Talk:Holodomor/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Nazi sympathizers

This article is frightfully tendentious. Saying that the situation "was deliberately provoked by the government" absolves the Ukrainian kulaks, many of them Nazi sympathisers, of responsibility. In fact, it was they who provoked the government with their active and destructive resistance to the movement for collectivisation of agriculture. The claims of millions of dead people are Cold War propaganda of Nazi origin, grossly distorted and broadly absurd. Shorne 22:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How come the kulaks could have been Nazi sympathisers in 1930??! Nazi movement got in power in 1933. Your post is pure nonsense. Cautious 22:36, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So the Nazis didn't even exist until the day they came to power? Shorne 00:31, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
They existed in Germany. Cautious 14:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ukrainian Nazis were Hitler's fifth column in the USSR. The Red Army had to fight them until the 50's.

That is, to put it politely, bovine excrement. In the 1930s there were no Nazis in the Ukraine - and the Ukrainians collaborated with the Germans during the invasion to a large extend BECAUSE of the holodomor.

Not really considering that most of the collaborations took part in the west of the country that was formally part of Poland (during 1933 anyway) most of the people from other areas fought for the Red Army as partisans. Finally even in the west of Ukraine not everyone collaborated (the majority of the Volynians-partisans again).Kuban kazak 21:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Too bad for them they they had to learn the hard way that there really is no difference between a Nazi, a Communist, a Nazi-sympathizer, and a Communist 'fellow traveller'. -- 09:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Partially edited

I have revised part of the article for NPOV. Much work remains to be done before this article can be acceptable.

I wish to see citations of the Stalinist officials purported to have said that millions died. As far as I know, Stalin's government admitted no such thing. I shall be forced to delete the quotations if they are not attributed. Shorne 16:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Someone reverted an entire batch of changes, evidently without even looking at them, on the grounds that they were made by a "holocaust denier". This is nonsense. The page is hopelessly POV and inaccurate. Shorne 22:51, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you that the version User:Xed is reverting to is written from a strong POV, and the last paragraph of it definitely needs to be cited. Try to work a little more balance into your own version, though, and understand that Wikipedia has a characteristically low tolerance for leftist viewpoints that isn't always easy to overcome. For example, do you dispute that there was a famine at all (your version says "famine said to have occurred"), or just that it was as severe as often reported and that it was deliberately designed for political purposes? Everyking 12:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think Everyking is right here. "Famine said to have occurred" is ridiculous - of course a famine occurred. On the other hand, the other version says straight out that the famine was deliberately manufactured by the government, which is not undisputed...someone who knows more about the historiography of this than me needs to have a look over of this. john k 15:12, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your very reasonable comments. In fact, I am not trying to deny the famine, or even to minimise it. My primary concern is that a grossly POV article that doesn't even pretend to present more than one side not be allowed to stand.
I'm not deeply attached to "famine said to have occurred", and I agree that it may be slightly slanted towards a minority position. At a minimum, it seems like an overzealous attempt at NPOV. I will change it. "Holocaust", incidentally is similarly slanted; indeed, it is far worse. The word is heavily laden with Hitlerian associations, and its use in connexion with a famine seems to trivialise the Nazi holocaust.
I can accept Everyking's point "that Wikipedia has a characteristically low tolerance for leftist viewpoints". All the more reason to ensure that such viewpoints are represented fairly. A low tolerance for leftist viewpoints means a tendency towards a rightist POV. Shorne 20:06, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, sorry to break it to you, but referring to the Holodomor -- and the famines in Russia in general -- as a holocaust does not diminish the holocaust against the Jews. Unless, of course, you wish to say that eliminating the social class of peasants is in some way trivial, and hence it would trivialize the killing of the Jews as an ethnic group by association.

Calling the holodomor and the related events a holocaust rather puts those events in the right perspective: there WAS both CALLOUS and deliberate killing of the undesired class during the holodomor that was NOT principally ANY different from the shoa. Have a look at Hannah Arendt's writings and you will see what I mean.

However, from your comments regarding the alleged 'bias' against left-wing pov's here, I assume that you are in fact somewhat of a Soviet apologist. Since I am myself a social-democrat, I can't say that there is any kind of bias against left-wing POV's here. Rather, there seems to be a fortunate tendency towards limiting both right-wing and left-wing extremism. Or, in other words, wikipedia seems to have adopted a cultural most befitting to an open society, and rather hostile towards totalitarian ideas.

How fortunate.

Dietwald 05:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Calling the Holodomor genocide a holocaust trivialises the Nazi Holocaust? That's comedy considering more people died in the Holodomor than in the Nazi Holocaust. Flangazor 10:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

This association of Ukrainians with Nazis in 1932 is not valid. It is in fact Stalin who created a secret alliance with Hitler to carve up Poland.


It turns out that the propaganda piece was plagiarised. Another testament to the integrity of our friendly neighbourhood propagandists. Shorne 00:33, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The title of this article is inappropriate. Firstly "Holodomor" is a Ukrainian word which means nothing to most readers. Wikipedia articles should have English titles wherever possible. In any case the famine was not confined to Ukraine, and the article should have a title which reflects its scope correctly. Really this subject should be discussed under History of the Soviet Union. If there is to be a separate article it should be called Soviet collectivization famine or something similar, and Holodomor should redirect to it. This is quite apart from the issue of the article's copyright status and the issues raised Shorne's absurd and disgraceful editing.

I second the concern about the name. But the wider topic of the famine doesn't preclude a specific article about famine in Ukraine. By the way, "holodomor" is simply Ukrainian for "famine", and there is no compelling reason to put it as title. Mikkalai 08:06, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any point in a separate article about the famine in Ukraine as opposed to the famine in parts of Russia. The famine affected the peasantry as a class, Russian and Ukrainian alike, not the Ukrainians as a nation - there was plenty of food in Kiev and the Donbas. Adam 14:49, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Restoring article

I'm restoring this as an article, not so much about the famine or collectivization, but about the concept of Holodomor and surrounding debate. This is a related sub-topic of Soviet collectivization, but not a synonym for it. The intent is to explain the usage of the word, identify the controversy, and point to the relevant WP articles for more information.

Please have a look, add links, and edit for NPOV. Particularly, by eliminating weasel words if it can be done without offending people ("many maintain that...", etc.). This is a loaded topic for virtually anyone who knows anything about it. So in the short term, I intend to identify the controversy, but not explain it in detail, and definitely not enter into it. I specifically suggest that we avoid evaluating the relative merits of the arguments for either side of the debate, to avoid a huge discussion and edit war here.

You're welcome to tell me that I'm crazy to do this. Michael Z. 2005-02-9 19:18 Z

172, I've explained why I think this deserves an article. You could at least post something here before reverting without comment. Michael Z. 2005-02-9 21:29 Z

See User:Adam Carr's comments above. The famine affected Russian and Ukrainian peasants alike, not the Ukrainians as a nation. To treat this subject as a national terror-famine in Holodomor actually minimizes the impact, as opposed to treating it in its proper context in collectivization in the USSR. Stop undoing the redirect. 172 21:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't treat the subject as a national terror-famine. It treats it as a point of historical debate, and points the reader to the the collectivization article for the facts behind the famine. Think of it as a topic in historiography. Michael Z. 2005-02-9 21:56 Z
Historiography is treated in the article to which this page should be redirected. Also noticed that there is no separate entry on Shoah, which is instead redirected to the English term Holocaust. I intend to redirect this article again in another 24 hrs or so. 172 00:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Shoah and Holocaust refer to the same thing, don't they? But Shoah doesn't redirect to World War II. Your patience is appreciated. Michael Z. 2005-02-10 00:46 Z
The term is a Ukrainian word that means nothing to most readers on the English Wikipedia. Notice that the word only comes up twice in a search on Jstor [1] The article on collectivization in the USSR mentions the Ukrainian term, and that is sufficient. 172 00:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Some time ago without much thought I threw some info into Famine article, that had sections by country. Now I see it will be far better visible and usable as a separate one: Famines in Russia and USSR. Mikkalai 23:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Terms versus things

Since John Kenney and Mikkalai have both made this edit, let me spell out my objection. We are writing an encyclopedia article about a thing, not a word. It should answer the question, “What is the Holodomor?”, and not the question “What is the word ‘Holodomor’?”. The formula “Word is a term for” is redundant. That is what a word is. In this situation, the fact that we state that the Holodomor was the 1932-3 famine in Ukraine indicates that, in our judgement, ‘Holodomor’ is a term for the famine. The formula, which properly requires quotation marks or italics, would produce such openings as:
— ‘Franklin Delano Roosevelt’ was the full given name of the thirty-second president
rather than
— Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the thirty-second president
— ‘China’ is the English word for a country in eastern Asia
rather than
— China is a country in eastern Asia
Persons who read our encyclopedia are already expecting that we are going to tell them what the big, bold word at the top is a term for. The whole article is our explanation of what the word is a term for, and we do not need to walk them through it.
Ford 17:51, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Good points. But does the article still recognize or satisfy the concerns of users who feel that: "To treat this subject as a national terror-famine in Holodomor actually minimizes the impact, as opposed to treating it in its proper context in collectivization in the USSR"? Michael Z. 2005-02-11 18:23 Z
Yes, the points are good. But please read the article carefully. It is a about the term, not about the event. Please keep in mind that articles about terms are perfectly legitimate in wikipedia, provided that the artcle is more than a dicdef.
I am going to write an article about the actual famine, as a continuation of my Famines in Russia and USSR.
Also, I find it correct to split the discussion of the event itself and of the politically loaded term (which popped up fairly recently, AFAIK (I am speaking about the usage of the word worldwide)). Mikkalai 19:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The case of Rooselevt is not exactly applicable. Here is an example from my recent wikiwork. Bro: The common colloquial word bro, short for 'brother', describes a close friend, comrade, or pal. The article is about a word and its usage, just like "holodomor". Mikkalai 19:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did read the article carefully, Mikkalai. The first paragraph, even with your edits, was still mostly about the famine. The second and third paragraphs were mostly about the famine and just partially about the controversy of the term. It is an article about the famine. Articles about terms are valid, but this is not one of them. And what it should not be is a set-up for your promised article on the actual famine.
Ford 20:08, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)


I always assumed the word came from "holodo-", pertaining to famine, and "mor", from the French or Latin "mort", death. Anyone know if that's correct? Michael Z. 2005-02-11 19:51 Z

Mor is an old East Slavic word to describe (1) massive nonviolent deaths, like in epidemy and also (2) (seemingly nonviolent) actions that cause such deaths. Of direct relevance to the "holodomor" word is the cliche "morit' golodom", i.e., make someone to die by depriving them of food, i.e., "holodomor" is actually a correctly constructed noun for this verb phrase. Mikkalai 19:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As for the origin of the word "mor", since it concerns the very basic issue of death, I would guess, it is of common Indo-European roots, but I may be wrong. Mikkalai 20:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While we’re at etymology, would one of you Ukrainians verify that ‘Голодомор’ is the correct spelling, so we can add it to the article?
Ford 20:22, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Yes, it is. (alhough I am not Ukrainian). And BTW, after some thinking I decided to bury my hatchet, although I still disagree with you. Mikkalai 20:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you. I read the original and find it to be strictly about the famine, not about the term at all. Perhaps I have misused the history function. But in any case, any article under this title, in my opinion, should be about the famine. That the famine is called by a name that may represent bias does not affect whether it is a real thing, or whether Holodomor is a real name for it. As proper nouns, to take two pertinent examples, ‘Holocaust’ and ‘Communism’ are far removed from their origins as common nouns.
Ford 20:45, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

The Nazi propaganda war against the Soviet Union

"The Ukraine as a German territory

At Hitler’s side in the German leadership was Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda, the man in charge of inculcating the Nazi dream into the German people. This was a dream of a racially pure people living in a Greater Germany, a country with broad lebensraum, a wide space in which to live. One part of this lebensraum, an area to the east of Germany which was, indeed, far larger than Germany itself, had yet to be conquered and incorporated into the German nation. In 1925, in Mein Kampf, Hitler had already pointed to the Ukraine as an essential part of this German living space. The Ukraine and other regions of Eastern Europe needed to belong to the German nation so that they could be utilised in a ‘proper’ manner. According to Nazi propaganda, the Nazi sword would liberate this territory in order to make space forthe German race. With German technology and German enterprise, the Ukraine would be transformed into an area producing cereals for Germany. But first the Germans had to liberate the Ukraine of its population of ‘inferior beings’ who, according to Nazi propaganda, would be put to work as a slave labour force in German homes, factories and fields - anywhere they were needed by the German economy.

The conquest of the Ukraine and other areas of the Soviet Union would necessitate war against the Soviet Union, and this war had to be prepared well in advance. To this end the Nazi propaganda ministry, headed by Goebbels, began a campaign around a supposed genocide committed by the Bolsheviks in the Ukraine, a dreadful period of catastrophic famine deliberately provoked by Stalin in order to force the peasantry to accept socialist policy. The purpose of the Nazi campaign was to prepare world public opinion for the ‘liberation’ of the Ukraine by German troops. Despite huge efforts and in spite of the fact that some of the German propaganda texts were published in the English press, the Nazi campaign around the supposed ‘genocide’ in the Ukraine was not very successful at the world level. It was clear that Hitler and Goebbels needed help in spreading their libellous rumours about the Soviet Union. That help they found in the USA."1

To whoever wrote the last two paragraphs, this is socialist lying at its very best. The Holodomor in Ukraine (note the lack of 'the' before the name - another socialist trick to minimize an ethnic group) has been well documented around the world, including by the Soviets. Walter Duranty reported that no such famine had/was occured/occuring and received a Pulitzer prize for his lies. The New York Times has since seen the error of their ways and admitted that his work was based on Soviet propaganda. They have even affixed a plaque to this effect under his picture in their headquarters. Duranty even admitted he lied to his friends! This discussion page is not supposed to be for holocaust deniers. --JulianM 19:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Quality of external links

This external link just got added. Balance is good, but the linked article is rather POV, or at least inaccurate and poorly written. It denies mass deaths in Soviet Ukraine, which fact is accepted today. In contrast to this, it also goes on vaguely about epidemics, although without any direct reference to collectivization or Ukraine. Someone please replace the link with a better alternative, or I'll just remove it. Michael Z. 2005-04-17 16:12 Z

The current version shows adequately the controversy and discusses the politicization of the issue. Article is balanced and not in condition where it would need just anything to improve the balance. Link removed. Irpen 03:09, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Major parts deleted

Hi Sasha, I notice you deleted several pieces of the text. I also notice your comment with the edit and I see your point. However, deleting significant parts of an article is not the way to go, I think. The former version was achieved through a long process and was not written singly by Russian Imperialists, or Ukrainian Nationalists, or Holocaust deniers, etc. Please restore the text you deleted and certainly propose a better version if you feel like it. Or just list your objections at this talk page. The closer we stick to the facts, the better would the article be able to withstand the scrutiny, and politically charged article are always scrutinized. The last version became stable because it seemed reasonable. It certainly was not the best possible and had room for improvement. Regards, Irpen 07:10, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I thought it over a little. The article simply can't remain in the current form. It either had to get an NPOV tag, or the deleted text has to be restored. I would rather do the latter preserving most of what Sasha added. His point that the article needs major work is correct and I will add {{expansion}} to the top. Please no flames. Be_bold#...but_don't_be_reckless!. -Irpen 17:22, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
OK, with your changes the article looks better. But the article is too far from being perfect. The quantity and quality of the content is shameful in comparison to the Armenian Genocide and Holocaust.
I'll try to think what needs to be done in the first place. Certainly, Holodomor should be put in a broader context of Stalin's and communist party's policy on reversing NEP, early collectivization "excesses" and failures in 1929-31, and a sharp reversal of the "korenization"/Ukrainization policy in Ukrainian SSR.Sashazlv 23:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Sasha, excellent point. I hope I have satisfied some of your request for broader context. Unfortunately, I have not yet put anything on korenization in there. I will try to work on that in the near future. I will also try to expand the korenization article.
Dietwald 05:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed "Totalitarian"

Using the word "totalitrian" in the sentence "Stalin's totalitarian regime against the Ukrainian nation." has a very sharp bias towards the Soviet Union. Some people would argue that the USSR was infact not totalitarian. Such as Anna Louise Strong. Also removed Joseph Stalin's Regime and replaced it with Soviet Government.

Well, Ernst Zundel does not think the Nazis were a dictatorship. So what? Some morally questionable supporter of Stalin's totalitarianism thinks the word should not be used. What Zundel or Strong or other supporters of totalitarians think really should not matter when describing totalitarian regimes. There are folks out there who think North Korea really IS a democracy. So what???

-- 18:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Remove Tottle - his book, or he, has no credibility

I am actually quite ticked off that the Tottle book is given so much prominence in that article. Imagine the Shoa was not a very promiment topic these days, and you look it up on wikipedia. Further imagine that you would find, say, the book "Did six million really die" in the intro, and it would be introduced as so-and-so says there actually was no deliberate mass killing of Jews - sure, many died, but to say that was deliberate is a zionist fiction. Well, this is pretty much what that article does. Tottle should be taken out of there, because he has no credibility whatsoever. It's like saying that while Raul Hilberg says this and this, Arthur Butz says this. Those two are not just not in the same league, they are hardly playing the same sport.

If there is no objection, I am going to remove the section, and I will rewrite the article (providing proper references, however, by which I mean academic article, not web-pages)

--Dietwald 08:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The Tottle stuff should remain, I think he has a good deal of credibility. So count that as an objection (and an objection to your proposed re-write as well). Everyking 08:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Until provided with evidence to the contrary, I remain that Tottle has no credibility. HOWEVER, I am going to leave the paragraph that refers to him, though I am going to edit it to reflect the status of Tottle's ideas.

If you do not agree with that change in his paragraph, please edit it, but do not revert the whole article. I have, after all, significantly expanded it as well, and have tried to retain NPOV throughout.

I will also leave in a reference to Tottle's book. It disgusts me to do so, but I respect your objection.

--Dietwald 15:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I just checked the German version of the article... I am very much impressed how brilliantly it manages to be factual and brief at the same time.

Just thought I'd let you know. -- 09:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Cultural purges

I've never seen much discussion of the relationship between the famine and the purges of Ukrainian culture in 1933. There's a brief mention at Ukrainian language#Persecution and russification, but even the history books seem to deal separately with these more-or-less simultaneous upheavals. Michael Z. 2005-09-16 13:50 Z

Mzajac, from my understanding of the famine, there was no direct relationship between the two. They DID occur at the same time, and both were the result of Stalin's criminal mind, however, the famine was the direct result of his 'economic' policies, while the 'purges' were part of the larger totalitarian power-struggles (I am always using the description as provided by Arendt). The one was independent of each other. Stalin could easily have altered his callous acceptance of the famine at the expense of the speed of urbanization and industrilization (well, both would have probably gone better along if he had changed the policies), and STILL go ahead and do the purges. Recall that the Nazis had no problem combining comparatively better economic policies with equally severe purges in the pre-war years.
--Dietwald 04:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
But the purges in Ukraine from 1933 were squarely aimed at Ukrainian culture and education. Whether their coincidence with the famine was accidental or not, the effect on the nation was multiplied and unignorable. Quoting an effective passage from the article on Ukrainian language: "The systematic assault upon Ukrainian identity in culture and education, combined with effects of famine upon the peasantry—the backbone of the nation—dealt Ukrainian language and identity a crippling blow from which it would not completely recover."
I won't assert that this was categorically genocide, but I find it difficult to see how historians can treat these simultaneous acts of Stalin's regime in isolation, and write off their relationship as merely an unhappy coincidence. Michael Z. 2005-09-17 07:30 Z
Mzajac, I think the reason for the tendency among historians to treat those two events seperately is that the chain of events are distinct and not related. The Soviet system operated on a lot of parallel 'projects', the relationship between them is to be sought in the overarching totalitarian ideas and communist ideology of the system. IT IS important to point out that BOTH events combined to a severe national catastrophe. Bothe events have in common that they took place under the Soviets, and both events were driven by a common criminal mindset and energy. However, my understanding of these events is that the purges took place within the context of the total reconstruction of the cultural life of the USSR - and everybody who reads this has to keep in mind that this meant the death of thousands upon thousands who did not agree, or were perceived to disagree, with these policies - while the famine was the result of a misguided economic policy that callously accepted that millions were dying, and did nothing to stop that.
The experience of the famine certainly motivated many Ukrainians to voice some kind of opposition to the regime. For the regime, this was very convenient, as it could prosecute even more 'reactionaries' (killing people by the thousands is an intergal element of any totalitarian regime).
What I am trying to explain is this: for a historian, it is analytically not very useful to treat those two events as related events. They ARE related in so far as they had common causes, but pointing out those common elements merely underlines the already obvious criminality of the Soviet regime.
Let's compare this to the Nazis: few historians would treat the extermination of the Jews and the famines in the USSR caused by the requisition of food stuff for Germany by the Nazis as events that have to be related to each other. They have common elements, but they are the result of different policies. (by the way, i think this famine is very much ignored by historians, I only came across it en passant when reading Hanna Arendt, I think).
I would certainly suggest that you add a discussion that points to this additional effect of the Holodomor. Anything that contributes to a better understanding of the criminal nature of the Soviet regime is fine by me. I try to keep this is neutral as I can, which is very hard for me, since I have an intense hatred for the USSR, as well as the other totalitarian dictatorships of the past and present.
Dietwald 13:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I just did some reading in Magocsi's History of Ukraine. He covers the famine and purges separately, but he hints at some common goals of these programs in the sections entitled "The apogee and the decline of Ukrainianization" and "The end of Ukrainianization".
...this first political 'show' trial proved a convenient means of warning others that contact with Ukrainians in Poland and with émigrés elsewhere, as well as criticism of the government's policies of industrialization and collectivization, must cease. ... Just as a peasant became a 'counterrevolutionary kulak' if he or she did not agree with collectivization and the forced requisitioning of grain, so too did an intellectual become a 'counterrevolutionary bourgeois nationalist' if he or she did not favor the party's ever-changing approach to the nationality question. (p. 565)
[The 'internationalist' elements in the party] argued that Russians should remain the dominant demographic force in urban and industrial areas (their position assisted, if necessary, by the russification of incoming Ukrainians from the countryside) and that limitations should be placed on the Ukrainianization program. The justification given by the internationalists in the party was that Ukrainian nationalism was associated with kulaks and the peasant question. (p. 566)
By the very beginning of 1933, the transitional period that had begun in 1928 was over, and it was clear that in the coming years all efforts would be made to transform Ukraine into a land economically, politically, and culturally an integral part of the Soviet Union. (p. 567)
What I gather from Magocsi is that the purges starting in 1928 and culminating in '33 in Ukraine were a tool to consolidate Stalin's power in the party, but they also contributed to larger goals. Their direct consequences ranged far beyond the party membership: throughout Ukrainian cultural and educational institutions, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and the intelligentsia. Whether as part of a grand scheme or not, they served the purposes of Communist party internationalists, who were against both 'Great Russian chauvinism' and Ukrainian nationalism, and they also set up the situation for integrating Ukraine into Stalin's Soviet Union.
I still wouldn't use this to argue for a charge of deliberate genocide. But the effects of rural dekulakization and enforced famine, combined with industrialization's displacement of people, urban cultural purges, the violent reversal of Ukrainianization, and the Russification of Ukraine's political establishment, together constituted an intense co-ordinated attack on the Ukrainian nation. Yes, the famine greatly affected many others in the Soviet Union, but considering its specific effects on Ukraine is a valid concept, just as it's not wrong to consider the Jewish Shoah within the greater Nazi Holocaust.
I'm just saying that I'm surprised that these issues are often dealt with in such isolation. I'll mull this over and do a bit more reading, then try to add a bit on the subject to this article and other relevant ones. Michael Z. 2005-09-19 00:30 Z

The question of genocide

The new edit added a lot of factual information to the article and I, of course, welcome that. However, I think the article lost most of the balance and now takes side in the debate on whether Holodomor was a deliberate henocide of Ukrainians by the Stalin's government or a part of the Soviet famine in the course of collectivization (that is having class-strugle origins), also in line with other famines that periodically occured in the territories of the Russian Empire. Personally, I take no position in this debate here. However, I have no impression that the debate is considered resolved in the mainstream. For political and emotional reasons, the former positions gained more prominence with a fall of Soviet censorship, that's true. But as an encyclopedia, we have to be careful in taking sides. I would welcome more editing to bring the article to a more balanced form. Please no attacks or name-calling. We should deal with this sensitive issue calmly without the "you, Holocaust denier" rhetoric. Thanks! --Irpen 01:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


thanks for the compliment.

I will try to control my rethoric ;). However, the consensus in the historic debate in the literature IS that the holodomor was the outcome of deliberate policy, which was not aimed at famine, but which was NOT altered after the results became clear. The death of the Ukrainians was callously accepted -- not really surprising, considering the democidal nature of the Soviet regime. I'd be interested in evidence to the contrary -- though not Tottle, because he really has no standing -- unless somebody could demonstrate that his thesis is at least being discussed in the community of historians. The only place Tottle is mentioned at the moment is on partisan sides (some of them outright Stalin apologetics) on the internet.

What really IS a debate in the literature is whether it was a genocide -- and THAT I don't agree with. I disagree with the approach of the Ukrainian diaspora that believes the holodomor was anti-Ukrainian. I don't think it was anti-Ukrainian, I think it was anti-peasant, for lack of a better word.

If the tottle 'point of view' would be given more prominence, that would not be more balance, but simply fraud. The other aspects, I submit that you have a legitimate point.

The Holodomor WAS part of the famine in general. It was not even any worse than the famine among the nomads, for example. The Kazakhs suffered terribly under the famine aftr the nomads were forced to settle down.

Tottle claims there actually was no real famine. He claims that the pictures taken from the famine were actually from the 21/22 famine. Tottle is using arguments that are eerily similar to those of the Holocaust deniers -- alledging a conspiracy that is covering up 'the truth', for example. It's a bad book, it's a worthless thesis. It's available online, even. Anyone interested in it can read it. BUT -- it has no standing in the community. none.

So, the prominence given to tottle before was not balanced, but POV towards exculperating Stalin.

I also disagree, however, that the famine was part of a 'class-struggle'... There was no 'class-struggle' in the USSR, the terminology is very ideological. The majority of the victims of the Soviets were workers and peasants -- the supposed ruling class... No, the USSR under Stalin was a classic totalitarian regime as described by Arendt. THAT, of course, IS POV, and can be debated, and hence, i did NOT put it into the article.

However, again, I agree you have a legitimate point in so far that the discussion about whether it was a genocide or not should be given more balance. By the way, if my Ukrainian diaspora 'friends' would read this article, they would hate me even more than they already do.

Dietwald 04:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't accept your arguments. There exists a parliamentary act (Act) that proclaims Holodomor a genocide and the outcome of deliberate policy. point. I don't quite see how your opinion could outweight part of legislation.
Of course, it is bad that Kazakhs suffered. But that's Kazakhs' problem to be addressed in a different article. Don't dilute Holodomor with information that has marginal relevance. Sashazlv 03:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Sasha! Ok. I think it might be appropriate to put a clear reference to that into the relevant section. I think the problem here is now really about "what is genocide"? I thought I had adressed that to a degree that might be acceptable to those taking the position that it was a genocide. Personally, I like to be very careful with the usage of the term genocide, and I prefer sticking to the legal definition (which would even rule out Pol Pot's crimes from being genocide, but include the deportation of the Chechens, for example). I think it may be problematic to use the Rada's definition of the issue here. Since you are clearly familiar with the politics involved, I think you may also see why it is a problem. I have NOT come across scholarly documents that claim it to have been the result of genocidal intent, but that could simply mean that I have not read all the material.
I don't object to you adding this kind of reference. Others might, though, considering that until a few days ago the Tottle POV was given huge prominence, and Tottle even denies that there was a major famine, not to mention a more or less deliberate one. So, I am not sure how wise it would be to give even MORE weight to what MIGHT be considered a Ukrainian POV.

Dietwald 05:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I checked Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which is also part of Ukrainian legislation (Convention). I see that it qualifies for genocide under Article II as part of an ethnic group, part c) about conditions of life. Objections? Sashazlv 06:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. This is not set regarding Holodomor. There are two views (disregarding the lunatic and apologist views which just deny it as a whole). One view is that the famine was the result of anti-peasant policy not directed against a particular nation. Ukrainians were a more agricultural nation than Russians as a whole, but agricultural areas of Russia also suffered enormously. "Henocide", requires a delibereate anti-Ukrainian intent. This was anti-human but not specifically anti-Ukrainian. The topic is a politically loaded one and the Act of Verkhovna Rada, a political institutuion, proves just that. Rada's statement is not an academic publication that should be used to resolve the issue.

Sasha, I will send you a brief email with more shortly. BTW, please see an article and talk at Ukrainian Holocaust. --Irpen 00:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I warmly welcome Dietwald's edits: they have been long on my mind, too. It's hard to see why the Russian famine of 1921 should not be classified as genocide (I was repeatedly reverted when classifying it as such), whereas Holodomor should. The political situation was similar, the number of victims too. My grandfather's dad and brother died in the Holodomor: the latter boiled a hedgehog for want of better food, and my granddad died from a gastric disease caused by that famine. So no partiality on my side. Nevertheless, I think that Holodomor and the Volga famines should be viewed in line. --Ghirlandajo 19:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Russian farmers

It has to be kept in mind that Russian farmers had for most of history not been allowed to own land individually, but were given this right first during the Stolypin reforms.

Russian farmers in contrast to Ukrainian farmers, or farmers of the Russian Empire including Ukrainian farmers? Sorry to be picky about the language, but one would infer very different conclusions from the different interpretations. Michael Z. 2005-09-17 06:02 Z

You are absolutely right. I have the annoying tendency of the Russophile to refer to everything and everybody ever under the domain of Russia as Russia(n). Of course, it should mean farmers in the Russian empire, including the Ukraine. And yes, the current wording could lead to false conclusions. Will correct it immediately.
Dietwald 08:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I was also confused because I had heard that amongst Ukrainian farmers there was more of a tradition of working individual farms, as opposed to village commons or collectives in the Russian north, causing them to be much more resistant to collectivization. I don't really know how true that was, but I thought you may have been referring to this. Michael Z. 2005-09-17 15:15 Z
Hm. that's an interesting point. You may be referring to the fact that some parts of the Ukraine only became part of the Russian empire in fairly recent years (since Ukraine alternately was conquered by the Poles and Russians). There may have been traditions in Ukraine that were distinct from those of the rest of the Russian empire (such as the Cossack tradition). If you have specific details on those issues, please provide them!!!! I have studied Russian history mostly, with Ukraine being merely an afterthought most of the time. Add to this the fact that I am a Russophile and tend to assume that what applies to Russia applies to the Ukraine and Byelorus as well. (notice that I tend to write THE Ukraine as well). SO, this is one of the reasons I tend to see the Holodomor in the general context of the Soviet famines in general -- which may, of course, be a mistake.
My main motivation when starting to work on this article was to make it more apparent that the Holodomor was not just an unfortunate event that sort of happened, but that it was the result of both bad and criminal policies.
SO! IF I have neglected Ukrainian particularities, I apologize and want to emphasize that it was NOT done because I want to discount the Ukrainian experience (though I DO have an issue with the tendency of the Ukrainian diaspora to spread all kinds of nonsense about Russia, and to generally talk in pretty nasty manners about people who were as much victims of the totalitarian Soviets as they were). Ok, I am beginning to rant. Hope to have sufficiently muddled things even more.
Dietwald 20:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I believe Michael was referring to Ukrainian khutors as opposed to Russian obshchinas. --Ghirlandajo 19:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh.... Now, that does ring a bell. Unfortunately, I am currently not able to do much editing, as I am about to move to Russia. So, somebody please add this angle to the text, that would be fabulous! Thanks for all the support.
Dietwald 20:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the references, Ghirlandajo, and thanks for all the work on this article, Dietwald. It's quite an accomplishment to add so much to this topic without precipitating any major disagreements. Cheers. Michael Z. 2005-09-20 22:54 Z

Causes and Outcomes: needs to be divided

This section is too long: it should be divided in two - one describing the Causes, the other the Outcomes; I think someone (who's probably spending too much time on the Discussion page) needs to sit down and take out the scalpel. Recognising that it's a touchy and tricky subject (see some of the odd talk on this page about Nazis and Jews), I've taken the liberty of revising some of the syntax in section 3, concerning genocide - this is only for the purpose of clarification on behalf of readers, and I take no part in the debate. I wish everyone well, but now I'm out of here.--shtove 00:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent Changes - Conquest

I am not very happy with the changes made to the causes and outcome section. There is far too much criticism on Conquest in there, and while there may have been heavy criticism of his work at the time of the publishing, I am of the opinion that the current additions to the text have an almost apologist flavour - they make it seem as if Conquest's description was wrong, and hence the description of the holodomor is wrong. If there are no objections, I am going to take some of the stuff out.

Dietwald 09:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Travel ban

22 января 1933 г.

Ростов-Дон, Харьков, Воронеж, Смоленск, Минск, Сталинград, Самара

N. 65/ш

До ЦКВК и СНК дошли сведения, что на Кубани и Украине начался массовый выезд крестьян «за хлебом» в ЦЧО, на Волгу, Московскую обл., Западную обл., Белоруссию. ЦК ВКП и Совнарком СССР не сомневаются, что этот выезд крестьян, как и выезд из Украины в прошлом году, организован врагами Советской власти, эсерами и агентами Польши с целью агитации «через крестьян» в северных районах СССР против колхозов и вообще против Советс-кой власти. В прошлом году партийные, советские и чекистские органы Украины прозевали эту контрреволюционную затею врагов Советской власти. В этом году не может быть допущено повторение прошлогодней ошибки.

Первое. ЦК ВКП и Совнарком СССР предписывают крайкому, крайисполкому и ПП ОГПУ Северного Кавказа не допускать массовый выезд крестьян из Северного Кавказа в другие края и въезд в пределы края из Украины.

Второе. ЦК ВКП и Совнарком предписывают ЦК КП(б)У, Балицкому и Реденсу не допускать массовый выезд крестьян из Украины в другие края и въезд на Украину из Северного Кавказа.

Третье. ЦК ВКП и Совнарком предписывают ПП ОГПУ Московской обл., ЦЧО, Западной обл., Белоруссии, Нижней Волги и Средней Волги арестовывать пробравшихся на север «крестьян» Украины и Северного Кавказа и после того, как будут отобраны контрреволюционные элементы, водворять остальных в места их жительства.

Четвертое. ЦК ВКП и Совнарком предписывают ТО ГПУ Прохорову дать соответствующее распоряжение по системе ТО ГПУ.

Предсовнарком СССР В. М. Молотов Секретарь ЦК ВКП(б) И. Сталин

(РГАСПИ. Ф. 558.Оп. 11. Д. 45. Л. 109-109об.)

Директива ЦК ВКП(б) и СНК СССР в связи с массовым выездом крестьян за пределы Украины

23 января 1933 г.

1. Послать всем обкомам и облисполкомам следующую директиву (см. приложение).

2. Предложить уполнаркомпути (т. Лаврищеву) и ЮЖОКТО ГПУ немедленно дать указания всем железнодорожным станциям о прекращении продажи билетов за пределы Украины крестьянам, не имеющим удостоверения РИКов о праве выезда или промышленных и строительных государственных организаций о том, что они завербованы на те или другие работы за пределами Украины.

Секретарь ЦК КП(б)У М.Хатаевич


Обкомам, облисполкомам

Из некоторых районов Украины начались по примеру прошлого года массовые выезды крестьян в Московскую, Западную обл. ЦЧО, Белоруссию 'за хлебом'. Имеют место случаи, когда цела покидаются почти всеми единоличниками и частью колхозников. Нет никаких сомнений, что подобные массовые выезды организуются врагамы Советской власти, эсерами и агентами Польши с целью агитации 'через крестьян' в северных районах СССР против колхозов, против Советской власти. В прошлом году партийные, советские и чекистские органы Украины прозевали эту контрреволюционную затею врагов Советской власти. В этом году повторения этой ошибки не должно быть допущено.

ЦК КП(б)У и СНК УССР предлагают:

1. Немедленно принять в каждом районе решительные меры к недопущению массового выезда единоличников колхозников, исходя из разосланной по линии ГПУ директивы Балицкого.

2. Провесть работу всякого рода вербовщиков рабсилы на вывоз за пределы Украины, взять ее под строгий контроль с отстранением от этой работы и изъятием всех подозрительных контрреволючионных элементов.

3. Развернуть широкую разъяснительную работу среди колхозников и единоличников проти самовольных выездов с оставлением хозяйства и предостречь их, что в случае выезда в другие районы, они буйдут там арестоваться.

4. Примите меры к прекращению продажи билетов за пределы Украины крестьянам, не имеющим удостоверений РИКов о праве выезда или промышленных и строительных государственных организаций о том, что они завербованы на те или иные работы за пределы Украины. Соответствующие указания даны по линии ИпНКПС и трансортного ГПУ.

5. Сообщите не позже 6 час. вечера 24 января коротко фактическое положение с массовым выездом крестьян по вашей области.

Секретарь ЦК КП(б)У Хатаевич Председатель СНК УССР В. Чубарь

(РГАСПИ. Ф. 17. Оп. 42. Д. 80. Л. 9-11.)

preceding unsigned comment by Mikkalai (talk • contribs)

Nonsensical sentence in first paragraph

While it was part of the larger famine in the Soviet Union, which also affected Kazakhstan, the German-inhabited middle Volga region, and especially the Don and Kuban Cossack territories of the Rostov and Krasnodar areas

--Shadypalm88 19:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


Before the revert war gets into full swing, Ghirlandajo, would you please explain your edit instead of merely starting out with profanities in the edit summary?

I understand that the Holodomor affected the Kuban’, and that it is a region outside Ukraine that has a significant Ukrainian population. I also believe that it's technically north of the Caucasus, not in the northern Caucasus, right? Michael Z. 2005-11-18 21:05 Z

Wrong Kuban is not Ukranian, we are of Zaporozhian descent yes, but in NONE of our records do we refer to ourselfs as UkraniansKuban kazak
Bringing in 1921 Russian famine to the intro, like Ghirlandajo did, may not be necessary, but bringing in Kuban as opposed to any other region of Russia makes no sense. This is not the article about Soviet famine in the early 1930s (which may be written one time). Neither it is the article on Soviet collectivization which has every reason to partly overlap with Holodomor. As the article correctly stated before Andrew Alexander got his hands on it, Holodomor is the term specifically referring to the famine in Ukraine. Yes there was a famine in Russia too, not only in Kuban. I will set aside time to repair one more article after this editor unless someone will do it sooner. Please, anyone, feel free to take it upon yourself. Additionally, "Ukrainian henocide", unlike Holodomor, is a POV term and doesn't belong to intro either. --Irpen 21:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What's interesting, the statement of the independent US Government Commission is taken by the ignorant Russophiles as some nationalistic hoax. They woudn't even believe that most of the newspapers and schools in Kuban in the 1920s were ... Ukrainian. The perfect genocide.--Andrew Alexander 06:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well acutally they were not Ukranian, msot of the language that is spoken in the Kuban is a balachka dialect, mix between Russian and Ukranian, the grammar that was taught to the childern was Russian.Kuban kazak 15:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
This is just another example of the same editor's trend to write little but make sure his views get maximum visibility. As per Andrew Alexander's edit summary: "Irpen, please read the conclusions in the reference provided. They answer your questions quite well. Unless you conduct another invetigation with hundres of witnesses, do not claim the opposite". It is not my job to conduct investigations. These are done by people who write reports. Other people read reports and write books. Our job is to read books and compile what we find from the mainstream ones into Wikipedia. The History_of_Ukraine#Further_reading section start with 4 modern English L books devoted to Ukrainian history. If they used "Genocide" and "Holodomor" or "Ukrainian Famine" interchangibly, we could have left the term in the article as just another name as per A.A. They don't. Even if they mention it but as a term and in the context that does not imply its full acceptance, it does not belong to the intro. In the latter case, we may, however, include in the article that not only "political institutions" like Rada, but also some academic scholars call Holodomor, a Genocide. In fact, the discussion on whether H. was indeed a Genocide is already in the article and it is well written. Start writing articles, Andrew Alexander.--Irpen 06:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
There are many books that call Ukrainian Famine of 1933 a genocide. Far more that don't. The term has been confirmed by multiple governments and institutions, including many researchers, schools, museums. The US Government Commission on Ukrainian Famine can be called "political" as much as almost any other commission. However, there was not a single reputable commission that did not recognize the Holodomor as genocide. If you have a reference to one, let us know. Before you start accusing me of making you conduct your own investigations. --Andrew Alexander 06:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Basically the Kuban did not actually suffer in 1933 as much as the Don area. In 1921 yes, this was because most of the Kuban cossacks were either killed or fled the country in the wars, and manpower for crops was short. In 1932, the Kuban crop came later than in the Don and Malorossiya, so by that time Soviet realised their mistake, and lowered the quota. Although many volunatary gave spare crops to relieve the Don. (In summer 1933, my great grandfather was part of a relief mission that went around Novocherkassk delivering foodsupplies to the starved Don people. His accounts are absoloutely horrendous. However what I don't understand is why so many people in Ukraine blame Russians for the famine. It was a common tragedy for both of us, and it should on the contrary unite peoples (well preatty much that's what happened in 1941-45, think of the millions of people who joined the partisans). Kuban kazak 15:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
You should write a novel, better, a fairytale, "My grandfather's memories". Then we can refer to this reputable text in this article. Until then, sorry, I will believe what I read from other witnesses (like British Diplomatic Reports on the Ukrainian Famine).--Andrew Alexander 18:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
What is it with you? Millions of people died, and you joke around like that, не стыдно? Also quite contradictory to some of your earlier remarksKuban kazak 20:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, there. If Kuban is serious part of this claim, especially the ethnical part - it is OK to include it, if it is disputed on academic level -it should be noted.–Gnomz007(?) 20:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Well ethnically is simply out of the question as we are Russian. Socially it was a genocide, as it was directed against peasents, but I think that this is not possible, considering that if they did kill all the peasents and starve them to death who would feed the party? I think it is more of a question of Stalin says we must increase grain production and lower level politicians (who could not care less about agriculture or the affects) simply raise the quotas to unrealistic levels. By the time it gets to the lowest levels it becomes a direct order that must be carried out with quality and quantity to impress comrade Stalin himself. I am sure he was impressed, which was why no NKVD agents ever died of old age.Kuban kazak 20:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct, the only admission here is IF it is SERIOUS part of the genocide claim, which itself already in the article. I see Andrew Alexander deleted a big chunk of data in "causes" section, which even met outside objections, instead he might have simply added the sourced arguments used to the effect of what he said in edit summary, so reader is exposed to both points of view. –Gnomz007(?) 20:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Just some semantics: "paralleled only by X" means -> "only X had the same magnitude"...which is sort of controversial, because it denies other government-inflicted famines in USSR - millions were starved.–Gnomz007(?) 23:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Gnomz007, I hope someone would carefully read the sentence by the US Gov Commission, which is "It was also confirmed that while famine took place during the 1932-1933 agricultural year in the Volga Basin and the North Caucasus Territory as a whole, the invasiveness of Stalin's interventions of both the Fall of 1932 and January 1933 in Ukraine are paralleled only in the ethnically Ukrainian Kuban region of the North Caucasus." It's a long sentence, and for non-native speaker may be hard to read, but please read it in full. What is says is, yes, there was a famine in some Russian territories, but it was in ethnically Ukrainian Kuban that the famine was as cruel and deliberate as it was in Ukraine. It's not an empty phrase. There are years of inquires and evidence examinations behind it. The commission truly wanted to know, what the hell has happened there. They invited over 200 witnesses, went through accounts like this. It pains me to see people like K k coming here and refusing to look at the first-hand accounts contradicting their claims like "Basically the Kuban did not actually suffer in 1933".--Andrew Alexander 03:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again I have to remind that Kuban is NOT ethnically Ukranian territory and never was. Second the area where I am from had quite a hard winter of 33 because of shortage of food. Yet when the crop of 1934 came, everybody donated as much as they could spare to relieve the other regions. First hand accounts don't matter? Well if you put a census into the Kuban area and ask people are they Ukranian or Russian and did you starve in 1933, we will see what you come out with. The first question has already been answered 2002 census, the Cossacks (who were given a separate box) had a choice to specify wether they thought they were Russian or Ukranian. No one chose the latter. Sorry to dissapoint you. Kuban kazak 12:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it is not my en-1 got in the way, but my habit of looking into red part of the diff, shame on me, thank you for being patient and granting me good faith. But nevertheless a constrution "X only paralleled by Y" can have events in diffent time, any distance, it could as well hold with what Ghirlandajo wrote, so better rephrase it.
I've read the account you provided, it is pretty much in line with what was done against Russian peasants on Volga, I have no solid perspective on the subject so I would not insist on comparison the actual scale and impact of it, but anyway it would not matter what I think - it is just my personal reference point in history. I expect other people to have better insights into that, all I want is to let you know that many of your manipulations of this article send slightly other message than you probably intended, and Kuban kazak actually wrote "... did not much as the Don area" and offered anecdotal account–Gnomz007(?) 06:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Well anectodical as it may seem, the Don area people died of starvation, my stanitsa, nobody died but the health was certainly permanently damaged due to malnutrition in that year. I am not trying to defend the Soviet atrocity I am just saying that different areas suffered more than others, and Kuban was not one of them.Kuban kazak 01:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Changes by alexander


you made some very drastic changes to the text by deleting two very significant paragraphs. From what I gather from your comments, you consider the Holodomor to have been a deliberate genocide, and you seem to feel that this is what the article should reflect.

This is correct. I'd like to add that this is not just my personal opinion, it's based on the very careful and independent examinaiton of known facts, witness accounts, population statistics, economical data of the US Government Commission on Ukrainian Famine. I try to provide supporting links for almost every claim made. Perhaps, I should have filled the "Causes and Outcomes" first and then deleted the typical Soviet (now Russian) propaganda supported by nothing. This work is still in progress and will be done. We can even examine and disect every denial claim.--Andrew Alexander 03:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, you argue that the industrialization had not relevance to the Holodomor, and you seem to imply by that that the Holodomor would have taken place without the industrialization.

No. I simply state that industrialization has to do with the Holodomor as much as a production of knives has to do with a serial killer cutting his victims up. It's simply not worth mentioning for there are thousands of causes far more serious. --Andrew Alexander 03:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

What you appear to not to be taking into consideration is that the cities of Ukraine did not suffer from the famine, but that the famine was limited to the rural areas.

I agree.--Andrew Alexander 03:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

These are the facts as they are available to me. If you have different facts, please provide them.

I will provide additional different facts. --Andrew Alexander 03:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

At this point in time, it is unreasonable to argue that the Holodomor was a genocide -- even THOUGH it had a genocidal effect. The importance of this distinction has been discussed on these pages to a significant extend, and you shoud not go ahead and simply go against the consensus of this.

I must have missed something. What consensus and by whom? I think the wording "also known as Ukrainian Genocide" is 100% correct. I provided my sources. Please provide yours. --Andrew Alexander 03:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

There has been some very hard work put into this article to make sure it remains NPOV without taking away from the proper representation of the terrifying dimension of this event.

In the context of the Soviet Union, it is unlikely that the Soviet authorities were driven by genocidal motives. It's one of the few things one cannot accuse them off.

You would be surprized. The Soviet authorities gave direct orders to kill, already in this discussion above, if you simply scroll up. I ask you to provide your sources please. We can't just make arbitrary statements like this, especially in the article. The genocidal motives of the Soviet authorities has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt if you simply read the evidence. --Andrew Alexander 03:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

What they were motivated by was classism and the desire to exterminate what they considered to be people whose time to disapear had come. The Holodomor, in my opinion, was deliberate mass-murder. Unfortunately, the deliberate nature of the Holodomor is not reflected in the documents

Yes, it was. --Andrew Alexander 03:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

-- the sources only indicate that the government accepted the famine as an unavoidable outcome of necessary policies, along the "crack an egg to make an omlette" mentality. That this mentality was, by all decent human reasoning, disgusting and abhorrent is beyond sensible discussion, and I am the first to say that the Soviets were on par with the Nazis in their callous negation of all human decency.

I fail to see any difference. Is killing by starvation a more human murder than by gas chamber? They knew about the murder, but didn't care to stop it? Wait a second, weren't they the murderers? --Andrew Alexander 03:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

BUT, the changes you made to the text are not in line with Wikipedia policy, and I have the impression you are motivated by an understandable, but uncalled-for, sense of ethnic solidarity with your ancestors.

The two of us would probably get along well with our assessment of the Soviets over a glass of beer, but, please, let's try to be NPOV on this site as much as we can.

IF you think your interpretation of the events is correct, please provide sources (other than the UR government), and we will certainly be able to reach an agreement.

Over the next few hours, I will go through the article and clean it up, and then please let's discuss the matter here.

And, I don't care whether you are Ukrainian or not. It's irrelevant. If your ethnic affiliation makes you passionate about this topic, maybe you should - in the interest of your health - refrain from commenting on it.

Dietwald 20:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Moreover I might add that Ukraine was not the only place to suffer the famine, we in the Kuban remember it very well, yet during our rememberance ceremonies we don't burn Russian flags and don't demand responisbility or compensation from Moscow, considering that the modern Russian government are hardly to blame for it (Many of which themselves suffered from Stalin's campaign)so the "modern Russian policy" quote might be suitable in a UNSO fairytale book but not in an international encyclopedia.Kuban kazak 20:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Kazak, thank you. Yes, I think it's something one should be careful of, the conflating of Russia and the USSR. I am currently living in a smaller Russian city, and I can see every day the effects the Soviet occupation (I am beginning to resent using the term 'government' for what the Soviets were). Had the Nazis occupied Russia, they could hardly have wrecked more havoc. The city I am in is hundreds of km east of Moscow, and the amount of cultural treasures the Soviets destroyed here is staggering.
Well lets not confuse Nazis and Soviets. If the nazis occupied the city then they would have probably shot half of the population (just as they did with my stanitsa). The cultural treasures are quite important, but then I don't think the German play with Peterhoff or Tsarskoe Selo is also unimportant but that's offtopic compleately.Kuban kazak 21:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
So, please, let's keep anti-Russian sentiment out of this. Keep in mind, Stalin was Georgian, for example.Dietwald 21:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
We shall, Russophobia is something that Cossacks do not tolerate very well. Kuban kazak 21:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I must object to K.k. portrayal of truthful and factual representation as "Russophobia". I belive this is a personal attack against Wikipedia rules of civil discussion.--Andrew Alexander 03:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander! Personal attack? Who are you kidding? Speaking of personal attacks, user:Andrew Alexander, made a call at forum (previously used to rig two rename votes) to call for more people to help "protect" the article.

This particular message at the forum has a subject "they are creeping to erase Genocide" consists of just a single phrase that perfectly speak about their offer. Calling for more people to help, Andrew Alexander writes: "Панове, скільки украінців треба вбити, аби решта нарешті захистила їхні могили від свиней?" Which translates as: "How many Ukrainians needs killed for the rest would finally defend their graves from pigs".

This user has shown a consistent pattern of srong Ukrainian nationalism, bad faith and desire to push[2], [3] his fringe views into this international project. What is especially annoying, is the desire to achieve the maximum efficiency with a minimum effort by throwing stuff to right to a lead

Andrew Alexander, with his namesake, User:AndriyK use outside forums not only to badmouth their opponents in the most horrific way, but to recruit help in revert wars and bring absentee voters and sockpuppets to vote in surveys. Readers of this forum, on the other hand, represent the diverse views of Ukrainians and the extreme nationalism of two Andriys didn't get many followers from this forum readers which proves that their views are indeed on the fringe. --Irpen 08:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Volyn Crop

I think this is an important fact for people to mention. My wife is from Rovno and I lived there for five years. As Rovno was then in Poland and was also the closest to Ukraine proper, it did not come under the famine, but the climatic conditions must have been very similar. I think that this is important to take note of, and maybe put that as one of the cotributing factors to the famine. All of what is said next was told to me by locals, yet I am sure that records exist (probably in Warsaw) that will confirm these details. The winter of 1931-32 was very cold and long, the late thaw put off the crop by a whole month and a half, the year itself was very wet and colder than normal. So even though the crop yield was sufficient the quality of it left more to be desired. The winter of 1932-33 on the other hand was much warmer and the thaw was earlier than normal, but the summer itself was very dry and insufficient moisture from rainfall caused a very poor crop yield (lowest in a decade as one old woman told me). The crop of 1934 on the other hand was magnificent. So what do people make of this? Kuban kazak 20:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

What I make out of this is that your anecdotal evidence supports the notion that the famine was not unavoidable, but in fact the result of deliberate policies (though not necessarily targetted at genocide). Dietwald 21:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Well you made it out wrong. The crop was not bad enough to starve people, it was simply lower than normal. In reference to causes, all I am saying that if the years were say 1934 and 35 (when crop yield was excellent), the SCALE of the catastrophe would not have been so large. I am saying that the climatic effects (anectodical as it may seem) contributed to the effect (of course they were not the dominant contribution which was the USSR's abuse of agriculture) but they had their part. Again I am sure there is evidence to confirm this. Kuban kazak 21:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually can any of the Polish people here maybe help out on this?Kuban kazak 23:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

US Government Commission quote

There seems to be a large argument over the following quote by the above commission: "It was also confirmed that "while famine took place during the 1932-1933 agricultural year in the Volga Basin and the North Caucasus Territory as a whole, the invasiveness of Stalin's interventions of both the Fall of 1932 and January 1933 in Ukraine are paralleled only in the ethnically Ukrainian Kuban region of the North Caucasus". I'd like to underline that we can't change this sentence because it seems like a biased view to someone. This sentence has been proven in the text by additional documental references. Unless someone disputes the Commission conclusions and additional references, there are no grounds for changing. Every change has to be justified by something, not just be a sheer believe of an editor. Otherwise, people start removing sentences from articles because "it's POV", despite all the documents and proof provided.--Andrew Alexander 06:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Well it is a POV, considering already they manadged to forget that Kuban is not enthnically, and never was, Ukranian territory but then hey if some Americans think that we have winter all year round and drunken bears walk on our streets so I forgive them, especially if it was the same commission that said Iraq had WMD that are yet to be found. Kuban kazak 11:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
The statement inquestion is plain false. Even the nationalist website quoted below shows atatistical numbers of about 50/50 in Kuban, i.e., way far from being "ethnically Ukrainian". mikka (t) 22:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kuban Kazak, please read a bit literature about the history of your homeland, before you make fun of Americans. You may consider yourself Russian, it's you own choise. But the article not about you. It's about the historical facts. If you check the facts, you'll see that great part of the population in the Kuban region at the time of Holodomor were Ukrainians. Among the rural population the majority were Ukrainians.
Всього населення Кубані на 17 грудня 1926 р. становило 3343893 особи. Українців – 1644518 осіб (49,2%), росіян – 1428587 (42,7%). Серед міського населення українців було 153572 особи (4,6%), росіян – 318364 (9,5%). Серед сільського населення Кубані українців було не менше 1490946 осіб (44,6%), росіян – 1110223 (33,2%). [4]
Let's stick at facts. Your own POV is not appropriate for the Wikipedia articles. This save us most of the time now being wasted for the edit wars. --AndriyK 19:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
So you give me a source of a nationalist newspaper, yet however, I could not find a direct reference where the source came from. Therefore it is a POV, and the solid fact comes from here, a genetic study of the Russian gene pool, and surnames, the results: Kuban turned out to be ethnically the purest Russian territory.
Ученым удалось составить полный список истинно русских фамилий по регионам страны: Кубань оказалась русской
Сначала были составлены списки по пяти условным регионам - Северному, Центральному, Центрально-Западному, Центрально-Восточному и Южному. В сумме по всем регионам набралось около 15 тыс. русских фамилий, большинство из которых встречались только в одном из регионов и отсутствовали в других. При наложении региональных списков друг на друга ученые выделили всего 257 так называемых "общерусских фамилий".
Интересно, что на заключительном этапе исследования они решили добавить в список Южного региона фамилии жителей Краснодарского края, ожидая, что преобладание украинских фамилий потомков запорожских казаков, выселенных сюда Екатериной II, ощутимо сократит общерусский список. Но это дополнительное ограничение сократило список общерусских фамилий всего на 7 единиц - до 250. Из чего вытекал очевидный и не для всех приятный вывод, что Кубань населена в основном русскими людьми. А куда делись и были ли вообще здесь украинцы - большой вопрос.
Second piece of hard evidence, 2002 census where the Cossacks were presented as a separate group and were allowed to chose wether they thought of themselves as Russians or Ukranians, none chose the latter.
Finally my family records do dicatate that my ancestors came from Zaporozhia, and originally they might well have been Malorossian, and yes our balachka dialect sounds very similar to Ukranian, but then what does it matter anyway? Is it important to have Ukranian genes (well that is out of the question considering how many intermarriages took place, combined with war brides). Is it a question of linguistics? Well our balachka dialect is not exactly Ukranian, and not exactly Russian, yet grammatically it is spelled in Russian (although some stanitsas use the pre-1918 rules). Is it a question of mentality, well what is Ukranian mentality? The type that is expressed by UNSO? Well five years of living in Rovno, and I found that only a minority support such a case (of them none with higher education). If Ukranian mentality is Russophilic, then the Cossacks have always been that. Is it a question of politics, well preatty much that's what is happening Kuban kazak 20:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Dear Kuban Kazak, if you consider the cited sources as "nationalistic", you may go to the library and ask for official publication of the 1926 census. You'll have the same numbers there. This article is about the year 1933 so the 2002 census is completely irrelevant here. You family records are even less relevant.
Once again regardless of what the census say, politically the Kubanese people (I don't destinguish my people as Great or Small Russians) have had little sentiment for Ukranian nationalism. Stalin knew that so therefore it is pointless to point and use us in your silly political game. In fact the chances for UNSO swear an oath of eternal loyalty to Moscow are exponentially higher than for us Cossacks to swear one to Kiev. Besides in all of our songs and records we call our selves Rus'kiye, probably the census takers could not destinguish the Balachka pronounciation of Russkiye. Kuban kazak 11:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
We have already had the discussion about the "genetic study" here. A have to remind you the following. One Ukrainian newspaper contacted Elena Balanovskaya to check the information published in the newspaper "Власть". (You cited it above). The answer was (I hope you understand Ukrainian)
– Я обурена політичними інтерпретаціями та вигадками авторів “КоммерсантЪ-Власть” щодо близькості тих чи інших українських популяцій та інших етнічних груп.
З’ясували також, що надруковану карту насправді вигадали автори статті в “КоммерсантЪ-Власть” і не має жодного стосунку до праці “Російського генофонду”.
– З однієї нашої карти взяли лінії, які мають суто технічне значення (на різних картах вони зовсім різні, задаються параметрами під час створення карт), – пояснила пані Балановская, – і приписали їм те значення, яке вигадали автори “КоммерсантЪ-Власть”. Таким чином, карта, наведена в “КоммерсантЪ-Власть”, не має жодного стосунку ні до науки, ні до отриманих нами результатів.
(see [5]) Brief translation: the superwiser of the project Elena Balanovskaya is outraged by pilitical interpretations and inventions of the authors of the newspaper “КоммерсантЪ-Власть”.
The published by “КоммерсантЪ-Власть” map was invented by the journalists and has nothing to do with the work of the scientists.
The map has nothing to do with this, the results do. The gene pool of Kuban, regardless of what people make conclusions of is still Russian.Kuban kazak 11:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
You could add "And the Earth is flat";)--AndriyK 11:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
For cossacks who lived on the stepped their whole life that may well be the case, nice of you to note ;)Kuban kazak 13:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I see, according to your family record it's flat, therefore it's flat. ;)--AndriyK 13:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
The steppe is flat, althought my stanitsa is not far from Novorossiysk, and the end of the caucasus range just cuts out, so not exactly flat. But should one see the Don or Stavropolian steppes...Kuban kazak 17:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
The case is hopeless.:(--AndriyK 17:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
For you yes,....Любо братцы любо! Любо братцы жить! С нашем атаманом не приходиться тужить...

Some quotes which may be relevant to these discussions:

According to Subtelny, p. 413: "The famine that occurred in 1932–33 was to be for Ukrainians what the Holocaust was to the Jews and the Massacres of 1915 for the Armenians. . . . The central fact about the famine is that it did not have to happen. Stalin himself proclaimed that 'nobody can deny that the total yield of grain in 1932 was larger than in 1931'" [citation: Stalin, Sochineniia XIII: 216–217.]

P. 415: "While famine raged in Ukraine, especially its southeastern regions, and in the north Caucasus (where many Ukrainians lived), much of Russia proper barely experienced it. One of the factors that helps to explain this peculiarity is that, according to the first FYP [Five-Year Plan], 'Ukraine ... was chosen to serve as a colossal laboratory for new forms of socioeconomic and productive-technical reconstruction of the rural economy for the entire Soviet Union.' . . . Consequently, the demands on the republic were inordinately great." [citation: The Five-Year Plan for Agricultural Construction, 3rd ed. (Moscow 1930) III: 127.]

P. 416: "A leading Communist paper in Ukraine in 1930 carried the equation further when it declared that 'collectivization in Ukraine has a special task ... to destroy the social basis of Ukrainian nationalism—individually-owned peasant agriculture.' One can conclude therefore that, at best, Stalin viewed the deaths of millions as a necessary cost of industrialization. At worst, he consciously allowed the famine to wipe out resistance in a particularly troublesome region of his empire." [citation: Proletarska Pravda, 22 January 1930, cited in D. Solovey, "On the Thirtieth Anniversary of the Great Man-Made Famine in Ukraine," The Ukrainian Quarterly, 19 (1963): 7.]

From Magocsi, p. 563: "Yet at the same time that famine was raging throughout the country's agricultural heartland—Dnieper Ukraine as well as the neighboring Kuban and northern Caucasus regions—the Soviet Union was exporting grain abroad. . . . There is , moreover, great disagreement as to the cause of the famine. Was it the result of bureaucratic bungling during the collectivization campaign? Was it part of an explicit policy against recalcitrant peasants, regardless of nationality? Was it an attempt to eliminate nationalist opposition in all areas deemed critical to the Soviet Union (the famine occurred in the Don Cossack–inhabited northern Caucasus and German-inhabited middle Volga regions as well as in Soviet Ukraine)? Or was it an act of genocide directed specifically against Ukrainians?"

Magocsi also has a map entitled "The Great Famine", p. 562, showing outlines of "territories with Ukrainian majority", "territories with non-Ukrainian majority", and shaded areas showing population decline. The highest category "25% or more" comprises the Kiev, Cherkasy, Kirovohrad, Dnipropetrovs’k, Zaporizhzhia, Kharkiv, and Luhans’k oblasts of Ukraine, and Krasnodar Krai in Kuban. The "territories with Ukrainian majority" resembles closely the shaded areas in this map of Ukrainian dialects. Michael Z. 2005-11-20 18:30 Z

Well the map is wrong already, considering that our balachka sounds NOTHING like the Surzhik in the Slobodyanshchina or Poltava. Also the Galcican and Podolian dialects are quite different, and when was Ukranian natively spoken in Crimea? Moreover the map goes all the way to the Terek, saying that Cherkessians were also spoke Ukrainian. Moreover the map does not have a source, thereby what says it was not drawn by UNSO or anyone else?Kuban kazak 21:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for the quotes. I'd like to hear some replies from the people like Mikkalai, who deny that the Holodomor was a premeditated mass murder by the state.--Andrew Alexander 17:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Mass murder falls into two categories, deliberate and accidental. Considering that US government sources, after their isistancy on WMDs in Iraq have lost credibility in many eyes, I am not convinced. The fact that the Soviet government IS responsible for the famine bears no challenge, especially in the Don, where empty stanitsas still stand because all their ihabitants starved to death. Kuban kazak 18:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
It's not "US government sources", its "Soviet sources". Soviet statistics that shows both the extent (census data) and premeditation (e.g. grain export data, Soviet passports, "black listing", Stalin words to Churchil ("10 millions! It was necessary!")). It's all available to you, "Kuban kazak". By the way, which stanitsa are you supposed to be from?--Andrew Alexander 22:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
And on the basis of 1930's times he would've logically justified himself, after all it is Churchill that said in the note to the Soviet embassy in 1953 something on the lines of: "I share your loss of Joseph Stalin, for in his reign he inherited Russia (as USSR became the official word only in the 1960s) as a country with horse plows and sickles and left it as a mighty nation with space rockets and an atomic Bomb." Was the cost justified? Well, was it possible to avoid such a loss of life, probably, but was it justified. History shall answer that question, not now as politically its effects have surfaced, but in 200 years that question will be anwered.Kuban kazak 23:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I am from Varenikovskaya stanitsa on the Taman pininsula, it is known for its extensive cherry (vishnya) plantations. Why do you want to pay me a visit?Kuban kazak 23:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are BTW some more sources about the famine on the Don and Kuban. Kuban kazak 18:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

removed sections by mikkalai


you removed a substantial portion of pretty uncontroversial concepts. Furthermore, by removing the context of the urban situation, you implicitely claim that the famine was not the result of fairly rational policies, but merely aimed at exterminating the Ukrainians. What you call speculation is actually common knowledge among historians of the region. I will supply you with even more detailed sources on this, if you want. Give me some time, though, because my internet time is currently limited. If you want, put a NPOV disclaimer on top, i can live with that, but don't remove all that material. Dietwald 19:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. Let me list it one by one.

  • In order to prevent political unrest in the urban areas, the government decided to requisition forcefully as much grain as possible from the rural population, even if this meant severe hardships for the peasants.
This is an interpretation of intentions and in incorrect wording, too. The facts are: there were plans for grain taxing, regardless any supposeldy perceived unrests.

and what was the purpose of this taxation? To feed the cities. Why was feeding the cities a problem? Because the population there was growing too fast, due to government policies, and the supply of grain was dwindeling, also due to government policies (end of NEP).

The basis of plan was calculated needs. The rest is fantasy. It was not "requisition"; it was "tax collection" (we are not discussing at the moment whether the tax was fair or not). "even if this meant..." is a poetic embellishment, not a description of facts and actions. mikka (t) 21:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Mikka, there were requisitions by communist shock-troops. Grain was taken wherever found, in unlimited amounts, regardless of the need to re-seed. That's not taxation, that's requisition. There were armed bands of party activists who raided farms and took away any grain they could find. That's not taxation.

  • The regime was worried—probably with some justification—that it would not survive urban unrest, while it was quite confident that it would be able to control the rural population.
Guesswork about what and how and why the regime was worried. The heavily biased phrasing implies that "the regime" was not worried about starvation of workers, only about their seats.

This style is good at a commie-hater website, but not in the description of facts. 1932 was not 1937 yet; Stalin was not at his prime yet; workers were still idealistic as to whose power in the state was. mikka (t) 21:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that I AM a commie-hater, what you call 'interpretation' is simply necessary to provide readers with a context. The regime was NOT worried about the starvation of the workers in a moral sense. It was worried about it in a practical sense. The fact that Stalin was not fully in power yet actually supports this. The last thing he needed was starving workers. That's just logical.

  • and also to avoid bankruptcy and connected political upheaval.
What the heck "bankrupcy" is supposed to mean? mikka (t) 21:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

bankruptcy: lack of money to continue what you are doing. The grain requisitions financed substantially the importation of Western machinery. They were not just used to feed the urban population, but were also sold for hard currency. W/o such funds, the industrialization process was in significant jeopardy.

Dietwald 07:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, as to your comments.

  • the removed sentences are hardly a "substantial part" of anything.
  • the context of "urban situation" is still here.
  • the removed parts is not "material"; it is interpretations and guesswork of intentions

My comments:

The "urban situation" as you call it, is presented here in a naive form of a college grad. If it represents the "common knowledge of historians" you read, then you are in trouble IMO.

Mikka, do you want to start a pissing match on who has more 'qualification'? Don't.

The cornerstone of the Soviet economical politics was preferential development of industry. The situation of the time was kind of a vicious circle: you cannot raise the agricultural throughput without mechanization. Industrialization was necessary not only to give tractors to peasants, but for defense. the sources of external financing were absent, hence the development could go either in a slow spiral, or by stretching and squeezing of all what was available. Industrial workers were not simply a base of the regime, they were an indispensable means of country's development acording to the theories, plans and policies. The issue was not their "unrest", but their sustenance. There was a very easy and already proven in 1920s way to channel this "unrest": to put the blame on countryside profiteers: "we workers here are forging the future of the country, and them kulaks sit on their grain and starve us." Which was pretty close to what it was: industrial workers did not have much personal profit from their hard toil; the common slogan was to work for the future of children. And party bureaucracy was not fat cats yet: the "New class" was consolidated in mid-30es. mikka (t) 22:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Mikka, the problem you describe ONLY existed because of state control of the economy. Russia was happily industrializing prior to this (just like any other country). I can see where you are coming from, but your presentation of the facts is such that it fails to make clear that the situation was the result of deliberate government policy, and not the consequence of unavoidable circumstances. I am not saying the famine was deliberate -- that would in fact be idiotic. I am saying the regime's priorities were such that starving peasants were preferrable to not pulling through with their economic policies.
Mikka, I would like to express my respect for the fact that you have not simply reverted my revert. I think we may get to a common ground here.
Actually, the long argument you have just provided would form a good basis for a replacement of the paragraphs you object to, provided it is made clear that the vicious circle was the result of deliberate policies. At the same time, I would like to make sure that the famine itself is not presented as deliberate. I very much doubt Stalin sat down one day and say "hm, let's starve a few million peasants through completely idiotic economic policies." The policies were idiotic, but they were not AIMED at starving the peasants. However, the starving of the peasants, once it started, was considered to be a lesser problem.
Can you live with this approach?
I'd say for a commie-hater, I'm pretty reasonable;)
I'm also a fascist/nazi-hater. I personally have serious problems with anybody who tries to justify the actions of either the communists or the fascists/nazis, or any other totalitarian regime. I am interested in understanding why they did what they did, and I am willing to discuss the finer points of their activities (even evil regimes can occasionally do good things), but in general, I consider disgust with such folks an essential element of a healthy ethical mind-set.
Dietwald 07:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't care about your preferences. My remark about commie-haters is in relation to the fact that if someone really hates something, he does not care to get facts straight and happily replaces facts with rumours, propaganda, gosssip.

My main objection is to the overall tone that the governmant was somehow "afraid" of hungry workers, like someone is afraid of a hungry wolf or bear. Not fright was the primary motivation, but the order of priorities.

Actually, the government was probably not afraid of the workers as such, but rather of what would happen if the workers became restless. As you pointed out, Stalin at the time had not fully consolidated his power, and he relied very much on the support of the 'working class' -- and this caused him to disregard the needs of the peasants (who, at the time, were actually more numerous). However, the power of the Communists was in the cities -- naturally, I would say, and it was far more reasonable from a polticial point of view to let the peasants die than the workers.
I agree that the government at the time did not set out to starve the peasants to death. However, the death of the peasants made little difference. In the end, once agriculture was mechanized, there would be less need for so many peasants to work the land, and in the end, the death of those millions might have even been to the benefit of the system as such. That's a point that can be argued either way though.
I can see where your objection comes from, and I would suggest to use the text you provided as support for your argument in the talk pages as a basis for a revision of the causes section in the article. IT would need some modification to make it clear that the 'vicious circle' only existed because of the kind of econoic system favoured by the Soviets. After all, there were no massive famines in Germany due to industrialization, for example. Mechanization and industrialization of the economy does not necessitatet the death of millions, even under bad harvest conditions.

I do agree that at the root of troubles was a deliberate state politics. I disagree that the politics under the current circumstances was idiotic. Every country lived thru their period of hardship. Just ask what was it to live on British Isles during the WWII. At the moment there was no simple remedy.

Mikka, the policies of the Stalin years (both early and late) were dysfunctional. They threw the country into economic disarray, reverting pretty much all economic gains made during the NEP after War Communism. They were the result of ideas that were dysfunctional. The famine was the result of economically unsound policies -- there is no reasonable debate on this. You cannot compare this to Britain in the least. When Stalin implemented those economic plans, there was no war, there was not even the threat of war. From the perspective of that time, the USSR was safe. There was no threat to it by anybody (that Germany would be a threat was not at all even a consideration at the time -- the USSR had been an ally of Germany for almost 15 years by then (Rapollo, etc)).
Dietwald 10:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
But there was! The USSR exported in 1933 1.7 million ton of grain. That's almost 1/4 of a ton per each dead from the Holodomor. Mikkalai, this is Soviet statistics we are talking about. You would accuse them of being commie haters, would you?
This may be a good argument that closes the whole discussion for good and makes all other explanations in the article unnecessary. A reliable source, please. mikka (t) 18:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Will provide soon. --Andrew Alexander 20:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, that would be really good. It would simply be a confirmation of the facts as I know them, though unfortunately, my books are on a different continent right now :(
Dietwald 10:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Already in the article.--Andrew Alexander 01:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course you may say that the whole idea of centralized planning and "dictatorship of proletariat" sucks. But this statement would put the scientific logic upside down. Holodomor was not because communism sucks; just the opposite: we conclude that communsim sucks because it has led to such things as holodomor, great purge, etc. mikka (t) 16:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

nah, communism sucks because it's by it's nature a totalitarian philosophy (see Popper and Arendt for detailed philosophical analysis of communism). Also, many of the excesses of communism were pretty much anticipated by Bakunin in his exchanges with Marx.) The root of communst terror lies, in my very firmly held opinion, in the personality of Marx, whose personal style and philosophical approach instilled much of the intolerant and absolutist attitudes into the communist movement. But, that's just my opinion, and I don't need THAT to go on a encyclopdic page. Just, please, don't excuse Lenin and Stalin with 'necessity'. There were no necessities that required the Holodomor, centralization of all life, and secret police massacres (started by Lenin, by the way).
Dietwald 10:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Please don't twict my logic. A theory is proved by facts, not vice versa. "Communism is good" was one theory. "Communism is bad" was just another theory. It is real history that eventually proved that Bakunin was right. BTW the same history proved that bakunin was wrong in some other issues. Do you know how Hodja Nasreddin and his wife always predicted the weather 100% correctly? mikka (t) 01:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
totally going off-topic here, but... facts don't prove anything. a theory is never proven... only disproven. That's actually trivial... Dietwald 14:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


From Subtelny p. 414 (1st ed., reference above) in reference to events between August and November 1932: "To prevent peasants from abandoning collective farms in search of food, a system of internal passports was put into effect." Michael Z. 2005-11-21 00:43 Z

I don't understand somethiung here. Internal passoprts, while introduced at that time, were not given to peasants at all until Khushchev's years. That is the peasents were virtually serfs of Collective farms. The only escapes were college admission, marriage, military and may be one or two more. --Irpen 00:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, curious, the wikipedia article says that it first apeared in Ukraine, but it does not say when it appeared in Russia, a search on google, returned this, as I understand it was country-wide and prevented all peasants from traveling, not just Ukrainian, the article cites Conquest, whos book concerns the famine, so, I guess, the internal passport article needs to be amended, but it does not change the fact that this action was directly against the starving peasants, suffered the one who needed to travel –Gnomz007(?) 01:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The quotation in Russian language about travel ban I added clearly demonstrates that in 1933 peasants needed only a ticket to travel. That's why (and for soe other reasons) I was saying the article was written by a college grad who takes the first book from a shelf (in the past) or a first best webpage and copies sentences in and arbitrary order without bothering to croscheck facts and to put them into proper time frame. mikka (t) 15:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I posted this in talk because you obviously know more about the subject than I, but this seemed unambiguous and relevant. Michael Z. 2005-11-21 17:27 Z
I don't read Russian, but the quoted directives don't seem to directly contradict Subtelny and Conquest (who was cited in an earlier version). When were internal passports introduced? Michael Z. 2005-11-21 21:24 Z
Ok, needs clarification, passports - December 27, 1932, peasants could not go to cities without getting permission, no migration, and cited travel ban directives of January 22-23, 1933] prevented specifically Ukrainian and Kuban peasants from even going to other areas specifically in connection with trips "for bread", "no doubt organized by enemies of Soviet power, SR's and agents of Poland". –Gnomz007(?) 21:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I will try to look up. Meanwhile some comment: the issue of passport/peasant is that in a certain period of time passports of peasants were stored at local authority offices, selsoviets. If this was the case, the documents shown above would certainly order the selsoviet officials to lock pasports. But they only say "don't sell tickets" for those who don't have outtravel permits ("удостоверения РИКов о праве выезда"). mikka (t) 23:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. I created the Passport system in the Soviet Union, although it still has some holes. It turns out there there were two separate issues.

  • Passports were necessary to live in towns, so peasants were effectively banned from towns.
  • From certain moment peasants were required travel documents to move away from their permanent residence for more than 30 days, but it seems that it was after 1940s. I still did not find anything about banning short-term leaves.

So it remains to figure out whether the travel ban in 1932-33 was local or instituted countrywide. mikka (t) 22:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Very cool article, I guess it is hard to look for a black cat in the dark especially if it is not there, I guess the ban was not country-wide, since we have only those directives which are specific. But the passports were not instituted on Ukraine to stop starving peasants, but for general impediment from escaping collectivization, but a crucial instrument for implementing such a ban. No wonder it is still such a pain with all those papers since it started as a police measure –Gnomz007(?) 05:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


Columbia Encyclopedia is grossly mistaken here. Just as Turkey and Iran do not count to "Transcaucasia", so Stavropol Krai and Krasnodar Krai are not in North Caucasus. They do include parts of North Caucasus, but most of them is known as Forecaucasus. It is only from the opposite side of the globe everything seem in one point. Sea of Azov in North Caucasus... Ridiculous. mikka (t) 02:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If you read the North Caucasus article, North Caucasus is the same as Ciscaucasus, Forecaucasus, or Front Caucasus. See also [6], or even [7].--Andrew Alexander 04:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Well its wrong. The Prikavkazye yes, but North Caucusus is determined by the non-steppe territory of the Large Caucasian ridge, the ridge begins roughly around Sochi and continues into the Kaspia. The only Kuban part of the North Caucusus is Karachaevo-Cherkessia and Adygeya, but then those people are not Ukranians.Kuban kazak 14:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The North Caucasus article is mistaken in that it confuses North Caucasus and North Caucasus Economical Region. It is like to say that Moscow Oblast and Moscow are the same. mikka (t) 16:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I take my words partially back. North Caucasus is indeed used as a synonym to North Caucasus Economical Region. mikka (t) 16:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Not just "economical region", According to my reference above from Russia, Rostov-on-Don is the center of the North Caucasus district of Russia.--Andrew Alexander 07:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Demographic data

The following passage lacks precision:

The closest in time to 1933 demographic data in Soviet Union, collected in 1926 and 1937, indicated that population in the country decreased by 6 million people between 1934 (projected from 1926 using public records) and 1937. Therefore, the officials and demographers conducting 1937 population count were punished and another count performed in 1939. Demographic data between 1926 and 1939 was forged and new data never disclosed until starting from 1989.

This passage replaced a far more accurate article by Conquest: [8]. It can't be said for sure that the Holodomor took exactly 6 million. The 1937 census gave the population number of 163,772,000, while the projections done by the Soviet statisticians were at 177,300,000. The deficit is explained by the Holodomor, but the actual number of killed is only an estimate. The first secretary of the Ukrainian Communist party Skrypnyk gave the number of killed at 8 million. Stalin estimated that number at 10 million. Soviet propaganda denied the Holodomor ever existed. It is a complex subject and requires more than a few sentences in the intro. The fact that the demographers were punished in 1937 has little to do with the Holodomor.

Also, regarding the US Government Commission quote on Kuban. The sentence is again destroyed since what it was saying initially was that ethnically Ukrainian districts of Kuban were punished just as much as Ukraine, unlike other regions of Russia. Removing this quote without providing any type of counter-proof is unacceptable. This is simply replacing facts by some editor own thoughts.--Andrew Alexander 04:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Andrew, I have nothing against Kuban' paragraph. I do think that it is etnically Ukrainian and do not agree with Kazak. But I leave this question to be solved between you. With the paragraph that I'm pushing I do not want to say that only 6 mln people died. I did not think it is being understood this way. I just compiled article by Kulchyts'kyy. Therefore I give up on this info even if there is no real analysis anywhere in the WP article on estimated number of killed. But I also do not think that numbers of grain export can tell you ANYTHING about numbers of victims. I would remove it from intro and moved to body of the article. Please also note, that I did not remove ANY of the other's writings yet, but seems like it is going to happen because people do not compromise. --Bryndza 13:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You can think anything you want, the Kuban people don't think that. Ever thought of asking our side of the story?Kuban kazak 13:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Kuban is not ethnically Ukrainian, it was settled in XIX-XX centuries by mixed population, of whom the former Zaporozhian Cossacks were only participants. The Cossacks NEVER called themselves Ukrainians but instead Rus'ians (this I confirmed today in a visit to the HQ of the Great Kuban Voisko in Krasnodar where I was allowed to view original manuscripts dating to the 18th century.
I also looked at the census of 1926 (a massive hardback with maps etc.), next to the rural data on Krasnodar Krai is a note see Appendix. In the appendix it says the following "The data for rural makeup of the Krasnodar Krai should be taken with caution, many of the peasants there are Cossack descendants (then rumbles about victims of Cossack tsarist mentality blah blah blah) Like in the Kherson and Odessa oblasts, as was in the Slobodyanshchina, most of the people refused to identify itself as Russians or Ukrainians and refered to themselves as Kazaki and Rus'ki (then explains the difference between Rus'ki and Russkiye). The nationality makeup in this census is based solely on the lingustic make up of the rural population. The Slavic people were determined into Russians and Ukrainians by their ability to understand Ukrainian dialects that the census people spoke. The problem was that the Kubanese dialect (ie our Balachka) is spoken by all peasants, and after nearly a century of separation from their historic Zaporozhia (goes on about where we, the Kuban Cossacks, came from) the development of the tongue dialect has went into different paths. During the actual collection of the census data nearly all could understand Podolian and even Volynian dialects (I can easily understand my wife when she speaks her Volynian to me). Reading Ukrainian was a different issue due to the letter И being read differently in Russian and Ukrainian (Talks about i,и and ы) And it was common to see siblings in the same household find a shared Russian/Ukrainian word in the text and if some read Крым, whilst others Крим.In the end it was decided to abandon the linguistic programme and unless specified the rural population of the Kuban was split equally between Russians and Ukrainians.
The information provided here basically means that the local population was speaking Ukrainian, but the demographers obtained their orders to disregard this fact and "split" it equally into Ukrainian and Russian. This contradicts your statement in the article: "Soviet census in 1926 split them as Russians and Ukranians on lingustic base see appendix 2b)." You wrote exactly the opposite.--Andrew Alexander 01:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
The point I am trying to make is that the population of the Kuban did and does not identify itself as Ukrainians, even though our roots are from Zaporozhia and our balachka sounds similar to Ukrainian CULTURALLY we are Cossacks.
That's your word against the word of professional linguists and demographers you just cited.--Andrew Alexander 07:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Read it again the census says that the Kubanese dialect is similar to Ukraine yet it is not identical to Ukrainian (why not actually come and visit and hear it for yourself instead of arguing). It can be seen as Russian and Ukrainian at the same time. Moreover grammatically Ukrainian is not used, in schools it wasl always Russian taught (only before the 1920s the teachers also spoke balachka, since then they tried to speak Russian, now they again speak Balachka). Finally ethnically they refused to agree to themselves being called either Veliko or Malo rossian (ie Russian or Ukrainian). I can't take responsibility for you unabaling to take deduce conclusions from texts. Kuban kazak 09:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
The order to split population 50:50 came as temporary because the Cossacks refused to identify to which branch of the estern slavic peoples they belong to. But they did call themselves Русьски Казаки.
So did the original Ukrainian Cossacks. After all, the expression "Kievan Rus" didn't exactly come from Russia.--Andrew Alexander 07:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Well considering the term Ukrainian became widespread only in the second half of the 19th century and fully spread into the UkSSR only in the 1920s, the Cossacks by that point were living their own lifestyle in the Kuban. Moreover the term Ukrainian was originally applied to peasents - Volyn, Galicia Pododlia. Cossacks are not simple peasents. And the original Ukrainian Cossacks never called themselves Ukrainians, that can verified in original manuscripts that we still hold preserved dating from the 16th to the 19th centuries. Kuban kazak 09:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
In our balachka the words Руський and Русский are pronounced identically, which can mean anyone of Eastern Slavic descent, the people that latter word in its modern form represents in our language are specified as Velikorossiyans we call them Великaрось'яни. Likewise the word Украйнцы is refered only to citizens of Ukraine, the people are called Малорось'яни.
Finally the balachka is NOT Ukrainian, it is a mix of Russian and Ukranian and has no grammar, as pointed out, the population could not read Ukrainian, and moreover because with Cossacks ethnicity means little (considering the amount of war brides and the inter-Voisko marriages) the ethnic Ukrainian statement looses all its credibility.Kuban kazak 01:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I still don't see why you claim there was no ethnic Ukrainian region in Kuban.--Andrew Alexander 07:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
For reasons stated above. Ethnically cossacks are not Malorossians, we are Cossacks. The USSR after it refused to recognise Cossacks as separate people decided to ethnically devide them into Velikorossians and Malorossians, and failed, as the census concludes. Its like no matter how hard you try to put a square peg into a round hole it will still not fit. Same with trying to classify Cossacks as Malo or Veliko Rossians. Kuban kazak 09:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The census calls for further ethnographical research into the Kuban area Back in the introduction of the census it says as one of the purposes to determine the ethnographical borders between different peoples so that the peoples' subjects (ie ASSRs, AOs etc) can be determined for that particular ethnical group. Well I think the fact that the Kuban is still in Russia, puts a stop at the point.

Thereby claiming that the Kuban is ethnically Ukrainian is absurd as it was impossible to determine in 1926. The modern census of 2002 had a subdivision for Cossacks and asked to specify whether they were of any other ethnicity, roughly 94% Russian, 5% Bashkirians 1% Tatar. Ukrainians...0.0% Anybody interested in the 1926 census can go and find this written there.Kuban kazak 14:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting—sounds like the census-takers were operating under political constraints, but took care to explain the results in their document. When you write Rus’ian, you mean Rus’ki, not Rusyn, correct?
Well the point of the census as it says in the begining was to test wether the current administative devisions match the ethnic makeup (remember after 1926 border variations took place) for instance Belorussia got Vitebsk and Gomel. Azerbaijan- Naxchivan, the census cocludes that the Slobodyanshina and Donbass area were so mixed that in such case there is no Russian/Ukranian ethnical border, and suggested to put it halfway through (rember that Ukranian eastern border was slightly pushed westwards in the late 20s). With Kuban, we Cossacks simply called ourselves Русьcки(е) (in our balachka the e is just faintly heard). The truth is that we don't veiw ourselves as Velikorossian or Malorossian. We are Cossacks, which like Rusins in the Carpathians and Pomors in Arkhangelsk have separate culture and tradition. I can easily imagine if someone asks are you Russian or Ukranian and the answer will be I am Kubanets, Kazak. Kuban kazak 19:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Would it be fair to bypass the question of actual ethnicity in this article, and state "Kuban, which was indicated as largely Ukrainian in the Soviet 1926 census", or something like that? Perhaps it's too complicated to gloss over this way. The demographics could be mentioned in more detail at Kuban, anyway. Michael Z. 2005-11-23 17:15 Z
Well thats what I have been suggesting all along, if you want to include Kuban just say Cossacks. The census says that the data is provisionary, and calls for further research.Kuban kazak 19:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

falseness, antirussian propagation

1) "Genocide of Ukrainians" is a Fiction

The responsibility for famine is carried by communist leaders, including the Ukrainian heads: Stanislav Kosior and Vlas Chubar. Both in the Kremlin, and in Kiev bolshevist leaders had different nationalities: Georgians, Poles, Ukrainians, Jews, Russians and so on. Communists were internationalists and their purpose was not a genocide of Ukrainians, more likely class struggle, dictatorship of proletariat and receiving money for collectivization. The disaster also has captured many regions of southern Russia (Don, Volga, Kuban) and Kazakhstan.

The definition of genocide according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is the following:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

80% of the Ukrainian cultural elite has been killed in the 1930s, which seems like an attempt to destroy Ukrainian culture. It appears that the Holodomor was also deliberate and it was targeted against the group of the Ukrainian peasants. The latter were considered at the time the main carriers of the Ukrainian national culture.--Andrew Alexander 05:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

2) "Five - ten millions victims". This number is strongly overestimated because of political purpose. These data do not correspond to the data of censuses

The significant part of researchers estimates number of victims of famine in 3-5 million. (source: Collectivisation in the USSR).

The population deficit according to the Soviet demographers in 1937 was around 13.5 million. This is from the Soviet census data.--Andrew Alexander 05:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
You manipulate the data. It is deficiency of the population for all Soviet Union. It is result of economic mistakes and reprisals in all territory of the USSR. And it also result of decrease in birth rate in comparison with the twentieth years Ben-Velvel 11:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, there were two censuses in 1930s, one in 1936 and the other one in 1939. The records of the 1936 census were destroyed (or, more plausibly, buried somewhere deep in NKVD archives) and those who were involved in high level data aggregation were repressed. The institute of demography in Kyiv was disbanded that year as well. So, there can be no raw statistics from the Soviet demographers for the year of 1937. It might be an interpolation, but I have never seen 13.5 million. Cite your sources! Sashazlv 08:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
By raw statistics I meant data on population size. There would of course be raw data on flows in 1937, e.g., deaths and births. Sashazlv 08:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Here: [9].--Andrew Alexander 08:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I read Conquest (in Ukrainian transaltion). 13.5 million "deficit" is an interpolation. Besides, the interpolation scheme was based on projected figures itself. I don't question the disastrous consequences of Holodomor, but all interpolated/projected figures must be identified as such. Sashazlv 20:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
You manipulate the data. It is deficiency of the population for all Soviet Union. It is result of economic mistakes and reprisals in all territory of the USSR. And it also result of decrease in birth rate in comparison with the twentieth years. Ukraina, 1926 - 31,194,976 inhabitants. Ukraina, 1937 - 31,194,976 inhabitants. Where is 10 million ethnic Ukrainian victims? Even in Ukraine not all victims are ethnic Ucrainians. Collectivization has not been directed particularly against ethnic Ucrainians. Famine has struck all regions USSR where bread was raised Ben-Velvel 11:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
You've made two mistakes citing [10]. 1. The second census gave Ukraine 28,070,404. 2. It wasn't the 1937 census, it's the census of 1939, the one that has been doctored after the 1937 demographers have been arrested and executed. Let's quote the full two paragraphs from Conquest here:
"Of the official figure of 170,467,186 the census gives Ukrainians as 28,070,404 (as against 31,194,976 in the 1926 census). There is no way of telling how the 3.4 million inflation in the 170.5 million is distributed, and it is normally assumed that each nationality group was proportionately exaggerated (though the better concealment tactics might imply a special attempt to give the Ukrainians an extra boost, considering their poor showing).
Given no more than equal exaggeration, the true Ukrainian figure in 1939 should have been about 27,540,000. But the 31.2 million of 1926 should have risen to about 38 million in 1939. The deficit is therefore about 10.5 million. Allowing about 1.5 million for unborn children, this gives a deficit of 9 million Ukrainians up to 1939." --Andrew Alexander 20:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

3) "De-Ukrainization" is a Fiction.

Communists were internationalists and they struggled against any kinds of nationalism. At first they struggled against Russian nationalism, destroying Russian orthodox temples, eradicating the Don and Ural cossacks, transferring the Cossack grounds to Muslim republics. At this time (20s years) in the Soviet Ukraine the communist leaders realized a policy of Ukrainization (коренизация). Grushevsky is engaged in this policy also.

He was. Until the 1930s. In the 1930's major part of Ukrainian writers, artists, actors, journalists were executed. --Andrew Alexander 05:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

4) The true reasons of famine

Collectivization has been conceived by Stalin-Dzhugashvili. The purpose was to receive bread for city and for export to have money for industrialization. Peasants did not want collectivization naturally. They cut cattle, including draft cattle. The volume of arable works because of shortage of draft cattle was sharply reduced. The crop has fallen, but the state has taken so much bread, how many wanted. Result was the famine. The Ukrainian communist leaders did not render any help to the starving population

This is contradicted by the volumes of grain exports in 1932 and 1933. A portion of those exports could have prevented the Holodomor altogether.--Andrew Alexander 05:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

4) Similar cases of famine, as consequence of erroneous economic policy.

IRELAND 1845-1847. Large landowners clear manors of fine peasants-tenants. The result is famine, 1.5 million victims

British INDIA. Famine as system, as consequence of the going ruin of traditional agriculture and traditional crafts. Since 1769 there are many millions victims

  • 1769 - 1770 рр. Голодомор у Бенгалії, в результаті якого загинула третина всього населення країни (10 000 000 людей).
  • 1783 р. Голод в Індії, який поширився зі сходу від провінції Бенарес до Лахора та Джамму.
  • 1790-1792 рр. Голодомор, або черепний голодомор, в Індії, названий так, тому, що людей помирало так багато, що навіть не було змоги їх похоронити. Це був один із найлютіших голодоморів, що коли-небудь бачило людство. Він поширився через увесь Бомбей на Хайдерабад, а також зачепив північні райони Мадрасу. Громадські роботи для безробітних були вперше запроваджені під час цього голодомору в Мадрасі.
  • 1838 р. Голодомор у північно-західних провінціях Індії. Померло 800 000 населення.
  • 1861 р. Голод у північно-західній Індії.
  • 1866 р. Голод в Бенгалії та Оріссі, 1 мільйон померлих.
  • 1869 р. Голодомор у Раджпутані; 1,5 мільйона загиблих. Уряд ініціював політику "врятування життя".
  • 1874 р. Голод у Бігарі, Індія.
  • 1876 - 1878 рр. Голод у Бомбеї, Мадрасі, 5 мільйонів загиблих. Надана допомога виявилася недостатньою.
Famines and genocides existed outside of Ukraine. This is not proof of "erroneous economic policy" as the result of the Holodomor.--Andrew Alexander 05:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

5)In Russia nobody holds back the truth about famine. Conquest and Grossman are published fifteen years ago.

The NKVD and KGB archives in Moscow are still closed.--Andrew Alexander 05:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Ben-Velvel 17:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


OK, let's return to this issue although it was discussed earlier. I will just summarize it briefly. Holodomor's effect was no doubt genocidial for the Ukrainian nation but to call the Holodomor a Genocide requires more, we need to see a Genocidial intent of ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians. There is no agreement as to this issue. I mean every serious academic agrees that Holodomor did happen and that it was catastrophic. Whether it was organized specifically against Ukrainians, or it was a consequence of Soviet policies that where largely anti-peasant (and Ukrainians were the most agricultural nation) is a separate issue. To reduce this argument to, perhaps, an oversimplification is just to say that there are two positions: the events were ogranized as anti-Ukrainian in nature or they were generally anti-peasant and Ukrainians, being the most peasantry nation, suffered most. Both positions must be pointed in the article and this is done indeed in the appropriate section. Calling Holodomor a Genocide form the very start of the article is picking a side in this debate. I repeat that this has nothing to do with the denial of the scale of the catastrophe. The issue is only in how to present the word Genocide here. --Irpen 05:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The Holodomor is known as "Ukrainian genocide" and there are references provided for this. In the case there are some other sources disproving this fact, they must be presented. This is not even going into the definition of the word genocide and the causes of the Holodomor. If someone is saying "the Holodomor was not a genocide" and this view as wide spread and supported as the one of John Paul II who was saying that the Holodomor was genocide, then this must be shown. Simple talk will not prove or disprove anything.--Andrew Alexander 06:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Google test returns interesting results, "Ukrainian Genocide" - 12,600 hits almost all refer to Holodomor, negligible amount refers to "Ukrainian genocide of poles", I guess this is adressed in "Ukrainian Genocide" AND "famine" search - 11,200 hits,
More logical would be to subtract these 470 results, leaving 12,130. Even more logical would be to search for this, providing 1,370,000 results. Even John Paul II called it "famine-genocide", also "genocide", not exactly "Ukrainian Genocide", but close enough.--Andrew Alexander 07:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh dear, I've gone through first 1000 results and they all look credible, oh dear, and yes it is logical, I was thinking about the "Ukrainian genocide" we had in the intro...I guess this is more than overwhelming. –Gnomz007(?) 07:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
$%!@, I feel so stupid.–Gnomz007(?) 08:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
not sure how to filter crackpot-Stalinite sites, which obviously include this term for other purpose , but this I think is as close as we can get, and 9,730 hits, and this is versus 37k for Holodomor. 21,500 hits have Holodomor but never mention genocide.
So, we can make guesses, that it is pretty much well-known, but less known than Holodomor, I do not want to judge the content of the web sites, not sure if 1/3 metions on the Internet qualifies it, acceptance-not acceptance. –Gnomz007(?) 06:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

In 1991-2005 population of independent Ukraine was reduced almost on 5 million person! It is a genocide whether or not? In the Soviet Ukraine (1945-1990) the population constantly grew.

Who makes crimes against Ukrainians today???

Ben-Velvel 13:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Reminds me of our Communists wasting Duma time by attempting to impeach Yeltsin citing "genocide of Russian people".
2005-1991=14 years != 500 days. While I have suspicion about the Russia "barely experiensed" as compared to Ukraine, because I've heard very similar stories of famine in Russia, I have nothing to dispute it - at least we have no ghost towns.–Gnomz007(?) 19:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

On "Kubanization" by Kuban Kazak

Dear Kazache, Huculs from Karpaty believe that Jesus was also a Hucul. I’m sure they can prove it using a couple of publications from “reputable” newspapers or by organizing voting in the region. Your favorite article or its original and this type of citations of results of Kuban census: “in 2002 the Russian census finally allowed the Cossacks to be declared as a separate group, with an ability to specify it as ethnicity. The "Ukrainian" box received 0.0% ticks.” that you readily insert in all appropriate and not appropriate places all over WP have equal credibility. I do not want to analyze the “article” from professional point of view (though I am of appropriate qualification to make such analysis). I will just cite most “notable” phrases from the above named source that do not require special training to understand (Sorry, it will be in the original language):

“…с точки зрения повышения производительности труда выгоднее размещать тонкие высокотехнологичные сборочные производства на юге России, где пальцы населения наиболее приспособлены для сборки микропроцессоров, а горячие и не требующие тонкой моторики кистей рук производства (сталелитейные и подобного типа) -- на севере.” Till now I was convinced that microprocessors are assembled by robots.

Didn't you ever hear a joke that "... And our Party proudly declares that Soviet microchip are the largest in the world :-)". Anyway, you will be surprized how much manual labor is involved in assembly of electronic goods. That's why Sony, Philips, etc., have their plants all over Brazil, China, etc. But of course the quotation is bullshit. mikka (t) 02:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

“…после тысяч совмещений с полученных фотографий эталонных Жака и Марианны смотрели серые безликие овалы лиц. Такая картина даже у самых далеких от антропологии французов могла вызвать ненужный вопрос: а есть ли вообще французская нация?” Yes! French are not a nation! Vse kazly! Uraaa!! Za Rodinu!!!! And so do Ukrainians!

In fact, French have several very distint genotypes, so no big wonder the "average French" was not very French. The same is with many larger nations. But the remark is silly, indeed. mikka (t) 02:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

“…украинцы из левобережной Украины генетически так же близки к русским, как коми-зыряне, мордва и марийцы”. Ukrainians from Livoberezhzhya=Russians, Mordva=Russians -> Ukrainians from Livoberezhzhya=Mordva. And so on. We all are brothers after all… Except those tatars from Lvov (prokljati banderivci): “…между украинцами из Львова и татарами генетическое расстояние составляет всего 10 единиц.” And why not to use such a nice opportunity to involve here some politics: “Можно как угодно реагировать на эти строго научные факты, показывающие природную сущность эталонных электоратов Виктора Ющенко и Виктора Януковича

Good enough for people to understand what was the purpose of this “article”. But not for Kazak who uses it for supporting his “original” ideas: “…the Kuban territories' gene pool was by far the purest of all the Russian samples.” [11]; “My opinion: the followng people Velikorossians, Malorossians, Belorossians, Pomorians, Carpathian Ruthenians and Cossacks are just the different variations of the Russian slavic group.[12]

There is simple definition for such type of sources and claims: “yellow press” and “chauvinism”. And this why all civilized scientific community agreed long time ago not to conduct such type of research or not to present it in this way (but something like this [13] ). This is why “…часть исследования из-за недостатка государственного финансирования ученым пришлось выполнять совместно с зарубежными коллегами, которые на многие результаты наложили мораторий до выхода совместных публикаций в научной прессе.” Because even if this true statement and this publication will ever see the light in a reputable edition – it will have much different claims. And it will take even much more time and many more articles on the subject for historians to use these data in support of their new theories.

Nobody is obliged to recognize his real roots or nationality, nobody is prevented from creating his own myths about his origins, transform his identity, create his own ideology. This is all acceptable, but only in those cases, when such ideas are not imposed on others, or does not harm them in any way.

In case of WP remember (your own words and one of the correct arguments of local guru Irpen) – this is an encyclopedia, where credible information is extracted from reputable sources, compiled and organized to form and encyclopedic style article, but NOT and original research.

This will be my arguments for removing your “Kubanization” in WP.

Yours--Bryndza 22:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably missed something: what "kubanization" is spoken about? You are free to joke inside the text, but the beginning and the end must be clear what exactly you are proposing. This is not a chat room. We are working on improvement of articles. I guess you want to remove "kubanization". Define, please. I don't see significant "kubanization" of this article whatever it may mean. mikka (t) 02:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, speaking on the topic, is there an article 2002 census in Russia Russian 2002 census,Russia 2002 census, or even simply Russian Census like there are United States 2000 Census and U.S. Census? Maybe in ru:wikipedia? mikka (t) 02:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I was working on the Russian census series. Considering the pace, it will be ready in the nearest 10-20 years, especially considering the fact that most of my work went the way of the dodo after the HDD crash :( So far, I have neither time nor inspiration to start over.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 02:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I please archive this? --Kuban kazak 13:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mikka, I do not mean only this article. You seems to have solved that knot here after long struggle. I mean that Kazak inserts his "5 Kuban cents" everywhere in the WP. Usually it looks similar to this (from Kuban Cossacks at the moment): An intersting point is that the Kuban Cossacks never agreed to identify themselves of Russian or Ukrainian descent but more of a separate Rus'ian subgroup. When in 1926 a census was passed to determine wether Cossacks were Russian or Ukrainian absoloutely everyone of Cossack descent refused to aknowledge belonging to one ethnic group or another (in the end the census had to split them half and half). Since then they have found themselves occasionaly used as a political chesspiece in the Russian-Ukrainian relations. Nevertheless in 2002 the Russian census finally allowed the Cossacks to be declared as a separate group, with an ability to specify it as ethnicity. The "Ukrainian" box under the Cossack heading recieved 0.0% ticks. In 2005 a genetic study was published and revealed even more astonishing details that the Kuban territories' gene pool was by far the purest of all the Russian samples.

After I gave him these numbers from 2002 Russian census (from his own link [14]):

Republic Total Cossaks Ukrainians Ukrainians (rural)
Adygea 447109 470 (0.11%) 9091 (2.03%) 3512 (0.79%)
Kabardino-Balkaria 901494 307 (0.03%) 7592 (0.84%) 1410 (0.15%)
Karachay-Cherkessia 439470 2501 (0.57%) 3331 (0.77%) 1191 (0.27%)
Krasnodar Krai 5125221 17542 (0.34%) 131774 (2.57%) 55754 (1.09%)
TOTAL in Kuban 6913294 20820 (0.3%) 151788 (2.2%) 61867 (0.9%)

he keeps reverting to the above paragraph. It has nothing to do with Holodomor at the moment, so forget about it. BTW, did anybody see data on 1926 Census online? --Bryndza 14:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

And you forgot to include that the Rural Ukrainian population in Russia as a whole is 1.79%, whilst in the Kuban its nearly half that. But that's not my point. Why here in Holodomor? If you have a problem with me take it up with the admin or me personally. File an arbitruation if you want, like it is properly done, why here? -- Kuban kazak 18:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The subject is mentioned in the article and was an object of hot dispute. I leave these data here in case if these questions arise again. The article is being edited yet. It would be good idea to collect such factual data in some place to have them handy for argumentations.--Bryndza 21:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

However the article HERE is Golodomor NOT Kuban Cossacks, I think EVERYONE who participated in the discussions above agreed to remove the hot topic of Kuban OUT of here. Can everyone who agrees to terminate the discussion of irrelevant to golodomor facts sign underneath.

Holodomor is about Ukraine, no?

So, what's this stupid, stupid, stupid Kuban discussion in here???????? Mention it, stop this ethnicity bull, ok? It's beginning to be really, really idiotic. Ethnicity, shmethnicity. Is this carrying out of petty ethnic squabbles really relevant to the discussion??????Dietwald 14:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I feel the same way about this silly discussion, however on all four times that I archived the converstation it was reverted. Feel free to archive it.-- Kuban kazak 15:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


the rapid changes over recent days have made the article a holy mess. I think we should try to clean up the grammar and style very soon... Dietwald 14:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Bogus references snd quotes

I don't understand, how a quote by the former Politburo member Alexander Yakovlev about at least 5 million of the dead as the result of the Holodomor changed into "3-6 million" in the article, while still referring to the same text: [15]. This is nothing but original source doctoring. The source says one thing, but it says it in Russian, so the unsuspected English reader can be fooled into believing some editor's made-up data.

I would like to mention again the quote of the US Government Commission. Again, the sentence has been cut in half, crippling its meaning. I don't understand how someone could make this serious violation of Wikipedia policies for so many times. This is going beyond the scope of this article. We are lacking the support of a responsible administrator, unfortunately. Perhaps it's time to get some attention. I was hoping this could be resolved via dialog and consensus. I was trying to provide as many sources as possible, while the other side continues doctoring and deleting those sources.--Andrew Alexander 19:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Because the US government comission's quote is wrong, ethnically and geographically, and again factually (Don suffered more than Kuban) evidence for all this I have provided, moreover why put it in the lead paragraph, put it in the politisation or What is genocide, leave out half of it and I am alright with that.Kuban kazak 19:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe an honest arument would involve posting the evidence sources in the article. Unfortunately, you don't have them. The geography question has been resolved in this discussion above, providig you with multiple references, with you providing none. The "Don suffered more" was again just your own statement without a single source. This article is not about making arbitrary statements, it's about providing trustworthy sources and data. Deleting those sources is not the way to prove or disprove something. You know it, yet you continue doing it.--Andrew Alexander 20:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
What are you talking about I provided none? Ask anyone from Ossetia or Balkaria where North Caucasus area ends, they will say their republic, ask anyone in the Kuban are they North Caucasus (despite the fact that in 360 degrees around them is nothing but level steppe). They will point and laugh their heads off. Whilst geographically prikavkazie may be correct but only to the terriotry south of the Kuban river. Yet the Kuban territory extends much northern Caucasus steppe than the river so what the source is saying that Ukranians lived only south of the river. In fact Balachka is herd more in the northern provinces, the south speak a more Russian based dialect. . Kuban kazak 21:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Right off the bat User:Kuban kazak goes and deletes 3 references on Kuban's famine in 1933: [16]. One is a quote from the US Gov Commission, second is the British diplomatic reports, third is an article from 1933 Daily Telegraph.--Andrew Alexander 20:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not delete the sources I moved them from the lead paragraph where they do not belong taking them as the comission's reports as the absoloute truth is unacceptable, and incorrect. The comission should not be taken as ABSOLOUTE correct, and should definetely not belon in the lead paragraph.Kuban kazak 21:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
You have deleted and doctored several quote sentences during this edit: [17], yet you haven't provided any other reference except for a link to some Russian news website. I am not even sure how an article about genetic evidence of certain nose shapes and Russian last names in 2002 relates to the 1933 famine.--Andrew Alexander 23:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
The census of 2002 clearly shows that none who considered themselves Cossacks chose to be Ukrainians,
And could that be because of the certain events in 1933? And HOW does census of 2002 relate to 1933, any ideas, K.k.?--Andrew Alexander 21:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)--Andrew Alexander 21:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Because by 2002 there was many more destinct people than in 1926, and it was not politically pressed to ignore cossacks as destinct people. Not all Cossacks are Slavic, you have Bashkirs serving in the Ural voiskos and Tatars in Astrakhan, and if the people chose Cossacks they had to specify their ethnic roots. None chose Ukrainian. So I say again how could events of 1933 determine the present outcome of us, Kuban Cossacks? If all Kuban Cossacks died in 1933 there would be no successors today right? Yet how do my family records clearly show linage including the migration from Zaporozhia to our current stanitsa. Orders from my anscestors (including 9 crosses of St. George) as well as pre 1933 photographs clearly show the opposite. Am I the only example, well go to any stanitsa, go to the HQ of the Great Krasnodar Voisko, read some of the original manuscripts.
the census of 1926 shows that with the Dekazakated stanitsas it was impossible for the census takers to determine from the people were they Russian or Ukrainians
Yes, it was possible, and the census takers did determine it, through linguistic tests. Yet, as they wrote, there was an order to disregard these tests and split the population equally. Is there something you disagree with here, K.k.?--Andrew Alexander 21:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Look I am Russian and I can understand Ukrainian perfectely (except for the Galician dialect). The languages are not that dissimilar, I am sure that any Russian who never herd Ukrainian will get the main point. Yet read again when it said about reading Ukrainian, none could read it. Moreover the balachka is a mix of Russian and Ukrainian, its like Suzhik but different, and regardless where I speak it Moscow or Rovno, I am still perfectly understood.Kuban kazak 16:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
(in ethnical terms ie Veliko or Malorossians) since all in unison said they are neither, they are Cossacks. Do you want a copy of the 1926 census? Why not try to find it if it exists online. And the newspaper article is important since it proves that the genetic pool of the Kuban area does not match that of the other Ukraine, in fact it turned out to be the purest of all Russian territories. So unless you suggest that all Ukrainians that lived in the Kuban died in 1933 then I don't understand you, and even more if all ethnical Ukrainians in 1933 were Cossacks, how could you have Cossacks in every stanitsa today who show clear family linage to the original Zaporozhians?Kuban kazak 23:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Unless there are some problems reading, then you MUST understand everything very well, K.k.
You just come here and write stuff based on no confirmed sources, except the one from the 1926 census, which contradicted you so bad. But what's worse, you engage in deletion and doctoring of valid sources and quotes.--Andrew Alexander 21:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
How did it contradict me.


The credibly bankrupt Robert Conquest is cited as a source for this imaginary "holocaust famine" of the Ukraine even though he and his ilk have habitually presented bogus figures of executions during 1937-1938 and the total population of the GULAG. The alleged deaths 7mn deaths in Ukraine during 1932-1933 is inconsistent with the conclusions of demographers Barbara Anderson and Eric Silver who when observing the data from the 1926 and 1939 censuses calculated that between 3.2mn and 5.5mn people died unnaturally throughout the SU. This period included 680,000 executions during 1937-1938 and 240,000 deaths in the Gulag starting in 1934. Sergei Maksudov, the much cited emigre scholar, revised his conclusion to 3.5mn premature deaths in during this period, 700,000 resulted from starvation while the rest were from disease including typhus, malaria, and cholera. In 1949, Naum Jasny crudely estimated 5.5 million deaths from famine. In 1961, he revised the toll to "perhaps a million" during the period.

In the period 1922-1928, a free market was in place for grain. In 1929, deliveries of grain to the cities decreased to 4.8mn tons from 6.8mn tons during the previous year. In the period 1928-1929, reaction to the revolution in the countryside included 1,300 riots while 3,200 Soviet civil servants were the victims of terrorist attacks. In this class war during which the bloc consisting of the rural masses and the urban working-class strived for the collective ownership of agriculture, the state from which these classes depended on, provided assistance to their cause by exiling two million of ten million kulaks to Central Asia and Siberia. This is what really took place. Food shortages resulted, but to assert that 7mn were somehow starved to death while an additional 10mn were deported to the Arctic circle is utterly preposterous considering that 6mn Ukrainians were murdered during the period 1941-1945. In 1913, the population of Ukraine numbered at 35mn; in 1940, it numbered at 41mn and remained unchanged in 1959. To summarise, a total of 2mn kulaks were exiled while a high-end figure of 3mn died prematurely during the period 1928-1933 from a combination of disease and the unrest that contributed to food shortages.

After reading THIS, I think that denying Golodomor should be made criminal offense in Ukraine. Maybe I'm biased. Maybe having one fourth of my relatives not born because their potential ansectors died from hunger makes me slightly biased.

Wikipedia sucks!!!!

Pleae stop writing out of nowhere and edition war. Please read articles and works at the end of uk:Голодомор (especially by Kulchitskiy) (in Ukrainian). By the way tomorrow uk:Голодомор will become featured article of the week, although I was against. The article is not so good, but however I've copied something from Kulchitskiy to make it not so non-sense. Ilya K 16:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not read Ukrainian version yet, but I will try to do so soon, but the your edit is by far the most neutral we had, so well done. Don't blame an international encyclopedia for this though, lets keep the lid on the kettle. А то тут некоторые (не будем пальцами показывать) так закипитяться.... Kuban kazak 16:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Have read it (well scanned it) and I must say excellent piece of work.Kuban kazak 16:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


I have tagged the images (Image:Holodomor1.jpg, Image:Holodomor2.jpg, Image:Holodomor3.jpg, Image:Holodomor4.jpg, Image:Holodomor5.jpg) with {{no source}} (rather than {{somewebsite}}, since no source is given - therefore nobody can work out the copyright). This means the images can be deleted after 5 days unless the source is given. Thanks/wangi 17:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is one source, from wiki itself.Kuban kazak 18:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated Image:Holodomor1.jpg from there - although I've now tagged it {{unknown}} since we have source but the licencing is still unknown. wangi 18:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Wangi, the images belong to the Ukrainian government archive: There are many more on that website, some are very graphic. These photos are available for public distribution and being used by multiple online publications, e.g. --Andrew Alexander 20:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding image layout: I agree that the postage-stamp sized pictures were rather unrecognizable, but "decorating" the article with these un-captioned images of suffering seems a bit exploitative or at least insensitive to me. Why not arrange them back in the gallery with some captions which explain their relevance? Michael Z. 2005-11-25 22:43 Z

Following this logic, any image addition can be called "decorating the article" or even "exploitative". At the time the images were posted, it was known that the photos relate to the Holodomor, but not the exact circumstances of the images. --Andrew Alexander 22:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Please don't sound so hurt. I didn't mean to sound critical, merely to point out how this could be perceived and suggested a way to improve matters. Michael Z. 2005-11-25 23:21 Z
But people would be hurt if you assume bad faith every time someone posts an image without a caption. I will provide better images and this time with captions soon. Please don't accuse me of "decorating" and "exploiting" next time.--Andrew Alexander 00:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll accuse you of being too sensitive now, because I haven't accused you of anything else. I apologize for the misunderstanding, but I didn't assume it was done on purpose, I merely said how it may seem to someone. Michael Z. 2005-11-26 15:21 Z

FYI User:Mikkalai has edited these images so they are again no-source etc - so if you know where the image is from then update the source/copyright info on them. Thanks/wangi 08:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I assumed 70 years already passed since they were taken, so their copyright already expired. Is this incorrect ? --Lysy (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Not correct. It is unknown who is the owner of the images. If it is a Russian/Ukrainian/Soviet, no problemo. If someone else, it does not matter that the images are on the Ukraine gov website. The "source" does not mean the place where you found them. "My buddy gave me them and he found them in his grandpa's newspaper clippings" is a no-go. The source is the place where sufficient infor about (a) the content and circumstances of the photo and (b) ownership.
So there is a more serious problem here, rather than copyright. For all I know, these pics may be photos of people dies from Dysenteria in Iran. Therefore unless the exact information will be provided who and when took them, sorry, they will be removed. mikka (t) 18:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh come on, be serious. Do you really think that whoever made the pictures of Holodomor victims would be revealing his name so that NKVD would get him ? This does not matter anyway, as whoever took them, the copyright expired after 70 years so it seems all right to assume they are PD (actually this is what the PD box says: "copyright expired"). --Lysy (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Holodomor Investigation Commission Unproven Bias

It seems strange that a piece of the summary of one of such commission, the US Government Commission, is moved away from the intro. The summary is very brief and supported by around 10 volumes of findings from over 200 witness and various documents. There was a similar investigation conducted in Ukraine around 1990, but its findings were hidden at the time by the Soviet authorities. There were some objections to calling a region in Kuban of 1933 "ethnically Ukrainian", but the objection was disproved by the editor himself, when he provided a text from the 1926 census report here. Another objetion was due to the fact that Kuban was disputed to be in North Caucasus, which was again disproved with references here. At this point there are no other significant references or documents that contradict the US Governement Commission findings. It must be noted that these findings are rather unique due to their independent nature. These findings can't be swept aside as "biased" since there is no proof of that has been presented. If there is such proof, please post it here. Please limit it as much as possible to actual references and links.

"independent", "third party"... Are you naive or what?
I am probably. Hoping desperately to hear some factual objections.--Andrew Alexander 00:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I gave facts yet which come from research not from comissions that make mistkakes (as they did in the past.Kuban kazak 16:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
But this is beside the point. This is wikipedia's article, not USGov's. We have our style here. An intro is a summary. Quotations go where they are relevant, to support our article, not vice versa. mikka (t) 23:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
That's fine. I still would like to see some valid reasons the findings have been swept aside. If these reasons exist. Otherwise, any findings, witnesses, quotes, documents can be discarded for no reason at all. If Russia or some other country made their own investigations of the Holodomor, let's hear it.--Andrew Alexander 00:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems that there are no other arguments except for "are you naive or what" by mikka. This is a last call. Unless people disliking the findings of the US Government Commission find more serious arguments, the finding will be quoted again in the intro. They appear important. Any reference of such depth must be posted in the intro because it would make the best definition of the Holodomor. I do include in this all the serious and reputable references, even if they may contradict the US Government Commission. This way the truth may come out instead of being lost in empty speculation.--Andrew Alexander 05:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It's better to keep the intro as short as possible, i.e., one or two sentences in Plain English. On the one hand, a short intro is good for public relations. On the other hand, it is less likely to be subject of edit wars. Findings of whatever commission are supporting material and should be in the main text. And, indeed, noone is unbiased in this world. Sashazlv 05:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
The current intro looks empty. Compare it, for instance, with Holocaust or Armenian Genocide. No doubt that commission's findings should be quoted in full within the article body. However, the most important sentence or two must be in the intro due to the reason outlined above. Will it be reverted? No doubt about that. There are plenty of reverts going on in this article without a word on the discussion page. This discussion is a call to all responsible editors to provide their objections and references. The truth, however inconvenient, will be brought first into this article. It should not be hidden just because someone dislikes for some irrational and unfounded reasons. Otherwise, Ilya is right and "Wikipedia sucks", which can't be true.--Andrew Alexander 06:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
To me, the intro in Holocaust is too long. On the contrary, the intro in Holodomor is almost ideal. It succinctly identifies the subject (man-made famine), place (Ukraine), and time (1932-33). It also adds two main details: approximate number of victims and current legal status in some jurisdictions. For an intro, that's enough (others might disagree, but tastes differ). I would move the commemoration date somewhere in the main text: it's too specific and minor detail and, after all, it's a relatively recent innnovation.

I just have an impression that people forget that an intro is an intro and an article is not supposed to be a novel. Sashazlv 07:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

One more general thing/advice. If you want to send a clear message, think how to structure and pack information. The better it is structured and packed, the broader is your audience. That's why succinct intros are important for public relations reason. We are not writing articles here for ourselves. Sashazlv 07:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Keeping an intro to one or two short paragraphs is very commmon in Wikipedia. The current intro lacks several important points. They include:
the outline of geographical extent and severity -- where did it happen?
the status of publicly available evidence -- how is it known?
the premeditation summary -- who did it and why?
Without any of this even mentioned it's hard to dive into the details. One must realize that not everyone is as well familiar with the subject and having a short outine in the intro helps. So please contribute something in terms of important references and facts contradicting the commission conclusions. An argument "it's great to have the intro very short" isn't exactly enough. There must be some substance.--Andrew Alexander 07:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually find it a good comparison to Armenian genocide, it can be as well mimiced, due to similarity in situation with denial. I do not understand the big deal with that actual wording, but requiring it to be definitive while cutting clauses from it, would be irrational, it could lead to what you've seen as my first response, which I think now was incorrect.
So why not you just write in your own words that the commision recognised it, and some more info, about recognition. I have WP:POPUP on and what I see come up as first 4 sentences in the lead is unsatisfactory.
I've read up from the links in Ukrainian wiki, and the actual article it has good discussion about Kuban in the article, I think after the authors finish their FA chores we could ask them a couple of questions on improving this one. –Gnomz007(?) 07:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Very common does not imply good. Anyway, as I said, tastes differ. Do whatever you want. Sashazlv 07:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile, all the serious Wikipedia editors participating in this article, please formulate what exactly can't be agreed on in the US Government Commission findings and why. Please keep it short and provide references. This will help in understanding the problem.--Andrew Alexander 08:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Kuban Kazak, you're repeatedly changing this paragraph:

As independently confirmed by the US Government Commission on the Ukrainian Famine ([12]) from over 200 witnesses as well as documented data, the Holodomor was caused by the seizure of the 1932 crop by the Soviet authorities. It was also confirmed that "while famine took place during the 1932-1933 agricultural year in the Volga Basin and the North Caucasus Territory as a whole, the invasiveness of Stalin's interventions of both the Fall of 1932 and January 1933 in Ukraine are paralleled only in the ethnically Ukrainian Kuban region of the North Caucasus" (also [13], [14]). The Soviet authorities made sure to prevent the starving from traveling to areas where food was more available.


The US Government sent a commission to investigate Ukrainian Famine ([12], ([13], [14]]) from live witnesses and documented data. It concluded that although the famine went outside Ukraine's borders into the Volga Basin and the Don and Kuban steppes of Russia, yet the full extensiveness of Stalin's intervention in crop seizure was seen only in the Ukaine and the Russian territory of the Kuban. The latter it claims had significant Ukrainian population, although this has been disproved. ([15], 1926 census appendix 2b, 2002 census)

Please try to explain your changes in detail. Specifically why do you insist that the commission was "sent" ? What do you mean by this ? --Lysy (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I second that, I particularly do not understand why he needed to delete The Soviet authorities made sure to prevent the starving from traveling to areas where food was more available. despite the directives of SNK.
The sentance appears outside the quote, and if it is meant to come from the same source then grammatically it is a mess, which even more implies why the original statement needs modification. If it is a separate statement, then it serves no need to mentioned more than once (unless to point out specific detail) the point it makes is fully incorporated in the main article.Kuban kazak 20:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I do not understand The fact of significant past presense of Ukrainian population in Kuban are claimed to have been disproved by some based on the following: (1926 census appendix 2b, 2002 census).. This is original research, no reason to include that, it can be used as heuristic to determine where to send horses, but no more than that.
But, Andrew Alexander, I want to sound an objection to some POV in the statement about official policy of covering up crimes - I've never heard of such policy being official, this is pure POV. It may look obvious from not opening the archives, OTOH if it is that obvious, why write it at all.
The Soviet policy of covering up crimes against humanity was fairly consistent and did not simply limit to hiding NKVD archives. It included public campaigns of desinformation, persecution of dissident historians and journalists. The policy was somewhat relaxed during "perestroyka", however, much of it was still in place. For instance, thousands of Holodomor testimonies gathered in Ukraine around 1990 were sealed from the public. Russia essentially continues on the same course. E.g., Baltic countries don't have much success getting Russia's acknowledgement of crimes against humanity on their territories. Official media often labels such requests as "anti-Russian". --Andrew Alexander 06:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Such policy can not annonced officially, nor acknowledged without an international scandal. Until they give it up, everything else is allegations, even if it was by international community. At most if you can find evidence of such requests declined and write precisely that. I suck at googling so you do it. –Gnomz007(?) 07:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Also layout, you moved the quote to the intro, sacrificing it in the body of the article, making the discussion around it constarained to the size of intro.–Gnomz007(?) 19:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Kuban kazak wrote in the recent edit summary when reterting back to his version of the quote:
"When sources are given, one has to remember that they are sources, and thus approach them as such. US governmet comissions made mistakes in past, that has to be rememvbered as well.) "
Honestly, I am not sure what this means. Yes, source are indeed only sources. And yes, they can make mistakes. That's not the reason do modify external quotes.--Andrew Alexander 18:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that this particular commission is in error in general, or regarding the specific quotation? I don't agree with disregarding this because of the completely unrelated WMD in Iraq issue, which someone brought up earlier. Michael Z. 2005-11-26 18:52 Z
Unrelated as it is, it proved that potentially the credibility of the source is wrong. Also I personally think that instead of quoting directely it is better to present it in a third person style, which is why I modified it. I mean it is not a case of wether a source is wrong or not, it has to be presented as a source.
With Kuban I suggest that the dispute is removed from this article and separately taken up elsewhere. This is my improved version:

The US Government in (year) sent a commission to investigate the Famine ([12], ([13], [14]]) from live witnesses and documented data. It concluded that although the famine went outside Ukraine's borders into the Volga Basin and the Don and Kuban steppes of Russia, however only the Ukraine and the Russian territory of Kuban (which it claims had Ukrainian population, subject to controversy) (wikilink with the | to the Kuban Cossacks or create a new article etc) saw the full extensiveness of Stalin's intervention in crop seizure was seen. This suggests that the famine was genocidal against Ukrainians in particular and hence the US government officially recognises it as such. Kuban kazak 20:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. You're saying that because the Bush administration has been accused of lying about WMD in Iraq, U.S. government publications are to be treated as suspect? Or is it all U.S. sources? Does your determination just go back to the late 1980s, or all the way to 1776? Michael Z. 2005-11-26 23:35 Z
Not just 1980s, Gulf of Tonkin incident, secret bombings of Cambodia, Iran contra etc. but thats not my point all I am trying to point out is that a source should treated as a source, thereby avoiding lines like "as independentely confirmed" which is incorrect considering that it goes against NPOV, and remove the Kuban issue , you want to discuss my homeland create a new article and wikilink it from here. Kuban kazak 12:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

New Intro

Ok, I have tried to keep everybody happy with the new intro. I think there is no need to get the whole Kuban: Russian or Ukrainian? into the intro. Make a short reference to the problem in the text, and link it to a separate WIKI entry.

I think the Intro is still too long, but I also think that it has squared the circle a little.

Also, the quote by the Commission was way too long for the Intro. Nothing wrong with it as such, but it belongs later in the text. An Intro is an intro.

Dietwald 10:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Dietwald, your new intro was full of typos and pure nonsense. Sorry about that, but one can't just decide to slaughter the whole paragraph for no real good reason. The new one wasn't any shorter. It was simply trying to cut out proven facts and replace them with some unproven ones. I have nothing against you rephrasing the sentence of the US Government Commission. But it has to be done sensibly, with consultations on the discussion page. Let's see some real arguments with real references and quotes prior to editing please.--Andrew Alexander 10:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

allright, allright... I just thought i give it a try.... What I tried to do was include a little bit of everything from everyone. I think i have stated before that what i really believe is that the entire holodomor would not have happened if the bloody Soviets would have actually tried to stop the famine. I don't like the direction the article is going sometimes, but... I think i will retire from this article for some time.... Dietwald 11:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here is the text is suggested:

The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор), or the Ukrainian Genocide ([1], [2], [3]), was the 1932–1933 man-made ([4]) famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as the Kuban region. (also [5], [6]).

The death toll of the Holodomor is estimated between five and ten million people.[7] (The exact number of casualties is unknown due the fact that the relevant NKVD archives have not been made accessible to historians in general). This is repeated later on, do we really need to emphasize a point twice

The holodomor was caused by a number of factors, including weather conditions.(I suggest that in the near future we create a new heading based on Polish crop yields in Volyn-see Volyn section) However, the economic and social policies of the Soviet government are generally considered to have been the main causes. According to the US Government Commission on the Ukrainian Famine ([8]), the Holodomor was caused by the seizure of the 1932 crop by the Soviet authorities.

A second major factor contributing to the holodomor was wide-spread opposition to the policies of collectivization (Wikiling to Kulaks), which often included the deliberate slaughter of life-stock and draught animals by peasants.

In addition, the government seemed unconcerned with the effects of the famine on the rural population, as for example at the height of the famine, the USSR exported 1.70 million tons of grain in 1932 and 1.84 million tons in 1933 ([9]). The Soviet authorities also barred people from traveling to areas where food was more available.

At the time, the Soviet government attempted to keep the holodomor secret from the rest of the world. Only in the late 1980s did the Soviet Government admit that to the famine's existance but to this day the pertinent archives of the NKVD (later KGB, and today FSB) are still inaccessible to historians.

The Holodomor remains a poltically charged topic, particularly in many countries of the former Soviet Union.

The governments and parliaments of Ukraine, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, the United States, and the Vatican have officially recognized the Holodomor as an act of genocide. In Ukraine, the last Saturday of November is the official day of commemoration for victims of the Holodomor.

Dietwald 11:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

My edits are in bold, on the whole much more better, I am uploading this.Kuban kazak 12:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Not bad, but I think it still needs some polishing. Michael Z. 2005-11-27 16:27 Z
  • Enough to say that the actual death toll will probably never be determined. NKVD archives can just be mentioned later, and there are also other reasons: e.g, incompleteness and unreliability of Soviet records.
  • Volhynian crop yields: is there any literature examining its relationship to yields in Ukrainian SSR or Holodomor which we can quote, or is the presumed indication of the comparison original research? Isn't it sufficient to quote one of the authors who has done much more peer-reviewed work on the question of the Ukrainian crop?
I have asked our Polish colleagues to point in the right direction, I can't promise when but I will try to look into this one. (I am not saying now but maybe later)Kuban kazak 16:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "The holodomor was caused by a number of factors, including weather conditions"—I have a problem with this wording. There was apparently a smaller harvest in 1932, but not bad enough to cause anyone to starve. This may have set the stage, or been a factor, but I don't think it's right to say that it was a cause of the Holodomor.
  • "A second major factor..." was not merely opposition to collectivization, but also many other factors based on the nature of collectivization itself, including the gap in productivity caused by converting farms, the inefficiencies of newly-established and sometimes incompetently-run kolhosps (a large percentage of the grain they actually harvested was lost), the farmlands lying idle when no one was able to work them, etc., etc.
  • "...the government seemed unconcerned..." seems only part of the story understatement. They actively prevented people from having food through confiscation and deterrence.

Can everyone accept my assertions here? This was off the top of my head, but I believe I can find citations in my history books to support every one of these points. Michael Z. 2005-11-27 16:27 Z

I'm sorry, but I prefer the earlier version before the last changes of Dietwald and Kuban kazak. Can you please explain your edits and not ignore my questions but try to answer them ? Until then I suggest we revert to the version of 10:19, 27 November 2005 and rework your edits slowly, step by step. --Lysy (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The original edit has its flaws and I feel that there is no need to return to it. Modify this one, one step at a time. Kuban kazak 16:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

OK :-). First I'd remove the part mentioning poor weather condition as a factor. I've tried to find information on poor harvest in Volhynia in these years, but did not find anything to confirm it. I'm going to remove it until we have some respectable sources to support it. Until then it's a mere speculation. --Lysy (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

We don't need weather conditions, but there must some statistics on harvest yield, anyway until that arrives it is certainly alright to leave it out. Cosidering there that I have no concrete proof to that as well. Kuban kazak 17:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm also going to remove "...the government seemed unconcerned..." as it would imply that it was not a planned action but merely lack of concern. --Lysy (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well this is hard to disprove, was the famine deliberate or accidental and again until the real archives would not be available we can only make assumptions, It will be intersting to find this out in 2032/2033.
While it may not be that Stalin or his lieutenants pre-planned a famine aimed at Ukrainians, I don't think we can deny that Soviet officials confiscated food from people who died as a direct result. It wasn't a simple lack of concern, it was an active role, overseen at a high level (e.g., Stalin's appointee Postyshev), with predictable deadly effect. Michael Z. 2005-11-27 20:06 Z

More Evidence on Ukrainian Famine in Kuban

While the intro has been reverted by User:Kuban kazak, I will continue bringing here more real testimonies gathered by the US Government Commission. First some from the Kuban region.
"In 1934 Russian settlers from Tambov and Voronezh came to area, and narrator learned that bread had been scarce, but available in those regions. Narrator states there was no famine in Russia, i.e., does not consider the North Caucasus part of Russia."
"I know, one Russian, Andrey Makeyev went with his son to some field to gather some roots. They caught him, arrested, in prison they found out that he was a Russian and let him go home. Gave him some bread and let him go. ...Let him go home, then sent his son to engineer courses."
This is just one witness, but worth reading to get a better idea of what was going on in Kuban at that time. It seems no wonder that User:Kuban kazak's grandfather didn't remember much famine. According to the testimony, there were big distinctions in treating Ukrainians and Russians in Kuban.

--Andrew Alexander 21:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

John Kolis- Very Ukrainian/Russian sounding name... Intersting I have never came across any Johns in Ukraine or Russia or indeed some of his speach:

  • де boat-и стають, морські пароплави, Чорне Море. То 90 кілометрів від порту вони тримали кордон. Вlack армію тримали.
  • Нова Економічна, то так називали ми. То при НЕПові було all right.Люди жили hарру, веселые, при НЕПОВІ. .
  • А до 27-го року було життя all right. Що я пам'ятаю, жили happy, в кожну неділя, як осінь, кожну неділю люди п'ють, гуляють, веселяться, співають на вулиці. А молодь, special молодь, like me, soon they finish job – run down the street. Happy! But the... Так як ножем відрізали все.
  • Well, я то тим не займався

But the most fundamental flaw in the article comes here: Від.: Я вам скажу: у моєму селі не було козаків. Бо то село, то є селяни. А козаки жили по станицях. У нас не було козаків.

Пит.: А як Ви жили з ними?

Від.: All right, all right. їздили люди один до другого, то не було ніякої різниці. Лише козак до революції, до революції козак мав 10,11 гектарів землі, а одного козака, не на родину, а на козака, 11 десятин землі мав. І він, як би сказати, він мусив бути завжди готовий як військовий. Він вдома, але кожну хвилину, що як тривога - він на коні. Він має, мусить мати свого коня, сідло, шаблю. Він завжди мусить бути готовий. Ото називався козак. Але то турецьке ім'я - козак. Турки назвали, по-турецькому "козак” а як перевести на українську мову - "розбійник."

Пит.: Ви сказали, що була школа в Вашому селі, так?

Від.: Ні, російська. Писалося все по-російському. Вчитель так казав, що як говориш "хліб," то пиши "хлеб." То ти говориш по-ураїнському, він не каже, що по-українському, але ти говориш оте "кінь," а пишеться "конь." Говориш ти "повозка," що кінь тягне, а пишеться "воз."

Proves that a) grammar was never taught in Ukrainian and b) this man is not even a Cossack.

Please don't give sources of people who can't even be consistent in the language they speak much less remeber anything. How does he know English- obviously they interviewed an emmigrant from the Kuban. Did they bother to go there? No. Did they bother interviewing many of our old people, who actually stayed and lived here? NO. You call this evidence? Would you like me to conduct an interview with some old people from our stanitsa and publish the results here? If that's what you call a source then I am dissapointed with you... --Kuban kazak 22:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ivan Koliš sounds Ukrainian to me. It does sound like an oral interview with an elderly emigrant—so what? I'm sure the nice Cossack veterans you cited might not be speaking scholarly Moscow dialect in a transcript either. I haven't looked at the report; do you how many interviews they conducted? How many were published? I suspect that foreign commissions about the man-made famine were not exactly invited to the USSR in the 1980s. I don't think that a) school-book literacy is a criterion indicating the veracity of Soviet peasants from the 1930s; in fact I would guess the point was to relate the man's word-for-word account, rather than cleaning it up and being accused of adding interpretation to his words, and b) why does it matter that he's not a Cossack? You haven't pointed out any real faults of the commission report. Michael Z. 2005-11-27 22:39 Z
Well I am even more impressed, they did not visit the actual territory of the former USSR in the 1980s but based everything on emmigrants, this is even better. I mean if you want to know about the eastern front of World War II you ask former Vlasovites or members of the SS Galicia or whatever. I mean there are people who claim to have seen UFOs...
Like I said we speak Balachka, but we don't put english words into our paragraphs. If he is not a Cossack then unless you suggest that Ukrainians ie Malorossians ie non-Cossacks migrated to the Kuban separately from Zaporozhians then it is contradictory to the statement that some people here are insisting upon:
a) Kuban Cossacks came from Zaporozhia (I agree, got manuscripts to prove it) b)The Zaporozhians were Ukrainians (geographically yes, ethnically the term did not exist then and they were not only Malorossian blood in the Sech, runaway peasents from all over Poland-Lithuania came down, there must have been as much Belarussians as there were Malorussians) c)Thus Kuban Cossacks are descendents of Zaporozhia (yes, partly, if you neglect the amount of war brides and interhost marriages that accumulated over two centuries) d)Thus Zaporozhians are Ukrainians (no, because Kuban was never called 'the Ukraine' and ethnically points b and c also counteract this).
Now what does this man tell us? a)He is not a Cossack (hence not a descendent of Zaporozhians) b) he was born on the Kuban (maybe) c)He considers himself to be Ukrainian (well you have me lost here?).
Thus unless there is evidence that actual Malorossians, (not Zaporozhians), came to the Kuban (in the numbers that I am having thrown at me) then this waste of discussion space is justified (although I would like to see some concrete evidence, not singular emmigrant accounts.)Kuban kazak 00:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I think I must have been missing the point from the start. I'm just going to sit this one out. Michael Z. 2005-11-28 01:43 Z
I think kazak wants to say that Kuban population are not Ukrainians. I fail to understand how nationality of people starving to death is relevant. Ok, kazak, let's say Stalin was murdering Ukrainians AND Russians in Kuban, does it change anything?
Well if one reads the connatation of the talk page then one can find out that the discussion is not about wether there was famine on the Kuban (I mean believe me there was a famine) but wether Kuban is Ukrainian or Russian. -- Kuban kazak 01:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I would like people to respond to the above. --Kuban kazak 01:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
It's hard to respond, because I am confused. You seem to be trying to prove that this particular interviewee's statements are suspect, or that a Ukrainian's opinion isn't important, or possibly even that he's not Ukrainian. I thought your aim was to show that the US commission's report is not a reliable source, but now I'm not sure. I haven't read the report, and I have no idea whether you're implying that it's entirely based on this one person, or only people just like him, or just picking at points to discredit the report. You are also saying something about Ukrainian education, the Zaporozhian ancestry of Kuban Cossacks, and SS Galicia, and the Gulf of Tonkin whose relevance I don't quite understand.
Previous US governments slip-ups the latter was orchestrated as a prelude for war, and you say we have to be cautious about Soviet Government, what makes one think US government is better? -- Kuban kazak 09:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
US Government does not wage wars with it's own population. US Government does not starve to death it's own people (or any other people, for that matter). It does not sign secret pacts with Nazis. Enough?
Well you did your best to eradicate your Native American Indian population...And why this OT?-- Kuban kazak 01:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
We are not qualified to conduct a peer review of the report. If you have sources that discredit it, let's see them.
2002 cenusus, 1926 census, The genetic Study of Russian gene pool. Three concrete evidences, which contradict first hand accounts that are based on emmigrants (Will you take the word of former SS galicia or Vlasovites as absoloute truth?) --Kuban kazak 09:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Similarly, I don't understand where you're going with the whole demographics of Kuban issue. Many sources we've quoted say refer to Kuban as having a Ukrainian population, and I'm not sure we've seen any that actually contradict this. I understand that your personal experience is different, but we can't use that for this encyclopedia article. The census document you've quoted sounds very interesting, but you seem to be making inferences from it which, again, I don't think we're qualified to do. Because it's a primary source commissioned by the Soviet government, we should be even more cautious in using it. I have read other respectable sources which refer to the unreliability of Soviet census figures, so I don't think we should quote it without corroborating academic support or interpretation.
see commnets above (and below)
I'm not arguing here. I'm just explaining why I feel lost in this argument. I don't know where it's coming from or going, and I think I'll just sit it out. Michael Z. 2005-11-28 03:03 Z
Well to be fair the argument over a petty quote has been going on for much too long, and certainly if anything belongs in the Kuban Cossacks page. --Kuban kazak 09:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Guys, please don't waste your time on original research. mikka (t) 22:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Except for User:Kuban kazak no one is conducting original research here. Please read, "the only way to verify that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what the sources say." User:Kuban kazak isn't citing anything here, he speculates and comes with his "evidence" from own granfather and wife. For him the way to prove that a person doesn't speak Ukrainian despite two pages of interview in Ukrainian, is to cite him remembering a Russian school with everyone speaking Ukrainian in it.--Andrew Alexander 01:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
And what about the 1926 appendix, 2002 census and the gene pool. Finally Balachka is not Ukrainian. This interveiw is rediculous though a man who can't even remember how to consistentely speak a language yet alone remember details of his school life. I am anything but convinced. What does my family have anything to do with this sorry excuse for a source? Kuban kazak 01:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know. In fact I don't know even why you keep reverting the article based own referenced "balachka".--Andrew Alexander 01:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC) got me. Let me tell you once and for all the dialect that we speak is SIMILAR to Ukrainian and Russian identically. It can be spoken in Moscow or Rovno with only a few changes in common volcabulary (eg Flag/Prapor, Dvorets/Palats, Chervonyi/Krasnyi by default the italic examples are preffered) it has no grammar (Literary Russian is taught and used everywhere, the only difference now is that teachers in schools teach in balachka, some stanitsas use the pre-1918 Grammar). Finally in cities: Kranodar, Sochi, Novorossiysk typical southern Russian accent is spoken (the same that you'll hear from Volgograd to Odessa). IF YOU ARE NOT CONVINCED THEN VISIT THE KRASNODAR KRAI AND FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF! Сколько можно уже одно и тоже повторять вать машу?--Kuban kazak 01:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
How is all this relevant to Golodomor? Why is it soooo important whether those Kuban people were Russians, Ukrainians, or the mix?
Ask the people who insist Holodmor was Ukrianian Genocide? -- Kuban kazak 01:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is another quote from the same source.

"Q.: So how did you live with them (Cossacks)?
A.: All right, all right. Visited each other, there was no difference at all among us. Only a Cossack before revolution had 10 or 11 acres of land..."

I am not sure if "no difference at all" means that Cossacks were also Ukrainian. But he confirms this when saying this next:

"Russians say that Kuban is a Russian land. But they were Ukrainian, such, as they say, Cossacks, chased away Turks and settled there..."

Perhaps Kuban kazak could find his own sources to disprove this testimony. The 1926 census report seems to be corroborating Kolis:

"During the actual collection of the census data nearly all could understand Podolian and even Volynian dialects. Reading Ukrainian was a different issue due to the letter И being read differently in Russian and Ukrainian"

This is precisely what Kolis is saying when describing his Kuban school:

"Everything was written in Russian"
And what does the census say? Unfamiliar words were read with the И pronounced in Russian, familiar words were sometimes read with И in Ukrainian and sometimes in Russian. Sometimes you had members of the same family reading differentely because they obviously have never seen Ukrainian text, even the old generations.

Here some more information from the Kolis testimony:

"Q.: So how did it happen when they took away food?
A.: The authorities ("komsod") went from house to house, searching for food. No one could hide anything. Someone tried, if there was a thick wall, tried hiding some grain in the wall. They found it there as well. They used some sort of pokes for that... Found it in gardens as well where people had hidden grain. Wherever there is a freshly dug ground, they used the same pokes. (In Russian) "Wait on arrest", sent people into jail for this...
Q: So how often did they come?
A: Came every day, checked what you've been eating, how come you didn't die yet... My sister and I had a little lentil left by my father, hidden over in the attic... One day some man came, looked at me and said that it's a famine yet I am still up. In a few days they came and said "So you eat, still alive?"... They swept everything clean after I returned from work."

--Andrew Alexander 03:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough how about the fact that when in 1878, after the destruction of the Turks in the Balkans, over two Thousand Kuban Cossacks which participated in the campaign, upon their return via Novorossia, they paid a visit to their native homeland of Uman and Zaporozhia. Here is what an original manuscript written by the Eskadron Commander Ataman Viktor Parenko:
Much has the land changed compared to what our forefathers would tell us, the open steppes have all been settled the people, poor malorossian peasents that once saw us as their last hope now lived a fulfiling life. Not like on the Kuban, where the Circassians would occasionally came down for a raid, this place awed me with its tranquility. Yet the people did not, frequent fussing and complaining about petty things I would have expected, such has been the case with our old ancestors. Yet what struck me the most was the way they refused to believe that we were the original kazaks, the kozaks which they saw leave their land only three generations ago. It was bitter trying to explain to them, that we are the original descendents, for they were certain that the Matka (that's how they called Matushka Empress Ekaterina) fully destroyed us or sent as bait for the Turks. I tried explaining that it was not destruction, it was an opportunity for those who wanted to live a full life of power and freedom (like we Cossacks always lived) then all was required to cross the mighty Don rivers and go and conquer new frontiers, I remember how my grandfather described when he first saw the mighty Caucasus mountains, when they first met the Terek Cossacks and mounted their first combined raid against Circassians). But he said not all came to continue our sacred way of life, some remained, stubborn Kozaks he would say that were lazy enough to avoid the horse journey east and south yet not lazy enough to raise their successors to endlessly complain about daily life and blame it on the extinction of the Kozaks. I tried to offer them to come and visit our land to see that nothing obstructs the will of the Cossacks in their old Russian glory. None chose to listen to me, for they were so convinced that it was an impossible task arguing with them...Perhaps it should be such that those who we thought were our people now see us as foreigners, in that case our home is the Kuban, not Ukraina. This account is published fully in a book by historian Valeriy Panfilov on the war of 1878. Most of it includes detail of orderly campaigns, this was just something extra that the author added.

My revert: some other users polished the artilce over time, as I stated I liked the layout, better hack at this version than do reverts. Also I do not like the original research by Kuban Kazak, it is pretty much pointless until he publishes an article in press with his findings it can not be included. Source is source, but interpreting it is original research.–Gnomz007(?) 05:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You want me to publish an article, I can do that, but then what will be the point if you, like the commission people will base everything upon emmigrants fairytales, and ignore the perspective on life from the Kuban. And please Kazak not Kozak.--Kuban kazak 09:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I do not want anything -it is a prerequesite to have your interpretation included in the article and not removed as original research.–Gnomz007(?) 14:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
As I see currentely, under no way will Andrew Alexander amongst others will ever try to rethink his convictions. I mean Galileo was also despite having concrete proof unable to convince stubborn church people. Nevertheless the Vatican did eventually aknowladge its mistake, and I am a patient person... Anyway in the current state of the article I can compromise, if anyone wants to continue this dispute please Kuban Cossacks.--Kuban kazak 17:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


I never knew that my fellow countrymen were such bickering little schoolgirls (not omitting international presence of course) In reference to your latest comment Kuban' Kaza4ok, the accents of Odessa and Volgograd vary greatly to someone brought up there. theres no need to get so worked up about it. Anyway i wanted to ask about the url for this page; it says holodomor, but uh holod means cold, not hunger. in translite it would be golodomor would it not? after all, in both ukranian and russian its written as Голодомор, indicating a hard Г, which sounds similar to the 'g' in good.
Well I am sorry I never new that we had such countrymen as well, and who might you be? The president? Have you ever been in Rostov or Odessa? Have a listen to how people pronounce Gs there my little nurserygirl. Kuban kazak 09:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Plus, "Of direct relevance to the "holodomor" word is the cliche "morit' golodom", i.e., make someone to die by depriving them of food, i.e., "holodomor" is actually a correctly constructed noun for this verb phrase. Mikkalai 19:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)" that simply made me laugh since you can see mikkalai using a g instead of an h in his 'cliche' trancription. So? What about it? Could you please consider writing the term appropriately? ~~Dmitri Vakhrameev~~
  • My guess is Romanization of Ukrainian, see scholarly romanization–Gnomz007(?) 03:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Mikkalai wrote in Russian: "morit' golodom". You may continue to laugh. Good for your health. mikka (t) 06:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Cold is холод (kholod); hunger is голод (uk: holod, ru: golod). Michael Z. 2005-11-28 06:08 Z

Reverts with Deletions

The last revert -- -- deleted a photo. While people may continue reverting for irrational reasons, try to preserve whatever was gained new prior to going back to a previous version. Moreover, please provide references BEFORE putting some new statements in. There is no excuse for deleting other people external sources. I already tried to ask everyone for at many days to improve upon the US Government Commission quote. It was again rudely deleted with no explanations.--Andrew Alexander 06:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to put US opinion into intro. This is wikipedia's article, not Uncle Sam's. Your photo contributes nothing to the topic. Happy people existed always and everywhere. The place of external sources is in "external links" section. US quote is present in the text below. mikka (t) 06:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is another revert: "no inline ext links and qoutes in intro. Intro is summary of *our* article, not f USGov". Perhaps, this point is not clear, but the articles isn't exactly "ours". It can't have any original research as underlined many times here. Yet people want to erase external links and quotes? But for what reason? To make this already very heated debate even more so? Erasing external references is an act of vandalism in this case. It serves no purpose but to make the topic controversial. Hope people with cool minds could reconsider. If anything, MORE external links and quotes of reputable sources are needed, not less!!!--Andrew Alexander 06:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It serves the layout, there is nothing you have to prove inline in intro, you can add references below, what you are doing is taking the article text and pulling it up several paragraphs, it ends up in a messed up article. There is nothing irrational in that. –Gnomz007(?) 06:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Please explain in the article the purpose of the pic of happy kolkhoznik woman. So far it sits irrelevant to any text. mikka (t) 07:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Mikka, I wish you would positively contribute to the article, instead of disrupting it, removing refs, or other contents. --Lysy (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree. I can't understand the urge for removing the references. We already have huge arguments almost for every word in that intro. The only way to "calm" some people down was to provide direct references for them to read it instead of instantly reverting everything. Now we're back in the same situation. People can't find references supporting their version, so they delete other references. How long will this continue?--Andrew Alexander 16:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

And yet another revert:

Holodomor; 16:54 . . Mikkalai (Talk) (rm refs from intro. Intro is text summary. A reference for the intro is the article text itself.)

The problem is, I can't even get to working on the text references because the intro is getting reverted all the time by the people inserting their own text with no supporting sources. Is that an official style guideline of Wikipedia to delete all the ext. references from intros? Why is it necessary to do this? <unsigned>


I am repeating once more:

  • It is against wikipedia rules to put external links into text body. There is a special section for them, known as "external links".
Please provide a reference for this rule. Thanks.--Andrew Alexander 17:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • An intro is the summary of the article, and its only reference is article body. If you put external references into intro, this means that the article sucks and you have to expand it to justify what you wrote in the intro.
This is exactly the case. And unless you let other people work instead of deleting what they found to use in the article, it's very hard to continue. I feel that the argument is not with the references, but with the content itself.--Andrew Alexander 17:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

These are matters of wikipedia style and please no accusations here. I contributed to wikipedia about Soviet poltical repressions more than all of the rest of wikipedia. mikka (t) 17:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, please contribute to this instead of deleting other people work.--Andrew Alexander 17:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Please do. Mikka, nobody's denying that you contributed to wikipedia a lot and I'm sure we all appreciate it. But what you're doing now is counter-productive. If you feel the body of the article can be expanded please do, instead of crippling it. If you think the reference is placed incorrectly, move it to its right place instead of deleting it. Try to contribute positively. There's enough mess in the article already without your recent reverts, which I'm sorry to say are destructive. --Lysy (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Will you please review what I am deleting instead of listening to the annoyed rant of a man whose single purpose is to drive a certain political agenda so that who is completely deaf to what other people say? It was explained to him twice at the talk page that he is putting into the intro an extensive quotation which is already present in the body of the text. So there is no "crippling" here. mikka (t) 18:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I am not against you fighting my "political agenda". But fight it with references and quotes. Not with deletions of my references. --Andrew Alexander 21:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add these references for Wikipedia's style guidelines: Wikipedia:External_links and Wikipedia:Lead_section. Nowhere does it say that intros are forbidden to have external links.--Andrew Alexander 18:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read the style guedilines you quote carefully, the section with a very noticeable header "How to link". mikka (t) 18:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Would you please read it yourself? Here, I will quote it for you: "There are two basic formats for external links..." and then "The second format is for sentences or paragraphs that require specific references. This form of link can be placed in the body of an article at the end of the relevant sentence or paragraph."--Andrew Alexander 18:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
OK I stand corrected. It was titled "Citations" and I didn't read to this place. Also, this is a recent addition. Half a year ago there was a strong drive agaist spreading links all over the text. The main problem with external links is that they die without warning. And the experience on clicking a link only to find it it dead is quite annoying.
Anyway, please notice that this refers to a specific case: to indicate the source of a quotation, not to confirm every second word of the article. mikka (t) 18:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
No, you're wrong again. It says, "However, because links often die without warning, use of more complete citations are recommended." That's all it says. It doesn't say that you have to use external links for quotations only. You can use it for related words, expressions, or ideas.--Andrew Alexander 21:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
"Recommended" what? "more complete citations", not "more external links". External links are hightmare to maintain: you have no control neither over its current content nor over their life at all. You live only today; you want to prove your point today and it does not bother you that tomorrow all your links go dead and first best your enemy wil say that you misquoted or forged them, and you will have no proof. Why is it so difficult to undertsand? mikka (t) 00:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

External links should be at the end of the article. But there are different acceptable styles for references, and one is to link the citation in the text; which sure may be useful in this article about a controversial topic. In the cases where it's possible, it would be better to have a numeric reference link to the references section, where there is a full citation possibly linking to an external web site. Listing a reference at the bottom is better than just having an unqualified link to an external source.

The ideal situation stylistically would be to have all details and references in the main body, with the introduction being a summary of the text. Of course this is difficult to achieve with an article which is somewhat controversial, and actively edited.

But the big picture is gradually settling down into a pattern here; there's light at the end of the tunnel. I suggest we work towards removing citations from the intro and having all or most references listed. Michael Z. 2005-11-29 01:09 Z

"This is a summary of our article"

And this is exactly what I tried to avoid by putting actual references in the intro -- silly revert wars. The article hasn't even been started being cleaned up from the mess of personal opinions and unproven statements. To "rely" on that article, especially with a few editors tending to change its text right under your feet without a single reference, it extremely hard. I was trying to "peg" more or less each "controversial" (or claimed to be) statement with references. This way we can rely on something stable instead of being jerked around by reverts and deletions. Why is it so hard to get something that should be natural in any encyclopedia writing -- stable and gradual improvement of the relied upon sources? Is that because people simply don't want any reasonable and agreeable text here?--Andrew Alexander 22:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

To be fair quotes do not belong in lead paragraphs, especially third party quotes, although I agree that the edit wars are rediculously silly, I still think that its better to have a neutral third person opinion rather than direct number-links "polluting" the article. It may not be the rules, but no sensible encyclopedias do that, put third-party quotes into historical articles. I mean at the end of the day it has to sound professional as well. Check the Ukrainian version. Well done to those people. They have managed to sort out all their problems and avoid direct references in the lead. -- Kuban kazak 23:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

To add to this. I am truly puzzled at how to approach writing this article. If I build it up gradually, with references, then Mikkalai would revert it because it's "their" article and references are "not allowed" in the text. If I write it off-line and then upload it, then it will also get immediately reverted because it's "theirs" and can't be changed at once. There are no reasonable responses to a bunch of source provided on the discussion page. At this time I am ready to launch a complaint because any good faith attempt to contribute to this article's objectivity have been blocked for some personal reasons.--Andrew Alexander 23:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with you, man? Your U.S. commission citation is in full in the text! I am pointing this to you here for the third time! Cool down. Also it is "our" including "you"; sorry, English language does not have this exact pronoun. "Our" meaning "wikipedia's", not Ukr Gov nor US Gov nor Encyclopedia Britannica. mikka (t) 00:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey I have as of the way things stand currentely have no objections to constructive, informative additions. I would like the named users to explain their actions as well. Kuban kazak 23:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Third Party quote in the Title?

I am still not convinced that there is a need for a third party quote in the title, for the following reasons:

  • Quote is a US gov Commission
    • US gov Commissions made mistakes in past
    • This commission, from what I gather, never went to FSU (please correct me if I am wrong)
    • It should not be treated as the absoloute truth, which damages the NPOV position of the article
  • Although no rule states that third party quotes cannot be given, it is not common in respectible encyclopedias
    • Such as Britannica, Encarta etc.
  • The quote is repeated further down in the text
    • Encyclopedias definetely avoid having that.
  • The Ukrainian version of the article, which now has a featured status avoids having such quotes.

Maybe its just me, but I think that there is a lack of professionality in structure of the article. -- Kuban kazak 00:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that such a quote belongs in the body of the article, and the intro would be better as a summary.
The commission couldn't possibly visit the then-not-former Soviet Union, because it concluded its report in the late 1980s. Of course it should not be treated as absolute truth, any more than any other source. Michael Z. 2005-11-30 07:58 Z