Jump to content

Talk:Holodomor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ostap R (talk | contribs) at 03:02, 15 October 2007 (→Title for the genocide theory section: It is still an unencyclopedic question.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconUkraine B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconRussia Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:FAOL Template:FAOL

Wikipedia 1.0 — (talk)
FAQ — To do
Release version tools
Guide — (talk) — (stats)
Article selection process
(talk)
Version 0.8 bot selection
Version 0.8 feedback
IRC channel (IRC)
Release criteria
Review team (FAQ)
Version 0.8 release
(manual selection) (t)
"Selection" project (Talk)

schools selection
Offline WP for Indian Schools

CORE TOPICS
CORE SUPPLEMENT
Core topics - 1,000
(Talk) (COTF) (bot)
TORRENT (Talk)
"Selection" project for kids ((t))
WORK VIA WIKI
PROJECTS (talk)
Pushing to 1.0 (talk)
Static content subcom.

This is the Version 1.0 Editorial Team page.

General background

Article ratings assessment scheme

In late 2003, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales had proposed making an offline release version of Wikipedia. This group was formed in late 2004 to meet this challenge. Our work involves identifying and organizing articles, and improving and maintaining a core set. Our work does not hinder the existing wiki process for creating and editing articles, but rather it supports that work by providing additional organization. We aim to produce collections that can be used in places where the internet coverage is expensive or non-existent. Our early collections were distributed via DVD; now these are shared via download, then distributed on hardware such as a Raspberry Pi. Originally, only a fixed selection was available, but there is now much flexibility in how selections can be made. This project is now mainly one point in a network of groups who collect and distribute open educational resources from the Internet in an offline form.

See these more detailed related articles:

How you can help

Main page: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/To do

You are encouraged to join us and help out with one of the projects, or to discuss Wikipedia 1.0 on the talk page. A significant part of our work centers around maintaining the assessment scheme, which is now used on more than seven million articles by over 1000 active WikiProjects on the English Wikipedia. It is also being used on other language projects. Generally work on this team is sporadic – periods of hectic activity followed by long periods of waiting! Often work is long and tedious – checking through a list of 22,000 instances of profanities one by one, organizing 10,000 keywords taken from category names, or dealing with technical bugs when the assessment bot fails for no apparent reason. However, it is all worth it in the end.

Our strategy has been intensely debated, but the group has reached a consensus. We elected not to follow the German model. Instead we chose to start with a core of quality articles on key subjects and expand from there. We have produced three test versions: Version 0.5, Version 0.7, and Version 0.8 with the goal of releasing better collections of articles in due course. The next general release is generically referred to as "Release Version" while our first "official" comprehensive release will be called Version 1.0. These collections are then made available for offline use using a reader such as Kiwix, which was chosen as Sourceforge project of the month. The project was on hiatus for several years because of the loss of our main developer. However, as of February 2016, a new group of developers has begun work on upgrading the code and the process, in order to start producing new collections again, especially collections for schools.

Current needs

Although we have much of the requisite system automated, there are still some outstanding tasks:

  • Preparation of a reliable index. If you can write code and you're interested in how to map category trees into a useful index (not as easy as it sounds!) please contact Walkerma.
  • Reviewing manual nominations. Whenever there is a new release being planned, we need volunteers to review a few articles and process them.
  • Propose useful "guide" pages to be added, such as lists and disambiguation pages.
  • Check for vandalism in the selected version-IDs of the articles.
  • Develop nice pages for navigation through the content, such as subject portals.
  • Test the reader software, and find and report bugs.
  • Help with distribution, especially in remote areas without Internet access.

Please let us know on the Talk page if you can help with any of these.

A page read offline in Kiwix

Status

At present, the main activities are:

  • The assessment scheme, which is used by WikiProjects for organizing their content, using talk page tags and the WP1.0 bot. The bot was updated with completely new Perl code in 2020–2021, and it is currently maintained by User:Audiodude. Technical problems with the bot should be reported here. Related to this work is the WP1.0 server (previously called "Release Version Tools) which provides ways for WikiProjects to analyze article lists and data relating to their work.
  • Collaborations to produce offline collections are done in collaboration with various people from Kiwix and Internet-in-a-Box. Please contact Walkerma if you wish to help.

To select articles, we are mainly using a bot-assisted selection process based on assessment by individual WikiProjects, where articles are selected automatically based on quality and importance project rankings.

RevID selection

Based on discussions (at the 2017 Potsdam hackathon and since), we plan to reactivate RevID selection. Previously code based on WikiTrust was used in Version 0.8, and this appeared to produce a largely vandalism-free collection of articles. This worked by scoring each RevID based on the edits remaining in it, and choosing the most "trustworthy" recent RevID based on the WikiTrust algorithm.

Wikipedia 1.0 projects

Active projects

If you would like to start a new project, please discuss it on the talk page first before adding it here.

Wikipedia 1.0 Projects
Name Summary of overall strategy Coordinator Description of activities
School selection Put together selections of 1–10 GB sizes for use in high schools and elementary schools User:Walkerma and others Uses new code that starts with a seed and works out, guided by the WP 1 selection ranking to guide it
Work via WikiProjects (WVWP) Use "networking" to mobilise our existing subject specialists User:Walkerma Organise and facilitate compilation of article lists from the WikiProjects and seek to identify important topics within each WikiProject's area of expertise. Locate important topics that are currently not being managed by projects. In conjunction with WP:COUNCIL, the project serves as a link with the editing community, and may later help locate expert reviewers.

Past releases

Past Wikipedia 1.0 Projects
Name Summary of overall strategy Month of release Description of activities Website Next release
Version 0.5 A test release prior to release of Version 1.0 above. April 2007 A test release designed to pave the way for Version 1.0. Used manual nominations and approval based on importance and quality. Approval was by only one person, from the review team. Okawix Version 0.7
Version 0.7 A test release of automated article selections, prior to release of Version 1.0 above. Early 2010 A test release designed to pave the way for Version 1.0. Used SelectionBot to make an article selection based on importance and quality. Vandalism prevention used a script, with manual checks, which delayed the release significantly. [1] Kiwix reader, ZIM download Version 0.8
Version 0.8 A test release of automated article selections, prior to release of Version 1.0 above. March 2011 A test release designed to pave the way for Version 1.0. Version 0.8 used bot-assisted article selection, with manual adjustments based on feedback from WikiProjects. Used as a test of the WikiTrust revisionID selection code - this worked well. Wikipedia:Version 0.8/downloads. Version 0.9
2006 Wikipedia CD Selection (previously called "Test Version") Work with release version done off site that was coordinated by BozMo April 2006 2000 articles with content filtered/selected for use by children (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection). No longer available - see 2008/9 release below 2007 Wikipedia CD Selection (below)
2007 Wikipedia CD Selection Work with release version done off site that was coordinated by BozMo May 2007 4655 articles with content filtered/selected for use by children (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection). No longer available - see 2008/9 release below 2008/9 Wikipedia CD Selection (below)
2008/9 Wikipedia CD Selection Work with release version done off site that was coordinated by BozMo October 2008 5502 articles with content filtered/selected for use by children (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection). http://schools-wikipedia.org Not yet known

Inactive projects

Inactive Wikipedia 1.0 Projects
Name Summary of overall strategy Coordinator Description of activities
Authoritative Editions Gives experts in each field the tools to review suitable articles in their area of expertise and give their okay to particular revisions. Sj, Jeff Keller, Gnp
  1. Allow editors to propose new groups; for example: "Featured Article review" or "American Physical Society peer review".
  2. Each blessing group would have a set of review guidelines.
  3. Each blessing group would consist of this set of guidelines, and a set of users who could bless a revision of an article as satisfying them.
  4. Articles with blessed revisions would display icons or links to last-blessed revisions.
Featured Articles First reviewing older or problem FAs to ensure that quality is maintained, ready for inclusion of these articles in Wikipedia 1.0. (Now a standard part of the FA system)
Geography project to produce a descriptive gazetteer of the world for publication. This could include an atlas, continents, countries and major cities. This would serve as a test bed for publishing Wikipedia 1.0, but could also be a valuable stand-alone product.
Three Level Editing Users participate in a three part editing process to assure that pages are up to quality standards. The first level is just a general check, the second level is a factual check, and the third level is a last "just in case" check. This process would assure that articles would be up to standards without putting too much responsibility on one user.
Biographies Improve and assess biographical articles Focus especially on the 200 Core Biographies, in conjunction with Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography.

.

Dynamic Pocket Cyclopedia Lists most important FAs, FLs, and GAs. An evolving list of no more than half of Wikipedia's most important featured articles, featured lists, and designated good articles.
WikiSort Integrate the sifting process into the Wiki. Aims to use data from the planned user rating scheme to provide rankings of articles, such that important quality articles can be automatically identified for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. This project has been rendered obsolete by WikiProject-based assessments (see above).
Article assessment To assess articles This project has been rendered obsolete by WikiProject-based assessments (see above).

Publishing steps

The process of generating an offline version of a sub-selection of Wikipedia article is multistage. It needs many dedicated and singled-purposed operations. The following chart show how the WP1 project envisioned things in 2010.

The general process for producing an offline release

Even if this chart is still, to a large extend, valid; we practice and envision things slightly differently nowadays. One of the most important paradigm change we had to make is to remove as much as possible human based manual activity because the amount of work is simply too high to be achieved in a reasonable amount of time. We tend now to automate as much as possible the whole process. As a consequence the project is now predominantly focused on technology.

Technical approach

Support Wikiproject assessment effort

The first software created to support the WP1 project has been the User:WP_1.0_bot. First written in Perl by User:CBM and then slighly modified and maintained by a few other volunteers. In 2020 the bot has been totally rewritten in Python following modern development standards (API, automated tests, etc.) by User:Audiodude. The code base is available en developed on Github.

The WP1bot had and still have three traditional purposes:

  • gather assessments (via categories introduced on main namespace articles talk pages),
  • upload on Wikipedia logs & stats
  • provide key information & tools to Wikiproject on a dedicated Web service. The data can also be accessed through an API at api.wp1.openzim.org

Select article titles

...

Select article revision

...

Scrape selected articles for offline usage

...

Orchestrate periodic and multiple scraping

...

Publish and distribute offline snapshots

...

Statistics

The WP 1.0 bot tracks assessment data (article quality and importance data for individual WikiProjects) assigned via Talk page banners. If you would like to add a new WikiProject to the bot's list, please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot.

The global summary table below is computed by taking the highest quality and importance rating for each assessed article in the main namespace.

All rated articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low ??? Total
FA 1,581 2,512 2,423 1,971 182 8,669
FL 180 702 772 695 100 2,449
A 372 684 787 582 92 2,517
GA 3,263 7,420 14,875 19,850 1,768 47,176
B 17,152 33,232 55,019 70,943 23,752 200,098
C 17,159 54,823 137,183 317,296 93,084 619,545
Start 18,552 93,050 419,018 1,647,112 415,488 2,593,220
Stub 4,257 31,309 277,312 2,810,894 760,133 3,883,905
List 4,941 17,460 54,771 203,084 81,640 361,896
Assessed 67,457 241,192 962,160 5,072,427 1,376,239 7,719,475
Unassessed 112 398 942 16,312 392,879 410,643
Total 67,569 241,590 963,102 5,088,739 1,769,118 8,130,118
About this table

General

Assessment and validation

Wikipedia books

  • Wikipedia:Books & meta:WikiReader - Wikipedia books are collections of articles from Wikipedia on a certain topic, in the form of PDFs published for download and intended to be printed, and also to be sold in printed form.
  • The Book Tool, and Wiki to print, a collaboration between the Foundation and OSI/PediaPress.

Article selections

See also

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
I have returned democide. I think it is appropriate Alex Bakharev 00:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
You are absolutely right Irpen, thanks for fixing. I retract my objections. Truthseeker 85.5 22:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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 (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

According to the US Government Commission on the Ukrainian Famine ([2]) 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)[reply]

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 [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPbIC (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]
  • (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, [4], 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 (talk • contribs)

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) [reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs)

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 (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

Protect?

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

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)[reply]
Here are a few of them [5] [6] [7] [8] TheQuandry 02:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Another falsehood. You inserted 8.7 million[9] as the upper estimate of the number of victims of Holodomor, which is the Ukrainian Famine. --Irpen 06:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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 Ukrainization. —Michael 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 (talk • contribs).

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 (talk • contribs).

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). TheQuandry 22:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. TheQuandry 22:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. TheQuandry 21:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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 (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]




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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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:[10] 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: [11]

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)[reply]

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: [12]~

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: [13]

Senate: [14]

UK

Government: [15]

House of Commons:[16] or [17]

About the international recognition of the Ukraine genocide, look this excellent wiki-article in portuguese: [18]

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:[19];

French Senate-Armenian Genocide: [20]

US President-Armenian Genocide: [21];

US Congress-Armenian Genocide: [22].


All the best!

Piruca 12:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During a wider famine?

According with the mentioned article about famines in Russia and USSR: "The first famine in the USSR happened in 1921-1923 [...] The second famine happened during the collectivisation in the USSR. In 1932-1933 confiscations of grain[...] The last major famine in the USSR happened mainly in 1947[...]". Nowhere it is mentioned that the second one happened during a wider famine, unless we were to consideer the three mendioned ones, despite of the hiatuses betwenn each, as a single wider famine. The closest thing would be the 1931 drought in the Eastern region. Did that resulted in famine too?

Also, if the whole USSR were in an ongoing famine I think that the genocidal character would be somewhat more disputed than it actually seems to be, since more or less the same ammount of people would be expected do die anyway, only more widely distributed. (I point that just as a possible clue indicating that there was no wider famine, not as some sort of argument "against" a wider famine. If there was a wider famine, I won't dispute, but the mentioned article that would supposedly support that does not).--Extremophile 01:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question the famine did affect areas other than Ukraine for instance Kazakhstan, Kuban and Volga regions of Russia. However, similarly to the Ukrainian famine, the underline reason was grain confiscation rather than drought. The severity of grain confiscation varied from region to region, that's why the scale of the catastrophe was non uniform Soviet-wide. Kazakhs, were the nation who lost the highers percentage of population in that famine but Ukraine lost the largest number of people. --Irpen 01:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If famine were caused by confiscation of grain, then an aswer is needed as to where the confiscated grain went. Since, as we know, the grain went mostly to feed the rapidly growing urban population using ration cards (e.g., in 1932 there were 40 million ration cards issued as opposed to 20+ million several years prior), then it is logical to conclude that there would've been mass starvation in the cities had the grain not been confiscated. Therefore, a more likely answer is that the primary reason for the famine was low harvest (incidentally, not caused by drought). Now, there was export out of the 1932 harvest, of course, but it was very limited compared to the previous harvest and could only affect the scale of starvation. Some starvation would've occurred anyway. In short, confiscation of grain affected the geographic distribution of famine, not the existence of famine. Fkriuk 20:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The various decrees functionally condemning Ukrainians to starve to death clearly demonstrates malevolence on the part of Stalin. Your argument heads in the same direction as that of Stalin apologists, that is, that the Ukrainians were not participating in the glorious Soviet experiment (low crop yield) and Stalin was "forced" to teach them a lesson for the greater good. Unfortunately, I have not yet found the reference I came across that when the Ukrainians weren't dying fast enough Stalin sent Khrushchev in to machine-gun them to death. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) I would appreciate it if you discussed specifically what I'd written, rather than where you errouneously suspect it leads.
2) Can you point me to a single decree that clearly demonstrates that the Soviet gov't knew the confiscation of grain would lead to starvation, and that attempted to starve specifically Ukrainians, rather than peasants in general?
3) How is it a demonstration of malevolence to choose to feed urban population at the expense of the peasants? Letting the city dwellers starve would've been less malevolent? Or are you going to claim that there was enough food to feed the urban population without peasants starving? Can you prove it?
Fkriuk 23:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Then please explain where you do lead. You appear to conclude there would have been famine somewhere regardless, ergo, it could not be intentionally used as an instrument of Soviet policy.
  2. If Stalin (and I'm still looking for a more reputable source than I have "re"-found so far) ordered Ukrainians to be executed to maintain a target death rate originally/primarily fueled by the famine, then I believe that is sufficient demonstration of policy intent. Would you agree on that point?
        Your request for a document, unfortunately, draws the conclusion that lack of a document stating "famine as instrument of death" equals or at least strongly implies lack of the policy of "famine as instrument of death." The syllogism inherent in your of your position vis-a-vis Stalin's "policy" is demonstrated by the lack (as far as I am aware) of official policy documents stating that Kolyma et al. were officially intended to sentence millions to their deaths and burial in Siberian mass graves.
  3. This goes back to point 2: if we show Stalin intentionally increased the death rate by alternate means when famine was providing insufficient results, then I believe your point is adequately addressed.
        And, yes, I do claim there was enough food. As Ukrainians were starving, Stalin was sending grain abroad for hard cash: 1.54 million tons exported in 1932 and 1.77 million tons exported in 1933. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) There was not enough grain to feed the entire population of the USSR to begin with, ergo confiscation of grain did not cause the famine. I thought I made that clear? Maybe you shouldn't try to figure out where anything leads, and just read what is written?
2) If "Stalin ... ordered Ukrainians to be executed to maintain a target death rate" -- yes, that would demonstrate genocidal intent. However, if "Stalin ... ordered Ukrainians to be executed", period, then no, genocidal intent is not proven. Stalin, after all, ordered many people to be executed without any genocidal intent, just simple paranoia and witch-hunting. Now, how you go about proving that there was allegedly a "target death rate" remains a mystery. As for Kolyma, you seem to be in the grip of a logical fallacy that assumes that achieved result was the intended result (not to mention the fact that the number of people who died there is significantly less than "millions"). Drawing on a more recent analogy, it's like claiming that since Bush's Iraq war killed about 600k Iraqis, that would mean that Bush specifically started the war in order to kill 600k (or more) Iraqis. Why wouldn't you conclude that it was an unintended consquence of the decision to go to war?
3) Yes, if you can sufficiently prove Stalin's intent. Demonstrate a single document that shows the existence of a "target death rate" and measures taken to achieve it, and you've made your point. But something tells me that you will not be able to do so, since such documents do not exist in nature.
4) As I've pointed out, the amount of grain exported would not have been sufficient to prevent the famine, merely to alleviate it (you're welcome to calculate it yourself). Secondly, you make an erroneous claim that the export took place "while Ukrainians were starving". First, you need to realize that famines don't exist in autumn, as the harvest is being collected, or in winter, while there are still stocks from the last harvest. A famine is normally a late spring-early summer phenomenon. The exports out of the harvest of 1932 (which caused the famine of 1933) took place in early 1933, before the famine actually started. And they were pretty much halted as soon as the reality of the famine set in. You need to be more careful in your claims. Incidentaly, did you take care to differentiate 1933 exports between sources (i.e. harvest of 1932 and harvest of 1933)? The harvest of 1933 was sufficient to stop the famine, and any exports out of it were entirely justifiable.
Fkriuk 23:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My grain export numbers did not specify season versus calendar year, while "season" is standard practice for accounting for grain imports/exports, Soviet statistics are more likely based on calendar year. For example, I believe the 1934 (calendar) export figure was still around 800,000 tons. I don't think you've established a solid chain of events that too much grain was (inadvertantly) sent abroad and that exports were halted as soon as it was apparent that millions were dying. (Export could equally have died down, no pun intended, because the Ukraine had been devastated by human losses--the Ukraine had typically outproduced other regions of the Soviet Union on a per-hectare basis.)
How many would you say died in the gulags, then, if not "millions"? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, agricultural statistics are usually based on the so-called agricultural year (хозяйственный год in Russian), which is counted July to July, IIRC. In any case, I haven't read any published detailed analysis of the timing of Soviet agricultural exports in 1933, but I do think it is sorely needed. What I do go on, however, is private statements by researchers who have actually worked in Soviet archives. Tauger, e.g., claimed that exports were halted once the reality of famine became understood in Moscow. A more detailed example is from a slightly histerical missive to the H-Russia list in May 2002: http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Russia&month=0205&week=a&msg=02U3yMV%2b2ptLgmF6thwCig&user=&pw= Regardless of the barely professional tone (which can be excused in a non-published source), the facts are interesting. I think that we can tentatively conclude that the last 1933 exports out of the 1932 harvest took place in March-April, while the rest of 1933 exports came out of the 1933 harvest in the fall. In May USSR actually started importing grain! As for Ukraine "typically" outproducing other Soviet regions, that wasn't actually the case -- it was Kuban, usually. However, as Tauger calculated in "The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933" (need a link?) in 1932 both Ukraine and Kuban singificantly underproduced other regions of the USSR.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what "gulags" are. If you are wondering how many died in the GULAG NKVD correctional labor camps, annual NKVD reports to that effect are in GARF (formerly TsGAOR) and have been published in 1992 in Russian by Zemskov, and in 1993 in English by Zemskov and Getty. If you're interested, I can provide detailed references. I don't want to look this up now, but the total number of deaths in places of confinement (camps, colonies, and prisons), even if so-called "other losses" are assumed to be deaths, was IIRC around 1 million during the entire Stalin period, with probably 50% of that occuring in 1941-45. As you can see, the mortality was significantly less than "millions", and much of it wasn't even attributable to Stalin (but to war conditions).
Fkriuk 16:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(reindented) I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with your notion of the inviolablity of Soviet statistics. Even conservative estimates put deaths at around 2,000,000 just on the way to Siberia--and destinations were not only camps but entire villages people were forced to carve out of the wilds for themselves (and where many were subsequently worked to death)--which is why I used the more colloquial (and plural) "gulags," I'm quite aware of the official designation of the official prison system, GULAG being the department name within the NKVD.
    My cousin's (eventually to become) husband, deported in a cattle car packed standing full of men, was the only one left alive by the time they reached Siberia (the majority died enroute, bodies dumped by the tracks) and were then force marched to their destination beyond the Arctic circle. I rather doubt NKVD efficiency in recording any of those deaths, or (you can call it my POV) millions of others similarly and directly attributable to the deportation of Eastern Europeans from their homes (not that Russians were immune, either). All having nothing to do with "war conditions." Or, perhaps you might direct me to the archives where I might find the name of one Linards Kalniņš--that would be "Калниньш, Линард"--and all who were packed into his particular cattle car and the recorded time and place of death of all his "travel companions"? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're 10 years or so late with this particular objection. As soon as the Soviet archives became available to reasearchers, many historians went to Moscow and started doing what any normal historians do -- digging through archives, comparing sources, etc. As the flood of archival publications hit various academic publications, people like Conquest started strenuously objecting -- after all, they'd made their name on creative interpretation of cherry-picked narrative accounts, and the newly available documents were showing that they had been utterly wrong (if not to say worse). The acrimonious debates raged for several years, with mutual accusations of deliberately misrepresenting opponents' position and other "nice" things. In the end, Conquest and his crew have pretty much shut up. They could not win simply because archival work is bread and butter to any historian. No one claims that any particular document or a number pulled out of it is the final truth. But if you peruse through thousands of documents, compare them with each other, etc, then the truth emerges. Brushing all of that aside in favor of poorly detailed narratives passed through who knows how many layers of "broken telephone", with obvious mistakes (as in, do you know where the Arctic Circle actually is?) -- all of that is simply anti-historical. What you need to understand is that, in a large bureaucratic system, nothing moves without a piece of paper, and none of those papers are actually meant for the public to see. They accurately represent how the system viewed itself. And since much of those documents have been preserved, we can now use them reconstruct the events in question. These are basics of historiography.
You are, incidentally, confusing separate issues. You apparently asked for the mortality in the GULAG camps, but object to the sources by pointing out mortality among deportees. These two categories are unrelated. Urban legends about cattle cars full of bodies do not apply to camp mortality simply because camps were but one part of the Soviet penal system. A person entered that system before trial (or OSO/troika conviction) while physically located in a prison in his hometown. He was counted in internal NKVD statistics from that point on. Deaths during transportation from prisons to camps or colonies cannot pass unnoticed, and do not. Statistics I referred to do not hide them. As for deportations, when people were picked up, loaded on trains, and sent wherever (but not beyond the Arctic Circle, that's the result of someone's unbridled fantasy), the statistics there would be under a different department. You need to realize that trains don't move without papers either, and that there are signed papers enumerating the deportees at the origin, and signed papers (authored by a different officer) enumerating the deportess at the destination. If any are lost, there are documents for that as well. Unfortunately, statistics for deportees are not as complete as for prisoners, but there is still a lot to go on. The reality is that deaths during deportations were few, and the bulk of mortality occured in the years following the arrival. For example, out of 151,720 Crimean Tatars deported to Uzbekistan (which, as you can imagine, is not beyond the Arctic Circle), 191 died en route. However, the mortality of the entire deported Crimean contingent (not just Tatars) up to 1948 came to 44,887, with only 6,564 births. This is bad enough, no need for urban legends about "cattle cars packed with corpses" or "2 million deaths on the way to Siberia".
Now, if you want to find the fate of a particular train with deportees, then, first of all, you will need to know the exact date and the origin. Armed with that knowledge, you can proceed to the TsA FSB RF (Central FSB Archive), located in Moscow, ul. B. Lubianka, d. 2, and get their permission to conduct research. If you want to find out the details of how that particular archive works, and which particular fond you need, try asking a historian who actually does his research there, e.g. Aleksandr Dyukov, whose blog is here: http://a-dyukov.livejournal.com/ As a matter of fact, he is doing research on deportations from Estonia, so Latvian (I assume, judging by the name) deportations will be very close to his area of research. Fkriuk 20:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ukraine
    It's precisely the probem when historians focus on a particular holy grail and view it as their mission to dismiss/disprove earlier (quite real) evidence--rather than come to a conclusion which embraces all current and past scholarship. You also would appear to follow the "either"/"or" principle, that is, you are intellectually reasonable and correct and I am an anti-Stalinist (and by your imputing confusion on my part, a rather bumbling) propagandist.
    Your observation about people like Conquest and his ilk having "given up" is also explainable by circumstance: Conquest is what, now, 90? Mace is dead (at only 52). Nor, do I believe your contention that Tauger disproves all alleged "man-made" aspects to the famine is entirely correct, as even Tauger in his own published analysis does not free Stalin from responsibility for the famine.
    Do I believe the famine was entirely man-made? No. Do I believe that Stalin used the famine as an opportunity to direct the famine against a particular set of victims and promulgated regulations to insure that no one could stray from the target area? Yes.
    Let's say the phenomenon is not a famine but a sizeable asteroid. If you determine where the asteroid is going to hit and you make sure those in its path can't escape, that's as good as killing them yourself. To claim they were victims of a natural disaster when the meteor hit is disingenuous at best. The salient point is, if Stalin directed the devastation of the famine against the Ukrainians, it doesn't matter whether the famine is "man-made" (which some here seem to apply in the strictest of senses, i.e., it is only because of Stalin's policy that any famine was occured) or "man-exacerbated." Was the famine used as a weapon by Stalin against the Ukrainians? That answer is undoubtedly yes. Arguing over the precise source of the famine does not in any way affect whether or not famine was used as a weapon, or whether the target (agrarian Ukraine) and human toll (7 million even by Soviet archives) qualifies as "genocide."
    P.S. On the 1934 grain number (earlier), that was definitely calendar year. I'm quite aware that grain exports/metrics are conventionally recorded by growing season. That does not mean the Soviet Union always reported them that way.
Kolyma et al.
    Your dealing with evidence that does not fit your mold is to dismiss anything not in an archive as undoubtedly degenerated/embellished into falsehoods, as in, do I even know where the Arctic circle is. (And reports of being deported there being "unbridled fantasy.") Let's, see, that would be...hmm... the dotted line on the map labelled Северный полярный кяуг above which appears labeled the Колыма river which runs into the ВОСТОЧНОСИБИРСКОЕ МОРЕ? If I'm misreading our family copy of the ГЕОГРАФИЧЕСКИЙ АТЛАС СССР, do please let me know. I'm quite aware of the geographical situation of the lower Kolyma versus other more hospitable deportation destinations, say, Krasnoyarsk.
    I'm afraid I'm quite unlikely to contact Mr. Dyukov, whose main purpose (in his own words) is to prove that Soviet oppression of Estonia is a big fat Nazi lie, for example, quoting NKVD records that show trains "outfit to carry people" took them away to Siberia, therefore proving the reporting of "cattle cars" used to transport Estonians is simply not true. (That is, the possibility that some people were taken away in more "regular" trains while others were taken away in "cattle cars" is not considered. If it doesn't say "cattle car" specifically, or even one specifically states something other than "cattle car," then there were no cattle cars as proven by the record, all just "Nazi"--his word--lies.) Although I must say Mr. Dyukov's remarks bear striking resemblance to your aggressively benign view of the Soviet past.
    You would present the whitewashing of Soviet atrocities as attempts at meaningful dialog aimed at an objective understanding of the past. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seem to have lost a paragraph as I was organizing... What would you consider the total population count deported to Siberia, and what would you consider the number that perished at a highly accelerated death rate? Since anyone not shot was simply listed, if at all, as dying of natural causes (the "archival" opposite of "shot dead")? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My dear Vecrumba, it is really quite sad that you've missed the debate over the use of archival materials between Conquest and younger historians. You would've fit right in. As I've mentioned, it was replete with accusations of misrepresenting the opponent's position, and it is with some sadness that I must note that you've managed to misrepresent both my position, and Dyukov's (as far as I know his position). But even if your claims were true (which they obviously aren't), it still would only amount to a red herring in this argument -- facts reported even by biased sources must be examined, rather than brushed aside using inane and disingenuous, or even true, accusations about the source's character. I would extend this courtesy to you if only you would start actually using facts while constructing your theories. In your profile you claim to prefer facts, yet this preference is sorely lacking in your discourse. I hope you will improve.
Even if your theory about why Conquest gave up his hopeless fight against history is correct (that he is simply too old), it still doesn't explain why no one else has picked up his faded banner. Why is it that younger historians are increasingly turning to the archives (as any historians worth their salt should), while the old timers of Conquest's ilk can't even grumble anymore? On a related point, you also ask why old-style narrative sources cannot be reconciled with modern archival research by modern historians. You are barking up the wrong tree here as well. Primary sources (both personal accounts and archival documents) can and should be reconciled. Note, however, that it is one of the basics of historiography to choose more reliable sources over less reliable ones, in case of a conflict, and personal accounts are considered to be the least reliable of all primary sources. But the real problem is not that personal accounts cannot be reconciled with archival material, it is that Conquest et al cannot be reconciled with new documents. His methodology of using cherry-picked accounts (rather than objective inclusion of all available ones) and careless extrapolation from insufficient samples does not amount to "earlier (quite real) evidence", but to sloppy scholarship which needs to be fixed, and the sooner the better. If you remove Conquest from Conquest's research, and reduce it simply to primary sources, then there is no problem in including it in the body of modern scholarship on the subject.
While we're still on the subject, congratulations on finding the Kolyma and the Arctic Circle on a map. However, if your knowledge on the subject were up to date, you would've realized that what is colloquially known as "the Kolyma" was the Dal'stroi organization, run from Magadan, that it was a network of camps (techically, it was a single ITL) located around Magadan and on the upper Kolyma, that they were SOUTH of the Arctic Circle (where the river starts), and that it was the destination for prisoners, not deportees (especially from Latvia, from which most deportees were sent to Krasnoyarsk). That's the basic problem with personal accounts, they usually get most details wrong, and that is why they are disliked by historians. In general, I am not going to give you the total count of deportees to Siberia (why necessarily Siberia? you don't care about those deported to Central Asia or the Far East, or even within European USSR?) or their mortality, simply because I do not consider the scholarship on the topic to be complete. However, based on the documents available now, it is clear that the possible upper bound for such numbers is significantly below previous claims a la Conquest.
Returning to Ukraine. Your analogy is incorrect. A famine is not an asteroid. If you evacuate people from an asteroid's path, they will survive. However, if you evacuate people from an area where there is a famine to an area with a less severe famine, they will simply enfamish the new area. The amount of food is fixed. Moving people (or food) around in the conditions of a general shortage does not create new food supplies, it simply moves the famine. You would have a point if there were areas of USSR where food was plentiful. But as we now know it wasn't the case (there was starvation even in Moscow), you don't have a point.
Now, thanks for sharing your belief that "Stalin used the famine as an opportunity to direct the famine against a particular set of victims". What is the evidence to back up this claim? Or is it simply a belief? What was the alleged "set of victims" who were targeted? Is there a single document that mentions them and refers to them as targets? How do you explain millions of victims who were not your purported targets (e.g., Kazakhstan, Siberia)? I am also puzzled by your claim that the death toll in Ukraine was "7 million even by Soviet archives". You haven't even read this Wikipedia article on the subject, have you? Read it, note the references to research by Kulchytsky and the more recent one by Vallin et al. All based on the Soviet achival material.
On a concluding note, I thought I should point out that striving for more balance and trying to adjust unrealistic numerical estimates does not amount to "the whitewashing of Soviet atrocities" or an "aggressively benign view of the Soviet past". It doesn't make one lick of difference to the qualitative assessment of Stalin's era whether 30 million or 2 million perished. A belief that "post-Soviet Stalinist propagandists" (what a cute term) are those who do not condemn Stalin loudly enough, or often enough, or do not use quite the right terminology, is merely an indication of a totalitarian mindset. In the words of one wise leader, "I feel your pain." Facts, my dear Vecrumba, facts and "rigorous application" thereof is what we should strive for. Character assassinations should have no place in an academic debate.
Fkriuk 01:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(reindented again) I'll try and keep this a bit shorter to not tax our other readers...
    Alas, I am not engaging in character assasination--you offer as a reputable (balanced) source a Soviet, sorry, Russian historian who in his very words has one agenda, that is, disprove as a "Nazi lie" all alleged Soviet oppression of Estonia--and by extension, of all the Baltics. His methodology? The very "cherry picking" you accuse the anti-Stalinists of. Any alleged cherry picking of the past is not going to be remedied by energetic cherry picking in the opposite direction--that will only exacerbate the polarization of positions. People taken away in comfort, not in cattle cars, to peaceful resettlement in Siberia to open patriotic new frontiers? What wonders will the archives confirm next? Baltic republics which after two decades of bloody bourgeousie oppression of the workers were finally overthrown by a Baltic peoples eager beyond words to petition to join the great Soviet family?
    Russian authorities would portray they are getting more energetic in defense of Soviet glory and of Russian rights because the West is trying to encircle and marginalize them (again). Alas, it is the Russian attitude which came first which is causing said encriclement. I haven't heard Bush describe Putin as a man into whose soul he had looked through his eyes and seen a good man he could partner with--at least not any time lately.
    You suggest I practice character assassination, yet you practice insulting condescension amid your citing of sources (you quite remind me of Mauco in that regard--different editor, different topic, same pro-/anti-Soviet view of the world polarization). You suggest I am unobjective and uninformed and I and family/relatives have a poor knowledge of geography. Yet your being informed cherry picks no less than your alleged opposition. Now that we have that little unpleasantry out of the way...
    "Stalin used the famine as an opportunity to direct the famine against a particular set of victims." Would you accept Yakovlev (formerly in charge of all Soviet propaganda) as a reputable source? He describes the earlier 1921 Cossack famine and the later famines (Cossack et al, the Ukraine being similarly "stripped" of all its grain) in the 1930's as "man made." To your question of evidence... what would you call laws restricting mobility? Laws declaring underproducers saboteurs and prohibiting them from buying basic supplies? And as I've indicated, even Tauger, explicitly takes pains to NOT absolve Stalin of blame for the famine. As for conclusive proof of intent, I still owe the Khrushchev source. (Of course, in the "Glasnost tapes" he doesn't even mention the famine or his position in the Ukraine at the time....)
    As for "7 million" in the Ukraine I have read that from other sources also quoting the self same archives. And I would make the point the more recent the Russian scholarship, the more likely it is, unfortunately, to apppear to be tainted by the attitude set out by Dyukov: cherry picking the past to paint claims of any Soviet opppression or wrongdoing a lie.
    On the wider question, Yakovlev estimates from his years of experience in the Soviet leadership that the total number who were killed or died in prison and camps during the entire Soviet period totals 20 to 25 million.
    On a less conspiratorial note, referencing Wikipedia articles as reference is the first step down a slippery slope. If you want to discuss sources, let's discuss the originals, not their representation in Wikipedia. Many a time people have quoted some book, and when I have bought the book and read it all--and the quote in context--I find it was completely misrepresented.
    I don't think this particular discussion thread is going to bear any additional fruit until we can discuss specific sources in detail (as opposed to pitting my source/my interpretation against your source/your interpretation). I'll pick one of Tauger's pertinent works. (BTW, I should have been clear on the Ukraine historically being more productive than most other areas of the Soviet Union. Your quoting of specific years where that did not happen does not invalidate the general observation--otherwise you're using cherry-picked exceptions to intimate the exception was the rule and the rule the exception.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Allow me to clarify: you need to consider facts presented by your opponents, not engage in disingenuous speculation about their political beliefs. To do otherwise amounts to character assassination. In relation to Dyukov, his beliefs (which you misrepresent, incidentally) are of no consequence. You wanted to find out how to conduct research in TsA FSB (and I hope it was an honest wish), and that is why I recommended that you contact Dyukov. It doesn't matter what his political beliefs are, what matters is that he has worked in TsA FSB, and I haven't, and thus, unlike me, he is qualified to answer your questions about how to do archival research. Your attempts at his character assassination as well are completely misplaced in this context.
Your counteraccusation of cherry-picking archival evidence lacks specific details. How can you prove that such cherry-picking has occurred? I can always prove that Conquest cherry-picked by pointing out accounts that he did not use, and which do not support his theses. But how can you prove that Dyukov or Tauger or other real historians (i.e. using archival sources) cherry-picked archival documents, if you haven't seen any yourself?
I also have to point out that simple condescension cannot be insulting. I'm not even trying to condescend, it might appear that way because I am explaining basic truths about historiography to you (as in, how to judge relative reliability of primary sources), and if you choose to feel insulted by it, it is not my problem. I don't know who Mauco is, but I do have to point out that if you feel being condescended to by so many different people, maybe you should look inward for causes, rather than outward. And isn't it a fact that either you or your source made a mistake about the Arctic Circle in relation to the location of GULAG camps or deportation destinations? Should I ignore it, rather than use it as an illustration for the inherent lack of reliability of personal accounts as primary sources? Why do you find that insulting?
Returning to the discussion on the Ukrainian famine: I'm surprised that you haven't realized yet that I do not consider individual judgments to be relevant to the discussion. I don't care what Yakovlev, Tauger, Conquest or you *believe* on the subject. And I suggest the same attitude to everyone, including you. What matters is a) what primary sources were used (i.e. basic facts); b) how theories were constructed on those sources (i.e. interpretation of facts). If you want to prove that the famine can be described as "man-made", then you need to enumerate basic facts that demonstrate it, not try to hide behind the opinion of a former chief Soviet propagandist turned chief anti-Soviet propagandist. So, returning to facts and their interpretation, please explain to me how restricted mobility or harsh measures against perceived "saboteurs" prove that the famine was man-made? If these measures hadn't been taken, no one would've died of hunger? Is that your claim?
You have a funny attitude toward Wikipedia for someone who is supposed to be a contributor. Wiki articles have many problems, but that is one of the reasons I am here -- to fix rather than complain. And somehow you've failed to understand me yet again. When I suggested that you look at this Wiki article on the issue of famine related deaths, I specifically meant that you should see the referenced sources. Both Kulchytsky and Dallin et al used published census results plus raw TsUNKhU stats on population movement (from the archives) to make their calculations. In my opinion, neither is misrepresented. Citations are clear and unambiguous. If you want to discuss these articles in detail, be my guest, but do not start throwing out random irrelevant accusations. I cannot recall a single calculation using archival data (e.g. TsUNKhU numbers) that came up with "7 million" for Ukraine alone. But I am glad that you have finally decided to start reading more sources on the subject. Once you've read Tauger, I'm sure this discussion will become a lot more productive.
Fkriuk 20:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"In relation to Dyukov, his beliefs (which you misrepresent, incidentally) are of no consequence."
    I am sorry, but my "characterization" of Dyukov is nothing but reporting his direct verbatim response to being interviewed about his magnum opus in progress, where he specifically states not that he is seeking simple historical accuracy, but that he is seeking to disprove Soviet oppression of Estonia as a "Nazi lie." His words, not mine.
    I am, quite frankly, flabbergasted by your contention that I need to consider only facts, not beliefs. Or to paraphrase, "Consider the words, not the source"--I've heard that too more than once on Wikipedia. It is inescapable that a historian's motivations--noble or ignoble, implicitly or explicitly furthering or countering a premise and conclusion--will color their work. To a hammer, everything is a nail. To Dyukov, every fact is a disprover of Nazi lies. (Which also means he has little, if any, interest in gathering any facts which cannot be applied toward that purpose.)
    On the other hand, your contention does represent some hope that you'll consider whatever facts others bring to the table (assuming they trace back to some record somewhere).
    On the Ukraine, I'll leave you with a few more thoughts:
  • Under Lenin, the 1921 famine was ammeliorated through a massive influx of grain aid from the west, including the United States (which at the time did not even recognize the Soviet government).
  • Under Stalin, the 1930's famine was covered up (to the point where U.S. newspapers published accounts that reports of famine in the Soviet Union were totally unfounded)--no possibility of external aid.
  • Under Stalin, grain stores were emptied, leaving the population with nothing.
  • This population left with nothing to eat was actively prevented from leaving, or from buying supplies, thereby insuring their starvation. (And that it happened elsewhere, for example, with the Cossacks, does not mean it was a universal calamity with no connection to Soviet policy.)
    You would contend that Stalin did nothing to take advantage of the famine situation to focus the maximum suffering on the Ukrainians--in fact, that as soon as he realized people were starving, he halted exports. So, I have to ask, where is the archival record backing the contention that Stalin "halted" exports as soon as he "realized" the true gravity of the situation?
    As to condescension, I would only observe that asking me if I even know where the Arctic circle is has very little, if anything, to do with the noble purpose of furthering my historiographical enlightenment. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I grow weary of discussing Dyukov and your misrepresentations of his work. To make matters simple, here's the interview that you apparently refer to: http://www.newspb.ru/allnews/802017/ Now anyone who is able to read Russian can verify for themselves that not only did you NOT quote Dyukov verbatim, despite your claim, but that you also distorted his views and in effect you are not being truthful in your accusations against him (not that I consider those accusations relevant in the first place). Once again I will have to point out that Dyukov was recommended to you only so you could ask him about the technical details of how to work in the archives. Hence your tirades against him are utterly irrelevant.
    In general, if you prefer to delve into conspiracy theories about historians' motivations rather than discuss facts they present and logic they support their theories with, I certainly cannot stop you. But at the same time I refuse to treat your attempts at irrelevant character assassination seriously. Or even if, for a change, you would not misrepresent someone's views, I would still not treat your characterizations seriously. Facts are facts, regardless of who reports them. Cherry-picking of facts can be an issue, but you need to prove it, and delving into a person's character is not the way to go about it. Judgements are a different issue, where the personal qualities of the one making the judgement do matter a great deal but, as you now know, I refuse to consider judgements of a secondary (if not worse) source. I can draw my own conclusions based on evidence presented to me, and I would encourage you to do the same.
    Thanks for sharing "a few thoughts". I still don't see how they are connected in any way, shape, or form with your contention that the famine was "man-made". The issue of foreign aid is applicable to the accusation that the Soviet gov't messed up (willingly or unwillingly) the relief effort, rather than that it caused the famine in the first place. Foreign aid itself is highly doubtful, considering that at the time the US and Europe were descending into the Great Depression, and starvation was becoming rather frequent there as well. The third point about the grain stores, you will need to clarify it because it is not understandable at all -- certainly it is obvious that all grain stores would be emptied under famine conditions. The last point is relevant, but the faulty logic in it is apparent to anyone who knows that the entire country was starving, not just Ukraine. Allowing Ukrainians to leave would not have alleviated the famine. (We have already discussed this anyway.) Incidentally, I do not consider the contention that only Ukrainians were prevented from leaving to be an established fact. I suspect that migration controls were in place throughout the entire country. But since I haven't studied the subject in detail, I'll leave it be for now.
    Now, this is the second time you asked for sources on the exports. I replied after your first request. Please look it up. The fact that you ask the same questions or reiterate the same claims without referencing previous responses begs the question: do you actually read what you reply to?
    As for the Arctic Circle tangent, I believe the discussion has taught you the danger of relying on poetic exaggerations inherent in personal accounts, whose intent is psychological effect on the reader, and confusing them with fact. So it's not all bad, as far as I'm concerned.
    Fkriuk 00:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further thought, I decided to move this issue forward. I suspect that you will not be able to come up with any facts to prove the claim that the famine was "man-made". So instead I decided to come up with "a few thoughts", or rather questions, of my own. In my opinion, the facts referenced below demonstrate that the theory of the intentional man-made origin of the famine, and it being directed specifically against Ukrainians, is not sustainable. Can you answer these questions within the framework of your theory, or do you need to discard your theory? Note that I'm not providing a source on purpose, to avoid a tangential discussion of sources. Assuming that the facts are true, can you answer these questions?
  1. Why did reaping in 1933 (during the famine) start 20 days before normal (e.g. 1930 or 1931), rushing the food to the market even at the risk of greater losses of the total harvest? Didn't the gov't want to starve the peasants some more?
  2. Why were grain collections by the state (incl. milling levy) 20% lower in 1932/33 than in the previous two years, despite the fact that the number of ration card holders increased by a third in that period?
  3. Why were grain collections for Ukraine, which had accounted for 1/3 of the Soviet total in the previous two years, reduced to only 23% of the total for 1932/33?
  4. Why was the grain collection plan for 1932/33 (of 6 May 1932) reduced by 20% compared to 1931/32? Did the gov't decide to leave more grain to the peasants by any chance?
  5. Why was the already reduced grain collection plan for 1932/33 further reduced on numerous occasions throughout the year, until at least 12 January 1933? Did the government decide to leave even more grain to the peasants?
  6. Why was the grain collection plan for Ukraine as of 12 January 1933 reduced to only 65% of the original, while the plan for Russia and other areas of the USSR wasn't reduced to nearly the same extent? Did the government decide to leave even more grain to the Ukrainian peasants compared to e.g. Russian ones?
  7. Why was 1274 thousand tons of grain allocated as seed loans and aid (returned back to the peasants) in February-May of 1933?
  8. Why was 320 thousand tons of grain allocated as food loans and aid (returned back to the peasants) in February-July 1933? Didn't the government want the peasants to starve?
  9. Why was 176.2 thousand tons of that, more than half of the total, allocated specifically to Ukraine? Didn't the government want specifically the Ukrainian peasants to starve?
--Fkriuk 03:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, of course, I will need to dig into the details behind the numbers and exactly what areas/people they specifically applied to. I suspect it will take me some time to gather up and get through Tauger.
Given your staunch defense of Dyukov, I do have to return to him one last time. Let's examine his perspective on the mass deportations (1941) in the Baltics. I wouldn't want to misrepresent him, so I'll quote him:
"The fact is that deportation of 1941 was not organized for the genocide of the Estonian people, as they say today in Tallin. Deportation from the Baltic republics was the method used to counter the 'Fifth Column' which Nazi special services had formed from local nationalists. In the decision by TsK the AUCP(b) and SNK USSR - Council of People's Commissars USSR, the basis for the need for deportation was clearly states: 'in connection with the presence in the Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian SSRs of a significant quantity of former members of different counter-revolutionary nationalistic parties, former policemen, gendarmes, landowners, manufacturers, important officials of the former government apparatus of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and others, that lead disruptive anti-Soviet activities and are utilized by foreign reconnaissance for espionage purposes.'"
    They weren't deported, they were simply taken away because they were criminals and Nazi collaborators. They all deserved it. Can't call that a "deportation of Estonians," that's hardly accurate.
    And we're supposed to take this stated need to purge the Baltics of its criminal element at face value? Ahh... criminal to own a plot of land, criminal to own a machine shop, now there's a subversive anti-Soviet activity. Those who had been ministers and parliamentarians--Politicians? Public servants? No, they and everyone else a Nazi "Fifth Column" hauled away before it/they could execute their nefarious purpose. Dyukov would ask us to forget that in the Soviet Union, history--and its records--served politics, not facts.
    I'm sorry, but Dyukov's pro-Russo-neo-Soviet Stalinist-rehabilitative stench is detectable a hemisphere away. And with that remark, I expect this thread dovetails neatly once again into Irpen's earlier admonition (below) against inflammatory remarks.
    Don't rush to respond, I expect that after ploughing through Dyukov's diatribes I'll need to spend a few days on something less olfactively stimulating. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    You don't need to dig into details. You have a pet theory about the famine of 32-33. Under the assumption that the facts provided by me are all true, can you answer my questions within the framework of your theory? It's a simple mental exercise in logic.
    The discussion on the validity of facts themselves, as well as their context, can wait until you finish reading Tauger and other reputable historians.
    Returning to Dyukov, since you keep attacking him for some mysterious reason, despite it being utterly irrelevant to the present discussion, I will now have to spend some time explaining your misrepresentations in detail. Not for the sake of protecting Dyukov, but for the sake of simple... honesty.
  1. You claimed that you were quoting Dyukov's interview verbatim when you ascribed to him that "he is seeking to disprove Soviet oppression of Estonia as a 'Nazi lie.'" A check of the text of the interview at http://www.newspb.ru/allnews/802017/ demonstrates that no such words were ever uttered by Dyukov.
  2. As for the meaning of the quote above, what Dyukov said in reality is that there was no genocide of Estonians, rather than "no Soviet oppression".
  3. Moreover, he did not call that a "Nazi lie". He simply caught official Estonian historians using a Nazi propaganda source when claiming the number of executions in Estonia. Thus, the number of executions is a "Nazi lie", not the Soviet oppression or even genocide.
  4. You claimed that "he specifically states not that he is seeking simple historical accuracy". A check of the interview's text finds the following passage: "We need to remember that history is a science. We need to simply conduct an objective investigation based on archival documents of the events that took place in the 1940s. There is no need to politicize the subject of research or, like the Estonian historians, to distort the picture of the past events." This is very much equivalent to a claim that he is seeking "simple historical accuracy.
  5. You forgot to provide a source for the latest quote of yours (it's not from the interview) so I can't check it. However, I can check your claims based on it. You claim that Dyukov said Estonians weren't deported. Yet the quote demonstrates Dyukov using the word deportation. What the quote actually says is that Dyukov does not consider the deportation to have been an act of genocide, because it wasn't targeted at an ethnicity, but at a presumed "fifth column".
  6. You claim that it is Dyukov's opinion that those deported were the "fifth column". Yet Dyukov does not make that claim. He merely reports the opinion of the gov't that those deported were the "fifth column".
    Now, per Wiki standards, we are supposed to assume good faith on the part of the opponent. Therefore, I should not jump to the conclusion that these misrepresentations were deliberate (syn: lies). However, don't you think that six misrepresentations are six misrepresentations too many? In general, based on your emotional outburst, do you think it's time to change the slogan in your profile to "This user attempts to refute imaginary post-Soviet Stalinist propaganda by rigorous application of ad hominem attacks"?
    Finally, in response to your latest attack on the archival material alleging that it served political (apparently, propaganda) purposes, I have to point out that all of these documents were originally classified. Don't you think that "classified propaganda" is an oxymoron? Please find another excuse to reject archival materials out of hand.
    --Fkriuk 05:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vecrumba, please avoid inflammatory rhetoric in your posts and stay to the point like your opponent above, with whom I actually do not agree. --Irpen 05:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, was not attempting to be inflammatory. The phenomenon of apologists for Stalin is one contemporary with Stalin. I have read accounts which, in so many words, say that the Ukrainians brought "it" upon themselves. Since the point was made that the low crop yield was not weather related (that is, seeming to be intentional on the part of the Ukrainians), that pointed in the direction of the logic some have used to postulate the Ukrainians set their own tragic end in motion. Still looking to find the Krushchev source again, unfortunately. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Facts are facts. Inflammation is a response.
P.P.S. Found an online ref, but looking for citeable. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misinterpreted the point about the weather. The drought did not cause the low harvest of 1932, i.e. it wasn't drought related, which you misinterpreted into "weather related". Drought actually caused the low harvest in 1931. In 1932, there were plenty of other natural factors that caused the low harvest (e.g., heavy rains during the harvesting season), as well as unintentional man-made ones. For a dicussion of all of these factors, please see Mark Tauger's "Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Soviet Famine of 1931-1933." (need a link?) Thus, next time please read what is *actually* written, rather than what you *think* is written. Fkriuk 23:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen: if you do not agree with my point, please dispute it. I'm interested in an intelligent debate on the topic (with sources etc), rather than an ideological battle of pro-Stalin/anti-Stalin propagandists, like Vecrumba seems to desire. Otherwise I'll eventually have to force the issue by going directly to the article and modifying it. Fkriuk 23:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davies and Wheatcroft

What's up with all those different Davies and Wheatcroft citations? Can't they all be just one citation? — Alex(T|C|E) 04:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news for the Stalinlovers Part I

I`m sorry, but the Parliament of Spain has officially recognised as genocide the Holodomor :-)

http://www.mfa.gov.ua/spain/ua/news/detail/5420.htm

and http://www.diba.cat/cido/temp/Av-2007-81-05-20070514_81.pdf

Lusitania Express 13:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the saga goes on...

And? --Kuban Cossack 22:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have they officially recognized 520 years of colonialism and imperialism, and the genocide and cultural destruction of millions of aboriginals? Not to mention the oppression of the Basque people.. --Mista-X 05:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woohoo. Now look at a map, check where Spain is and where Ukraine is. And now read up on Spain's history (especially on nice stuff like Inquisition, colonies, antisemitism) and understand (hopefully) why are you talking nonsense. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I remove this trollish entry from the talk page? --Kuban Cossack 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only the provided links are useful. All the comments about Spanish history are not. --Lysytalk 18:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop such calls for censorship... <_< -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Observing that your comment does not directly bear on the substance of the declaration of the parliament of Spain is not "censorship." Is there anything you would like to offer regarding the declaration itself (as opposed to interpreting this as an opportunity to denounce Spain through to the dawn of civilization)? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news for the Stalinlovers Part II

I`m sorry, but the GUAM National Coordinators finally agreed the text of the Statement initiated by Ukraine on admitting the 1932-1933 "Holodomor” in Ukraine as an act of genocide of the Ukrainian people. :-)

http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=131&info_id=4192

And the saga goes on...

Lusitania Express 13:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 13:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How wonderful... Ukraine (and three other countries) making resolutions about themselves... That spells POV from around 10 miles away... It's like, I don't know, if Germany votes a resolution that WWII was genocide of German people - think it will have as much credibility... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The analogy is skewed however. In this case, Ukraine was not the perpetrator of death (as in the case of Germany during WWII). Keep in mind, the recognition of Holodomor as genocide is not only by the GUAM countries as the article makes clear. True, that (# of resolutions) in itself does not constitute "truth" but it ought to alleviate concerns over the POV issue.--Riurik(discuss) 20:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were no Ukrainians confiscating grain from Ukrainian peasants? Ukrainian SSR, of which modern Ukraine is the successor state, was the primary "perpetrator of death" (not the fact of death, but the geographical distribution of death). Grain confiscated from Ukrainian peasants went to feed Ukrainian urban population. So who perpetrated what to whom? Fkriuk 23:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, read before you comment. The analogy does not apply which I point out. Did I say that no Ukrainians confiscated grain? Again, read before writing. Yes, the huge majority of dead from this famine were in Ukraine (raw numbers). What is your source on which grain went where and what does it change? The people were still starved to death by the regime. You ask who? I'm not sure what to answer to you at this point. You seem to be confused as to who was in power at the time so I'll let you go figure it out.--Riurik(discuss) 20:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that Ukraine was not the perpetrator of death and admission that Ukrainians themselves (as officials of the Ukrainian SSR) participated in confiscation of grain from Ukrainian peasants contradict each other. Dude, read before you comment. Fkriuk 23:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's clear the confusion as to who was in charge in the Soviet Union. Sure you had Ukrainian and Russian communists participate in grain confiscation, but the ultimate authority, the go ahead was sent NOT from the officials of the Ukrainian SSR, but from Moscow. Unless you're using a very narrow definition of perpetrated (as in - the person who seizes food and cordons off a geographical area to escape death by hunger), the perpetrators of death during Holodomor were those in charge of the country at the time in Moscow - Stalin, Kaganovich, Molotov and Postyshev.--Riurik(discuss) 23:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Above is equivalent to the claim that Hitler alone was the perpetrator of the Holocaust. Logical? Fkriuk 00:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at the highest level, it is logical that Hitler alone is the perpetrator of genocide; having said that, others at the top of Nazi hierarchy and below were responsible for bringing death to jews, slavs, and other societal "outcasts." Under your line of argument, strictly speaking anybody who partakes in any death machine (Hitler's, Stalin's or in Darfur) is a perpetrator of death. It consequently includes under the same umbrella - an SS soldier who executes his victim and a Jewish ghetto police who "patrols" his own people since both serve the same machine. However, to lump everyone together blurs the line between those most responsible and those less so. As you seem to disagree that Stalin and his thugs are responsible for the Holodomor, I won't continue this discussion. With sources such as Mark Tauger, you seem to be on the true version of history.--Riurik(discuss) 22:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the highest level, there was the leadership of the Ukrainian SSR, who implemented the bulk of agricultural policies in Ukraine, even without Moscow. And since modern Ukraine is the direct descendant of the Ukrainian SSR (as in, practically every institution dates from the Soviet times), the claim that Ukraine had nothing to do with the famine of 1932-33 is disingenuous.
Now, I don't know what "the true version of history" is, but I can assure you, I am "on to" facts. As in, I prefer facts to suppositions. I also prefer historians who dig up facts in the archives, such as Mark Tauger. Or do you think it is wrong to dig up facts in the archives? Anyway, I hope that you will be able to resume the discussion once you recover from your current bout of what seems to be cognitive dissonance. --Fkriuk 20:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your implication that the Ukrainian SSR authorities somehow acted independently of, or were vested in some self-governing authority by, Moscow is certainly suspect. Your further claim that today's Ukraine, as it "descended" from the Ukrainian SSR, is linked with (i.e., complicit in) the famine on a historical factual basis is like contending the Baltics of today, having "been" SSRs (and I use "been" advisedly), were complicit in the deportation of their citizens (and should bear blame, not just the dear departed central Soviet).
And insulting other editors too, I see. If you insist on continuing this approach, I'll have to request a checkuser to see if you're Mauco, your disparaging tone is just too similar to his. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian authorities were neither independent of Moscow, nor were they mindless puppets controlled by Moscow. Their policies affected the course of the famine same as Moscow's policies did. I fail to see how your Baltic analogy is relevant to this discussion. Being a Ukrainian myself, I certainly consider myself, rather than you, a better judge of the Ukrainian political system. If I claim that almost every Ukrainian political institution dates from the Soviet period, you should listen to it. Even the first president of Ukraine was the last secretary of the Ukrainian Communist Party. And that's not even addressing international law, i.e. the SNG treaty, which specifically set all newly independent states as official successors of the USSR. (On an unrelated note, this means that Russia's claim to be the sole successor of the USSR is illegal.)
The purpose of your threat is lost on me. You demand that I treat you more gently (which, I think, means that I have to start agreeing with you rather than pointing out your mistakes), or you will do what, try to find out if I'm some Mauco (btw, can you give me a link to his profile?)? Not even mentioning the fact that you're feeling insulted where no normal secure person would be, why should I be bothered by such a ridiculous threat? --Fkriuk 21:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's the problem. Even Khrushchev was Ukrainian, it's all the Ukrainian's own fault. Mea culpa.
    There's no "threat," I've only seen the tactic of belittling other editors under the guise of "informing" them once too often. If that's how you prefer to pursue your discussions, I would just want to satisfy myself you are not a blocked user somehow reincarnated (regardless of likelihood). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've misrepresented my point yet again. I am disappointed. I am also disappointed by your persistence in considering yourself to be an injured party. But since you haven't actually addressed any of the facts under discussion, I consider it closed. --Fkriuk 23:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International recognition of Holodomor being a Genocide

For reference: Holodomor was recently recognized as Genocide by the state parliament of Parana, Brazil (June 5, 2007) [23] and the parliament of the autonomous community of Catalonia, Spain (June 13, 2007) [24] --Lysytalk 19:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

post-traumatic stress

What do you mean?Xx236 13:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International recognition of Holodomor being a Genocide 2

On 21 June 2007 the Peruvian Congress passed a Resolution to mark the 75th anniversary of Holodomor of 1932-1933 in Ukraine. The Resolution expresses parliament’s solidarity with the Ukrainian people in remembering the tragedy 75 years ago, and recognizes it as an act of genocide. [25][26]

82.155.215.41 14:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy of russification?

I suggest to exclude "policy of russification" as a reason of Holodomor. That was hardly the reason.Biophys 04:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this section should be be better integrated into the article, but russification was a major effect of the Holodomor's rural depopulation, collectivization, and mass resettling into the cities. —Michael Z. 2007-07-21 05:18 Z
The section on russification provides the background for what is happening at the time, and ought to be kept. However, I am not opposed to clarifying the relationship between Holodomor and what caused it, especially if we're relying on reputable sources.--Riurik(discuss) 21:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs improvement

This article is so politicized that it lacks a descriptive part. One should simply describe first what had happened, and only then discuss who is responsible, was it a genocide or not, etc.Biophys 13:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

Introduction of this article tells: "Most modern historians agree that the famine was caused by the policies of the government of the Soviet Union under Stalin, rather than by natural causes". Right. What is then a reason to discuss unimportant "natural causes" for so long in this article? This section should be shortened.Biophys 21:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Previous Famines

As a matter of curiosity, have there been other famines in Ukraine? surely there was a lot of disruption during the Civil War? Wasn't there a famine in the 1890's? If so then there is at least a case for the claim that there was a crop failure involved in the mass deaths in Ukraine and elsewhere? Keith-264 15:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)83.100.189.100 15:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International recognition of Holodomor being a Genocide 3

On 19 September 2007 the Chamber of Deputies of Brazil passed a Resolution to mark the 75th anniversary of the genocide (Holodomor) of 1932-1933 in Ukraine.

http://www2.camara.gov.br/comissoes/cdhm/projetos.html

http://www.senado.gov.br/web/senador/HeraclitoFortes/notícias640.htm

http://www.eduardosciarra.com.br/ler_noticia.php?xXz=436

194.210.97.241 21:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title for the genocide theory section

We have a discussion there some prominent author supports the genocide theory while others strongly reject it. I think it is entirely appropriate to have the section titled with a question. It is neutral and does not look awkward. Title like Holodomor as genocide are seen as supporting the genocide theory as a fact, while say Allegations of Genocide would be seen as disrespectful to the theory supporters. I think we are better off to keep the consensus title Alex Bakharev 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think that a question is appropriate for a title. "as genocide" simply introduces the topic of the section: the different views on refering to "Holodomor as genocide". In my opinion the question title looks stupid and should be changed to something else. Ostap 05:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There is no genocide "theory" section. 26 countries, including the US and Canada, have accepted the fact that it was genocide. There will always be Holodomor deniers, but there are always apologists for everything. The Holomor was genocide, and unless you can provide evidence that it wasn't, please stop belittling the millions of deaths. Thanks, Horlo 06:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn to separate referenced facts from referenced judgments. That Famine took place is a fact. That millions died is a fact. That the term Genocide is applicable is a judgment, hence a POV, even if referenced one. Notable POV can be given in the article in an attributed form but not stated as an undeniable fact which it becomes if it is slapped into the title of the section. Academic scholars do not agree with the term's applicability. We present both views in the article and the readers are to make up their minds. --Irpen 19:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question title is not encyclopedic. Why not "Holodomor as genocide"?
Are you saying that the term genocide is always a judgement, and that there is no criteria for determining what is or isn't genocide? if it is always POV, then why not protest the Armenian Genocide being labeled as such, because its POV? I am sure there are some scholars who object to it as a genocide. What makes a genocide a genocide? Ostap 19:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are those that, frankly, contend the famine was of natural circumstances and point to Soviet records that when Stalin was informed, he dispatched grain to feed the starving. So, a great tragedy, but not intentional.
   Unfortunately I have not yet found a reputable source for the anecdotal statement that when the Ukrainians were not dying fast enough, Stalin sent Khrushchev in to machine-gun them. (That would be intentional and therefore genocide.)
   There are then also those who say others in Ukraine died besides Ukrainians, ergo was not against Ukrainians specifically ergo not genocide, hence coined term "democide." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ostap, how many people died is a fact. That grain was confiscated is a fact. Whether there was an intent of the Soviet leadership to exterminate the Ukrainian nation behind this is a judgment that historians and readers have to make based on the available data. Remember that the definition of the Genocide requires the Genocidal intent of the perpetrators of the crime against people. There are no known documents from declassified archives that the Soviet leadership's intent was to exterminate Ukrainians. So, the intent has to be derived from the actions by scholars who analyze all the facts. Some scholars consider the intent to be genocidal and some not. So do some governments. The elaboration is in the article. Obviously, the encyclopedia should rely more on the scholarship than on political declarations. So, what makes a Genocide a Genocide is a near-universal agreement within the mainstream historic thought confirmed by the usage of the term in the scholarly sources or the acceptance of the by the UN organ, such as an International Court of Justice. As far as I can remember, UN opined on the term's applicability only wrt to the Nazi Holocaust, Rwanda and Bosnian Genocide. Additionally, the near-universal agreement exists among the scholars on the applicability of the term to the case of Armenian Genocide. There is no such agreement in the case of Holodomor. As such, we should present the issue in a referenced form attributing the judgment to the scholars. --Irpen 20:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, political declarations are not made on a whim and shouldn't be discounted, they reflect scholarship.
But, what about the question title? That seems unencyclopedic. "Holodomor as genocide" is not biased, and not a question. I still think it should be changed to this. Ostap 20:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying the political declarations should be discounted. They should be presented in a referenced form but as political declarations exactly. As for the title, I think the current one is good. How about "Applicability of Genocide". --Irpen 20:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not 'Holodomor as Genocide"? It is considered genocide by a (very) large number of people, scholars, governments, ect. The title reflects that this view is held and gives an introduction to the paragraph which is about "the Holodomor as genocide", while at the same time not violating what you said earlier. Ostap 22:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considerations more or less based on available data. Does someone remember about recent considerations: Invasion in Iraq – (very) large number of people, governments supports the excluding of threat of WMD etc. So, if they, will knew from the beginning, what the main reasons are not as stated ? I agree – there no obstacles to recognize Holodomor as genocide if your are read a "Harvest of Sorrow" published at "Empire of Evil era" but there lot of questions raised when compare it with declassified archives data and documents. Jo0doe 07:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, but this discussion isn't even about the event being called genocide, this is about the title of the section. As it stands, the question title is unencyclopedic. Ostap 03:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holodomor in Soviet historiography

How was holodomor described in Soviet historiography? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There no "holodomor" in Soviet historiography - in 30-40s 1932-1933 events called "break in agriculture" inflicted by "trotskist, kulaks, spies of fascists" in order to undermine credibility to kolkhoz and Soviet regime in rural areas "which tried to move "course to the road of hunger and starvation" . Under Khruschev 50-60 - "difficulties with food supplement" "caused in some cases by Stalins-Beria guardians"… Jo0doe 06:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide references for this, we could add this to the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image From "20 Years of Soviet Ukraine" book (1937 edition) [27] (passages agents, trotskist and kulaks" virtually the same at "20 Years of Soviet Ukraine" words about "route of hunger" from "Summary of 1-st 5-years plan "Pyatiletka" 1934 2-nd edition[28] "break in agriculture" widely uses in 1933-35 speaches of Ukrainian Leaders (Kosior and rest) Jo0doe 06:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ommited data

There no info on famine in 1932 (winter 1931/32, March-June 1932) – e.g. before law "on the safekeeping of Socialist property", "Restrictions on the freedom of movement, assault on Ukrainian national culture" and other factor which mentioned as prove of deliberate famine/holodomor.

In other hand there no info on wide spread of famine till late December 1932 (even fist decade of January 1933). (Reason of stating in holodomor referring to 1932 is unclear)

There was a huge (>650 pages) publication of declassified archives in 1990 related to 1932 and 1933 [29] [30] with reports on hunger, death and cannibalism obtained from OGPU and Ministry of Health in 1932 and 1933. Reports on difficulties with food supplement in Ukrainian cities caused by shortage of planned collections from nearest rural areas (1932 and 1933). Information about food aid (not only grain) provided in 1932 and in 1933 (starting February, 18 1933). etc.

So, the question is: The reasons of providing food aid (local and "Mocsow" available funds)(February-June 1932 and February-June 1933) remains unclear, if the famine was engineered by the Soviets specifically targeting the Ukrainian people to destroy the Ukrainian nation as a political factor and social entity?

Interesting what most of mentioned before documents does not "unfolds" in recent "SBU declassified Holodomor archives (more than 5 thousand pages) " – huge chunk of declassified documents refer to 1930-31 and some of them to Crimea territory (hardly explains what SBU does not know what in 1932-33 Crimea belongs to Russian Federation and has only 12% of Ukrainian population (instead of 37,2% for Kuban Region (North Caucasus). But some recent citation from 1990 publication widely spreaded (especially about cannibalism cases).


Also there strange story with figures and data of export /import and seizure of the 1932 crop – actual data stated in documents are differ from stated. E.g. – there no "divided years" data (1930/31) which provided only till 1927/28. Actual data (cereals) : 1930- 4846024 1931-5182835 1932-1819114 1933-1771364 tons (wheat export shortened in 1932 to 550 917 ton from 2 498 958 in 1931 and 2 530 953 in 1930)

[31]

In other hand, seizure of the 1932 crop which "according to the US Government Commission on the Ukrainian Famine, was the main reason for the famine" - was significantly less then in 1930 and 1931 – (million puds (16kg): 1930/31/32: July -2.7/16.4/2.0 August - 66/114/47 September -80/94/59 October -123/75/23 Total :393/395/255 (as of February , 5 1933 – day declared as end of grain collection in Ukraine)


Accordingly to the declassified SBU data – (reference- Directive of January 22, 1933) there was a report on number of intercepted and escorted back or arrested and sentenced in Ukraine (23/I to 2/II 1933)

[32] [33] [34] [35]

arrested – 340 + 1650 (at railways); returned from Russian Federation - 8257 Jo0doe 08:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sholokhov ref

Don't have the Davies book, but quoting from book review: "Unlike Sholokhov’s, many pleas for assistance, including those from Party Secretaries in Ukraine, were rejected." Stalin's personal interest was Sholokhov, not general interest in the starving populace. Adjusted article wording to reflect properly.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Nevertheless first decision of TSK VKP(b)about providing food aid was issued 18.02.33 [36] and unclear number (2-7) after. Can we trust in stupidity of Stalin which few weeks ago applied titanic effort to confiscate foods in order to provide it as aid few weeks later? Or there exists some other reasons in such treatment?Jo0doe 06:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data on Ukraine

Article is about Ukrainian – what's about to use data about Ukraine in addition to the whole of Soviet? Collectivisation [37] Number of tractors [38] vs working horses [39] harvest [40] and ploughing [41]

Also there should be noted (in terms of Elimination of Ukrainian cultural elite) about the percentage of Ukrainians amongst Managers and Specialist [42]

Interesting to know how will be assessed - by apologists and deniers -the figures of pupils in Ukrainian school [43] [44] - especially by nationality [45] Jo0doe 10:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black List or Chorna Doshka

I've found a traces of Black List or Chorna Doshka much earlier - 1922-24 – so it`s not a "new invention". Also should be noted what Black List [46] [47] position from 2 to 4 were excluded from list 25 01/33 - 2 (Gavrylivka) and 3 Lyutenki; N 4 Kamyani Potoky - 17 oct 1933 - as they gain more success in plan of grain collection. [48] Also it's only ban on supply on goods but not food (as mentioned,- since foods at that time does not supplied for trade proposes to rural areas) and not "the confiscation of all financial resources" but withdrawal of credits provided by government. Jo0doe 14:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo0doe (talk • contribs) 14:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holodomor&oldid=164637265"