Diomas t1_ixqksly wrote
I would not be so quick to declare the Soviet Famines of 1930-1933 as genocide(s). BadEmpanada did a long-form analysis video of this matter (and how it's discussed) which I'd recommend watching.
I think he makes a good argument that genocide did not occur (and provides substantial evidence for his conclusion), although he does not disagree that some sort of crime(s) against humanity would have occurred with those famines.
I think this is important to keep in mind because there is a long-standing attempt to create a "two-genocides" narrative (of equal badness, by implication) which equate "the Holodomor" with massacres of Jewish peoples by the Ukrainian fascist collaborators during WWII (a clear act of genocide, in my view at least). As such this narrative (that the famines were genocide) is used to try implicitly justify those latter massacres and white-wash the figures involved in them (such as Stepan Bandera).
adeveloper2 t1_ixsbafn wrote
>I would not be so quick to declare the Soviet Famines of 1930-1933 as genocide(s)
>
>. BadEmpanada did a long-form analysis video of this matter (and how it's discussed) which I'd recommend watching.
Reddit: Unpopular opinion - DOWNVOTE
I will give you my upvote. This is a politically-charged and not an academic decision. The Western nations have a tendency of doing these things. The classification of genocide itself is controversial.
Genocide or not, it was a horrible crime in itself.
hieronymusanonymous OP t1_ixsdoc9 wrote
90 years is quick?
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
- Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Diomas t1_ixupui1 wrote
> 90 years is quick?
This resolution may be more concerned with current political events than it is with the veracity of what is being asserted.
You've listed the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. To emphasis what you've stated, where I feel its important
> genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such....
Was the collectivised farming (and it's failures) performed with the "intent to destroy (in whole or in part)" the Ukrainian people (or any other minority nationality, ethnicity, racial or religious group)? I am not aware of that being the case. You can starkly condemn the collectivisation process and its outcomes, but using the charge genocide for those failures seems inappropriate to me.
At the very least one I think one must admit it's not a clear-cut "yes, Genocide was committed there". Proponents of this argument also often seem to be unwilling to countenance allegations of genocide committed in other instances by their own nation or nations theirs are allied to.
hieronymusanonymous OP t1_ixyamuk wrote
“The Kulaks are routed as a class but not finished off.”
- Stalin, January, 1933, addressing the plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
There's your intent and there is the portion of your ethnic group, as the kulaks were Ukrainian.
Diomas t1_iy0baqe wrote
Kulak was a classification for a wealthy peasant farmer, not anything specific to Ukraine or any other minority nationality in the USSR. They were not by any means a national, ethnic, racial or religious group to put things into the context of the convention you'd mentioned.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments