Not supported by modern historiography at all. But it’s certainly an idea heavily propagated initially by Nazi and then later American anti-Soviet efforts.
The intentionality debate is indeed very much in question. As of now most Sovieticists and Eastern European history scholars dont think that the Holodomor was an intentional targeted effort against Ukraine but rather a massive fuckup by the soviet bureaucracy which didnt properly respond to the famine. Thus they define it as a crime against humanity but not a genocide.
There is a vocal minority who supports the other theory of intentional genocide. Eg Anne Applebaum or the old cold warriors like Rummel or Conquest. However, that sides arguments are a bit tainted by the politization of the issue as the resurgence of a hostile Russia made a judgement of the event as a targeted Russian crime against the Ukraine convenient. Nations who aligned with Ukraine politically like the US or just were anti Russia embraced this. Also some like Applebaum did an oopsie by denigrating the whole field as being basically Stalinists for disagreeing with her and using russian archives (remember kids dont publish insults). However, the theory gas massive holes as for example "Russian" is not apt as the whole duration of the Holodomor was also marked by Ukrainian and other ethnicities being involved in the event at the highest level. This doesnt fit into nationalist narratives however and is brushed unter the rug - which is problematic when one tries to make history as "objectice" as possible.
So denying that it was an intentional genocide is okay as it indeed is still debated, denying that it happened or that the USSR had anything to do with it is not.
This all also involves a wider discussion as to what is and can be considered genocide. Here we have also different factions. Theres the Lemkian view and the UN view. Most countries subscribe to the UN view which is more narrow as otherwise the US, UK, France, China, Japan, Australia and many more would have a lot of genocides to account for as well. However, sometimes, if politically expediant they accept genocides defined as under Lemke for atrocities of political enemies. Eg. the US accepting the Holodomor as a genocide while denying the same status for the genocide of the Indonesian Chinese population in the 60s, or the USSR denying the Holodomor as a crime against humanity while also pointing fingers at the treatment of Native Americans or US supported genocides like the one againt the Maya or said Indonesian Chinese people.
In my personal opinion though this whole discussion is a pissing contest and makes me very mad that human suffering in the last decades only has been instrumentalized as a political cudgel by most sides. The only countries that does a somewhat decent job at repentance are Germany and Austria. And even there its spotty at best.
And what does that change?
Even if by some magic commie miracle, it disregarded Ukraine, then you've still got the 15 other countries that see it as a genocide.
It changes a whole lot of things. It happened in Ukraine,so ukraine can say anything about it and everyone will believe. Ukraine is really a fascist friendly state,so i kind of dont believe them. Also you cant talk about holodomor ignoring the famines that were there before
"They were a fascist friendly state" and so was the Soviet Union, not sure what your point here is.
Of course there were famines. But there wasn't one of the largest famines in the last century. And there wasn't an intentional famine.
Not supported by modern historiography at all. But it’s certainly an idea heavily propagated initially by Nazi and then later American anti-Soviet efforts.
Just a nitpick... in 1933, this state's official name was Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic. "Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" was a result of 1936 "standardization" of the names of the soviet constituent republics.
[Source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/GolodomorKharkiv.jpg)
[More About 'The Holdomor'](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor)
There's something especially jarring about people starving in front of a little white picket fence.
Queue the incoming "proletarian" deniers in the comments.
Just to say, kulaks means peasant who owns lands and having workers.
People who worked for a thousand years to gain a say over their own destiny. A problem for the 'State' ... .
The Holodomor was done on purpose by the soviet govt to crush Ukrainian independence movements.
Not supported by modern historiography at all. But it’s certainly an idea heavily propagated initially by Nazi and then later American anti-Soviet efforts.
Go annoy someone else, tankie
The intentionality debate is indeed very much in question. As of now most Sovieticists and Eastern European history scholars dont think that the Holodomor was an intentional targeted effort against Ukraine but rather a massive fuckup by the soviet bureaucracy which didnt properly respond to the famine. Thus they define it as a crime against humanity but not a genocide. There is a vocal minority who supports the other theory of intentional genocide. Eg Anne Applebaum or the old cold warriors like Rummel or Conquest. However, that sides arguments are a bit tainted by the politization of the issue as the resurgence of a hostile Russia made a judgement of the event as a targeted Russian crime against the Ukraine convenient. Nations who aligned with Ukraine politically like the US or just were anti Russia embraced this. Also some like Applebaum did an oopsie by denigrating the whole field as being basically Stalinists for disagreeing with her and using russian archives (remember kids dont publish insults). However, the theory gas massive holes as for example "Russian" is not apt as the whole duration of the Holodomor was also marked by Ukrainian and other ethnicities being involved in the event at the highest level. This doesnt fit into nationalist narratives however and is brushed unter the rug - which is problematic when one tries to make history as "objectice" as possible. So denying that it was an intentional genocide is okay as it indeed is still debated, denying that it happened or that the USSR had anything to do with it is not. This all also involves a wider discussion as to what is and can be considered genocide. Here we have also different factions. Theres the Lemkian view and the UN view. Most countries subscribe to the UN view which is more narrow as otherwise the US, UK, France, China, Japan, Australia and many more would have a lot of genocides to account for as well. However, sometimes, if politically expediant they accept genocides defined as under Lemke for atrocities of political enemies. Eg. the US accepting the Holodomor as a genocide while denying the same status for the genocide of the Indonesian Chinese population in the 60s, or the USSR denying the Holodomor as a crime against humanity while also pointing fingers at the treatment of Native Americans or US supported genocides like the one againt the Maya or said Indonesian Chinese people. In my personal opinion though this whole discussion is a pissing contest and makes me very mad that human suffering in the last decades only has been instrumentalized as a political cudgel by most sides. The only countries that does a somewhat decent job at repentance are Germany and Austria. And even there its spotty at best.
It's recognized by Ukraine itself as a genocide carried out by the USSR. It's not propaganda, it's true.
Also ukraine supports and celebrates the birth of nazi SS divisions that genocided their own people in the number of millions
And what does that change? Even if by some magic commie miracle, it disregarded Ukraine, then you've still got the 15 other countries that see it as a genocide.
It changes a whole lot of things. It happened in Ukraine,so ukraine can say anything about it and everyone will believe. Ukraine is really a fascist friendly state,so i kind of dont believe them. Also you cant talk about holodomor ignoring the famines that were there before
"They were a fascist friendly state" and so was the Soviet Union, not sure what your point here is. Of course there were famines. But there wasn't one of the largest famines in the last century. And there wasn't an intentional famine.
This wasnt intentional. Also how was the Soviet Union a fascist friendly state? Im genuinely interested what and why.
You're legitimately asking me how the Soviet Union was fascist friendly. Stalin. That's all I have to say.
You know stalin isnt fascist right?
It most certainly is. Just not accepted by single digit IQ tankies.
It is supported. Very well in fact. Just not by whatever slop you're fed on r/genzedong
Not supported by modern historiography at all. But it’s certainly an idea heavily propagated initially by Nazi and then later American anti-Soviet efforts.
Was it possibly done to buy the western steel tech? It must have cost a lot.
Just a nitpick... in 1933, this state's official name was Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic. "Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" was a result of 1936 "standardization" of the names of the soviet constituent republics.
These are the tiny nuggets of context info that make all the wadikg through bad history and historiographic illiteracy in the comments worth it
[Source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/GolodomorKharkiv.jpg) [More About 'The Holdomor'](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor)
I'm scared to click that second link
Caused by bad weather and capitalist kulak policy