Talk:Holodomor/Archive 5

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

Pictures of victims gone?

I remember looking at this page a few months ago and seeing many more pictures of victims, like dead Ukrainians in the street and skinny children on their death beds, Now they are all gone and just one picture left... What on earth has happened to them? When comparing this page to other languages, there is many more photos of victims (probably shouldn't of said that, I guess they will be removed too now) Saintrotter 3 February 2007

Cats

No genocide, no democide. Nothing. What happend? Another "plot of the Russians editors" or just inadvertence of administrators?--133.41.4.46 15:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of suspecting an existence of a "plot" and being deluded that a [category:genocide] makes or breaks Holodomor as such, consider getting a wikipedia account, then pick a section in the Holodomor article and contribute towards an wp:npov version. If you think that the Holodomor was genocide then make sure the arguments for it being so are reflected in the main article and cited with scholarly citations. As you can probably see from the reference section, currently this article heavily cites a work by the Davies et. al., in effect Davies et. al. pov is heavily reflected. --Riurik (discuss) 19:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

no democide?--133.41.4.46 18:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Alex Kov, having to deal with you is very annoying. You continue to refuse to sign in. You do not engage in talk page discussions, you insist on unreferenced or poorly referenced changes. Such attitutde is widely considered trollish. --Irpen 18:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I have returned democide. I think it is appropriate Alex Bakharev 00:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am replacing the massive user:LuisMatosRibeiro's paste of the off-site material to this talk page with a link:

First of all this pasting violated the copyright as the message at the bottom stated "All rights reserved. Coyping only with the written permission from the publisher." But even if it were not copyrighted, pasting of massive texts to the talk pages is extremely unhelpful as it makes discussion impossible by obscuring what editors are trying to say. Please do not do it. --Irpen 22:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Spin-off: Was the Holodomor genocide?

POV fork or a very bad title for a subarticle.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Was just created today by some user... What would you advise, Piotrus? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I prodded the fork and restored the text back. This is an extremely important aspect and needs discussed in the main article. --Irpen 19:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Lemkin line

Again, you can coin a marketing slogan, but not "genocide"- putting it as simply as humanly possible. Truthseeker 85.5 22:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

We are not familiar with Lemkin's statements on whether H was Genocide. We know two things. Lemkin was first to define what a G is, the term belongs to him. He spoke at the meeting. The article says exactly this. --Irpen 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
You are absolutely right Irpen, thanks for fixing. I retract my objections. Truthseeker 85.5 22:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding refs

Currently, there are two methods for references that are used in this article plus a separate section for notes, and this has no logical organization. Am I wrong? I'd like to get all the sources cited in one way to ease verification and standardize. --Riurik (discuss) 15:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's worse than that. The way the refs set up there are references with numbers like [42] and linked to nowhere. The last sentence of Politicization of the famine section is redundant anyhow. Mhym 12:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Debate is over

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6193266.stm UKRAINE RULES IT IS GENOCIDE, DEBATE IS OVER! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewuoft (talkcontribs)

Wow, what an art of persuasion, I'm impressed. You study Cicero, don't you? Or Demosthenes, maybe... Slightly more seriously, Turks still do not recognize Armenian genocide. So for you, it means it does not exists... Hmm... So next time, please refrain from such posts.
Oh, and new posts go to the bottom of the page, not top. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Refering to the article by Jacob Peters, the fact was, that archives show that actually 10 million people were starved. Even J. Stalin admitted so in the meeting with N. Chamberlain.So maybe u dont get ur facts straight here, but the official number is 10 million, whether from the new declassified SBU archives, the USSR archives, or even Stalin himself. You also cannot deny the multiple witnesses there are to this horrible event in the history of humanity. I suggest you stop giving pointless arguments that the famine took less than 7 million lives. Because you're basically commiting a hate crime, denying the very existence of such a tragedy, or a genocide. The fact was also, that hundreds of thousands of deaths, if not more than a few million went unregistered, as the Soviet regime refused to give aid to anyone who was affected by the famine- the hospitals never accepted them. And when a person actually died, they wrote that their death was naturally caused, or things like heart attack. I strongly suggest you don't trust the Soviet hate propaganda, but i guess if you do, u'll find that even stalin admitted it. Millions were killed, and villages and even cities such as Donetsk were partially, or entirely depopulated by the famine,and/or in some cases, deportations, with Russian population coming in to replace them. And if you say didnt only affect Ukrainian regions, well, it did. Kuban is almost entirely populated by a Ukrainian speaking population.The Holodmor has been admitted as a Genocide by several countries already, and is about to be at UN. This is so for a reason. The fact is, more than 7 million people died, and this was not of natural causes. This was an attempt to wipe out a nation, to assimilate/russificate what survived. Ukraine is still recovering from its wounds. But the fact is, this was a genocide, and despite the attempts to cover it up, such as by Soviet authorities, or deny it, such as the Russian authorities today, or minimize its tragic results, it is now officialy recognized. A partisan opinion like this is not anything valuable. It is a violation of NPOV policy to mention this in the article. The fact is that the international community does not take into serious consideration these fabricated fairy tales. As has been exhaustively debated on this discussion board, the opinion that this famine was man-made and exclusive to Ukraine has been thoroughly discredited. The Polonized Ukrainians don't even have their facts straight. They claim that "up to 10 million" died even though the archives show 1.5 million deaths. Jacob Peters

Jacob Peters, you repeat the troll's mistakes by refusing to acknowledge what has been explained to you multiple times. 1.5 millions is as bogus as 10 millions. The real number is in between. It has been shown at the talk and in the article why the 1.5 mln number is impossible. Please be serious if you want your input to be respected. Don't approach the article with the political agenda to push like some here. --Irpen 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You are lying with the claim that it has been explained multiple times that the 1.5 million can be contested. The declassified Soviet archives vindicate the figure whereas the "7 to 10 million" figure is absolutely unsubstantiated.

Jacob Peters

Accusation in lying is a personal attack. 7-10 million is unsubtsantiated indeed. 1.5 million is unrealistic either as Soviet archives are self-contradictory. Recorded excess deaths are indeed 1.5 million. However recorded death statistics does not add up to the census data. Demographs concider these two censuses to be accurate. As such, the data derived from the census is more reliable and gives 4.5 million. This has been explained at this very page to you and others (now in archives) as well as in the article. Sources are provided. --Irpen 02:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If only you'd be familiar with the material you are addressing. The 1.5 million figure is in fact based on revised registration data. The earlier versions showed about 600 thousand fewer deaths in Ukraine.

Zvesda

WP:RS pls. --Irpen 07:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Extraordinarily POV Intro

Most modern scholars agree that the famine was caused by the policies of the government of the Soviet Union under Stalin, rather than by natural reasons

Bullshit above is manifest. Whereas we are told that "most modern scholars" agree the famine was caused by the government, yet half of the sources listed were published before the Soviet archives were declassified. The source by Davies and Wheatcroft is blatantly misrepresented as they do not agree that the famine was caused by the government. They as well as Mark Tauger extensively document natural factors that crashed the harvest. Jacob Peters
False. Scholars agree or disagree on the idea Soviet gov's plotted to inflict hunger on Ukrainians, but there is no dispute that the grain was collected ny the gov to filfill quotas, the result was the Famine, the aid effort was delayed and botched. As such, the famine was preventable but was not prevented due to the Soviet policies. It is the gov policies that caused it and not weather. Tauger and Davies confirm that as they go lengths on discussing the aid effort and collection. --Irpen 02:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to say I'm puzzled by Jacob Peters' scatological derision, since, as I recall, Stalin sent in a young Nikita Krushchev to shoot the Ukrainians when they weren't starving to death quickly enough—the last step in a deliberate, premeditated policy to starve the Ukraine into submission, since Stalin didn't have a spot big enough to deport them all.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And you've been banned, too! ¡Qué lástima!  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Title Change

This nonesense has to end. The major scholarly sources devoted specifically to this famine such as "Years of Hunger" by Davies and Wheatcroft and writings by Mark Tauger refer to this period simply as the Soviet famine rather than some propagandistic nationalist term like "Golodomor". The fact that famine was not limited to Ukraine and that the Soviet government tried to assist regions struck by famine totally discredits an intent or an insinuation of national exclusivity.

Major recent writings published on this famine include:

Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Soviet Famine of 1931-1933, Tauger

Stalin, Grain Stocks and the Famine of 1932-1933", Davies, Wheatcroft, and Tauger in Slavic Review

Notice the total absence of the term "Golodomor"

Jacob Peters

Bravo Jacob Peters, my stalinist genius! In your brilliant opinion, historians like James Mace, Hubert Laszkiewicz, Andrea Graziosi, Yuriy Shapoval, Gerhard Simon, Orest Subtelny, Mauro Martini, Nicolas Werth, Stephane Courtois, Roman Serbyn, Ferdinando Adornato, Federigo Argentieri, Ettore Cinnella, Massimo De Angelis, Gabriele De Rosa, Renzo Foa, Oxana Pachlovska, Vittorio Strada, Victor Zaslavski, Alain Besançon, Francesco Perfetti, Lucio Vilari, Rudolf Mark, Egbert Jahn, Wilfried Jilge, Dmytro Zlepko, Wolodomyr Kosyk, Daniel Beauvois, Jean-Lois Panné, Etienne Thevenin, they are ignorant!

BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LuisMatosRibeiro 00:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

James Mace headed a propaganda campaign for the US government. Falsely remarked that famine occurred from "crop seizure". Not an unbiased source. None of those authors you've named have been involved in any notable discourse about the famine in scholarly journals.

Jacob Peters

I would like to strongly condemn the unproposed article moves that were made. Soviet famine would be a legit article as well and, besides, a broader article already exists. Famines in Russia and USSR. The article on the specifically Ukrainian famine has every right to exist. So, the move to Soviet Famine (1932-1933) is out of question. The move to the Ukrainian Famine may be discussed but first propsoed and dicussed and then decided, not the other way around. --Irpen 02:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Was the Holodomor genocide?

Today, the heads of state, governments or parliaments of 26 countries

26 countries meaning that this is the minority of the international community. It is particularly absent of credibility considering that most of these countries conduct a deliberately anti-Russian policy. 26 countries of 192 in the United Nations is insufficient to put through a resolution calling this "genocide". Jacob Peters
First, the fact that other countries recognize the Famine as Genocide is notable and definetely belongs to the article. Tarasyuk, Minister for Foreign Affairs of UA, in a recent interview I read mentioned 10 countries though. This needs to be figured out but there is no debate that such information is notable for a Wikipedia without Jacob's editoriolizing that "those countries are members of NATO", etc. --Irpen 02:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Jacob Peters: Please provide the list of countries, which studied the issue of Holodomor, and following the study decided that it should not be recognized as genocide.

Robert Conquest, the author of one of the most important Western studies published prior to the declassifying of the the Soviet archives, concluded that the famine of 1932–33 was artificial—that is a deliberate mass murder, if not genocide committed as part of Joseph Stalin's collectivization program under the Soviet Union.

Yet more ass-kissing of Conquest. Since he did not have access to the archives, it was impossible for him to conclude anything. He therefore did not conclude that the famine was artificial or deliberate. His work has been shreaded by Wheatcroft and Davies. Conquest falsely remarked that the 1932 harvest was no worse than the previous year's. Jacob Peters
First, Conquest's work is not useless although, incomplete, as archives were not accessible to him. He indeed admitted lately in his correspondance to Davies that he agrees with the latter that Genocide strictly speaking does not apply. However, Conquest provides lots of factual data and is useful. He is particularly notable in covering the history of the Famine coverage as his book was the most comprehensive work for its time. --Irpen 02:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

These documents show that Moscow singled out Ukraine, while regions outside it were allowed to receive humanitarian aid.

This is absolutely false as declassified Politburo and Sovnarkom decrees show that the state delivered famine relief to the Ukraine Jacob Peters
It seems like you only write and never read responses. Yes, aid was given but there was a special directive to give aid only to those who are sent to the fields. Ref was given. --Irpen 02:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the US Government Commission on the Ukrainian Famine ([1]) the seizure of the 1932 crop by the Soviet authorities was the main reason of the famine.

These findings have been discredited. Plus, a propaganda campaign sponsored by the US government is not exactly a reliable, NPOV, scholarly source. Grain collections by the government in 1932 were only 80% of the total of previous years. Jacob Peters
At the same time, the Soviets deliberately withheld the state reserve grain until the last moment and made it available for aid only when the devastating famine was raging. This is actually said by Tauger himself. --Irpen 02:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A few questions

The important questions on genocide that needs to be addressed are:

  • (1) Why were the borders of Ukrainian SSR sealed off by the Soviet authorities?
  • (2) If it was a harvest failure, why was the burden of that failure not simply shared across the Soviet Union?
  • (3) Why were all kinds of meal confiscated? What was the punishment for?

The questions are borrowed from [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by KPbIC (talkcontribs)

Let me answer them:
  1. It was not only Ukrainian borders, there were checkpoints throughout the USSR
  2. Well the actual harvest failure in other parts of the Soviet Union was even worse, take the Kurgan Oblast where В огромной Курганской области (соизмеримой с тогдашней УССР) и в Центрально-Черноземной области (также житнице) в том же 33-м точно так же дошло до повсеместного каннибализма. На Урале за невыполнения плана хлебозаготовок изымалось тех же 100% запасов. А на Поволжье дело доходило до публичных порок. В этих областях голод был гораздо ощутимей, чем на Черниговщине. В Центрально-Черноземной области в 33-м погибло по разным оценкам от 200 до 850 тыс.человек. В Челябинской, Пермской, Свердловской обл. – свыше 87 тысяч. Поволжье и Сибирь – порядка 10% населения. ref
  3. Please reference the latter.--Kuban Cossack 18:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • (1) In response to the question "Why were the borders of Ukrainian SSR sealed off by the Soviet authorities?", you mentioned that not only the borders of Ukraine were sealed but the military checkpoints (загранотряды) were set throughout the USSR. It still does not answer why in particular the Ukrainian regions affected by famine were sealed. True that the genocide was not only limited to Ukrainians, but in particular, it was genocide of Ukrainians.
  • (2) In response to "Why was the burden of that failure not simply shared across the Soviet Union" you provided some evidences that the other regions in the other time periods also unproportionally suffered. Still, going back to Ukraine in 1932/33 the facts are that at the end of the day, the Ukrainian population shrunk substantially (-15% between 1926 and 1937), while the other nationalities of USSR, such as Russians, Tatars, Uzbeks, Armenians substantially grew (all more than +20% over the same time). At the end of the day, peasants were dying, and proletariat was ruling. It was not just that one part of population benefited and the other part did not. It was up to the level when the other part was losing, and was losing up to the death. That was genocide.
  • (3) You asked for evidence of confiscation of all kinds of food. Let me cite James E. Mace, PhD, Prof. of Political Science, [3], who refers to the documents published in "Holod 1932-1933 rokiv na Ukrayini: ochyma istorykiv, movoiu dokumentiv" (Kyiv, 1990)
  • Consider the decree of November 18, 1932 (pp. 250-260). […] It calls for an immediate audit of all bread resources in the collective and individual farms to be followed by the seizure of all such resources except for a seed reserve (ordered seized on December 24 - p. 296), the seizure of all advances extended members of delinquent kolhosps, and - most interestingly to me - instituted a series of fines in kind for those "maliciously" undermining the grain seizures including a 150% supplement to one's annual meat quota (take the cow, pig, and/or chickens!) and authorizing the seizure of other foodstuffs. Subsequent reports on fulfillment of this monument of socialist legality make clear included such commercially priceless crops as potatoes and beans. Isn't it amazing that they would take from households without any bread whatever else edible they could find but not intend that somebody might miss a meal?
  • On December 6, 1932, the Soviet Ukrainian press published a decree to put on the chorna doshka (black board to denounce those who had underfulfilled) six villages found to be maliciously undermining the grain procurements (seizures actually, since the regime didn't pay), to be extended within a week to 82 districts or about 20% of the republic. The local apparats of such dens of iniquity were to be thoroughly purged (i.e., arrested), the local stores closed with all goods removed from them, and the area itself blockaded so that people could not go to seek victuals elsewhere. But, of course, nobody, of course, actually INTENDED that they might occasionally miss a meal.
  • One most interesting document could be published only in part in the abovementioned collection of Party documents. […] This is a December 14, 1932 decision of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (bolshevik) and Sovnarkom of the USSR of December 14, 1932 on the grain procurements in Ukraine, the North Caucasus, and the Western oblast, signed by I. Stalin and V. Molotov. […] This document is instructive in how UNINTENTIONALLY the then supreme self-consecrated leaders of the world proletariat, Stalin and Molotov, saw to the situation. […]
    "5. The CC and SNK tells party and Soviet organizations of the Soviet Union that the malicious enemies of the party, working class, and collectivized peasantry are saboteurs of the grain procurements with party cards in their pockets... In relation to those turncoats and enemies of Soviet power and the collective farms the CC and SNK commits itself to severe repression, to sentencing them to 5-10 years in a concentration camp, and under known conditions execution." —Preceding unsigned comment added by KPbIC (talkcontribs)

Well I shall not challenge the validity of the sources, they are right, but in particular none that you claim True that the genocide was not only limited to Ukrainians, but in particular, it was genocide of Ukrainians. That IMO is an OR interpretation, because for absolutely all claims, none are specific that it was a deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Ukraine. Yes it was a genocide, even I share that viewpoint, but it was a social genocide NOT national. And here my refrences and your agree, because in any case all fingers point to peasants as targets, not their ethnicity, so its fair to assume that 1932-33 Soviet Famine can qualify for the genocide cat, but HGolodomor alone cannot, not in the way its presented in the article here. To be truly honest with you, I think the Ukrainian state is playing with fire on the bones of those died, with ridiculous bills being passed such as fines for public denial and so on. Instead, it should concentrate on approaching Russia and Kazakhstan to form an independent multi-national commission with full access to FSB archives that would neutrally analyze the records, and only after the enquiry concludes on weather the events of 1932-1933 were genocide based on whatever scale, then debates will end. However something tells me that the truth on what the commission produces will be quite different on what some Ukrainian politicians want people to believe, for them its very convinient to use the historical fact of a Ukrainian National Genocide in their programmes. Talking about population drops then I give you our favourite demoscope for the 1939 census look at the age statistics for say Stalinskaya Oblast and Saratovskaya Oblast. Both show the amount of people born at the age six and seven at about half of what they were prior and after, so I am not sure where the two precent population statistics came from... Again same conclusions, whilst there is evidence that only SUGGEST a social genocide, there are none that PROVE that it was a NATIONAL genocide. --Kuban Cossack 02:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, both of you, it is nice that we now returned to the discussion about sources with no trolling. Here is some more points for you and comments. First, all the relevant archives by now are opened and all serious latest research is based on such archives. Among the Ukrainian scholars, the most serious work was done by Stanislav Kulchytsky. Among the Western ones, the most important study is that by Davies and Wheatcroft. When either of the authors cite the archives, they both come up with the exact same numbers, although they do not always interprete them the same way.
In the most recent article by Kulchytsky in Zerkalo, the author mentions that the Famine should be viewed as a Genocide but not against the ethnic Ukrainians but of the population of "Ukraine as a state", citizens of Ukraine. This view differs from each of the ones you presented but is an interesting one. At the same article, Kulchytsky accepts that this is different from the narrow definition of Genocide given by the UN convention. The author makes good points that seeing it with such a narrow context is too restrictive and the Genocide in the meaning "of the People of Ukraine" indeed took place. The same author in earlier works also called for non-politicized and scientific approach as only with statements backed with serious scholarly research we may address the international community with calls for the recognision of the events as a Genocide. At the same time, I did not read the entire book by Davies, but I read some of it. It is certainly a thorough scholarly study as well; and in no way it is a Stalinist apologist bull although some editor here uses the book as to push his own appologist stuff into the article. Davies disagrees with applicability of Genocide while he does document the deaths of the millions.
The term "national Genocide" in English is misleading as "nationality" means both "citizenship" and "ethnicity". We may discuss the applicability of each of this concepts and say which researcher supports each. Finally, IMO what KK calls "Social Genocide" and the definition suggested by Kulchytsky is not mutually exclusive. --Irpen 02:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I can only agree with you here, by national I meant Национальный, and I must say that if we talk about genocide in 1932-1933 then it has to include all areas affected, in particular the Kurgan Oblast, where, as my ref says, cannibalism was observed. Now that is genocide in all respects and purposes, but for that case is there a point to treat the events in Ukraine as different? --Kuban Cossack 03:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is where it gets tricky. The only definition of Genocide that no one really questions is the UN one. It does not mean that this is the only possible definition, but we start talking semantics here as if the term's definition is not universally agreed, its application may not be universally agreed either. I do believe the article should state all mainstream points of view and even mention the Stalinist POV which, despite being a fringe one, is notable for historic puproses. The article does that already. However, Category:Genocide is a different issue. As per WP:Category#Some_general_guidelines Wikipedia guidline (see #8) "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." I will be returning to the major work on this article. --Irpen 03:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

1. The reason why there was an internal passport system set up was because of massive migration to the towns that would have seriously strained available resources. This would mean that there would be an explosion of non-producing peasants meaning that grain collections would have to be stepped up with the decrease of labour. About 12 million people flocked to the towns in the early 1930s. This had to be reduced for obviously practical reasons.

2. The simple reason why the Ukrainian population grew slower than other regions was because of massive migration into the Russian Federated Socialist Republic. It is found that the predominantly ethnic Russian regions of the Volga endured a population stagnation between 1926-37 that was proportionally higher than that of Ukraine. There were 5.3m people in Lower Volga area in 1926 but only 4.7m in 1937. In contrast, UKR population remained unchanged at 28m in 1926-37. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvesda (talkcontribs)

Soviet statustics on internal migration is declassified and available. It is taken into account in calculations, see article. --Irpen 20:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

3. James Mace is not a valid source. Propaganda employed by the US government is not any more helpful than similar material dessiminated by the official Soviet press of the 1930s. The fact is that grain collections in 1932 were 18 million tons compared to 22 million tons in 1931 and 1933. The decree that you cite had been substantially modified so as to be lenient. Peasants afterwards were liable to conviction only if they tried to engage in criminal activities against socialist property on a SYSTEMATIC scale e.g bandits. Only 6% of all those convicted for breaking this law received a death sentence. Please take the time to read the modifications of this misunderstood decree described extensively in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvesda (talkcontribs)

Keep in mind that all these questions of the "Ukrainian Genocide/Holodomor" have recently been artificially raised by the nationalist hysterical "pro-western" President of Ukraine Yushchenko. The Famine happened in all over the Soviet Union at that time.

I am from Povolozhie/the Volga region of Russia myself. My uncle's family was a "kulak's" family and they were exiled to Kazakhstan in the early 30's themselves. "Kulak" in Russian means a "fist", the name that was used for the wealthy peasants/villagers. My uncle is actually a half-Russian and half-Ukrainian. I never heard from anyone who is from my father's and uncle's village in the Volga region that it was genocide against Ukrainians or any other nation. What really happened are some mistakes with the collectivization that affected the whole Soviet Union, and it was further worsened by the drought happened across the country. As you may know, there were no international help relief organizations in the 30's. Besides, western countries were not interested in assisting a young Soviet country with wheat, food, etc.

The West currently does not play a good game either, supporting anti-Russian emotions/hysteria in former Soviet neighboring republics. Last year, it was an anti-Russian campaign when Russian decided to sell gas to Ukraine for the world's price. I don't understand why the West is trying to create s conflict between Russia, on the one hand, and former Soviet republics, such as Baltic countries, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, on the other hand. Is there too little instability in the world now? Or it is a way for justifying the existence of the NATO or enlarging but struggling European Union, when a new enemy should be created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.82.50 (talkcontribs)

Of course it was, because mass murder have been committed only in areas, were ukrainians predominated. The denial of Genocide is just a russian POV. --A4 20:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Protect?

Maybe this page should be locked. It looks like a few editors are determined to keep moving and blanking the page. User:Sebbeng 00:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I will look into this after dinner, and will protect if it seems needed. While I am cooking and eating, you can speed up my job by providing diff's for the last few days of vandalism. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are a few of them [4] [5] [6] [7] User:Sebbeng 02:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Normalcy can be gradually restored in a much better was with less collatoral damage. user:Jacob Peters and user:LuisMatosRibeiro both deserve a block. The first one for edit warring, utter denial to listen to others and the blatant undiscudded move of an article. LuisMatosRibeiro for sterile revert warring (inluding from 82.155 IPs), personal attacks and refusal to discuss as well. Luis also violated 3RR by shifting his revertion spree between the account and the 82... IPs. Since both users do use IPs for editing, and both user's IPs are changing from time to time (see eg. 82... IPs in recent months history), additionally the article needs semiprotection. I don't think complete protection is necessary. I will try to start cleaning up the mess. Won't do everything today, but the most blatant stuff. --Irpen 02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is alot more indepth than I thought,you should go to WP:RFP. I have not done much in the area of protection yet. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Most Scholars Do Not Feel Exclusivity of Ukraine

Mark Tauger wrote the following in a review about the slanderous "Black Book of Communism:

''Most serious scholars now do not accept the view that this was exclusively a Ukrainian famine''

Case closed. The fact most scholars do not consider this to have occurred exclusively in Ukraine means that the version of this article has to be reverted to the improved "Soviet Famine" title.

http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger,%20Chapter%20for%20Roter%20Holocaust%20book%20b.pdf

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Peters (talkcontribs)

falsifying refs

I would like to note that Ultramarine's edits use the falsified reference data. The Davies ref (5.5-6.5 mln) he added speaks about the number of famine victims Soviet-wide, not in UA only. Please start the article Soviet Famine (1932-1933) for that.

Ellman's 8+ mln number is the total number of victims of Soviet repressions, including executed, died in Gulags, etc., and also from famine. Please note, that this number is also Soviet-wide, not Ukraine only. --Irpen 05:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Then it should be very clearly stated that the numbers in the article does not count all who died of famine and does not include all victims of repression during this period.Ultramarine 05:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

First, you did not do it when inserting your references. Sneakily putting in false numbers and presenting them as if they are referenced in fact qualifies as Vandalism. Second, this article is not about the whole set of crimes of Stalinist regime. In fact, there was a significant opposition to having such article about the Soviet famine of which the Ukrainian events would be a part as some editors feel that events in Ukraine deserve an article on their own. General information related to the events that were not part of Holodomor is cluttering. --Irpen 05:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph in question did not state that the numbers refered only to famine victimis only in Ukraine. Obviously this should be clearly pointed out, otherwise there will be misunderstanding.Ultramarine 06:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Another falsehood. You inserted 8.7 million[8] as the upper estimate of the number of victims of Holodomor, which is the Ukrainian Famine. --Irpen 06:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, that paragraph does not state that the numbers refered only to famine victimis only in Ukraine. Most people use Holodmor to refer to general famine and repression during this period. Ultramarine 06:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop with this partisan right-wing vandalism, Ultramarine. It is due to the presence of your ilk why the quality of this encyclopedia deteriorates. Davies and Wheatcroft reported that 1.54 million died in Ukraine. Jacob Peters

Section Heading: "Was the Holodomor genocide?"

I think that the heading Was the Holodomor genocide? is a neutral heading showing that there it is an open dispute and presenting the arguments of both sides. On the other hand the Denial and recognition clearly intended to show that it is universally accepted as genocide and just a small group of denialists refuses to recognize this. I think it is POV and factually incorrect (see the section itself). Please do not reintroduce the biased heading until some sot of a consensus is formed on the talk page. Alex Bakharev 00:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree. The article and topic are controversial enough without POV headings and paragraphs about the greater Soviet famine being introduced. User:Sebbeng 00:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree Besides such changes need to have a consensus. --Kuban Cossack 00:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree of course. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, per reasoning above. These heading change games are on the same level as the cat wars - totally useless and time wasting.--Riurik (discuss) 05:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion at this time. However, the title isn't very encyclopediac sounding.70.72.50.82 03:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Remembrance

I must question the necessity of the last three paragraphs of this section. Do we plan to keep adding sections on remembrances each year, or what? Biruitorul 04:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. I've removed the "news" items, leaving only the decree paragraph as it seems to be more informative and applicable to the section than the others.--Riurik (discuss) 05:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Next November is a long way off; by then, it will hopefully have become clearer how we deal with future commemorations. Biruitorul 06:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
One more point: "the NKVD (and later KGB) archives on the Holodomor period opened very slowly" - wouldn't these have opened very quickly, say 1991-3? Or were documents being released under communism as well? Biruitorul 06:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. Little if anything was released before 1991. I do not think that everything was open in 1991-1993. Some documents were opened in Ukraine as recently as this year. Nevertheless, I have not seen any complaints by scholars lately of the research being obstructed by the documents being inaccessible. To the contrary, I've seen the statements that all the essential documentary evidence is now available for the researchers. Interestingly, the numbers cited by modern researchers (when referred to archive) all agree which adds to the perception of consistency. The number of victims, however, is not in the archives and has to be derived from there. Here we do get discrepancies. See article. --Irpen 06:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to caution users to make sure to check the references if provided. Recent falcification by Ultramarine who somehow decided to get interested in the topic again, illustrates the problem well. I can guarantee the inline refs added by myself. I checked many, but not all yet, refs to Davies. After several warnings, I removed refs to the book where the page number is ommitted. Also, please pay attention to how academic the ref is. Publications in popular press may be acceptable if written by the authors who established their names in the peer-reviewed publications. We can be fairly certain about articles from the Zerkalo's history section as well as the Den series. However, we should exercise caution not to refer historic facts to the political declarations and publications written by non-scholars. Political declarations have to be presented as such rather than the undeniable truth. --Irpen 06:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian SSR schools...

Minor error, if it hadn't been caught yet - most of the schooling in the republic was done in Russian (the 83% statistic) not in Ukrainian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.111.122.151 (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

It's not that simple. In the 1920s, the school system was established as mostly Ukrainian-language, but this policy was reversed starting in 1930, and extremely so after Postyshev arrived in 1933. Russification of schools and publications and the violent repression of the Ukrainian intelligentsia went hand-in-hand with the forced collectivization which caused the Holodomor. See Ukrainian language#Persecution and russification and UkrainizationMichael Z. 2006-12-11 18:19 Z

Please stop with this baseless absurdity of "perseuction of Ukrainian culture". None ever happened. It is a fact that Ukrainian culture in the USSR thrived. Ukrainian was an official language and the vast majority of children were instructed in Ukrainian in schools. All of these preposterous theories are totally discredited by the following:

1939 entry of Collier's Yearbook on Ukraine:

The Little Russian language, much restricted by the Tsars, is the medium of a thriving culture. There are 117 colleges and universities, 1,830 newspapers and 53 state theatres using the Little Russian language. Culturally Ukraina seems the most advanced of all the Soviet Republics.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.102.210.1 (talkcontribs).

I was merely responding to the question.
Can you provide a proper citation for the yearbook? Who was the author of the entry? When was it published? What are its sources? The language "Little Russian" wasn't even used in the Soviet Union, so I suspect the data comes from pre-revolutionary times.
It so happens that the absurdity you refer to is very well based, upon the deaths and deportations of many thousands of Ukrainians, specifically professors, writers, clergymen, and social leaders. Modern historians like Subtelny and Magocsi disagree with you. Did you take the time to have a look at the articles I linked above? Michael Z. 2006-12-12 21:31 Z

Huh? Colliers is a popular English-language encyclopedia on par with Brittanica. There needs not be a citation for it. "Little Russian" was in English language at the time an archaic term for the Ukrainian dialect which is just a Polonized variation of Russian. Ukrainians in USSR had a degree of influence that was proportionely on par with Russians. Targetting bourgeoisie of Ukrainian national background does not signify an anti-Ukrainian campaign especially given the facts above showing the thriving presence of the Ukrainian language in the Ukrainian SSR. It'd be like saying the USSR was anti-Russian for imprisoning Alexander Solzhenitsyn and having thousands of priests, writers, and scientists punished. And what is it with your ilk and the degree of sympathy you give to elitist parts of society like clergy and intellectuals?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.123.224.165 (talkcontribs).

What is the year of publication of the Colliers yearbook you quoted?
My ilk thinks that people should be able to think and speak without being killed for it. Michael Z. 2006-12-13 21:21 Z
Hi Michael. The publication year is 1939 (see just above quoted text). User:Sebbeng 22:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought that was the 1939 entry in a yearbook, not its date of publication. Hard to say for sure, from what the anonymous contributor wrote. Michael Z. 2006-12-13 22:37 Z

Please sign in

Folks, would you please sign in when discussing on the talk page? It's really hard to follow a conversation when it looks like two or three different people are responding to each other's posts. Thank you. User:Sebbeng 22:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Poland and Ukrainian resistance

Snyder writes (here and on related pages) about how Holodomor was the final blow to Polish supported pro-Petliura's reistance. This should likely be noted in our text, too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We are not interested in your agitprop or personal opinions. If you are going to refer to traitors who collaborated with foreign enemies as "resistance" then your input cannot be taken seriously. Jacob Peters

Okay, Jacob Peters, how's protecting one's national soverignety against a foreign occupant being a traitor? That means Jews were traitiors of the German regime in the 1940's and 30's. Yet look how widely they are honoured, and so is the whole restistance movement against the Nazis. face it. 10 million people died in 1 year. More than any number of Jews the Nazis ever murdered. If this isn't genocide, I dont know what is. Adolf23653 14:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Adolf23653

Moved to Soviet Famine of 1932-33

No serious scholar finds that this was a famine limited to Ukraine. The term Holodomor is only used by certain sectors of Ukrainian politics. It is not a well-known term either in English or in any other language other than Ukrainian. Refer to for example:

Mark Tauger: "The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933"

"Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Soviet Famine of 1931-1933."

"Stalin, Grain Stocks and the Famine of 1932-1933" Jacob Peters

  • Yes, cutting the topic down to Ukraine only is quite hypocratic action. Hundreds of thousands people in Volga region, south of Central Russia and North Caucasia starved to death during 1932-33 due to same reasons that effected Holodomor. First of all - seizing almost all the yield in most productive areas as a result of bolsheviks' idea to collect as much grain for export as possible. All side effects of that were ignored by Soviet authorities, both in Moscow and in Kiev. And besides all, there were no great interest in victims' nationality. But according current version of the article it was the genocide that killed people in Ukraine and it were some other reasons that killed people in Russia. And genocide denial is "drought version" only that is quite clear being trifle. Perfecty! Respect from Ukranian nationalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.235.1 (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

HOLODOMOR

Dear Jacob Peters:

No serious ukrainian scholar finds that this was a famine limited to Ukraine!!!!

Most ukrainian scholarly works on the subject address famine in the context of the entire USSR!!!

It is a well-known term in English and many languages.

Refer to for example:

1) Mussolini and Ukraine, 1933-1941 Outline of the paper presented by Federigo Argentieri, Ph. D. John Cabot University, Rome, VI Conference of MAU, Donetsk, 29 June 2005

http://colley.co.uk/garethjones/ukraine2005/Mussolini%20and%20Ukraine.pdf

2) Andrea Graziosi

Les famines soviétiques de 1931-1933 et le Holodomor ukrainien. Une nouvelle interprétation est-elle possible et quelles en seraient les conséquences ?, Cahiers du monde russe, 46/3 , 2005

http://monderusse.revues.org/document2818.html

3) Holodomor/ Ucraina, l’Olocausto sconosciuto. Morirono oltre 7 milioni di contadini

http://canali.libero.it/affaritaliani/politica/olocaustosconosciutoucraina2411.html?pg=1

4) STALIN, LE CARESTIE SOVIETICHE E IL HOLODOMOR UCRAINO (1931-1933)

http://www.gramsci.it/attivita05.htm

5) La morte della terra. La grande “carestia” in Ucraina nel 1932-33. Atti del convegno, Vicenza, 16-18 ottobre 2003

http://www.viella.it/Edizioni/Media/Media_02.htm

6) Ucraina. Storia di un genocidio

http://www.liberalfondazione.it/ucraina.htm

7) Holodomor - Per non dimenticare

http://www.aisu.it/convegni/firenze.htm

8) Le tabou de l' "Holodomor" ukrainien

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3214,36-838243,0.html

9) La grande famine ukrainienne au grand jour

http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/monde/219211.FR.php

10) Proposition de résolution relative à la reconnaissance en tant que génocide du "Holodomor" ou famine organisée dont fut victime la population ukrainienne en URSS.

http://www.lachambre.be/kvvcr/showpage.cfm?section=flwb&language=fr&rightmenu=right&cfm=flwbn.cfm?lang=F&legislat=51&dossierID=2531

11) La Gouverneure générale représentera le Canada lors d’une inauguration historique en Ukraine

http://www.gg.ca/media/doc.asp?lang=f&DocID=4355

12) Vernichtung durch Hunger. Der Holodomor in der Ukraine und der UdSSR

http://osteuropa.dgo-online.org/83.0.html

13) Letter dated 7 November 2003 from the PermanentRepresentative of Ukraine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General

http://www.un.int/ukraine/Ukr-UN/GenAs/social-human-cultur/2003/AC3589.pdf

14) Genocídio conta a nação ucraniana

http://ucrania-mozambique.blogspot.com/2006/11/genocdio-conta-nao-ucraniana.html

15) Den store hungersnød i Ukraine.

http://www.danskukrainsk.dk/artikler.htm


Please, don´t be so IGNORANT and so Stalin Lover...

However, I wish you a Merry Cristmas and a Happy New Year!

82.155.58.206 12:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been moved before, and moved back before. I'm not going to comment on which title is better, but there should definitely be a discussion on the talk page before moves like this are made (and made again, and made again.) Please don't move it again until this has been discussed. Picaroon 04:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of those works are in the English language and are therefore irrelevant. One of the titles talking about 7 million dead is blatantly false. You leave no me no choice but to revert to the factual version. Historians in English and Russian language have clearly shown that this was not an exclusively Ukrainian famine. Jacob Peters

Recent edits by User:Jacob Peters

Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) has recently changed the Holodomor article from a long standing version to his version, removing pictures as "emotional propaganda", removing remembrance section, and what not. It has also been move protected because of his moving of the article to Soviet Famine of 1932-33 without discussion. I am running out of time now, but would someone please see how to deal with this? —dima/s-ko/ 05:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I reported him but sadly, the administrator decided it was "too complex" and moved it to the Administrator Noticeboard, which has a month long backlog. User:Sebbeng 21:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


A genocide is an attempt to exterminate a nation, a genus (hence GENOcide), for an event to qualify as genocide it must be complete. I've never ever heard that the USSR wanted to exterminate all people of Little Russian/Ukrainian stock as first this would be as absurd as exterminating all people of Great Russian/Russian ancestry. If Armenian genocide is well-documented, has newspaper articles, internal Turkish reports, photographs, massgraves of immense dimensions, and demographic data to support, the so-called Holodomor seems more or less a fabrication.

Merry Christmas to you (those using Gregorian calendar and those sticking to the old Roman, My Julian, one - albeit you folks would have to wait a bit;)

Eat well and stay warm;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit (talkcontribs)

If you are not going to back up your claims with factual, scholarly information then you leave sane people no choice but to send it straigh to the rubbish bin. Never has the claim that Ukrainian culture was repressed in the 1930s been substantiated by a scholarly source. I've demonstrated in my version that this was not the case.

Plus, the image will be removed as its origins are dubious. Images for propagandistic emotional purposes are not acceptable. There will also be a removal of the "rememberance" section as it falsely insinuates that some sort of genocide occurred. This emotional rubbish absolutely fails to keep an encyclopedic, NPOV tone and instead gives the article the feel of a propaganda pamhplet. Jacob Peters


Dear Jacob Peters

My sweet stalinochka, I wish you again Happy Hollydays!!!

82.155.55.228 11:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. And for a indefblock user, Mr. Ribero, I would recommend you behaviour should be a bit less offensive. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Prometheism?

The following piece strangely pasted to the "Elimination of Ukrainian cultural elite" section is moved here:

"The Holodomor also marked the end of [[Prometheism|pro-Petliura Polish based Ukrainian resistance]].<ref name="Snyder">[[Timothy Snyder]], ''Covert Polish missions across the Soviet Ukrainian border, 1928-1933'' ([http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN8849812760&id=TQR5YSY-b1QC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&sig=4caX_oMm1TLCtmRTOCFtnf9PvvM#PPA77,M1 p.77], in ''Cofini'', Silvia Salvatici (a cura di), Rubbettino, 2005)</ref>"

It simply does not belong where it was pasted. Either integrate it into the article's structure or change the structure to fit this piece. Or leave it here until others check the refs and do it for you. Arbitrary pasting passages into well-structured articles is unacceptable. --Irpen 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Piotrus added that a while ago. TheQuandry 22:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I was at the wikibreak at the time. --Irpen 22:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I need a Wikibreak too. :-) TheQuandry 23:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

How about restoring the sentence, but without the link to Prometheism (which I believe is what you object) ? --Lysytalk 08:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I object to the sentence being pasted to a randomly picked placed in the article. I do not object to the referenced information being properly integrated within the text flow. --Irpen 08:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to belong to "Causes and outcomes" section, rather than "Elimination of Ukrainian cultural elite", right ? --Lysytalk 08:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. When I would have had some time, I would have checked the sentence against the provided reference and tried to figure out how this info could best be integrated into the text flow. In the original form it was merely a disconnected sentence pasted into the section where it had no relevance and disrupted the article's flow. I do not object if anyone does it better than how it was done originally. I removed the text because it simply did not belong in its form to the place it was added and I do not have time to work on that now. If others are up to this task, I would certainly not object. Had I considered this just bullshit, I would have simply deleted it rather than moved to talk. --Irpen 08:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I tried to integrate it more smoothly. if still no good, feel free to revert and I'll see if I can rephrase it or find a better spot. It's added to Causes and Outcomes, end of 11th paragraph. TheQuandry 17:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)




Clean up Talk Page?

My interest is really only from having some Ukrainian friends and checking what it was, exactly, that Irpen had reverted that was mentioned elsewhere. So just visiting. That said, I'm having an awfully tough time navigating (as I am sure anyone else is) with all the Jacob Peters litter throughout. Has anyone given some thought to archiving to get back to a pertinent discussion?
    I would only note that even if the famine was larger than the Ukraine, we still have Stalin sending in Krushchev to kill the Ukrainians (specifically as I recall) because they were not dying fast enough--which would certainly point toward a clear intent directed at the Ukrainians which would then substantiate the label of Genocide. Unfortunately, I don't recall where I read the Krushchev reference, that was at least several years ago.
    Requires more research of Stalin references, not mechanics of crop failure affecting populace. My two kopiyok.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Irpen has already started removing some older sections. I think rubbish produced by a blocked Stalinist (Jacob Peters), who was using Wikipedia as a soapbox, should be deleted mercilessly. Other old threads may be archived at any time as well.Constanz - Talk 16:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Conclusion: When? How? If?

Unfortunately, this article is an endless and shameful chaos: contradictory, confused, incoherent, partial, ambiguous, aestheticly and graphically very poor; etc, etc, etc.

Look the Ukrainian, Portuguese, Polish, Croatian and even the French articles.

The Holodomor victims deserve much better!

Case closed...

Piruca 16:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article needs much improvement. The reason of it somewhat chaotic state is its being subject to occasional fierce attacks from two sides of POV-pushers: the Stalinist apologists, who try to make it look like the Famine was fictitious or accidental and Ukrainian nationalists who try to make it look like a Russia's attempt to exterminate the Ukrainians. As usually, the truth is with neither of the extremists sides but if we could devote more time to improving the structure and content rather than fending off the attacks, we could have been much more ahead from where we are. Still, the article is not so bad. At least it is well sourced. The structure, style and repetitions are its main problems now. --Irpen 19:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

US recognition

"Today, the heads of state, governments or parliaments of 26 countries, consider the 1932-1933 famine as an act of genocide. Among these countries are Ukraine, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Canada, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, United States, and Vatican City."
vs.
"According to Valery Kuchinsky, the chief Ukrainian representative at the United Nations the declaration was a compromise between the positions of Great Britain, United States and Russia denying that Holodomor was a genocide and the position of Ukraine that insisted on recognition of Holodomor as a form of genocide."
So, which is it? TheMightyQuill 05:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Actually, this needs to be indeed cleared up in the article. According to the Ukrainian government itself, 10 countries have recognized Holodomor an act of Genocide. See this presidential speech:

"I would like to call on all Ukrainian politicians to clarify their positions in this question and to be mature. I remind you that the parliaments of 10 countries recognized Holodomor as an act of Genocide"

ref: Korrespondent.net, Nov. 24, 2006.

Our article elsewhere says that 22 countries did. This needs corrected. The list of those 10 countries is frequently repeated in the press:[9] US, Canada, Estonia, Argentina, Australia, Italy, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland

Now, even among those countries there may or may not have been the full official recognition, like in the Act of the Ukrainian parliament. Take, for instance the US congress. Last time the congress addressed the issue was the Senate resolution called "An Act To authorize the Government of Ukraine to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor the victims of the manmade famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932–1933." accepted on November 17, 2005. The full text is here: [10]

The resolution does mentions the Genocide in the text as follows:

The Government of Ukraine is authorized to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor the victims of the Ukrainian famine-genocide of 1932–1933.

Note, however, that this is not a congressional resolution (requires both houses) and this is about putting aside a lot of land for the memorial where the UA gov will build the monument, not the act of recognition.

The strongest statement from the US originates, actually, not from the congressional resolutions but from the official United States Commission established by the act of congress in 1985. In its report delivered to the congress at 1988, the commission stated that "Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932–1933"

Citing this conclusion of the US commission, the House (again not the full Congress) on October 20, 2003 adopted the House Resolution 356 whose title was: "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the man-made famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932-1933."

In the preamble of the document the conclusion of the commission is cited indeed. However, the resolution itself goes like this:

Whereas 2003 marks the 70th anniversary of the height of the famine in Ukraine...
Whereas...
Whereas...
Whereas the final report of the United States Government's Commission on the Ukraine Famine, established on December 13, 1985, concluded that the victims were `starved to death in a man-made famine' and that `Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932-1933'; and
Whereas, although the Ukraine famine was one of the greatest losses of human life in the 20th century, it remains insufficiently known in the United States and in the world: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
(1) the millions of victims of the man-made famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932-1933 should be solemnly remembered and honored in the 70th year marking the height of the famine;
(2) this man-made famine was designed and implemented by the Soviet regime as a deliberate act of terror and mass murder against the Ukrainian people;
(3) the decision of the Government of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian parliament) to give official recognition to the famine and its victims, as well as their efforts to secure greater international awareness and understanding of the famine, should be supported; and
(4) the official recognition of the famine by the Government of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada represents a significant step in the reestablishment of Ukraine's national identity, the elimination of the legacy of the Soviet dictatorship, and the advancement of efforts to establish a democratic and free Ukraine that is fully integrated into the Western community of nations.

You can google the full text to verify it for yourself. As you can see, the resolution (the "resolved" part) does not say anything about the recognition of Genocide. Further, this is the House resolution and the "Official recognition" from the US requires the Senate approving the identical version.

What I am leading to is that there is a lot of confusion on the international recognition of the Famine as Genocide if even the US resolution of the Famine does not resolve that the Holodomor was Genocide. Stanislav Kulchytsky, the leading Ukrainian scholar in the field, (see refs in the article and earlier in the archives) actually thinks that this lack of recognition is partly due to the fact that the Ukrainian government itself does not treat the issue seriously enough, attempting to invoke political, rather than scholarly arguments, to convince the international community in the Genocidal nature of the Famine. Maybe this is why the US Senate seems to be "too busy" to address the issue lately at all and the Ukrainian delegation to the UN has to work with other delegations in search of the compromise, noted by the Ukrainian Ambassador to the UN Mr. Kuchinsky in the cited interview.

The section does need to be corrected or better yet, rewritten. --Irpen 08:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Who Recognize?

Dear Irpen:

Actually, the resolution called "An Act To authorize the Government of Ukraine to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor the victims of the manmade famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932–1933." is a congressional resolution. The full text is here: [11]~

The position of the US and UK representative at the United Nations reflects always the official position of the Executive Power not the position of the Legislative Power:

Some examples:

USA

President: [12]

Senate: [13]

UK

Government: [14]

House of Commons:[15] or [16]

About the international recognition of the Ukraine genocide, look this excellent wiki-article in portuguese: [17]

But, in many cases, is the same thing with others genocides, like the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide: ambiguity and contradiction between the State powers of the same country...

Some examples:

French President-Armenian Genocide:[18];

French Senate-Armenian Genocide: [19]

US President-Armenian Genocide: [20];

US Congress-Armenian Genocide: [21].


All the best!

Piruca 12:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)