>German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock on Friday welcomed efforts in the country's parliament to declare the Holodomor, the death by starvation of millions of Ukrainians in 1932-33, a genocide.

>"She welcomes very much that there is a lot of support in the German parliament for this," a spokesperson for Baerbock told reporters.

>The Holodomor was a result of Soviet leader Josef Stalin's efforts to collectivise agriculture and root out Ukraine's fledgling nationalist movement.

Not only should Germany welcome it, they should help champion it. The Holodomor wiped out the Kulaks who were successful farmers of German lineage in Ukraine.

Baerbock for chancellor!

[removed]

Declare genocide = Russia state sponsor and f terrorism = confiscated foreign assets

A B C

[removed]

[deleted]

I’m confused, are you saying a country shouldn’t espouse racial tolerance if they were racist in the past?

Exactly, Holodomor should be taught in schools and universities worldwide

[removed]

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).

[removed]

It is though, isn't it? At least in Germany it was taught to me.

[removed]

Not AT ALL in the states. Because if we teach that Stalin is a monster, it throws cold water on our own portrayals of us as the liberators of Europe after WWII.

You can’t claim you’ve restored freedom to the European continent if you work out a political deal that effectively gives half of said continent to a murderous psychopath who has annihilated just as many people as the other bad guy.

I took AP history courses and we NEVER covered basically any Russian history.

Fair point. Germany was split, so I guess we have a very special perspective on it all.

Isn't it like the main piece of red scare propaganda out there? I swear it's part of the reason people flinch in the west when they hear the word communism. It's great that under communism we blame policy failures of autocrats on the ideology. But under capitalism we blame policy failures of our governments on the politicians. That way autocratic capitalist states don't harm capitalisms image, and "democratic" states can maintain the illusion of democracy and capitalism not being fundamentally opposed.

Edit. Even in the wiki page they still can't decide on the direct cause of it. I feel they should sort that part out first. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

I was absolutely taught about this in the US. I’m from a state that actually funds its education system. The other poster is ignorant for assuming she can speak for such a diverse set of educational experiences.

>Not AT ALL in the states

Oh, I’m sorry, did you attend high school in every US state?

I absolutely learned about this because I am from a state that funds its schools.

Imagine defending a genocide just to push your ideology.

You're a nazbol.

Nothing but love for MY chancellor

>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.

It’s amazing how often the words "commie" and "Jew" are strung together in the same attack on leftists but the same people get completely bent about this "Soviet holocaust". Make up your mind yall!

[deleted]

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

This is the first I've heard of the Holodomor Genocide, never before covered it in AP high school level history courses or in college level history courses.

I didn't go to communism, it came to me. Marx is an intelligent human being that was highly aware of the exploitation and degradation of working class people. I'm not sure what it is about communism that people are so intellectually incurious about. You'd think if it was the nightmare ideology people say, people wouldn't be listening so hard to what it has to say about capitalism. The far right and far left are not the same, not even a little.

I mean, lets look at it this way, on my ballot in Canada, I can vote for Liberal, conservative, NDP, and the marxist-leninist party. The ML's are a legal, legitimate entity. There is no nazi party of canada because even the proud boys have been labeled a terror group. You may get some smashed windows from leftist rage, but you know what you don't get? People going into grocery stores to murder black people. People getting into vans and running down protestors. People going into mosques and blowing people away. People posting up on rooftops and shooting moms and dads at a parade.

This is why historical materialism is SO important. A nations culture and history plays a much bigger roll in who they are, then what market place ideology they have. Vietnam and China are examples of communist, authoritarian nations. But even if china *wasn't* communist, it would *still* probably be authoritarian because of "legalism". They have a very "fuck you obey the law mentality." What about all the despots that rule over capitalist nations? where resource extraction wealth goes to a lucky few and it's crumbs for everyone else? Market place ideologies are not inherently democratic or authoritarian. But, communism via socialism is an attempt to democratize the work place.

Why doesn't it work out? I'm glad you asked. So many reasons, not limited to outside influence. Hard to grow an economy under constant embargo. But mostly because the nations that gave it an honest try had very dire material conditions at the outset and communism is better suited to countries that have developed infrastructure. Communism is a utopian ideal, people say. So why did it have to work on the first try? When we invented the airplane, did we start with Boeing 747's and stealth bombers? No, prototype after prototype after prototype. Ok this is a wall of text now, I hope you made it through, but I also get it if you didn't.

Wealthy landowner private property based nations potentially lying about a system that holds the working class in high esteem? Why on earth would they do this?

I'm not at all, I am a leftist but I'm not "defending the Holodomor". Nor do I expect people to be rational about this at this current time given the fact that Ukraine is under siege from a fascist authoritarian nation. I didn't say anything in defense of the Holodomor other than *historians* don't really know if it was Stalin being a cunt, or a broader policy failure. Nowhere in the work of Marx does it say "starve the Ukrainian people." In fact, the word "violence" isn't even in his work. But that was my earlier point. "communism" can't kill people any more than "capitalism" can. Leaders are responsible for policy, regardless of the marketplace ideology they prefer. So why do we only blame the leaders under capitalism, but blame the ideology under communism? Could it be that Stalin was just not a good person?

>So why did it have to work on the first try?

The Soviet system brought a backwards agrarian society of 9% literacy to putting Russians in space (before Americans) in 30 years. For all of the mistakes, there was so much success. Absolutely something to learn and adopt there..

This is also true. History is so much more complex than most people realize. No black and white anywhere.

Because it was a crackpot theory developed by an anti communist with an agenda who had to refute his own claims because of lack of evidence.

If you're equating communism with nazism on a fundamental level, you have to be making some weird mental gymnastics. Historically speaking commies have mostly been the ones fighting nazis on the domestic and foreign front.

This would be a great move!

I’d love to see it happen.

Westerners are NOW learning about the Holodomor.

Maybe in 80 more years they will also learn about such things as the Killing Fields, the "Great Leap Forward", Pitești, Timișoara, Katyn, Seitajärvi, Hungarian Uprising...

Or that a crowd of Wikipedia "editors" are constantly trying to click on their iphones to delete this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes and this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity_under_communist_regimes

Mass killings under communist regimes

>Mass killings under communist regimes occurred through a variety of means during the 20th century, including executions, famine, deaths through forced labour, deportation, and imprisonment. Some of these events have been classified as genocides or crimes against humanity. Other terms have been used to describe these events, including classicide, democide, red holocaust, and politicide. The mass killings have been studied by authors and academics and several of them have postulated the potential causes of these killings along with the factors which were associated with them.

Crimes against humanity under communist regimes

>Crimes against humanity under communist regimes occurred throughout the 20th century, including forced deportations, massacres, torture, forced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, terror, ethnic cleansing, enslavement and the deliberate starvation of people i. e. during the Holodomor and the Great Leap Forward. Additional events included the use of genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

> 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.

“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.

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.

I’m confused aren’t you a nerd