Ukraine to Israel: Recognize 1930s famine as genocide

[Scurrilous]

Source: Haaretz

<snip>

"Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko is expected to ask Israel to recognize the genocide of the Ukrainian people in the 1930s by their communist government when he visits here in about two weeks, sources said. Israel is not expected to accede to the request, which has won the support of Jewish community leaders in Ukraine, so as not to damage its relationship with Vladimir Putin's government at a sensitive time.

Millions of Ukrainians died of hunger from 1931 to 1932 following the collectivization of farming in the Soviet Union by Joseph Stalin. Famine was particularly severe in Ukraine, which was a regional breadbasket and was strongly opposed to the move. At the same time the communist government attempted to wipe out Ukrainian intelligentsia and nationalists, with estimations of the number of victims ranging from a million and a half to 10 million.

A number of countries, including the United States, have recognized these acts as genocide, however, Russia vigorously rejects this definition, prefering to use the term "tragedy." Members of the Jewish community in Ukraine say Yushchenko also intends to present a proposal in the parliament in Kiev to recognize the suffering of the Jewish people in the Holocaust and the suffering of the Ukrainian people.

The chairman of the General Council of Jewish organizations, Joseph Zisels, who met with Yushchenko last Monday, said Sunday: "Israelis understand more than anyone what genocide is and Yushchenko therefore expects that Israelis will also recognize the Ukrainian genocide. We don't think it is the same as the Holocaust, but it is also a terrible tragedy with seven or eight million murdered."








Read more: http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/917789.html

[JVS]

1. BULLSHIT!

[amandabeech]

2. I don't understand. Bullshit to which part? Or all of it? n/t

[dickbearton]

3. Amanda, JVS sounds like the BS! Poor guy can't seem to get his point across.

[wicket]

77. It's his MO

:eyes:

[Odin2005]

4. There was no famine! That is evil Western Bourgeois lies!!!11!1!!

:sarcasm:

[ohio2007]

5. Wasn't the Ukraine Hitlers "breadbasket" in the early 1940's ? nt

[Igel]

6. Yes. The Kuban' is sort of like the US Midwest for grain.

However, there was a famine. Crop failure for a couple of years.

Then there was the collectivization. It made sure that the kulaks, the peasants that weren't just poor, weren't able to farm. They were stripped of their land and punished, often exiled. Instead, peasants that hadn't much experience farming were put in charge. Q.v. "Mugabe".

Then there was the official Soviet policy. The USSR was a *worker's* state, not an *agrarian* state. The political base, the power center, was in the proletariat, not in the farming community. Feeding the workers in the cities was the first priority. Farmers weren't to hoard seed for the following year, they weren't even to hoard food for their own families over the winter if it meant that a worker went hungry. The workers in the cities suffered little as millions starved in the country.

It's called the Holodomor, the hunger-death.

But it wasn't genocide as we understand it, unless "farmers" suddenly get classed as a people. Ok, there was little love for the Ukrainians, but that wasn't the main gist. It was a class-based mass murder, where the formerly oppressed urban poor and recent immigrants to the cities that wanted industrial and urban jobs got to do their thing to reduce the planet's carrying load and take what they could for the "people", which is to say, themselves and those like them.

[papau]

7. A nicely written explanation :-) n/t

:-)

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[amandabeech]

10. Thanks for the excellent summary.

I knew a little about the famine. Now I know a lot more.

[Fierce]

13. The Kuban isn't in Ukraine...

...there are some links, but it's never been part of Ukraine, as I understand it.

[hedgehog]

21. By your definition, the Irish Famine of 1848 wasn't a genocide either.

What's the difference between wiping out a culture and wiping out a genetic pool?
What's the difference between killing directly and leaving to starve?

[JVS]

8. Real victims don't burn the grain themselves.

Bluff made, bluff called. Score one for the urban proletariat!

[FuJun]

85. I'm curious...

What is your class origin/class background? Do you dare tell me?

[0007]

23. Duh!!

?

[provis99]

11. it wasn't a genocide

Genocide takes place against helpless victims who are no longer resisting the central government, or didn't resist to begin with. The Ukrainian kulaks were definitely defying the central government, and the killing stopped when they surrendered. If people are going to call this a genocide, they might as well call Stalin's army purges a genocide, the Irish potato famine a genocide, the devastation of American inner cities a genocide, the Counter-Reformation a genocide, and so on.

People with an ideological chip on their shoulder have tossed around the word genocide that it is faced with a loss of relevant meaning, the same way the charge of racism has been tossed around.

[Progressive Friend]

14. Exactly, and it was Hitlerite Germany that called it "genocide" in their propaganda

[PaulaFarrell]

16. There is nothing in the definition of genocide which requires

the victims to be helpless, no longer resisting, or never resisting. Genocide is the deliberate attempt to wipe out a race or ethnic group. Whether the people resist or not is irrelevant.

[FuJun]

19. Kulaks?

I would hardly consider elderly women shot for gleaning stuble to be Kulaks. Besides, the classic "Kulak" had long since dissapeared by this point. Now, a "Kulak" was any peasant who dared to keep a store of grain for his own consumption rather than agree to entirely surrender his right to subsistance to a Muscovite authority who was openly hostile to ethnic Ukrainians and traditionally derisive of agriculturalists in general.

[0007]

25. What dictionary ya reading from friend?

[TheFarseer]

12. This is a little baffling

my grasp on this period of history is a little fuzzy, but what does Israel have to do with this? Also, I don't think this was directed at a certain ethnic group. It was an effort to collectivize ALL farms regardless of ethnicity of the owner - I think.

[western mass]

15. How to make the word "genocide" meaningless:

Apply it to anything.

"Genocide" is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group. Collectivization in the 30's, however poorly- or murderously-implemented, wasn't an attempt to kill all Ukrainians. To say so is ludicrous and pure propaganda.

[Islander Expat]

17. I agree, to warrant the use of the word genocide, than actual genocide had to be

the main goal of the actions taken, and not as a secondary result.

This topic will be coming up again during the Bush administrations war crimes trial.

[CreekDog]

29. If it was intended as a secondary result, like a "side-benefit" that's genocide

otherwise what happened in bosnia, well the first priority was simply reestablishing order, the ethnic cleansing, well that was secondary, not primary.

see the insidiousness of this?

[Islander Expat]

39. Yup..Theres another country that makes that example also..

But we aren't allowed to mention them here.

[Oak2004]

58. You don't need to kill them all

In fact you don't even need to kill any of them. Under the internationally recognized legal definition of genocide, you need only attempt to destroy their identity and culture as a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part (see http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html). Attempting to destroy the agrarian roots of a people (whether done through killing or through some other form of coercion) would seem to fit the definition in that it would be the partial destruction of an ethnic group.

I don't know if what happened in the Ukraine rose to the level of genocide, but whether or not it did is clearly a reasonable question to consider.

[Crunchy Frog]

18. I can't believe some of the posts I'm reading in this thread.

:wow:

[Odin2005]

20. I know. My God, I thought the Far Left quit shilling for Stalin in the 50s.

[JVS]

34. What a bunch of faux-outrage you people whip up when it suits you

Ohhh the commies are teh evil! Ohhh poor counter-revolutionary farmers! Ohhhh the worker's should cede control of the state to the landowners and allow capital accumulation to happen as it did in the West, even if it means submitting to centuries of being dominated.

[FuJun]

24. Crazy Isn't It...

I suspect RCP (or like) trolls rearing their hideous heads

[JVS]

28. Right! It's unbelievable that a bunch of "leftists" are parroting a fascist like Bob Conquest!

[CreekDog]

30. The President of Ukraine is admitting genocide, but DU is defending Stalin

Okay, that's a new one for me.

[Crunchy Frog]

31. Frankly, I couldn't be much more shocked if DUers were defending Hitler.

I'm absolutely floored, and really cannot regard anyone who would defend Stalin as fitting into my own conception of what a progressive is.

As far as I'm concerned, the posters on this thread defending Stalin might just as well be posting on Free Republic in support of Ann Coulter, and I don't see myself as having any more in common with them as I would with Freepers.

Frankly, I sort of wish that Skinner would hand out tombsones as freely to those people as he would to Holocaust deniers. The kind of "progressivism" that considers Stalinism to be acceptable is not any progressivism that I would ever want to be associated with. :puke:

[GirlinContempt]

43. I'm floored that so-called progressives are so bafflingly simple minded.

I can't imagine anyone so fettered by their own hangups that they can't engage in a discussion without assuming people who disagree with them automatically are in league with Stalin.

As far as I'm concerned, people who can't stop themselves from making leaps of 'logic' and are so unable to cope with others opinions that they want them banned should be posting on Free Republic. There they'll find lots of 'my way or the highway' nobrainers to rub shoulders with.

Frankly, I'm amazed these sort of people even throw around the word 'progressive'. They don't seem to know what it means.

[FuJun]

47. Riiight...

I have a genuine "hang-up" as you call it with the policies of the Soviet regime in the Ukraine. Accepting forced collectivization and the brutalization of those who should have a right to refuse to be sacrificed for some distant, deified group of people is not a "leap of logic", it's excusing fascism of another color.

[GirlinContempt]

55. Just about everything you're saying is a leap of logic.

[FuJun]

59. Debating with you is a waste of time...

as it is with any apologist for red facism. Goodbye

[GirlinContempt]

61. Again with the leaps!

v. entertaining.

[Odin2005]

48. I;m an ex-Marxist so I know how morons like this work.

They basically explain away any criticism of their assertions as "Capitalist lies" or "bourgeois ideology" without actially refuting the criticism.

[GirlinContempt]

56. Sorry, I think you only know how morons like yourself work.

[LeftishBrit]

68. ITA!

I'm a bit shocked. I don't think I've ever come across a serious defender of Stalin's actions before, except in historical documents. And I would add that I know a number of people who would describe themselves as Communists or otherwise far-Left; and none of them would describe Stalin as other than an evil murderous dictator.

I don't regard these actions as *genocide* in the strict sense as they were not targeted at a particular ethnic group; but they were undoubtedly mass murder.

[FuJun]

70. Well...

I've know MLM's who defend him.

[JVS]

35. The president of the Ukraine is looking for a moral club with which to beat Russia...

and a Nationalist issue around which to rally the more moronic section of his subjects around his incompetent boobery. Only by playing the Nationalism card can he keep the working-class ethnic-Russian from being joined by working class Ukranians.

[CreekDog]

36. That doesn't make the genocide not a genocide

Sorry bub.

[JVS]

37. No, what makes it not a genocide is that it never was a genocide.

It was from the beginning to the end a conflict between the workers and collectivized farmers on one side and private landholders on the other side. Rather than collectivize, some farmers (who were no more Ukrainian than the many who collectivized) decided to wage war on the Soviet state and attempt to starve the cities. The collectivized peasants along with the urban workers of all nationalities present joined together to fix their wagons.

[CreekDog]

38. Ah, it's war when one side does it, but not the other way around

No, I'm not liking your arguments one bit.

And partially because you seem to think they are self-evident. They are not.

[Odin2005]

50. Based on how evil the regime was I don't blame them for "waging war on the Soviet state."

Too bad you believe the Marxist crap you've been fed.

[JVS]

53. Your logic is circular

The Soviet state is evil, thus it should be fought, so it finds it necessary to put down the counter-revolutionaries, thus it is evil, thus it must be fought....

[FuJun]

73. War was it?

Desiring to keep a store of grain to get the family through a period of famine is hardly an act of war. Not wanting to be "collectivized", when the collective farms were notoriously ill-managed and the reward for hard work was laughably pitiful is hardly an act of war. There was no deliberate, organized movement by the Ukrainian peasantry to "starve the cities" as you suggest. That's utter nonsense, but I suspect you honestly know that.

[JVS]

76. You're the one spouting nonesense. Collective farms were a threat to the kulaks because...

collective farms had the ability to invest in machinery that would industrialize agricultural production. With the collectives industrializing the Kulaks knew that their era was closing unless they became violent, and they did.

[FuJun]

83. A False Dichotomy..

As much now as then. Mechanization of agriculture couldn't occur outside the framework of the collective farm because the Soviet regime wouldn't permit it. The only way the farmers could exploit the machinery now being produced was by joining a collective farm. They were offered no other choice as the Soviet government entirely controlled the manufacture and distribution of said machinery. When it became apparent that large numbers of peasants were suspicious of Soviet motives and not falling over themselves to voluntarily join the collectives, the regime made them an offer they couldn't refuse; join or be labeled a Kulak. Or, even more effective, confiscate their grain stores at the most opportune time: in the face of famine.

The Kulak as you/Soviet propaganda defines it was extinct by this time. Never present in large numbers in the Black Earth region to begin with, the classic Kulak had long since been liquidated starting with the spontaneous repartitions and by now years of Soviet rule. By the time period we are discussing, the Kulak was any peasant who refused to join a collective REGARDLESS of their class origin/background. Even a poor peasant could find himself on the way to Siberia wearing the label of Kulak. Oh yes, don't forget the impossible dilemma created by the NEP. Imagine the surprise of those who heeded the Party's call to prosper being condemned as counter-revolutionaries.

The collective farm was not really about agriculture anyway. There were other ways to improve harvests and the living conditions of the peasantry. Had the Soviet government regarded the SMALL farmer/landowner as an equal partner rather than a backward element to be manipulated, the famine (and the many that followed) could likely have been avoided altogether. But, as the guiding ideology of the regime reduced humanity to a catalog of caricatures, they could do no such thing.

[Odin2005]

49. I'm all for using a moral club to beat Russia with.

At least Ukraine is in it's way towards becoming a liberal democracy, which Russia is descending back into autocracy.

[JVS]

54. Russophobe

[FuJun]

63. Is that the best you can do?

Claiming this poster is guilty of ethnic bias for challanging you is the refuge of a scoundrel

[JVS]

65. Oh, that means a lot coming from someone whose idea of an argument is to mention Stalin

Ohhh no, he whose name must not be uttered has been mentioned. Run in fear or you're an apologist!

[FuJun]

69. Ummm...

I didn't mention Stalin, just called you out on your Pravda/Izvestia- (although with the glee in which you celbrate the deaths of imaginary "Kulaks", maybe the Volkischer Beobachter is more appropriate) quality view of history. Also, your more than an apologist, it's clear from your posts that your an admirer of people such as him.

[JVS]

75. Oooh nice adhominem! There is nothing imaginary about Kulaks, nor the conflicts of classes

The matter of industrialization and collectivization was very important and cannot be dismissed as imaginary.

[Odin2005]

66. No, just pro-Liberal Democracy and am against Marxist BS.

[GirlinContempt]

42. Defending Stalin is not equal to disputing genocide.

[CreekDog]

44. true, but there was defending Stalin in this thread nt

[GirlinContempt]

45. One person = DU?

[CreekDog]

57. fair enough nt

[Odin2005]

51. Anyone who defends Stalin is worse then shit. n/t.

[knight_of_the_star]

32. I know its just astounding

How people can continue to defend such a monster after so long and so much proof is beyond me.

[GirlinContempt]

41. Defending Stalin is not equal to disputing genocide.

[knight_of_the_star]

60. Yes it is

Considering he was one of the bloodiest butchers in human history I think it is. To dispute any one instance of genocide is to weaken the horror of every instance by finding excuses for genocide.

[GirlinContempt]

62. No, it isn't.

Because the famine wasn't genocide.
Genocide is: the deliberate and systematic destruction of an entire people who belong to one racial, political, cultural or religious group.

Collectivized farming did not target one group, it was not intended as a tool to wipe out one group, and it affected more than just Ukrainians, and even then not all Ukrainians.

It isn't an 'excuse' for genocide, because it wasn't genocide. You can still say it was horrible, tragic, and whatever you want about Stalin based on what happened, and not define it as genocide.

[knight_of_the_star]

79. Except it was

Deliberate starvation of whole groups of people certainly counts as genocide for me, doesn't matter if he used death squads or not deliberately forcing people to either starve or be shot is very much genocide.

[GirlinContempt]

80. Except it wasn't genocide.

[JVS]

81. But the rabid anti-communists keep telling me it was!

Oh bother! What's to be done.

In fact they appear to be trying to eradicate (by poor argument, but method isn't the important thing) a certain group of people who do not consider the tussle surrounding collectivisation to be a genocide. Thus they themselves are genociding us Girlincontempt! Woe is us!

[FuJun]

84. For the record...

Actually, I don't consider this event as attempted genocide. And yes, I am anti-communist.

[Throd]

40. It is depressing

I think some of them just get off by being outrageous contrarians.

[JPZenger]

22. Hitler Could Have Cooperated With Ukranine

One of the reasons why Hitler invaded the Soviet Union was to grab oil supplies. I heard one historian say that there was so much hatred of the Soviet government by people in the Ukraine, that if Hitler was smart, he would have promised the Ukranians freedom in return for some oil. They could have formed a partnership. Fortunately, Hitler was not that rational and was motivated more by a total hatred of Communists and Jews.

[NoodleyAppendage]

26. Apparently, some people think that they are special.

Cambodia, Ukraine, Somalia, etc.

The count goes on to wide-scale killing and GENOCIDE across the globe, but heaven forbid if someone suggests that these peoples' suffering is equivalent to another group. That would mean that we would have to care about killing REGARDLESS OF ETHNICITY. Heaven forbid.

J

[Bo]

27. What was Stalins final body count? 20-30 million? Pure evil S.O.B.

[knight_of_the_star]

33. Probably more

In terms of sheer numbers only Mao has him beat, he easily tops out Hitler's 10 million by a good deal. Either way I bet they are all sharing the same room in a very hot place.

[LeftishBrit]

71. Agreed - pure evil!

[TheLastMohican]

46. It is definetely not a genocide

Genocide specifically mentions targeting a certain ethitnicity. Ethnic ukrainians were affected by it as much as any other nationality, so mister USchenko can go cry a river in the corner.
His US puppet masters like Lugar and company seem to invent a lot of different moves to rattle Russian Federation with.
And then he questions "why is oil and gas become so expensive for Ukraine?"

I don't blame the ukrainians but it looks like it is now fashionable to elect the best idiot as the head of state.

[Odin2005]

52. "USchenko"

Nice way to show your bias, friend. :eyes:

[TheLastMohican]

64. My bias?

I have friends over there. The guy is running to the US Embassy and asks U.S. Ambassador Taylor on tips how to run the country, for christ sake!

Ukraine, as well Georgia (no, not that Georgia, the one in the Caucaus Mountains :)) can be officially claimed as foreign territories run by U.S. government.

Can you feel the sarcasm?

[chatnoir]

67. My husband is from Kyiv and all my in-laws are there

And we watch the news from there nightly. Everything you just said comes straight out of the mouths of Russia-centric politicians there like Vitrenko. Certain parties there make the US into a kind of bogeyman, similar to what is now happening with the artificial brewing of panic over Iran.

Such 'tales' (as my husband calls them) about US interference began back in 2004, when it was said from the Yanukovich party and his supporters, "Yusch makes a revolution with US money, he has US advisers, he even has an American wife! It is all US maneuvers to buy Ukraine, the same way they already bought Georgia', etc. An artificial anti-American hysteria managed from Russia by political strategists (Gleb Pavlovsky, the most prominent, was also linked to the dioxin poisoning of Yuschenko).

The Region's Party (Yanukovich's party), had an American adviser themselves for awhile (at that point the anti-American hysteria calmed), but several months back they fired him and hired Russian advisers - and the hysteria began again.

Sorry if this is a bit scattered - I've been a member for years but never felt compelled to post before now. :)

[Crunchy Frog]

72. Welcome to DU. I hope you will post more.

You have a fascinating perspective. :hi:

[chatnoir]

74. Thanks, Crunchy Frog

I appreciate the welcome! :hi:

[ohio2007]

78. imo, the reason they had US advisor's is because they were very clueless on what

a democratic election is al about,how it functions,how to get organized at grass roots levels ect.
I remember those poisoning stories.
Nope, doing in your opponent doesn't mean....doing in your opponent ;)
When the dust of the Soviet collapse settled seems people looked around and said...ok.....
?
well,
If the "party" is really over
?
Now what ?

I think many here should read your post for its 'out of the box' personal perspective.

good luck. Hope you have thick skin if you plan to increase your post numbers

[TheLastMohican]

82. Before we go any further

My personal opinion - we don't belong there. This is none of our business.

I just hate to hear that SS hauptmann Shekevich (spelling ?) who ran firing squadrons is now officially proclaimed a hero of Ukraine. I mean how twisted can you get?

Maybe you should check the background of Uschenko's wife to find out that US is conducting a very dangerous game there with no known positive outcome, which further infuriates half of ukrainians and a quite a lot of russians.
Is it the intended result, I may ask?