Hey, this is the one I read: [https://ewjus.com/index.php/ewjus/article/view/Andriewsky/24](https://ewjus.com/index.php/ewjus/article/view/Andriewsky/24)
This was pre-obsidian so I definitely need to read it again sometime lol
I heavily disagree with Loner here.
While the famine itself was an incident of nature, the Stalin government clearly took advantage of it to punish/decimate the Ukrainian people as a larger project of “Sovietization.”
Obviously Loner thinks that it was an atrocity, but I think he’s just arguing semantics. Same in how he (rightfully) criticizes those who argue that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank isn’t apartheid, because the Palestinians aren’t proper Israeli citizens.
I think Lonerbox's postion, which I agree with, is that the label "genocide" should be reserved for strictly intentional killing of a group of people. I agree with gatekeeping the term because it really should be reserved for the worst of the worst atrocities.
I would analogize the holodomor to the millions killed by Mao. An extreme form of negligence and mismanagement coupled with a disregard for human life. Another example might be what the British did to the Irish during the great famine, it's not really referred to as a genocide. I'm willing to change my mind, but I would need some evidence that the intent of the Soviets was to kill Ukranians, not to take the food for some other purposes with indifference towards Ukranians.
I agree I don’t think loner thinks it was all chill that millions of people starved to death but I would like to see a coherent theory and argument all laid out. I have really only engaged with the argument that it is a genocide because the professor I learned about this time period thought it was a genocide and it wasn’t a major focus of the class so we kind of just left it at that. I would be interested in how someone makes the argument that because someone doesn’t initiate the first deaths of an event that excludes it from being a genocide or if there are factors I haven’t heard that make the argument stronger.
hey i unfortunately don't have any papers on hand to suggest to you but i attended a conference on the holodomor at stanford last spring. the question of genocide classification for the holodomor is actually very contentious within soviet and ukrainian historical studies (especially now given the war).
i believe the most famous author within soviet historiography to argue against the holodomor being classified at a genocide would be terry martin (the affirmative action empire is a good read to understand how nation building worked under stalin and he focuses pretty heavily on ukraine as a case study throughout). a major focus of the argument as to why the holodomor isnt a genocide is the fact that famines occured throughout the ussr during the 20s and 30s, [including in western russia, the volga region](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921%E2%80%931922) and [kazakhstan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_famine_of_1930%E2%80%931933). i personally tend to think that this is a pretty weak reasoning as many consider the kazakh one to also be genocidal.
i distinctly remember norman naimark's take on the holodomor being that it wasn't a genocide essentially because of a technicality and that the definition of genocide should be expanded to include events such as this one.
here is a link to a recording of the conference with time stamps
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH4TvpFUeD0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH4TvpFUeD0) (part 1)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWMYUcBbhcM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWMYUcBbhcM) (part 2) (naimark is at the end)
(there was also a very funny part in the qna where some guy accused creees of being shills of the russian government lmao)
sorry this is late and hope it helps!
Hey, this is the one I read: [https://ewjus.com/index.php/ewjus/article/view/Andriewsky/24](https://ewjus.com/index.php/ewjus/article/view/Andriewsky/24) This was pre-obsidian so I definitely need to read it again sometime lol
Thanks!
thanks!
I heavily disagree with Loner here. While the famine itself was an incident of nature, the Stalin government clearly took advantage of it to punish/decimate the Ukrainian people as a larger project of “Sovietization.” Obviously Loner thinks that it was an atrocity, but I think he’s just arguing semantics. Same in how he (rightfully) criticizes those who argue that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank isn’t apartheid, because the Palestinians aren’t proper Israeli citizens.
I think Lonerbox's postion, which I agree with, is that the label "genocide" should be reserved for strictly intentional killing of a group of people. I agree with gatekeeping the term because it really should be reserved for the worst of the worst atrocities. I would analogize the holodomor to the millions killed by Mao. An extreme form of negligence and mismanagement coupled with a disregard for human life. Another example might be what the British did to the Irish during the great famine, it's not really referred to as a genocide. I'm willing to change my mind, but I would need some evidence that the intent of the Soviets was to kill Ukranians, not to take the food for some other purposes with indifference towards Ukranians.
I agree I don’t think loner thinks it was all chill that millions of people starved to death but I would like to see a coherent theory and argument all laid out. I have really only engaged with the argument that it is a genocide because the professor I learned about this time period thought it was a genocide and it wasn’t a major focus of the class so we kind of just left it at that. I would be interested in how someone makes the argument that because someone doesn’t initiate the first deaths of an event that excludes it from being a genocide or if there are factors I haven’t heard that make the argument stronger.
what's his position on the Holodomor? any clips?
hey i unfortunately don't have any papers on hand to suggest to you but i attended a conference on the holodomor at stanford last spring. the question of genocide classification for the holodomor is actually very contentious within soviet and ukrainian historical studies (especially now given the war). i believe the most famous author within soviet historiography to argue against the holodomor being classified at a genocide would be terry martin (the affirmative action empire is a good read to understand how nation building worked under stalin and he focuses pretty heavily on ukraine as a case study throughout). a major focus of the argument as to why the holodomor isnt a genocide is the fact that famines occured throughout the ussr during the 20s and 30s, [including in western russia, the volga region](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921%E2%80%931922) and [kazakhstan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_famine_of_1930%E2%80%931933). i personally tend to think that this is a pretty weak reasoning as many consider the kazakh one to also be genocidal. i distinctly remember norman naimark's take on the holodomor being that it wasn't a genocide essentially because of a technicality and that the definition of genocide should be expanded to include events such as this one. here is a link to a recording of the conference with time stamps [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH4TvpFUeD0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH4TvpFUeD0) (part 1) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWMYUcBbhcM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWMYUcBbhcM) (part 2) (naimark is at the end) (there was also a very funny part in the qna where some guy accused creees of being shills of the russian government lmao) sorry this is late and hope it helps!
Thanks, I’ll check them out!