areas: there has yet to be a global famine. I really do not understand why you want to defend the actions of the Soviet State. The Soviet State was not a bystander. It was the CAUSE of the famine. It is the Soviet state that confiscated what was produced and it is the state that let its citizens starve. The Soviet state was not a bystander, any more than the arsonist who torches a building and then watches as it burns down.

If not, the parallel I draw is that famine has happened throughout history and is considered by society as an 'tolerable acceptable risk' of being born in the wrong place, at the wrong time, just as many thousands of deaths each year on highways is tolerated for the privilege or maybe even luxury of being able to drive cars.

Millions are murdered around the world each year, does that make it morally acceptable for me to murder my neighbor?

If I read correctly, famine during the period of Holodomor extended well beyond the borders of Ukraine, which may have forced leaders to make some tough choices, just like those being made even today (and doing nothing is a choice).

Tough choices? Again, what part of Soviet history do you not understand? The famine occurred because all the food produced by peasants was confiscated. What exactly was the choice?

I'm not trying to minimize the pain and suffering during Holodomor (as a parent I could think of nothing worse), but trying to throw in another perspective.

No, but you are certainly seeking to minimize the guilt of the Soviet State.

[BC]

Misha,

I largely relied on wikipedia as a source. Have you read it?

Although I added a bit of bla bla to my post, read my final paragraph (which you did not quote and reply to) which is the essence of what I wanted to respond to the original question (which is also the title of this thread " Was the Holodomor Genocide?"

Read the following passage from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor  :

    Our view of Stalin and the famine is close to that of Robert Conquest, who would earlier have been considered the champion of the argument that Stalin had intentionally caused the famine and had acted in a genocidal manner. In 2003, Dr Conquest wrote to us explaining that he does not hold the view that "Stalin purposely incited the 1933 famine. No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put ‘Soviet interest’ other than feeding the starving first—thus consciously abetting it".[96]

Then re-read my original post, review the wiki and let me know what you think.  Consider the bold part in the quote above and try to put it into present-day situ.

I know.. I'm probably asking a lot.. but bear with me.

[OlgaH]

This comes from the United Human Rights website: http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/Ukraine_famine.htm

Interesting article, but it would be also interesting to know who wrote that article and what historical sources and studies he based on.

Among those farmers, was a class of people called Kulaks by the Communists. They were formerly wealthy farmers that had owned 24 or more acres, or had employed farm workers. Stalin believed any future insurrection would be led by the Kulaks, thus he proclaimed a policy aimed at "liquidating the Kulaks as a class."

According to the documents from OGPU archives there were three categories of kulaks: 1) counterrevolution kulaks actively opposing against organizing kolkhozes (collective farms), leaving their  permanent residency and going underground; 2) the rich kulak authorities - anti soviet stronghold; 3) other kulaks. Also there was third group so called "podkulachnik"     

Stalin's Five Year Plan for the modernization of the Soviet Union depended largely on the purchase of massive amounts of manufactured goods and technology from Western nations.

More correct term is "the industrialization of the Soviet Union". Collectivization for the sake of industrialization was all over the Soviet Union.

As a result, an estimated 7,000,000 persons perished in this farming area

Yuschenko has increased the number of victims to 10 million...

But the Ukrainian professor Kulchinsky, who along with other Ukrainian historians of The National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, works on the history of Ukraine objects strongly against  politicians' games with the artificial  increased numbers of victims. As he said: "There is something infernal inconceivable in such position".
http://www.zn.ua/3000/3150/47913/ and such position even immoral http://www.zn.ua/3000/3150/36833/ Also he said  "those who want to prove the genocide of Ukrainians should not operate with loose expression and inaccurate numbers, otherwise people stop to believe".  http://news.a.ua/?id=1495&p=news_stati 


 

[Misha]

I largely relied on wikipedia as a source. Have you read it?

The only controversy, according to the Wikipedia article, is whether "whether the Soviet policies that caused the famine fall under the legal definition of genocide." Your bringing in references to people dying of malnutrition each year does not clarify this, rather it obfuscates it.

What we do know for certain is that the Soviet state put into place policies and practices that led to millions of people dying of starvation. We know that most of the deaths were concentrated in a number of regions, specifically Ukraine. We know that the Soviet census shows that Ukraine is one of the only regions where the population decreased when comparing the periods before and after the famine. We know that Ukrainian peasants were unduly hit hard by the famine.

The only issue, the controversy, is whether the Soviet Union specifically set out to murder millions in Ukraine (i.e they had planned to do it beforehand which would fit a very tight legal definition of genocide) or whether when the famine started, they did not stop it as it achieved their political aims and helped to weaken the largest ethnic/national group in the Soviet Union (which would fit a looser, not legalistic definition of genocide).

[ScottinCrimea]

BC,  expand your reading a bit beyond wiki and you might get a better picture.  I see rationalizing on your part similar to what the Soviets put out for years in their propaganda efforts to deny or at least minimize their blame.

I agree with Olga that it is wrong to falsely inflate the numbers.  It seems some are using a quote from Stalin to justify the 10 million number.  Most would agree that the number was at least 3.5 million, which is more than enough to show the horror of what was done. As a comparison, the Armenian genocide had "only" around 800,000 casualties.

The quote was an excerpt from info in the link.

This thread I assume is trying to discuss who or what was responsible, but aren't bystanders just as responsible for the deaths involved? 

So you are admitting personal responsibility for those who are now dying of starvation in Africa?

If not, the parallel I draw is that famine has happened throughout history and is considered by society as an 'tolerable acceptable risk' of being born in the wrong place, at the wrong time, just as many thousands of deaths each year on highways is tolerated for the privilege or maybe even luxury of being able to drive cars.

This is a pretty bold statement regarding what is accepted by society.  First, define "society" and then show me something to back this up.  For example, I consider myself part of society and I don't have the consideration you cite, so the best you can claim is, "society minus one".

If I read correctly, famine during the period of Holodomor extended well beyond the borders of Ukraine, which may have forced leaders to make some tough choices, just like those being made even today (and doing nothing is a choice).

No, you haven't read correctly.  This has been the standard Soviet response but if you examine it more closely, you'll find actions directed against the Ukrainians such as confiscation of all food stuffs, not just grain, and forbidding movement of Ukrainians seeking food that weren't done to non-Ukrainians outside the territory of Ukraine.

I'm not trying to minimize the pain and suffering during Holodomor (as a parent I could think of nothing worse), but trying to throw in another perspective.  I personally do not find enough evidence to support that Holodomor was genocide and even think that the word 'Genocide' is used a bit too broadly.

Many countries and scholars outside the Russian influence have come out in support of defining the Holodomor as genocide, especially as new documents are being found, so you are going against these experts.  I'm curious to know what you have read about the subject beyond Wikipedia.  Maybe you haven't found enough evidence personally because you haven't studied anything beyond the superficial reports.

[Misha]

I agree with Olga that it is wrong to falsely inflate the numbers.  It seems some are using a quote from Stalin to justify the 10 million number.  

I believe it was Stalin who said that one death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic. I agree that one must not inflate the numbers, but to somehow discount the deaths in Ukraine because more people die of malnutrition elsewhere, or to argue that "only" 3.5 million died instead of 10 million actually confirms Stalin's cynical worldview and disregard for all human life.

[BC]

The only controversy, according to the Wikipedia article, is whether "whether the Soviet policies that caused the famine fall under the legal definition of genocide." Your bringing in references to people dying of malnutrition each year does not clarify this, rather it obfuscates it.

Rather than obfuscation, I tend to think that it is just history repeating itself.  I do respect your opinion though.
 

What we do know for certain is that the Soviet state put into place policies and practices that led to millions of people dying of starvation. We know that most of the deaths were concentrated in a number of regions, specifically Ukraine. We know that the Soviet census shows that Ukraine is one of the only regions where the population decreased when comparing the periods before and after the famine. We know that Ukrainian peasants were unduly hit hard by the famine.

The only issue, the controversy, is whether the Soviet Union specifically set out to murder millions in Ukraine (i.e they had planned to do it beforehand which would fit a very tight legal definition of genocide) or whether when the famine started, they did not stop it as it achieved their political aims and helped to weaken the largest ethnic/national group in the Soviet Union (which would fit a looser, not legalistic definition of genocide).

Here we agree in substance.  Regarding the definition of 'Genocide', http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide does have a fairly good description, but one that could be used in a variety of ways - thus puzzling.

Within the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) are listed:

Article 2, of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[1]

Is the One child policy in China Genocide?
Would taking all children from a single religious group and placing them into foster homes be Genocide?
Is birth control Genocide?

You see there is a lot of 'grey' area with even this definition..  The Holocaust meets ALL parts of this definition.. Does Holodomor?

[Misha]

Is the One child policy in China Genocide?

Potentially, yes. If Chinese officials know that an ethnic group in China has much higher mortality rates than the Han Chinese and if they address neither the causes of the mortality nor the consequences of the one child policy knowing full well that this will lead to the extinction of the group, then yes I would consider that a form of genocide. Passive genocide perhaps, but genocide nonetheless IMHO.

Would taking all children from a single religious group and placing them into foster homes be Genocide?

If the goal was to eradicate a culture, one could talk of ethnocide.

Is birth control Genocide?

If it is enforced and leads to the disappearance of a group, then I would consider it to be a form of genocide. Don't forget that forced sterilization was also one of the tools used by the Nazis to control their "unwanted" populations.

You see there is a lot of 'grey' area with even this definition..  The Holocaust meets ALL parts of this definition.. Does Holodomor?

The Holocaust was used to define genocide. Consequently, it meets ALL parts of this definition. It is clear that no other case will perfectly match all that happened in the Holocaust, but that does not mean that only the Holocaust can ever be considered genocide.






[/quote]

[ScottinCrimea]

Is the One child policy in China Genocide?
Would taking all children from a single religious group and placing them into foster homes be Genocide?
Is birth control Genocide?

You see there is a lot of 'grey' area with even this definition..  The Holocaust meets ALL parts of this definition.. Does Holodomor?

You're introducing elements that do nothing to clarify the discussion but rather attempt to deflect it and try to make grey what is in some cases very black and white.  I think we all agree that genocide would involve such acts against a group different than your own, such as a different ethnicity or religion.  The one child policy in China would only be considered genocide if it was directed toward a specific ethnic or religious group there.  The same would hold true for birth control, and only if it is forced on a group.  I think you know the answers to these questions so I'm not sure why you posed them.

For the Holodomor to meet the definition, "any one of the following acts" is required to be shown to have occurred, not all of them as you try to infer, and several apply.

While admittedly there is some grey area here, there is not nearly as much as you are trying to infer with some of your comments.  And really, if there is grey area, wouldn't it be better to take the side that condemns this action in the strongest terms?  If the Holodomor can be called genocide and by doing this it brings more attention to it and perhaps prevents such tragedies in the future, isn't that best for all? (other than the people responsible, of course).

I don't understand why anyone would want to discount or rationalize away such a tragedy.  To defend...who?

[BC]

BC,  expand your reading a bit beyond wiki and you might get a better picture.  I see rationalizing on your part similar to what the Soviets put out for years in their propaganda efforts to deny or at least minimize their blame.

I agree with Olga that it is wrong to falsely inflate the numbers.  It seems some are using a quote from Stalin to justify the 10 million number.  Most would agree that the number was at least 3.5 million, which is more than enough to show the horror of what was done. As a comparison, the Armenian genocide had "only" around 800,000 casualties.

Scott,

I have read several other sources, but find most more biased than the wiki.  I'd be happy to read any good ones you can provide.

As to your responses to my last post:

This thread I assume is trying to discuss who or what was responsible, but aren't bystanders just as responsible for the deaths involved?

So you are admitting personal responsibility for those who are now dying of starvation in Africa?

Yes. I could do more, or simply 'do'. To date I haven't given a dime which might give some child somewhere food for a day or two.  This thread has made me think about contributing. - In the end though, however much I contribute will still put me somewhere in the selfish category.  I am a 'have'.

If not, the parallel I draw is that famine has happened throughout history and is considered by society as an 'tolerable acceptable risk' of being born in the wrong place, at the wrong time, just as many thousands of deaths each year on highways is tolerated for the privilege or maybe even luxury of being able to drive cars.

This is a pretty bold statement regarding what is accepted by society.  First, define "society" and then show me something to back this up.  For example, I consider myself part of society and I don't have the consideration you cite, so the best you can claim is, "society minus one".

If you contribute to African or other starving kids, then yes you are society -1.  I'm among the rest of them although I do give to other causes. Instead of 'society' lets just say 'have population'.

If I read correctly, famine during the period of Holodomor extended well beyond the borders of Ukraine, which may have forced leaders to make some tough choices, just like those being made even today (and doing nothing is a choice).

No, you haven't read correctly.  This has been the standard Soviet response but if you examine it more closely, you'll find actions directed against the Ukrainians such as confiscation of all food stuffs, not just grain, and forbidding movement of Ukrainians seeking food that weren't done to non-Ukrainians outside the territory of Ukraine.

I might glean a bit more using any sources you might want to share.

I'm not trying to minimize the pain and suffering during Holodomor (as a parent I could think of nothing worse), but trying to throw in another perspective.  I personally do not find enough evidence to support that Holodomor was genocide and even think that the word 'Genocide' is used a bit too broadly.

Many countries and scholars outside the Russian influence have come out in support of defining the Holodomor as genocide, especially as new documents are being found, so you are going against these experts.  I'm curious to know what you have read about the subject beyond Wikipedia.  Maybe you haven't found enough evidence personally because you haven't studied anything beyond the superficial reports.

I've read several sources, but not a lot... I did find the wiki quite neutral.  As I stated above, appreciate any good sources you may have found.  My mind is still quite malleable.

I will go back and review any of your prior posts here.  I have only skimmed much of this thread.

[BC]

I don't understand why anyone would want to discount or rationalize away such a tragedy.  To defend...who?

If you refer to me, I try not to do either.  When I look at such a situation I try to start from the top and whittle my way down instead of starting with a conclusion and then trying to defend it.

[OlgaH]

The only issue, the controversy, is whether the Soviet Union specifically set out to murder millions in Ukraine ...

Misha,

The term "the Soviet Union" is very general, it also includes too many nations and ethnic groups. I don't think that Kazakhs, Chechens, Uzbeks, Belorussians, Russians and many others wanted to murder millions people in Ukraine. I also was born in Soviet Union as my parents and grandparents, and even my grand grand parents, who was victims of Stalin's regime, also were a part of Soviet Union, but nobody wanted to murder Ukrainians. Stalin and his "comrades" are not the entire Soviet Union.

Did Stalin has his nationalistic issues? During his regime all nations of the Soviet Union suffered because of his politics and I would say that it would be too cynical to compare the numbers of victims of Stalin's regime between nations of the Soviet Union. Yes, I agree the collectivization and the famine of 1932-1933  afflicted rural population of Ukrainian more at that time.

There are some documents in the OGPU's archives that Stalin worried about the growing resentment in Ukraine against collectivization.  The historians debate the issue of famine in Ukraine: was it cause of collectivization and Stalin's mean to  "tighten the screws" on Ukrainians to suppress the resentment in the region or he had his direct issue against all Ukrainians as a nation (especially current ruling Ukrainian politicians try to insist on genocide)...  But in any case nothing can justify Stalin's crimes against Ukrainians and other nations of Soviet Union as well.  But as historians say that the problem in the famine studying is there are not so many extant documents of that time  in the archives for the more detailed studying.
   

[Misha]

The term "the Soviet Union" is very general

Why? There was a Soviet state with a leadership, with laws, with a political structure. I don't see why the term is general.

[OlgaH]

Why? There was a Soviet state with a leadership, with laws, with a political structure. I don't see why the term is general.

because the Soviet Union as a Soviet State also includes its ordinary citizens who lived under a leadership, laws and political structure.

[Misha]

because the Soviet Union as a Soviet State also includes its ordinary citizens who lived under a leadership, laws and political structure.

Sorry Olga, I don't really understand the point you are trying to make. Any state has ordinary citizens who live under leadership, laws and a political structure. Quite often, not all citizens agree with the actions of their states. But, how is this connected to genocide? Genocide can happen even when not all citizens are in agreement with the actions of their state. There were certainly some Germans who did not support the Nazis as it engineered and carried out the Holocaust. That, nonetheless, does not make the German Nazi state any less guilty of genocide. The same could be said of the Soviet State.