Was the Holodomor Genocide?

[Shadow]

Faux Pas, check the definition again.

Genocide is supposed to be directed at a specific group of people.
If you check tha happenings you will see that the holodomor was directed against farmers. If you wish to declare genocide on farmers, go ahead.

The famine and death was not just directed at Ukrainians, as many people died in Russia and other republics as well. It was a result of a policy of collectivation, and anyone who refused to cooperate on this would be deprived of their crops.

If you read the topic before you will see that it was a very tough time. The communist regime was establishing power over a vast country, and most communists were acting as bandits as much as the roaming groups of bandits that were present.
The famine was used as a reason to remove the farmers and make the farms collective rather than individual. To those who had no direct view of the happenings (remember that our modern overload of information was not present) were told that the reason for famine was farmers refusing to give a part of their crops to help others, something which is still active as myth today.

The communist regime has killed all of the establishment in the Soviet Union, and that includes those farmers who did not support the regime. Calling the Holodomor, which targetted farmers, genocide would be the same as calling the removal of the Romanov family and artistocrats during the revolution genocide.

[Boethius]

That is not entirely accurate, Shadow.  Contemporaneous with imposing collectivization in Ukraine was the slaughter of Ukraine's intelligentsia, the mass arrest of priests (important, because they were typically teachers in Ukraine), and the banning of Ukrainian language schooling.  The Bolsheviks had a fear that nationalism would take root as a result of Lenin's policy of "Ukrainization".  The Holodomor was never solely about collectivization.

[Shadow]

That is not entirely accurate, Shadow.  Contemporaneous with imposing collectivization in Ukraine was the slaughter of Ukraine's intelligentsia, the mass arrest of priests (important, because they were typically teachers in Ukraine), and the banning of Ukrainian language schooling.  The Bolsheviks had a fear that nationalism would take root as a result of Lenin's policy of "Ukrainization".  The Holodomor was never solely about collectivization.

It was also never solely about killing off a specific group of people.

[Boethius]

I think the jury is still out on that one.  Historians haven't reached a consensus, so I don't know how you can.

Stalin did practice genocide (Bashkirs, Tatars).  He once said it was unfortunate that there were so many Ukrainians, as he couldn't kill them all at once.

[Misha]

But there was blight in Ireland.  Ukraine had good crops in those years.

Ireland was exporting wheat all through the famine. The large landholders owned the best lands and generally were not Irish. The Irish who died grew potatoes on marginal land that was not suited for growing anything else. IIRC the British Army protected the large landholders and their exporting of grain to England as the Irish countryside starved.

[Shadow]

I think the jury is still out on that one.  Historians haven't reached a consensus, so I don't know how you can.

Stalin did practice genocide (Bashkirs, Tatars).  He once said it was unfortunate that there were so many Ukrainians, as he couldn't kill them all at once.

We have also not rached a consensus here about the events. While I think we all agree they were atrocious and a black page in history, the term genocide just does not fit the events in my opinion. As for genocide, Stalin's paranoia just made him hate everyone equally, regardless of their heritage. Anyone or any group perceived a threat to his regime was removed, regardless of th truth of his perception.

[Faux Pas]

Faux Pas, check the definition again.

Genocide is supposed to be directed at a specific group of people.
If you check tha happenings you will see that the holodomor was directed against farmers. If you wish to declare genocide on farmers, go ahead.

The famine and death was not just directed at Ukrainians, as many people died in Russia and other republics as well. It was a result of a policy of collectivation, and anyone who refused to cooperate on this would be deprived of their crops.

Shadow,

Semantics. Admittingly the definition is pretty vague but the way I read it, it would include the Holomodor. I say this because the Soviet regime "knew" the results of confiscating/taking the food and exactly who it would affect. They knew exactly who the farmers, pheasants or whoever else would starve to death and the taking of the food was intentional. You and I both know from our past exchanges, I tend to see things much more "black and white" than you do. I read the definition as very inclusive to the Holodomor

[Boethius]

Ireland was exporting wheat all through the famine. The large landholders owned the best lands and generally were not Irish. The Irish who died grew potatoes on marginal land that was not suited for growing anything else. IIRC the British Army protected the large landholders and their exporting of grain to England as the Irish countryside starved.

There is a difference between indifference to the plight of the populace and active killing as a state policy.

[Misha]

There is a difference between indifference to the plight of the populace and active killing as a state policy.

How? When the state knows that its populace is starving and that they have no food to eat, ensuring that what food is there is shipped for export is as good as active killing. You can't have it both ways Boethius. If you consider that the Soviet Union that was also exporting food when Ukrainians were starving to death was genocide, then the Irish case was pretty an identical case. In the first, the Soviets used its police to ensure that the peasants could not leave and search for food, in the British case, the police kept the Irish away from the good. Same difference IMHO.

[Shadow]

Shadow,

Semantics. Admittingly the definition is pretty vague but the way I read it, it would include the Holomodor. I say this because the Soviet regime "knew" the results of confiscating/taking the food and exactly who it would affect. They knew exactly who the farmers, pheasants or whoever else would starve to death and the taking of the food was intentional. You and I both know from our past exchanges, I tend to see things much more "black and white" than you do. I read the definition as very inclusive to the Holodomor

I know that you tend to see things more black and white, but unfortunately that is your loss. As I stated, if you check where it happened and who were affected, the only way you can fit the term genocide is if the group targeted are farmers.
By allowing this view, you actually broaden the term genocide far beyond its meaning.

For instance the killing of aristocrats and royalty during the French Revolution would become genocide. I am sure you and I could think of more controversial contemporary examples of genocide if you allow the meaning of it to be broadened and watered down to any systematic attack on a group with the intention to control or remove them.

[Boethius]

How? When the state knows that its populace is starving and that they have no food to eat, ensuring that what food is there is shipped for export is as good as active killing. You can't have it both ways Boethius. If you consider that the Soviet Union that was also exporting food when Ukrainians were starving to death was genocide, then the Irish case was pretty an identical case. In the first, the Soviets used its police to ensure that the peasants could not leave and search for food, in the British case, the police kept the Irish away from the good. Same difference IMHO.

The English did not go into Irish homes and take away their food, take away their livestock, ban them from leaving their villages, and then wait for them to die.

If you consider that the Soviet Union that was also exporting food when Ukrainians were starving to death was genocide, then the Irish case was pretty an identical case.

Read carefully.  I have never stated the Holodomor was a genocide.  I haven't stated it wasn't, either.  But Ireland was not an identical case.

[Misha]

The English did not go into Irish homes and take away their food, take away their livestock, ban them from leaving their villages, and then wait for them to die.

No, they just confiscated the best lands and ensured that they had nothing to eat when the blight hit  However, I see that you are not willing to admit that you were wrong. You stated: "But there was blight in Ireland.  Ukraine had good crops in those years." The fact of the matter is that Ireland also had good crops those years: they were exporting wheat to England. The potato blight left the Irish to starve because of the imperial British policies that had marginalized the Irish in their own lands. The British were as "indifferent" to the fate of the Irish as the Soviet state was to the fate of starving Ukrainians and others. In both cases, famine certainly furthered imperial aims.

[Boethius]

The English government was slow to recognize the scope of the Irish famine but throughout, there were many English officials who criticized the response, and shamed the government into providing more aid.  Contrast that with sending cadres of communists into the country to physically remove food from homes, slaughter livestock, deport some farmers, then wait for the rest to die.  Contrast official views -

I am an old Bolshevik. I worked in the underground against the Tsar and then I fought in the civil war. Did I do all that in order that I should now surround villages with machine-guns and order my men to fire indiscriminately into crowds of peasants? Oh no, no!"   -Soviet secret officer on receiving orders to enforce collectivization

(T)he real extent and magnitude of the Irish difficulty are underestimated by the Government, and cannot be met by measures within the strict rule of economical science  Sir James Graham

"... I'm not sure that you understand what has been happening. A ruthless struggle is going on between the peasantry and our regime. It's a struggle to the death. This year (1933) was a test of our strength and their endurance. It took a famine to show them who is master here. It has cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay, We've won the war." – Moscow agent Hatayevich

"I do not think there is another legislature in Europe that would disregard such suffering as now exists in the west of Ireland, or coldly persist in a policy of extermination – Lord Clarendon, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland

[Misha]

The English government was slow to recognize the scope of the Irish famine but throughout, there were many English officials who criticized the response, and shamed the government into providing more aid.  Contrast that with sending cadres of communists into the country to physically remove food from homes, slaughter livestock, deport some farmers, then wait for the rest to die.

Yet, both the Soviet and the British were being driven by ideology. The British were motivated by a laissez-faire ideology and the belief by many that the starvation of the Irish was in many ways an act of God. The Irish Catholics, those who were for the most part dying, were of course seen as inferior. This is what the BBC writes in their short history of the famine:

"Laissez-faire, the reigning economic orthodoxy of the day, held that there should be as little government interference with the economy as possible. Under this doctrine, stopping the export of Irish grain was an unacceptable policy alternative, and it was therefore firmly rejected in London, though there were some British relief officials in Ireland who gave contrary advice"

Source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.shtml

In other words, British policies were inspired as much by ideology and their dislike of certain nationalities, as were the Soviets. The British also pushed forward with evicting small tenant farmers, depriving them of any hope of growing any food, which is in many ways comparable to what you describe in Ukraine. 

[tim 360]

Stalin termed Ukrainians to be "enemies of the state" a term he liberally used to get rid of anyone he was paranoid about.  Ukraine had the dubious distinction of wanting to be destroyed by both the Russians and the Nazis.  Stalin thought their nationalism would interfere with his united Soviet and the Nazis wanted Ukraine for Leuberstrum--in either scenario the Ukrainians had to go.  They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.  In the autumn of 1941 Goering would joke with Hitler that within a year they will have killed 30 Million Russians and Ukrainians.  The lands of the killed farmers would be given to German Aryan families to cultivate.

Historians argue whether it was genocide.  I don't know.  It smells like it but it may just be mere mass extermination.

I'm not 100% sure but I am nearly certain Stalin killed more Ukrainians and Russians than Hitler. 

In Ireland the wheat was grown by large farms owned by the English and was always shipped back to Merry Olde England.  After a very rainy spring the potato blight began and the Irish starved.  Crop diversity was the problem.  The diet of the poor Irish was potatoes.  They loved one particuliar variety called the "lumper" potato.  It was easy to cultivate, required very little care and produced a very large potato and over the years this was the only variety the Irish planted.  Unfortunately the blight affected the "lumper" potato the most and so the Irish starved by the thousands.  Other potates did not succumb to the blight but the Englsih planted those and were not big on sharing.

[Boethius]

I'm not 100% sure but I am nearly certain Stalin killed more Ukrainians and Russians than Hitler. 

Hitler killed more Ukrainians.  I'm not certain who killed more Russians, as I don't know the overall death rate of Russians (rather than Soviets) in WWII.

[Misha]

Unfortunately the blight affected the "lumper" potato the most and so the Irish starved by the thousands. 

The problem is that if you do not have much land and if your land that is of low quality, potatoes are a crop that can produce enough food to feed a family. Crop diversity is usually a luxury for those who have lots of productive land. This is why potatoes are quite popular across Russia. You don't need a field, just a garden where you have your dacha to grow enough food to feed your family much of the winter if your grow potatoes. The same couldn't be said of wheat. I have even seen potatoes being grown in the Russian Far East, where you have permafrost. They would simply plant the potatoes in boxes a meter or so above the ground. They would grow in the short season providing potatoes for the long winters.

[tim 360]

True Misha.  But previously the Irish had grown other varieties but found the "lumper" to be far superior--so they grew the lumper not knowing it was so susceptible to blight. 

[Daveman]

Bingo... Ukraine is extremely diverse in its population.  Ukrainian by name/birth does not equate to Ukrainian mindset or culture.

My opinion is still out on the Holomodor..

Apparently it's neither famine nor genocide but rather some new fangled, cutting edge technology cigar box.  If Ukrainians only spoke English I wouldn't have that problem...

Okay, so the question,. again about the word.. is this a common word used in conversation to describe people who starve to death or was it a neologism specifically derived/created to give a Name to this time period and event?  If the latter is true, anyone know the date (approx) of the first use?

[Boethius]

It is a created word, first coined by a Ukrainian writer at a conference in February, 1988.

http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/mace18.htm

It is used commonly now, though.

[tim 360]

Hitler killed more Ukrainians.  I'm not certain who killed more Russians, as I don't know the overall death rate of Russians (rather than Soviets) in WWII.

Righto Boethius.  I think Stalin only killed 10 Million +/- Russians and Ukrainians from 1933-1938.  Then another 10 Million +/- from 1939-1953 so Stalin is at 20 Millions and some do say its 30 Million.  But, IIRC total Soviet Russian deaths (soldiers & civilians) in WWII were around 38 Millions.  The numbers are difficult to get a handle on and there are differing #'s and still undiscovered mass graves.  We will never know the actual #'s for sure but I think Robert Conquest gets close to Stalins #'s.  Certainly from 1941 on the Nazis killed more Ukrainians than Stalin,  and Hitler wins on combined Russians and Ukrainians.  Afterall, Stalin did have about 20 years more time than the Nazis had and the vastness of Siberia but the Nazi killing machine was overwhelming.  Hitler was a pussycat with the Germans since he killed very few of his own people compared to Stalin.  

[Shadow]

Righto Boethius.  I think Stalin only killed 10 Million +/- Russians and Ukrainians from 1933-1938.  Then another 10 Million +/- from 1939-1953 so Stalin is at 20 Millions and some do say its 30 Million.  But, IIRC total Soviet Russian deaths (soldiers & civilians) in WWII were around 38 Millions.  The numbers are difficult to get a handle on and there are differing #'s and still undiscovered mass graves.  We will never know the actual #'s for sure but I think Robert Conquest gets close to Stalins #'s.  Certainly from 1941 on the Nazis killed more Ukrainians than Stalin,  and Hitler wins on combined Russians and Ukrainians.  Afterall, Stalin did have about 20 years more time than the Nazis had and the vastness of Siberia but the Nazi killing machine was overwhelming.  Hitler was a pussycat with the Germans since he killed very few of his own people compared to Stalin.  

Just remember Stalin was not Russian, and there is no estimate on how many Georgians (his own people) were killed. 

[Gylden]

I agree with Shadow here, there is no doubt and I think everyone can agree, it was a black page in history, a real tragedy. By definition not a genocide, mass murder yes.
Any way else to look at it is just trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole.

[tim 360]

Just remember Stalin was not Russian, and there is no estimate on how many Georgians (his own people) were killed.  

I'm sure he settled some old scores in Gori and Georgia when he rose to power, but not on the scale of Ukraine.

Some historians use the term genocide while others are not comfortable with applying the term to 1933 Ukraine.  Nearly all historians agree on the term "democide"

[Ronnie]

Soviet Story....A film that documents the genocides of Communism.

http://www.blip.tv/file/3241896/http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2009/12/last-tsar-of-russia-uncensored.htmlhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6657600254881054584http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2009/05/bloody-history-of-communism.html