NationStates Jolt Archive

Many of us are not naive about the Nazi atrocities leading up to and during World War II. We also have come to acknowledge the genocide in Rwanda and the massacres under Pol Pot.

But many, like Darfur aren't being treated the same way. While people dye due to wide spread genocide, the world isn't acknowledging that it is truly genocide and won't take action.

Even in the case of a large massacre, very few have acknowledged it as genocide.

Stumped? I'm talking of course about Stalin's Forced Famine in which 7-10 million Urkranians died due to being stripped of their produced and forced to send their produce to motherland Russia.

This happened between 1932-1933.

Ukraine demands 'genocide' marked (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4471256.stm)

In 2003, marking the 70th anniversary of the famine, UN Under Secretary General for Communications and Publication Shashi Tharoor said it "ranks with the worst atrocities of our time".

Nevertheless, a UN declaration - while recognising the famine as Ukraine's national tragedy - did not include the word "genocide" - to the great dismay of Ukraine which lobbied hard for the inclusion of the term.

The last part of the article is what caught my attention.

Stalin's Forced Famine (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm)
Stalin's Forced Famine - 1932-1933 (http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/stalin_famine.htm)

I have a question for all of NS (and this is not anti-semetic)... How can you consider the massacre of 6+ million Jews over the span of many years under Hitler's watch genocide, and yet, when Stalin deliberately strips a population, causing 7+ million deaths in about 2 years, of its core means of survival, it's not considered not genocide?

You probably won't find many Communists willing to admit it was an atrocity. They would see it as a necessary measure by the government to impose the revolution.

You probably won't find many Communists willing to admit it was an atrocity. They would see it as a necessary measure by the government to impose the revolution.
That's true because it only came to light in 1991.

However, it was done because the Ukranians had used the revolution to try and gain independance after the Czar and his family were executed in an attempt to bring about a era in which the future of the people would be in the hands of many.

And to draw a similarity, you probably will find few Turks who'd admit to crimes against the Armenians.

That's true because it only came to light in 1991.


Then why do I remember reading about the intentional famine in the mid-1970s when I was in high school?

Ah yes. That's because some people criticized those history lessons as anti-Communist propaganda.

Fascinating how much of the atrocities committed in the name of Communism are not only true, but wider in scale and deeper in outright depravity than even the most virulent propaganda could imagine.

You probably won't find many Communists willing to admit it was an atrocity. They would see it as a necessary measure by the government to impose the revolution.
Actually, you won't find many communists saying that. My husband, at one time did...but he soon changed his mind when I gave him a history lesson. Stalin is not seen as being a communist hero...but rather a fascist madman, even among communists.

In any case.

A memorial stands in Edmonton to commemorate the Holodomor. Western Canada has a lot of Ukrainians.

Then why do I remember reading about the intentional famine in the mid-1970s when I was in high school?

Ah yes. That's because some people criticized those history lessons as anti-Communist propaganda.
Actually, I was only citing from the references I was linking, though I imagine was taught sooner, though the information available may have been limited at the time.

Actually, Stalin is not representative of most socialists. Surely you wouldn't consider Hitler to be representative of most conservatives, for obvious reasons.

Actually, Stalin is not representative of most socialists. Surely you wouldn't consider Hitler to be representative of most conservatives, for obvious reasons.

I never heard ANY apologists for Stalin until after the USSR fell. Certainly not from leading Communist intellectuals (except those lovers of Trotsky).

Executing the bourgeoisie, the intellectuals, and anyone who could be remotely construed as a threat to the revolution seems to be an innate and inseparable part of most Communist theory on revolution.

Actually, Stalin is not representative of most socialists. Surely you wouldn't consider Hitler to be representative of most conservatives, for obvious reasons.
I never once called him a socialist; I called the collective group Soviets.

Further - where the hell is there any mention of his political alignment other than to say that they were Soviets?

I never once called him a socialist; I called the collective group Soviets.

Further - where the hell is there any mention of his political alignment other than to say that they were Soviets?

I believe that I mentioned that he was a Communist, and accepted by world communists as such.

I have a question for all of NS (and this is not anti-semetic)... How can you consider the massacre of 6+ million Jews over the span of many years under Hitler's watch genocide, and yet, when Stalin deliberately strips a population, causing 7+ million deaths in about 2 years, of its core means of survival, it's not considered not genocide?

How could it possibly be anti-semetic to say that stalin commited a worse genocide than hitler?
It doesnt have a huge amount to do with jews.its the number of people in question here,not who they are.

As a practicing Jew myself I take no offence to this post. I think the whole point of remembering the Holocaust as well as other genocides in the world is so it doesn't happen again - unfortunately that isn't working so well these days. By remembering past atrocities, hopefully people will realize how stupid it is to be killing people simply because of their ethnic backgrounds.

Going back to the topic, there is no reason that this should not be termed a genocide. The only obstacles to that one, like so many modern-day genocides, are political. Just to pull up a general definition of the term, the Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary defines genocide as The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. It's fairly clear that this was deliberate, and was directed towards a homogenous political and cultural group: that seems to fit the bill. The problem isn't with the definition of the word genocide, it's with a failure on the part of many in the west to own up to the fact that these genocides happened, and still are happening. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with calling it a genocide, in fact you are doing us all a favor.

It's fairly clear that this was deliberate, and was directed towards a homogenous political and cultural group: that seems to fit the bill. The problem isn't with the definition of the word genocide, it's with a failure on the part of many in the west to own up to the fact that these genocides happened, and still are happening. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with calling it a genocide, in fact you are doing us all a favor.
True, it was poltically motivated and directed at a whole ethnic group. Strangely makes one think: was this political or ethnic?

Further, by not calling it genocide, the UN is saying that it doesn't condemn the atrocities committed by the Soviets under Stalin, even though they were of the same scale as those committed under Hitler's Nazis.

And to show why it's important, I give you this quote I dug up.

Thus for the time being I have sent to the East only my 'Death's Head Units' with the orders to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish race or language. Only in such a way will we win the vital space that we need. Who still talks nowadays about the Armenians?

Armenians in Turkey 1915-1918 (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/armenians.htm)

With such ignorance, even as dated as it is, it shows up important marking genocide is. By recognizing it and making people realise what's happening, we wash away the barriers of involuntary ignorance.