The Holodomor pt. 2

continued from pt. 1

Overall, collectivization was barely profitable. Although it did bring more power over the peasants and an increased production of grain, there were shortages in meat, fruits, and vegetables along with the deaths and suffering of millions. Stalin’s intention of the famine in Ukraine was to crush their nationalism to prevent potential independence and through Soviet propaganda, he was able to achieve the impossible-- silencing the famine world wide. Hopes of international aid was crushed and no one outside of the USSR was informed. Doubts have been raised about the USSR’s condition before in other countries, but that just brought up denial of any issues within the USSR by Stalin. Many western countries were convinced that there was nothing wrong either. This denial continued for decades until the 50th anniversary of the Holodomor in 1983 where a world-wide remembrance took place.
Although the majority of Stalin‘s actions seem genocidal, the famine as a whole shouldn’t necessarily be considered a genocide. Soviet sources claimed that natural causes such as droughts were a major reason. In contrast, Dr. Mark Tauger claims that rustic plant disease was a popular cause. Other causes included human actions such as lack of labor, systemic economic problems, and the peasant resistance during collectivization. By definition, genocide is targeted to one group depending on their religion, race, ethnicity, or nation. Yet the famine didn’t only affect Ukrainians. It affected the USSR as a whole such as Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Russia.
Today, Ukraine’s current president Viktor Yanukovych believes identifying the Holodomor as genocide would be “incorrect and unfair” since it affected other SSR countries in contrast to Ukraine’s former president, Viktor Yushchenko’s opinion. Ukrainians sees Yanukovych’s opinion as denial of the Holodomor especially since they have recently passed a law where if a citizen were to deny the Holodomor, they would be fined. Even after years of suppression, Russia shares a common pain with Ukraine’s past situation.

The Holodomor took a greater toll in Ukraine as part of the larger Soviet famine in the late 1920s to the 1930s. Although Soviet leaders took no action to help reverse this tragic event, it does not fall into the proper definition of a genocide. Therefore, the Holodomor was not a genocide, but an unfortunate event ruthlessly led by a totalitarian leader and should be widely taught to help commemorate those who have suffered and to prevent future encounters.



Although for my paper my conclusion states that the Holodomor was not a genocide, it's still widely debatable. I'm still baffled by this topic since it has genocidal and non-genocidal factors. Aside from Stalin's knowledge of Ukraine's suffering, there has been claims where Stalin primarily targeted Ukraine to "teach them a lesson" for resistance and to annihilate their nationalism (potential independence or detachment from the USSR). It really sounds like a genocide.
There's a (small) number of countries that agree it was a genocide such as the U.S. itself. European countries, in contrast, have yet to fully investigate it like the Americans. PACE or the European Parliament recently removed the recognition of the Holodomor to compliment the opinions of current Ukranian president Viktor Yanukovych and Russia itself. I understand the reason why Yanukovych doesn't want to recognize the Holodomor as genocide (as stated in paragraph 3) and following that, he wants Ukraine to have closer ties with Russia. Continuous pressure on Russia would only drift the two Slavic countries further apart.

I still have plenty of editing to do.. so this whole report thing isn't at its best, haha.