Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:50, 24 November 2007

Ukraine B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:FAOL Template:FAOL

This page in a nutshell: We are publishing selections of Misplaced Pages articles for offline use in Kiwix releases, in print, or for distribution on flash drives/memory cards. Most of the work is organized off wiki.

Shortcuts WP:1.0 WP:1

Misplaced Pages 1.0 — (talk) FAQ — To do
Release version tools Guide — (talk) — (stats)
Article selection process (talk) Version 0.8 bot selection Version 0.8 feedback
IRC channel (IRC)
Release criteria
Review team (FAQ)
Version 0.8 release (manual selection) (t)
"Selection" project (Talk) schools selection Offline WP for Indian Schools
CORE TOPICS CORE SUPPLEMENT Core topics - 1,000 (Talk) (COTF) (bot)
TORRENT (Talk)
"Selection" project for kids ((t))
WORK VIA WIKI PROJECTS (talk)
Pushing to 1.0 (talk)
Static content subcom.

This is the Version 1.0 Editorial Team page.

General background

In late 2003, Misplaced Pages co-founder Jimmy Wales had proposed making an offline release version of Misplaced Pages. This group was formed in late 2004 to meet this challenge. Our work involves identifying and organizing articles, and improving and maintaining a core set. Our work does not hinder the existing wiki process for creating and editing articles, but rather it supports that work by providing additional organization. We aim to produce collections that can be used in places where the internet coverage is expensive or non-existent. Our early collections were distributed via DVD; now these are shared via download, then distributed on hardware such as a Raspberry Pi. Originally, only a fixed selection was available, but there is now much flexibility in how selections can be made. This project is now mainly one point in a network of groups who collect and distribute open educational resources from the Internet in an offline form.

See these more detailed related articles:

• Guide to Misplaced Pages Release Version tools
• Misplaced Pages 1.0 FAQs
• Misplaced Pages 1.0 Release Version Criteria
• Broad overview of Wikimedia's Offline Project

How you can help

You are encouraged to join us and help out with one of the projects, or to discuss Misplaced Pages 1.0 on the talk page. A significant part of our work centers around maintaining the assessment scheme, which is now used on more than seven million articles by over 1000 active WikiProjects on the English Misplaced Pages. It is also being used on other language projects. Generally work on this team is sporadic – periods of hectic activity followed by long periods of waiting! Often work is long and tedious – checking through a list of 22,000 instances of profanities one by one, organizing 10,000 keywords taken from category names, or dealing with technical bugs when the assessment bot fails for no apparent reason. However, it is all worth it in the end.

Our strategy has been intensely debated, but the group has reached a consensus. We elected not to follow the German model. Instead we chose to start with a core of quality articles on key subjects and expand from there. We have produced three test versions: Version 0.5, Version 0.7, and Version 0.8 with the goal of releasing better collections of articles in due course. The next general release is generically referred to as "Release Version" while our first "official" comprehensive release will be called Version 1.0. These collections are then made available for offline use using a reader such as Kiwix, which was chosen as Sourceforge project of the month. The project was on hiatus for several years because of the loss of our main developer. However, as of February 2016, a new group of developers has begun work on upgrading the code and the process, in order to start producing new collections again, especially collections for schools.

Current needs

Although we have much of the requisite system automated, there are still some outstanding tasks:

• Preparation of a reliable index. If you can write code and you're interested in how to map category trees into a useful index (not as easy as it sounds!) please contact Walkerma.
• Reviewing manual nominations. Whenever there is a new release being planned, we need volunteers to review a few articles and process them.
• Propose useful "guide" pages to be added, such as lists and disambiguation pages.
• Check for vandalism in the selected version-IDs of the articles.
• Develop nice pages for navigation through the content, such as subject portals.
• Test the reader software, and find and report bugs.
• Help with distribution, especially in remote areas without Internet access.

Please let us know on the Talk page if you can help with any of these.

Status

At present, the main activities are:

• The assessment scheme, which is used by WikiProjects for organizing their content, using talk page tags and the WP1.0 bot. The bot was updated with completely new Perl code in 2020–2021, and it is currently maintained by User:Audiodude. Technical problems with the bot should be reported here. Related to this work is the WP1.0 server (previously called "Release Version Tools) which provides ways for WikiProjects to analyze article lists and data relating to their work.
• Collaborations to produce offline collections are done in collaboration with various people from Kiwix and Internet-in-a-Box. Please contact Walkerma if you wish to help.

To select articles, we are mainly using a bot-assisted selection process based on assessment by individual WikiProjects, where articles are selected automatically based on quality and importance project rankings.

RevID selection

Based on discussions (at the 2017 Potsdam hackathon and since), we plan to reactivate RevID selection. Previously code based on WikiTrust was used in Version 0.8, and this appeared to produce a largely vandalism-free collection of articles. This worked by scoring each RevID based on the edits remaining in it, and choosing the most "trustworthy" recent RevID based on the WikiTrust algorithm.

Misplaced Pages 1.0 projects

Active projects

If you would like to start a new project, please discuss it on the talk page first before adding it here.

Past releases

Inactive projects

Publishing steps

The process of generating an offline version of a sub-selection of Misplaced Pages article is multistage. It needs many dedicated and singled-purposed operations. The following chart show how the WP1 project envisioned things in 2010.

Even if this chart is still, to a large extend, valid; we practice and envision things slightly differently nowadays. One of the most important paradigm change we had to make is to remove as much as possible human based manual activity because the amount of work is simply too high to be achieved in a reasonable amount of time. We tend now to automate as much as possible the whole process. As a consequence the project is now predominantly focused on technology.

Technical approach

Support Wikiproject assessment effort

The first software created to support the WP1 project has been the User:WP_1.0_bot. First written in Perl by User:CBM and then slighly modified and maintained by a few other volunteers. In 2020 the bot has been totally rewritten in Python following modern development standards (API, automated tests, etc.) by User:Audiodude. The code base is available en developed on Github.

The WP1bot had and still have three traditional purposes:

• gather assessments (via categories introduced on main namespace articles talk pages),
• upload on Misplaced Pages logs & stats
• provide key information & tools to Wikiproject on a dedicated Web service. The data can also be accessed through an API at api.wp1.openzim.org

Select article titles

...

Select article revision

...

Scrape selected articles for offline usage

...

Orchestrate periodic and multiple scraping

...

Publish and distribute offline snapshots

...

Statistics

The WP 1.0 bot tracks assessment data (article quality and importance data for individual WikiProjects) assigned via Talk page banners. If you would like to add a new WikiProject to the bot's list, please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot.

The global summary table below is computed by taking the highest quality and importance rating for each assessed article in the main namespace.

All rated articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low ??? Total FA 1,581 2,512 2,423 1,971 182 8,669 FL 180 702 772 695 100 2,449 A 372 684 787 582 92 2,517 GA 3,263 7,420 14,876 19,853 1,769 47,181 B 17,152 33,233 55,024 70,955 23,756 200,120 C 17,160 54,826 137,197 317,316 93,090 619,589 Start 18,552 93,048 419,012 1,647,132 415,498 2,593,242 Stub 4,256 31,308 277,302 2,810,852 760,132 3,883,850 List 4,941 17,460 54,771 203,085 81,640 361,897 Assessed 67,457 241,193 962,164 5,072,441 1,376,259 7,719,514 Unassessed 112 398 942 16,310 392,871 410,633 Total 67,569 241,591 963,106 5,088,751 1,769,130 8,130,147 About this table

Related pages

General

• Jimbo's proposal, Chicago Meetup - Jimbo's Oct 2004 ideas on how to get to 1.0.
• Misplaced Pages:Pushing to 1.0 Early discussion page for brainstorming ideas, before this team was created.
• meta:Misplaced Pages 1.0
• meta:Static content group

Assessment and validation

• Misplaced Pages:Article assessment
• meta:Article validation and Misplaced Pages:Pushing to validation - argue the benefit of article validation and possible implementations
• Misplaced Pages:Flagged revisions (similar to the older "stable versions")
  • Misplaced Pages:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions
  • Misplaced Pages:Flagged revisions/Quality versions
  • Misplaced Pages:Flagged revisions/reliable revisions
  • Misplaced Pages:Flagged revisions/Checkpoints and grading
  • Demo version of flagged revisions
• Misplaced Pages:Footnotes
• Misplaced Pages:Peer review
• Misplaced Pages:Request for comment
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check

Misplaced Pages books

• Misplaced Pages:Books & meta:WikiReader - Misplaced Pages books are collections of articles from Misplaced Pages on a certain topic, in the form of PDFs published for download and intended to be printed, and also to be sold in printed form.
• The Book Tool, and Wiki to print, a collaboration between the Foundation and OSI/PediaPress.

Article selections

• Misplaced Pages:Vital articles
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles - Filling the gaps.
• Misplaced Pages:Good articles
• Featured Articles
  • Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates
  • Misplaced Pages:Featured articles
  • Misplaced Pages:What is a featured article
  • Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates
• Misplaced Pages:Stable versions

See also

• List of online encyclopedias - compare Misplaced Pages with other projects

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5

During a wider famine?

According with the mentioned article about famines in Russia and USSR: "The first famine in the USSR happened in 1921-1923 The second famine happened during the collectivisation in the USSR. In 1932-1933 confiscations of grain The last major famine in the USSR happened mainly in 1947". Nowhere it is mentioned that the second one happened during a wider famine, unless we were to consideer the three mendioned ones, despite of the hiatuses betwenn each, as a single wider famine. The closest thing would be the 1931 drought in the Eastern region. Did that resulted in famine too?

Also, if the whole USSR were in an ongoing famine I think that the genocidal character would be somewhat more disputed than it actually seems to be, since more or less the same ammount of people would be expected do die anyway, only more widely distributed. (I point that just as a possible clue indicating that there was no wider famine, not as some sort of argument "against" a wider famine. If there was a wider famine, I won't dispute, but the mentioned article that would supposedly support that does not).--Extremophile 01:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question the famine did affect areas other than Ukraine for instance Kazakhstan, Kuban and Volga regions of Russia. However, similarly to the Ukrainian famine, the underline reason was grain confiscation rather than drought. The severity of grain confiscation varied from region to region, that's why the scale of the catastrophe was non uniform Soviet-wide. Kazakhs, were the nation who lost the highers percentage of population in that famine but Ukraine lost the largest number of people. --Irpen 01:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If famine were caused by confiscation of grain, then an aswer is needed as to where the confiscated grain went. Since, as we know, the grain went mostly to feed the rapidly growing urban population using ration cards (e.g., in 1932 there were 40 million ration cards issued as opposed to 20+ million several years prior), then it is logical to conclude that there would've been mass starvation in the cities had the grain not been confiscated. Therefore, a more likely answer is that the primary reason for the famine was low harvest (incidentally, not caused by drought). Now, there was export out of the 1932 harvest, of course, but it was very limited compared to the previous harvest and could only affect the scale of starvation. Some starvation would've occurred anyway. In short, confiscation of grain affected the geographic distribution of famine, not the existence of famine. Fkriuk 20:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The various decrees functionally condemning Ukrainians to starve to death clearly demonstrates malevolence on the part of Stalin. Your argument heads in the same direction as that of Stalin apologists, that is, that the Ukrainians were not participating in the glorious Soviet experiment (low crop yield) and Stalin was "forced" to teach them a lesson for the greater good. Unfortunately, I have not yet found the reference I came across that when the Ukrainians weren't dying fast enough Stalin sent Khrushchev in to machine-gun them to death. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

1) I would appreciate it if you discussed specifically what I'd written, rather than where you errouneously suspect it leads.

2) Can you point me to a single decree that clearly demonstrates that the Soviet gov't knew the confiscation of grain would lead to starvation, and that attempted to starve specifically Ukrainians, rather than peasants in general?

3) How is it a demonstration of malevolence to choose to feed urban population at the expense of the peasants? Letting the city dwellers starve would've been less malevolent? Or are you going to claim that there was enough food to feed the urban population without peasants starving? Can you prove it?

Fkriuk 23:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Then please explain where you do lead. You appear to conclude there would have been famine somewhere regardless, ergo, it could not be intentionally used as an instrument of Soviet policy.
2. If Stalin (and I'm still looking for a more reputable source than I have "re"-found so far) ordered Ukrainians to be executed to maintain a target death rate originally/primarily fueled by the famine, then I believe that is sufficient demonstration of policy intent. Would you agree on that point?
       Your request for a document, unfortunately, draws the conclusion that lack of a document stating "famine as instrument of death" equals or at least strongly implies lack of the policy of "famine as instrument of death." The syllogism inherent in your of your position vis-a-vis Stalin's "policy" is demonstrated by the lack (as far as I am aware) of official policy documents stating that Kolyma et al. were officially intended to sentence millions to their deaths and burial in Siberian mass graves.
3. This goes back to point 2: if we show Stalin intentionally increased the death rate by alternate means when famine was providing insufficient results, then I believe your point is adequately addressed.
       And, yes, I do claim there was enough food. As Ukrainians were starving, Stalin was sending grain abroad for hard cash: 1.54 million tons exported in 1932 and 1.77 million tons exported in 1933. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

1) There was not enough grain to feed the entire population of the USSR to begin with, ergo confiscation of grain did not cause the famine. I thought I made that clear? Maybe you shouldn't try to figure out where anything leads, and just read what is written?

2) If "Stalin ... ordered Ukrainians to be executed to maintain a target death rate" -- yes, that would demonstrate genocidal intent. However, if "Stalin ... ordered Ukrainians to be executed", period, then no, genocidal intent is not proven. Stalin, after all, ordered many people to be executed without any genocidal intent, just simple paranoia and witch-hunting. Now, how you go about proving that there was allegedly a "target death rate" remains a mystery. As for Kolyma, you seem to be in the grip of a logical fallacy that assumes that achieved result was the intended result (not to mention the fact that the number of people who died there is significantly less than "millions"). Drawing on a more recent analogy, it's like claiming that since Bush's Iraq war killed about 600k Iraqis, that would mean that Bush specifically started the war in order to kill 600k (or more) Iraqis. Why wouldn't you conclude that it was an unintended consquence of the decision to go to war?

3) Yes, if you can sufficiently prove Stalin's intent. Demonstrate a single document that shows the existence of a "target death rate" and measures taken to achieve it, and you've made your point. But something tells me that you will not be able to do so, since such documents do not exist in nature.

4) As I've pointed out, the amount of grain exported would not have been sufficient to prevent the famine, merely to alleviate it (you're welcome to calculate it yourself). Secondly, you make an erroneous claim that the export took place "while Ukrainians were starving". First, you need to realize that famines don't exist in autumn, as the harvest is being collected, or in winter, while there are still stocks from the last harvest. A famine is normally a late spring-early summer phenomenon. The exports out of the harvest of 1932 (which caused the famine of 1933) took place in early 1933, before the famine actually started. And they were pretty much halted as soon as the reality of the famine set in. You need to be more careful in your claims. Incidentaly, did you take care to differentiate 1933 exports between sources (i.e. harvest of 1932 and harvest of 1933)? The harvest of 1933 was sufficient to stop the famine, and any exports out of it were entirely justifiable.

Fkriuk 23:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My grain export numbers did not specify season versus calendar year, while "season" is standard practice for accounting for grain imports/exports, Soviet statistics are more likely based on calendar year. For example, I believe the 1934 (calendar) export figure was still around 800,000 tons. I don't think you've established a solid chain of events that too much grain was (inadvertantly) sent abroad and that exports were halted as soon as it was apparent that millions were dying. (Export could equally have died down, no pun intended, because the Ukraine had been devastated by human losses--the Ukraine had typically outproduced other regions of the Soviet Union on a per-hectare basis.)

How many would you say died in the gulags, then, if not "millions"? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, agricultural statistics are usually based on the so-called agricultural year (хозяйственный год in Russian), which is counted July to July, IIRC. In any case, I haven't read any published detailed analysis of the timing of Soviet agricultural exports in 1933, but I do think it is sorely needed. What I do go on, however, is private statements by researchers who have actually worked in Soviet archives. Tauger, e.g., claimed that exports were halted once the reality of famine became understood in Moscow. A more detailed example is from a slightly histerical missive to the H-Russia list in May 2002: http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Russia&month=0205&week=a&msg=02U3yMV%2b2ptLgmF6thwCig&user=&pw= Regardless of the barely professional tone (which can be excused in a non-published source), the facts are interesting. I think that we can tentatively conclude that the last 1933 exports out of the 1932 harvest took place in March-April, while the rest of 1933 exports came out of the 1933 harvest in the fall. In May USSR actually started importing grain! As for Ukraine "typically" outproducing other Soviet regions, that wasn't actually the case -- it was Kuban, usually. However, as Tauger calculated in "The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933" (need a link?) in 1932 both Ukraine and Kuban singificantly underproduced other regions of the USSR.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what "gulags" are. If you are wondering how many died in the GULAG NKVD correctional labor camps, annual NKVD reports to that effect are in GARF (formerly TsGAOR) and have been published in 1992 in Russian by Zemskov, and in 1993 in English by Zemskov and Getty. If you're interested, I can provide detailed references. I don't want to look this up now, but the total number of deaths in places of confinement (camps, colonies, and prisons), even if so-called "other losses" are assumed to be deaths, was IIRC around 1 million during the entire Stalin period, with probably 50% of that occuring in 1941-45. As you can see, the mortality was significantly less than "millions", and much of it wasn't even attributable to Stalin (but to war conditions).

Fkriuk 16:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(reindented) I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with your notion of the inviolablity of Soviet statistics. Even conservative estimates put deaths at around 2,000,000 just on the way to Siberia--and destinations were not only camps but entire villages people were forced to carve out of the wilds for themselves (and where many were subsequently worked to death)--which is why I used the more colloquial (and plural) "gulags," I'm quite aware of the official designation of the official prison system, GULAG being the department name within the NKVD.

    My cousin's (eventually to become) husband, deported in a cattle car packed standing full of men, was the only one left alive by the time they reached Siberia (the majority died enroute, bodies dumped by the tracks) and were then force marched to their destination beyond the Arctic circle. I rather doubt NKVD efficiency in recording any of those deaths, or (you can call it my POV) millions of others similarly and directly attributable to the deportation of Eastern Europeans from their homes (not that Russians were immune, either). All having nothing to do with "war conditions." Or, perhaps you might direct me to the archives where I might find the name of one Linards Kalniņš--that would be "Калниньш, Линард"--and all who were packed into his particular cattle car and the recorded time and place of death of all his "travel companions"? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You're 10 years or so late with this particular objection. As soon as the Soviet archives became available to reasearchers, many historians went to Moscow and started doing what any normal historians do -- digging through archives, comparing sources, etc. As the flood of archival publications hit various academic publications, people like Conquest started strenuously objecting -- after all, they'd made their name on creative interpretation of cherry-picked narrative accounts, and the newly available documents were showing that they had been utterly wrong (if not to say worse). The acrimonious debates raged for several years, with mutual accusations of deliberately misrepresenting opponents' position and other "nice" things. In the end, Conquest and his crew have pretty much shut up. They could not win simply because archival work is bread and butter to any historian. No one claims that any particular document or a number pulled out of it is the final truth. But if you peruse through thousands of documents, compare them with each other, etc, then the truth emerges. Brushing all of that aside in favor of poorly detailed narratives passed through who knows how many layers of "broken telephone", with obvious mistakes (as in, do you know where the Arctic Circle actually is?) -- all of that is simply anti-historical. What you need to understand is that, in a large bureaucratic system, nothing moves without a piece of paper, and none of those papers are actually meant for the public to see. They accurately represent how the system viewed itself. And since much of those documents have been preserved, we can now use them reconstruct the events in question. These are basics of historiography.

You are, incidentally, confusing separate issues. You apparently asked for the mortality in the GULAG camps, but object to the sources by pointing out mortality among deportees. These two categories are unrelated. Urban legends about cattle cars full of bodies do not apply to camp mortality simply because camps were but one part of the Soviet penal system. A person entered that system before trial (or OSO/troika conviction) while physically located in a prison in his hometown. He was counted in internal NKVD statistics from that point on. Deaths during transportation from prisons to camps or colonies cannot pass unnoticed, and do not. Statistics I referred to do not hide them. As for deportations, when people were picked up, loaded on trains, and sent wherever (but not beyond the Arctic Circle, that's the result of someone's unbridled fantasy), the statistics there would be under a different department. You need to realize that trains don't move without papers either, and that there are signed papers enumerating the deportees at the origin, and signed papers (authored by a different officer) enumerating the deportess at the destination. If any are lost, there are documents for that as well. Unfortunately, statistics for deportees are not as complete as for prisoners, but there is still a lot to go on. The reality is that deaths during deportations were few, and the bulk of mortality occured in the years following the arrival. For example, out of 151,720 Crimean Tatars deported to Uzbekistan (which, as you can imagine, is not beyond the Arctic Circle), 191 died en route. However, the mortality of the entire deported Crimean contingent (not just Tatars) up to 1948 came to 44,887, with only 6,564 births. This is bad enough, no need for urban legends about "cattle cars packed with corpses" or "2 million deaths on the way to Siberia".

Now, if you want to find the fate of a particular train with deportees, then, first of all, you will need to know the exact date and the origin. Armed with that knowledge, you can proceed to the TsA FSB RF (Central FSB Archive), located in Moscow, ul. B. Lubianka, d. 2, and get their permission to conduct research. If you want to find out the details of how that particular archive works, and which particular fond you need, try asking a historian who actually does his research there, e.g. Aleksandr Dyukov, whose blog is here: http://a-dyukov.livejournal.com/ As a matter of fact, he is doing research on deportations from Estonia, so Latvian (I assume, judging by the name) deportations will be very close to his area of research. Fkriuk 20:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ukraine

    It's precisely the probem when historians focus on a particular holy grail and view it as their mission to dismiss/disprove earlier (quite real) evidence--rather than come to a conclusion which embraces all current and past scholarship. You also would appear to follow the "either"/"or" principle, that is, you are intellectually reasonable and correct and I am an anti-Stalinist (and by your imputing confusion on my part, a rather bumbling) propagandist.

    Your observation about people like Conquest and his ilk having "given up" is also explainable by circumstance: Conquest is what, now, 90? Mace is dead (at only 52). Nor, do I believe your contention that Tauger disproves all alleged "man-made" aspects to the famine is entirely correct, as even Tauger in his own published analysis does not free Stalin from responsibility for the famine.

    Do I believe the famine was entirely man-made? No. Do I believe that Stalin used the famine as an opportunity to direct the famine against a particular set of victims and promulgated regulations to insure that no one could stray from the target area? Yes.

    Let's say the phenomenon is not a famine but a sizeable asteroid. If you determine where the asteroid is going to hit and you make sure those in its path can't escape, that's as good as killing them yourself. To claim they were victims of a natural disaster when the meteor hit is disingenuous at best. The salient point is, if Stalin directed the devastation of the famine against the Ukrainians, it doesn't matter whether the famine is "man-made" (which some here seem to apply in the strictest of senses, i.e., it is only because of Stalin's policy that any famine was occured) or "man-exacerbated." Was the famine used as a weapon by Stalin against the Ukrainians? That answer is undoubtedly yes. Arguing over the precise source of the famine does not in any way affect whether or not famine was used as a weapon, or whether the target (agrarian Ukraine) and human toll (7 million even by Soviet archives) qualifies as "genocide."

    P.S. On the 1934 grain number (earlier), that was definitely calendar year. I'm quite aware that grain exports/metrics are conventionally recorded by growing season. That does not mean the Soviet Union always reported them that way.

Kolyma et al.

    Your dealing with evidence that does not fit your mold is to dismiss anything not in an archive as undoubtedly degenerated/embellished into falsehoods, as in, do I even know where the Arctic circle is. (And reports of being deported there being "unbridled fantasy.") Let's, see, that would be...hmm... the dotted line on the map labelled Северный полярный кяуг above which appears labeled the Колыма river which runs into the ВОСТОЧНОСИБИРСКОЕ МОРЕ? If I'm misreading our family copy of the ГЕОГРАФИЧЕСКИЙ АТЛАС СССР, do please let me know. I'm quite aware of the geographical situation of the lower Kolyma versus other more hospitable deportation destinations, say, Krasnoyarsk.

    I'm afraid I'm quite unlikely to contact Mr. Dyukov, whose main purpose (in his own words) is to prove that Soviet oppression of Estonia is a big fat Nazi lie, for example, quoting NKVD records that show trains "outfit to carry people" took them away to Siberia, therefore proving the reporting of "cattle cars" used to transport Estonians is simply not true. (That is, the possibility that some people were taken away in more "regular" trains while others were taken away in "cattle cars" is not considered. If it doesn't say "cattle car" specifically, or even one specifically states something other than "cattle car," then there were no cattle cars as proven by the record, all just "Nazi"--his word--lies.) Although I must say Mr. Dyukov's remarks bear striking resemblance to your aggressively benign view of the Soviet past.

    You would present the whitewashing of Soviet atrocities as attempts at meaningful dialog aimed at an objective understanding of the past. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    Seem to have lost a paragraph as I was organizing... What would you consider the total population count deported to Siberia, and what would you consider the number that perished at a highly accelerated death rate? Since anyone not shot was simply listed, if at all, as dying of natural causes (the "archival" opposite of "shot dead")? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My dear Vecrumba, it is really quite sad that you've missed the debate over the use of archival materials between Conquest and younger historians. You would've fit right in. As I've mentioned, it was replete with accusations of misrepresenting the opponent's position, and it is with some sadness that I must note that you've managed to misrepresent both my position, and Dyukov's (as far as I know his position). But even if your claims were true (which they obviously aren't), it still would only amount to a red herring in this argument -- facts reported even by biased sources must be examined, rather than brushed aside using inane and disingenuous, or even true, accusations about the source's character. I would extend this courtesy to you if only you would start actually using facts while constructing your theories. In your profile you claim to prefer facts, yet this preference is sorely lacking in your discourse. I hope you will improve.

Even if your theory about why Conquest gave up his hopeless fight against history is correct (that he is simply too old), it still doesn't explain why no one else has picked up his faded banner. Why is it that younger historians are increasingly turning to the archives (as any historians worth their salt should), while the old timers of Conquest's ilk can't even grumble anymore? On a related point, you also ask why old-style narrative sources cannot be reconciled with modern archival research by modern historians. You are barking up the wrong tree here as well. Primary sources (both personal accounts and archival documents) can and should be reconciled. Note, however, that it is one of the basics of historiography to choose more reliable sources over less reliable ones, in case of a conflict, and personal accounts are considered to be the least reliable of all primary sources. But the real problem is not that personal accounts cannot be reconciled with archival material, it is that Conquest et al cannot be reconciled with new documents. His methodology of using cherry-picked accounts (rather than objective inclusion of all available ones) and careless extrapolation from insufficient samples does not amount to "earlier (quite real) evidence", but to sloppy scholarship which needs to be fixed, and the sooner the better. If you remove Conquest from Conquest's research, and reduce it simply to primary sources, then there is no problem in including it in the body of modern scholarship on the subject.

While we're still on the subject, congratulations on finding the Kolyma and the Arctic Circle on a map. However, if your knowledge on the subject were up to date, you would've realized that what is colloquially known as "the Kolyma" was the Dal'stroi organization, run from Magadan, that it was a network of camps (techically, it was a single ITL) located around Magadan and on the upper Kolyma, that they were SOUTH of the Arctic Circle (where the river starts), and that it was the destination for prisoners, not deportees (especially from Latvia, from which most deportees were sent to Krasnoyarsk). That's the basic problem with personal accounts, they usually get most details wrong, and that is why they are disliked by historians. In general, I am not going to give you the total count of deportees to Siberia (why necessarily Siberia? you don't care about those deported to Central Asia or the Far East, or even within European USSR?) or their mortality, simply because I do not consider the scholarship on the topic to be complete. However, based on the documents available now, it is clear that the possible upper bound for such numbers is significantly below previous claims a la Conquest.

Returning to Ukraine. Your analogy is incorrect. A famine is not an asteroid. If you evacuate people from an asteroid's path, they will survive. However, if you evacuate people from an area where there is a famine to an area with a less severe famine, they will simply enfamish the new area. The amount of food is fixed. Moving people (or food) around in the conditions of a general shortage does not create new food supplies, it simply moves the famine. You would have a point if there were areas of USSR where food was plentiful. But as we now know it wasn't the case (there was starvation even in Moscow), you don't have a point.

Now, thanks for sharing your belief that "Stalin used the famine as an opportunity to direct the famine against a particular set of victims". What is the evidence to back up this claim? Or is it simply a belief? What was the alleged "set of victims" who were targeted? Is there a single document that mentions them and refers to them as targets? How do you explain millions of victims who were not your purported targets (e.g., Kazakhstan, Siberia)? I am also puzzled by your claim that the death toll in Ukraine was "7 million even by Soviet archives". You haven't even read this Misplaced Pages article on the subject, have you? Read it, note the references to research by Kulchytsky and the more recent one by Vallin et al. All based on the Soviet achival material.

On a concluding note, I thought I should point out that striving for more balance and trying to adjust unrealistic numerical estimates does not amount to "the whitewashing of Soviet atrocities" or an "aggressively benign view of the Soviet past". It doesn't make one lick of difference to the qualitative assessment of Stalin's era whether 30 million or 2 million perished. A belief that "post-Soviet Stalinist propagandists" (what a cute term) are those who do not condemn Stalin loudly enough, or often enough, or do not use quite the right terminology, is merely an indication of a totalitarian mindset. In the words of one wise leader, "I feel your pain." Facts, my dear Vecrumba, facts and "rigorous application" thereof is what we should strive for. Character assassinations should have no place in an academic debate.

Fkriuk 01:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(reindented again) I'll try and keep this a bit shorter to not tax our other readers...

    Alas, I am not engaging in character assasination--you offer as a reputable (balanced) source a Soviet, sorry, Russian historian who in his very words has one agenda, that is, disprove as a "Nazi lie" all alleged Soviet oppression of Estonia--and by extension, of all the Baltics. His methodology? The very "cherry picking" you accuse the anti-Stalinists of. Any alleged cherry picking of the past is not going to be remedied by energetic cherry picking in the opposite direction--that will only exacerbate the polarization of positions. People taken away in comfort, not in cattle cars, to peaceful resettlement in Siberia to open patriotic new frontiers? What wonders will the archives confirm next? Baltic republics which after two decades of bloody bourgeousie oppression of the workers were finally overthrown by a Baltic peoples eager beyond words to petition to join the great Soviet family?

    Russian authorities would portray they are getting more energetic in defense of Soviet glory and of Russian rights because the West is trying to encircle and marginalize them (again). Alas, it is the Russian attitude which came first which is causing said encriclement. I haven't heard Bush describe Putin as a man into whose soul he had looked through his eyes and seen a good man he could partner with--at least not any time lately.

    You suggest I practice character assassination, yet you practice insulting condescension amid your citing of sources (you quite remind me of Mauco in that regard--different editor, different topic, same pro-/anti-Soviet view of the world polarization). You suggest I am unobjective and uninformed and I and family/relatives have a poor knowledge of geography. Yet your being informed cherry picks no less than your alleged opposition. Now that we have that little unpleasantry out of the way...

    "Stalin used the famine as an opportunity to direct the famine against a particular set of victims." Would you accept Yakovlev (formerly in charge of all Soviet propaganda) as a reputable source? He describes the earlier 1921 Cossack famine and the later famines (Cossack et al, the Ukraine being similarly "stripped" of all its grain) in the 1930's as "man made." To your question of evidence... what would you call laws restricting mobility? Laws declaring underproducers saboteurs and prohibiting them from buying basic supplies? And as I've indicated, even Tauger, explicitly takes pains to NOT absolve Stalin of blame for the famine. As for conclusive proof of intent, I still owe the Khrushchev source. (Of course, in the "Glasnost tapes" he doesn't even mention the famine or his position in the Ukraine at the time....)

    As for "7 million" in the Ukraine I have read that from other sources also quoting the self same archives. And I would make the point the more recent the Russian scholarship, the more likely it is, unfortunately, to apppear to be tainted by the attitude set out by Dyukov: cherry picking the past to paint claims of any Soviet opppression or wrongdoing a lie.

    On the wider question, Yakovlev estimates from his years of experience in the Soviet leadership that the total number who were killed or died in prison and camps during the entire Soviet period totals 20 to 25 million.

    On a less conspiratorial note, referencing Misplaced Pages articles as reference is the first step down a slippery slope. If you want to discuss sources, let's discuss the originals, not their representation in Misplaced Pages. Many a time people have quoted some book, and when I have bought the book and read it all--and the quote in context--I find it was completely misrepresented.

    I don't think this particular discussion thread is going to bear any additional fruit until we can discuss specific sources in detail (as opposed to pitting my source/my interpretation against your source/your interpretation). I'll pick one of Tauger's pertinent works. (BTW, I should have been clear on the Ukraine historically being more productive than most other areas of the Soviet Union. Your quoting of specific years where that did not happen does not invalidate the general observation--otherwise you're using cherry-picked exceptions to intimate the exception was the rule and the rule the exception.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: you need to consider facts presented by your opponents, not engage in disingenuous speculation about their political beliefs. To do otherwise amounts to character assassination. In relation to Dyukov, his beliefs (which you misrepresent, incidentally) are of no consequence. You wanted to find out how to conduct research in TsA FSB (and I hope it was an honest wish), and that is why I recommended that you contact Dyukov. It doesn't matter what his political beliefs are, what matters is that he has worked in TsA FSB, and I haven't, and thus, unlike me, he is qualified to answer your questions about how to do archival research. Your attempts at his character assassination as well are completely misplaced in this context.

Your counteraccusation of cherry-picking archival evidence lacks specific details. How can you prove that such cherry-picking has occurred? I can always prove that Conquest cherry-picked by pointing out accounts that he did not use, and which do not support his theses. But how can you prove that Dyukov or Tauger or other real historians (i.e. using archival sources) cherry-picked archival documents, if you haven't seen any yourself?

I also have to point out that simple condescension cannot be insulting. I'm not even trying to condescend, it might appear that way because I am explaining basic truths about historiography to you (as in, how to judge relative reliability of primary sources), and if you choose to feel insulted by it, it is not my problem. I don't know who Mauco is, but I do have to point out that if you feel being condescended to by so many different people, maybe you should look inward for causes, rather than outward. And isn't it a fact that either you or your source made a mistake about the Arctic Circle in relation to the location of GULAG camps or deportation destinations? Should I ignore it, rather than use it as an illustration for the inherent lack of reliability of personal accounts as primary sources? Why do you find that insulting?

Returning to the discussion on the Ukrainian famine: I'm surprised that you haven't realized yet that I do not consider individual judgments to be relevant to the discussion. I don't care what Yakovlev, Tauger, Conquest or you *believe* on the subject. And I suggest the same attitude to everyone, including you. What matters is a) what primary sources were used (i.e. basic facts); b) how theories were constructed on those sources (i.e. interpretation of facts). If you want to prove that the famine can be described as "man-made", then you need to enumerate basic facts that demonstrate it, not try to hide behind the opinion of a former chief Soviet propagandist turned chief anti-Soviet propagandist. So, returning to facts and their interpretation, please explain to me how restricted mobility or harsh measures against perceived "saboteurs" prove that the famine was man-made? If these measures hadn't been taken, no one would've died of hunger? Is that your claim?

You have a funny attitude toward Misplaced Pages for someone who is supposed to be a contributor. Wiki articles have many problems, but that is one of the reasons I am here -- to fix rather than complain. And somehow you've failed to understand me yet again. When I suggested that you look at this Wiki article on the issue of famine related deaths, I specifically meant that you should see the referenced sources. Both Kulchytsky and Dallin et al used published census results plus raw TsUNKhU stats on population movement (from the archives) to make their calculations. In my opinion, neither is misrepresented. Citations are clear and unambiguous. If you want to discuss these articles in detail, be my guest, but do not start throwing out random irrelevant accusations. I cannot recall a single calculation using archival data (e.g. TsUNKhU numbers) that came up with "7 million" for Ukraine alone. But I am glad that you have finally decided to start reading more sources on the subject. Once you've read Tauger, I'm sure this discussion will become a lot more productive.

Fkriuk 20:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"In relation to Dyukov, his beliefs (which you misrepresent, incidentally) are of no consequence."

    I am sorry, but my "characterization" of Dyukov is nothing but reporting his direct verbatim response to being interviewed about his magnum opus in progress, where he specifically states not that he is seeking simple historical accuracy, but that he is seeking to disprove Soviet oppression of Estonia as a "Nazi lie." His words, not mine.

    I am, quite frankly, flabbergasted by your contention that I need to consider only facts, not beliefs. Or to paraphrase, "Consider the words, not the source"--I've heard that too more than once on Misplaced Pages. It is inescapable that a historian's motivations--noble or ignoble, implicitly or explicitly furthering or countering a premise and conclusion--will color their work. To a hammer, everything is a nail. To Dyukov, every fact is a disprover of Nazi lies. (Which also means he has little, if any, interest in gathering any facts which cannot be applied toward that purpose.)

    On the other hand, your contention does represent some hope that you'll consider whatever facts others bring to the table (assuming they trace back to some record somewhere).

    On the Ukraine, I'll leave you with a few more thoughts:

• Under Lenin, the 1921 famine was ammeliorated through a massive influx of grain aid from the west, including the United States (which at the time did not even recognize the Soviet government).
• Under Stalin, the 1930's famine was covered up (to the point where U.S. newspapers published accounts that reports of famine in the Soviet Union were totally unfounded)--no possibility of external aid.
• Under Stalin, grain stores were emptied, leaving the population with nothing.
• This population left with nothing to eat was actively prevented from leaving, or from buying supplies, thereby insuring their starvation. (And that it happened elsewhere, for example, with the Cossacks, does not mean it was a universal calamity with no connection to Soviet policy.)

    You would contend that Stalin did nothing to take advantage of the famine situation to focus the maximum suffering on the Ukrainians--in fact, that as soon as he realized people were starving, he halted exports. So, I have to ask, where is the archival record backing the contention that Stalin "halted" exports as soon as he "realized" the true gravity of the situation?

    As to condescension, I would only observe that asking me if I even know where the Arctic circle is has very little, if anything, to do with the noble purpose of furthering my historiographical enlightenment. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    I grow weary of discussing Dyukov and your misrepresentations of his work. To make matters simple, here's the interview that you apparently refer to: http://www.newspb.ru/allnews/802017/ Now anyone who is able to read Russian can verify for themselves that not only did you NOT quote Dyukov verbatim, despite your claim, but that you also distorted his views and in effect you are not being truthful in your accusations against him (not that I consider those accusations relevant in the first place). Once again I will have to point out that Dyukov was recommended to you only so you could ask him about the technical details of how to work in the archives. Hence your tirades against him are utterly irrelevant.

    In general, if you prefer to delve into conspiracy theories about historians' motivations rather than discuss facts they present and logic they support their theories with, I certainly cannot stop you. But at the same time I refuse to treat your attempts at irrelevant character assassination seriously. Or even if, for a change, you would not misrepresent someone's views, I would still not treat your characterizations seriously. Facts are facts, regardless of who reports them. Cherry-picking of facts can be an issue, but you need to prove it, and delving into a person's character is not the way to go about it. Judgements are a different issue, where the personal qualities of the one making the judgement do matter a great deal but, as you now know, I refuse to consider judgements of a secondary (if not worse) source. I can draw my own conclusions based on evidence presented to me, and I would encourage you to do the same.

    Thanks for sharing "a few thoughts". I still don't see how they are connected in any way, shape, or form with your contention that the famine was "man-made". The issue of foreign aid is applicable to the accusation that the Soviet gov't messed up (willingly or unwillingly) the relief effort, rather than that it caused the famine in the first place. Foreign aid itself is highly doubtful, considering that at the time the US and Europe were descending into the Great Depression, and starvation was becoming rather frequent there as well. The third point about the grain stores, you will need to clarify it because it is not understandable at all -- certainly it is obvious that all grain stores would be emptied under famine conditions. The last point is relevant, but the faulty logic in it is apparent to anyone who knows that the entire country was starving, not just Ukraine. Allowing Ukrainians to leave would not have alleviated the famine. (We have already discussed this anyway.) Incidentally, I do not consider the contention that only Ukrainians were prevented from leaving to be an established fact. I suspect that migration controls were in place throughout the entire country. But since I haven't studied the subject in detail, I'll leave it be for now.

    Now, this is the second time you asked for sources on the exports. I replied after your first request. Please look it up. The fact that you ask the same questions or reiterate the same claims without referencing previous responses begs the question: do you actually read what you reply to?

    As for the Arctic Circle tangent, I believe the discussion has taught you the danger of relying on poetic exaggerations inherent in personal accounts, whose intent is psychological effect on the reader, and confusing them with fact. So it's not all bad, as far as I'm concerned.

    Fkriuk 00:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I decided to move this issue forward. I suspect that you will not be able to come up with any facts to prove the claim that the famine was "man-made". So instead I decided to come up with "a few thoughts", or rather questions, of my own. In my opinion, the facts referenced below demonstrate that the theory of the intentional man-made origin of the famine, and it being directed specifically against Ukrainians, is not sustainable. Can you answer these questions within the framework of your theory, or do you need to discard your theory? Note that I'm not providing a source on purpose, to avoid a tangential discussion of sources. Assuming that the facts are true, can you answer these questions?

1. Why did reaping in 1933 (during the famine) start 20 days before normal (e.g. 1930 or 1931), rushing the food to the market even at the risk of greater losses of the total harvest? Didn't the gov't want to starve the peasants some more?
2. Why were grain collections by the state (incl. milling levy) 20% lower in 1932/33 than in the previous two years, despite the fact that the number of ration card holders increased by a third in that period?
3. Why were grain collections for Ukraine, which had accounted for 1/3 of the Soviet total in the previous two years, reduced to only 23% of the total for 1932/33?
4. Why was the grain collection plan for 1932/33 (of 6 May 1932) reduced by 20% compared to 1931/32? Did the gov't decide to leave more grain to the peasants by any chance?
5. Why was the already reduced grain collection plan for 1932/33 further reduced on numerous occasions throughout the year, until at least 12 January 1933? Did the government decide to leave even more grain to the peasants?
6. Why was the grain collection plan for Ukraine as of 12 January 1933 reduced to only 65% of the original, while the plan for Russia and other areas of the USSR wasn't reduced to nearly the same extent? Did the government decide to leave even more grain to the Ukrainian peasants compared to e.g. Russian ones?
7. Why was 1274 thousand tons of grain allocated as seed loans and aid (returned back to the peasants) in February-May of 1933?
8. Why was 320 thousand tons of grain allocated as food loans and aid (returned back to the peasants) in February-July 1933? Didn't the government want the peasants to starve?
9. Why was 176.2 thousand tons of that, more than half of the total, allocated specifically to Ukraine? Didn't the government want specifically the Ukrainian peasants to starve?

--Fkriuk 03:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, of course, I will need to dig into the details behind the numbers and exactly what areas/people they specifically applied to. I suspect it will take me some time to gather up and get through Tauger.

Given your staunch defense of Dyukov, I do have to return to him one last time. Let's examine his perspective on the mass deportations (1941) in the Baltics. I wouldn't want to misrepresent him, so I'll quote him:

"The fact is that deportation of 1941 was not organized for the genocide of the Estonian people, as they say today in Tallin. Deportation from the Baltic republics was the method used to counter the 'Fifth Column' which Nazi special services had formed from local nationalists. In the decision by TsK the AUCP(b) and SNK USSR - Council of People's Commissars USSR, the basis for the need for deportation was clearly states: 'in connection with the presence in the Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian SSRs of a significant quantity of former members of different counter-revolutionary nationalistic parties, former policemen, gendarmes, landowners, manufacturers, important officials of the former government apparatus of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and others, that lead disruptive anti-Soviet activities and are utilized by foreign reconnaissance for espionage purposes.'"

    They weren't deported, they were simply taken away because they were criminals and Nazi collaborators. They all deserved it. Can't call that a "deportation of Estonians," that's hardly accurate.

    And we're supposed to take this stated need to purge the Baltics of its criminal element at face value? Ahh... criminal to own a plot of land, criminal to own a machine shop, now there's a subversive anti-Soviet activity. Those who had been ministers and parliamentarians--Politicians? Public servants? No, they and everyone else a Nazi "Fifth Column" hauled away before it/they could execute their nefarious purpose. Dyukov would ask us to forget that in the Soviet Union, history--and its records--served politics, not facts.

    I'm sorry, but Dyukov's pro-Russo-neo-Soviet Stalinist-rehabilitative stench is detectable a hemisphere away. And with that remark, I expect this thread dovetails neatly once again into Irpen's earlier admonition (below) against inflammatory remarks.

    Don't rush to respond, I expect that after ploughing through Dyukov's diatribes I'll need to spend a few days on something less olfactively stimulating. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

    You don't need to dig into details. You have a pet theory about the famine of 32-33. Under the assumption that the facts provided by me are all true, can you answer my questions within the framework of your theory? It's a simple mental exercise in logic.

    The discussion on the validity of facts themselves, as well as their context, can wait until you finish reading Tauger and other reputable historians.

    Returning to Dyukov, since you keep attacking him for some mysterious reason, despite it being utterly irrelevant to the present discussion, I will now have to spend some time explaining your misrepresentations in detail. Not for the sake of protecting Dyukov, but for the sake of simple... honesty.

1. You claimed that you were quoting Dyukov's interview verbatim when you ascribed to him that "he is seeking to disprove Soviet oppression of Estonia as a 'Nazi lie.'" A check of the text of the interview at http://www.newspb.ru/allnews/802017/ demonstrates that no such words were ever uttered by Dyukov.
2. As for the meaning of the quote above, what Dyukov said in reality is that there was no genocide of Estonians, rather than "no Soviet oppression".
3. Moreover, he did not call that a "Nazi lie". He simply caught official Estonian historians using a Nazi propaganda source when claiming the number of executions in Estonia. Thus, the number of executions is a "Nazi lie", not the Soviet oppression or even genocide.
4. You claimed that "he specifically states not that he is seeking simple historical accuracy". A check of the interview's text finds the following passage: "We need to remember that history is a science. We need to simply conduct an objective investigation based on archival documents of the events that took place in the 1940s. There is no need to politicize the subject of research or, like the Estonian historians, to distort the picture of the past events." This is very much equivalent to a claim that he is seeking "simple historical accuracy.
5. You forgot to provide a source for the latest quote of yours (it's not from the interview) so I can't check it. However, I can check your claims based on it. You claim that Dyukov said Estonians weren't deported. Yet the quote demonstrates Dyukov using the word deportation. What the quote actually says is that Dyukov does not consider the deportation to have been an act of genocide, because it wasn't targeted at an ethnicity, but at a presumed "fifth column".
6. You claim that it is Dyukov's opinion that those deported were the "fifth column". Yet Dyukov does not make that claim. He merely reports the opinion of the gov't that those deported were the "fifth column".

    Now, per Wiki standards, we are supposed to assume good faith on the part of the opponent. Therefore, I should not jump to the conclusion that these misrepresentations were deliberate (syn: lies). However, don't you think that six misrepresentations are six misrepresentations too many? In general, based on your emotional outburst, do you think it's time to change the slogan in your profile to "This user attempts to refute imaginary post-Soviet Stalinist propaganda by rigorous application of ad hominem attacks"?

    Finally, in response to your latest attack on the archival material alleging that it served political (apparently, propaganda) purposes, I have to point out that all of these documents were originally classified. Don't you think that "classified propaganda" is an oxymoron? Please find another excuse to reject archival materials out of hand.

    --Fkriuk 05:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Vecrumba, please avoid inflammatory rhetoric in your posts and stay to the point like your opponent above, with whom I actually do not agree. --Irpen 05:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, was not attempting to be inflammatory. The phenomenon of apologists for Stalin is one contemporary with Stalin. I have read accounts which, in so many words, say that the Ukrainians brought "it" upon themselves. Since the point was made that the low crop yield was not weather related (that is, seeming to be intentional on the part of the Ukrainians), that pointed in the direction of the logic some have used to postulate the Ukrainians set their own tragic end in motion. Still looking to find the Krushchev source again, unfortunately. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Facts are facts. Inflammation is a response.

P.P.S. Found an online ref, but looking for citeable. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You misinterpreted the point about the weather. The drought did not cause the low harvest of 1932, i.e. it wasn't drought related, which you misinterpreted into "weather related". Drought actually caused the low harvest in 1931. In 1932, there were plenty of other natural factors that caused the low harvest (e.g., heavy rains during the harvesting season), as well as unintentional man-made ones. For a dicussion of all of these factors, please see Mark Tauger's "Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Soviet Famine of 1931-1933." (need a link?) Thus, next time please read what is *actually* written, rather than what you *think* is written. Fkriuk 23:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Irpen: if you do not agree with my point, please dispute it. I'm interested in an intelligent debate on the topic (with sources etc), rather than an ideological battle of pro-Stalin/anti-Stalin propagandists, like Vecrumba seems to desire. Otherwise I'll eventually have to force the issue by going directly to the article and modifying it. Fkriuk 23:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Davies and Wheatcroft

What's up with all those different Davies and Wheatcroft citations? Can't they all be just one citation? — Alex 04:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad news for the Stalinlovers Part I

I`m sorry, but the Parliament of Spain has officially recognised as genocide the Holodomor :-)

http://www.mfa.gov.ua/spain/ua/news/detail/5420.htm

and http://www.diba.cat/cido/temp/Av-2007-81-05-20070514_81.pdf

Lusitania Express 13:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And the saga goes on...

And? --Kuban Cossack 22:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Have they officially recognized 520 years of colonialism and imperialism, and the genocide and cultural destruction of millions of aboriginals? Not to mention the oppression of the Basque people.. --Mista-X 05:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo. Now look at a map, check where Spain is and where Ukraine is. And now read up on Spain's history (especially on nice stuff like Inquisition, colonies, antisemitism) and understand (hopefully) why are you talking nonsense. -- Grafikm 15:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I remove this trollish entry from the talk page? --Kuban Cossack 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Only the provided links are useful. All the comments about Spanish history are not. --Lysy 18:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop such calls for censorship... <_< -- Grafikm 00:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Observing that your comment does not directly bear on the substance of the declaration of the parliament of Spain is not "censorship." Is there anything you would like to offer regarding the declaration itself (as opposed to interpreting this as an opportunity to denounce Spain through to the dawn of civilization)? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad news for the Stalinlovers Part II

I`m sorry, but the GUAM National Coordinators finally agreed the text of the Statement initiated by Ukraine on admitting the 1932-1933 "Holodomor” in Ukraine as an act of genocide of the Ukrainian people. :-)

http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=131&info_id=4192

And the saga goes on...

Lusitania Express 13:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 13:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How wonderful... Ukraine (and three other countries) making resolutions about themselves... That spells POV from around 10 miles away... It's like, I don't know, if Germany votes a resolution that WWII was genocide of German people - think it will have as much credibility... -- Grafikm 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The analogy is skewed however. In this case, Ukraine was not the perpetrator of death (as in the case of Germany during WWII). Keep in mind, the recognition of Holodomor as genocide is not only by the GUAM countries as the article makes clear. True, that (# of resolutions) in itself does not constitute "truth" but it ought to alleviate concerns over the POV issue.--Riurik 20:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There were no Ukrainians confiscating grain from Ukrainian peasants? Ukrainian SSR, of which modern Ukraine is the successor state, was the primary "perpetrator of death" (not the fact of death, but the geographical distribution of death). Grain confiscated from Ukrainian peasants went to feed Ukrainian urban population. So who perpetrated what to whom? Fkriuk 23:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude, read before you comment. The analogy does not apply which I point out. Did I say that no Ukrainians confiscated grain? Again, read before writing. Yes, the huge majority of dead from this famine were in Ukraine (raw numbers). What is your source on which grain went where and what does it change? The people were still starved to death by the regime. You ask who? I'm not sure what to answer to you at this point. You seem to be confused as to who was in power at the time so I'll let you go figure it out.--Riurik 20:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that Ukraine was not the perpetrator of death and admission that Ukrainians themselves (as officials of the Ukrainian SSR) participated in confiscation of grain from Ukrainian peasants contradict each other. Dude, read before you comment. Fkriuk 23:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's clear the confusion as to who was in charge in the Soviet Union. Sure you had Ukrainian and Russian communists participate in grain confiscation, but the ultimate authority, the go ahead was sent NOT from the officials of the Ukrainian SSR, but from Moscow. Unless you're using a very narrow definition of perpetrated (as in - the person who seizes food and cordons off a geographical area to escape death by hunger), the perpetrators of death during Holodomor were those in charge of the country at the time in Moscow - Stalin, Kaganovich, Molotov and Postyshev.--Riurik 23:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Above is equivalent to the claim that Hitler alone was the perpetrator of the Holocaust. Logical? Fkriuk 00:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, at the highest level, it is logical that Hitler alone is the perpetrator of genocide; having said that, others at the top of Nazi hierarchy and below were responsible for bringing death to jews, slavs, and other societal "outcasts." Under your line of argument, strictly speaking anybody who partakes in any death machine (Hitler's, Stalin's or in Darfur) is a perpetrator of death. It consequently includes under the same umbrella - an SS soldier who executes his victim and a Jewish ghetto police who "patrols" his own people since both serve the same machine. However, to lump everyone together blurs the line between those most responsible and those less so. As you seem to disagree that Stalin and his thugs are responsible for the Holodomor, I won't continue this discussion. With sources such as Mark Tauger, you seem to be on the true version of history.--Riurik 22:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

At the highest level, there was the leadership of the Ukrainian SSR, who implemented the bulk of agricultural policies in Ukraine, even without Moscow. And since modern Ukraine is the direct descendant of the Ukrainian SSR (as in, practically every institution dates from the Soviet times), the claim that Ukraine had nothing to do with the famine of 1932-33 is disingenuous.

Now, I don't know what "the true version of history" is, but I can assure you, I am "on to" facts. As in, I prefer facts to suppositions. I also prefer historians who dig up facts in the archives, such as Mark Tauger. Or do you think it is wrong to dig up facts in the archives? Anyway, I hope that you will be able to resume the discussion once you recover from your current bout of what seems to be cognitive dissonance. --Fkriuk 20:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Your implication that the Ukrainian SSR authorities somehow acted independently of, or were vested in some self-governing authority by, Moscow is certainly suspect. Your further claim that today's Ukraine, as it "descended" from the Ukrainian SSR, is linked with (i.e., complicit in) the famine on a historical factual basis is like contending the Baltics of today, having "been" SSRs (and I use "been" advisedly), were complicit in the deportation of their citizens (and should bear blame, not just the dear departed central Soviet).

And insulting other editors too, I see. If you insist on continuing this approach, I'll have to request a checkuser to see if you're Mauco, your disparaging tone is just too similar to his. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian authorities were neither independent of Moscow, nor were they mindless puppets controlled by Moscow. Their policies affected the course of the famine same as Moscow's policies did. I fail to see how your Baltic analogy is relevant to this discussion. Being a Ukrainian myself, I certainly consider myself, rather than you, a better judge of the Ukrainian political system. If I claim that almost every Ukrainian political institution dates from the Soviet period, you should listen to it. Even the first president of Ukraine was the last secretary of the Ukrainian Communist Party. And that's not even addressing international law, i.e. the SNG treaty, which specifically set all newly independent states as official successors of the USSR. (On an unrelated note, this means that Russia's claim to be the sole successor of the USSR is illegal.)

The purpose of your threat is lost on me. You demand that I treat you more gently (which, I think, means that I have to start agreeing with you rather than pointing out your mistakes), or you will do what, try to find out if I'm some Mauco (btw, can you give me a link to his profile?)? Not even mentioning the fact that you're feeling insulted where no normal secure person would be, why should I be bothered by such a ridiculous threat? --Fkriuk 21:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's the problem. Even Khrushchev was Ukrainian, it's all the Ukrainian's own fault. Mea culpa.

    There's no "threat," I've only seen the tactic of belittling other editors under the guise of "informing" them once too often. If that's how you prefer to pursue your discussions, I would just want to satisfy myself you are not a blocked user somehow reincarnated (regardless of likelihood). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You've misrepresented my point yet again. I am disappointed. I am also disappointed by your persistence in considering yourself to be an injured party. But since you haven't actually addressed any of the facts under discussion, I consider it closed. --Fkriuk 23:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

International recognition of Holodomor being a Genocide

For reference: Holodomor was recently recognized as Genocide by the state parliament of Parana, Brazil (June 5, 2007) and the parliament of the autonomous community of Catalonia, Spain (June 13, 2007) --Lysy 19:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

International recognition of Holodomor being a Genocide 2

On 21 June 2007 the Peruvian Congress passed a Resolution to mark the 75th anniversary of Holodomor of 1932-1933 in Ukraine. The Resolution expresses parliament’s solidarity with the Ukrainian people in remembering the tragedy 75 years ago, and recognizes it as an act of genocide.

82.155.215.41 14:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

International recognition of Holodomor being a Genocide 3

On 19 September 2007 the Chamber of Deputies of Brazil passed a Resolution to mark the 75th anniversary of the genocide (Holodomor) of 1932-1933 in Ukraine.

• http://www2.camara.gov.br/comissoes/cdhm/projetos.html
• http://www.senado.gov.br/web/senador/HeraclitoFortes/notícias640.htm
• http://www.eduardosciarra.com.br/ler_noticia.php?xXz=436

194.210.97.241 21:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

International recognition of Holodomor being a Genocide 4

On 25 October 2007 the Senate of the National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay passed a Resolution to mark the 75th anniversary of the genocide (Holodomor) of 1932-1933 in Ukraine.

http://www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/newsmfa/detail/144.htm

82.155.212.246 20:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Does someone help with translation of exact info from http://www.senado.gov.py/?pagina=ordendeldia&id=271

4.- Proyecto de Declaración "Que condena el Holodomor o hambruna de los años 1932/33, en Ucrania, como un acto de genocidio contra el pueblo ucraniano y se solidariza con sus víctimas", presentado por los Senadores Juan Carlos Ramírez Montalbetti, Emilio Camacho, Miguel Carrizosa, Carlos Filizzola, Herminio Chena Valdez, Julio Osvaldo Domínguez y Armando Vicente Espínola.

(Historial) Girado a la Comisión de: 1).- Peticiones, Poderes y Reglamentos, que aconseja la aprobación. 5-a).- Mensaje Nº 1.309 de la Cámara Diputados, de fecha 12 de setiembre del 2007, por el cual remite el Proyecto de Ley "Que declara de interés social y expropia a favor del Estado Paraguayo (Ministerio de Educación y Cultura), un inmueble individualizado como parte de la Finca Nº 583, ubicado en la Compañía Potrero del Municipio Atyra, asiento de la Escuela Básica Nº 5.084 Don Germán Agüero Aranda", presentado por el Diputado Nacional Zacarías Vera Cárdenas y aprobado por la Cámara de Diputados en sesión de fecha 6 de setiembre del 2007. Sanción Automática: martes 11 de diciembre del 2007.

 Origen: Cámara de Diputados: el proyecto de Ley fue aprobado en sesión de fecha 6 de setiembre del 2007 y remitido en virtud al Artículo 204 de la Constitución Nacional.

19.- De la Comisión de Peticiones, Poderes y Reglamentos, que aconseja la aprobación del Proyecto de Declaración: "QUE CONDENA EL HOLODOMOR O HAMBRUNA DE LOS AÑOS 1932/33 EN UCRANIA, COMO UN ACTO DE GENOCIDIO CONTRA EL PUEBLO UCRANIANO Y SE SOLIDARIZA CON SUS VÍCTIMAS", presentado por los Senadores Juan Carlos Ramírez Montalbetti, Emilio Camacho, Miguel Carrizosa, Carlos Filizzola, Herminio Chena Valdez, Julio Osvaldo Domínguez y Armando Vicente Espínola. Jo0doe 07:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

International recognition of Holodomor being a Genocide 5

On 30 October 2007 the Parliament of Ecuador passed a Resolution to mark the 75th anniversary of the genocide (Holodomor) of 1932-1933 in Ukraine. http://www.congreso.gov.ec/noticias/contenido.aspx?codigo_bol=5542&sitio=noticias 82.155.55.128 14:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

International recognition of Holodomor being a Genocide 6

On 8 November 2007 the Senate of Argentina passed a Resolution to mark the 75th anniversary of the genocide (Holodomor) of 1932-1933 in Ukraine. http://ua.for-ua.com/ukraine/2007/11/08/194410.html. 85.240.64.121 18:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

International recognition of Holodomor being a Genocide 7

On 20 November 2007, the Chamber of Deputies of Chile passed a Resolution to mark the 75th anniversary of the genocide (Holodomor) of 1932-1933 in Ukraine. http://www.camara.cl/diario_2/nota.asp?vid=28589&v=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.50.30 (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

International recognition of Holodomor being a Genocide 8

LEADERS OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT EXPRESS SOLIDARITY WITH UKRAINIANS ON OCCASION OF 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF HOLODOMOR

KYIV, November 22 /UKRINFORM/. The leaders of the European Parliament have expressed solidarity with the Ukrainian people on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Holodomor Famine of 1932-1933.

Spaeking during a ceremony in Brussels to commemorate the Holodomor victims, Vice President of the European Parliament Marek Siwiec said that eople must know their history in order to live on into future. The Holodomor, in which millions of people died and which was attributed to natural circumstances for many years, was in fact masterminded by the Soviet Communist deathly regime, Mr. Siwiec said. On behalf of the European Parliament he urged the nations across the globe to recognize the Holodomor as genocide. "We are here to honor the victims and well as to prevent similar things from happening in the future," the Vice President of the European Parliament said.

President of the European Parliament Hans-Gert Poettering also made a statement on the occasion of the 1932-1933 Holodomor in Ukraine. "Today we know that the famine which has come to be known as the 'Holodomor' was in reality an appalling crime against humanity. The famine <> was cynically and cruelly planned by Stalin's regime in order to force through the Soviet Unions policy of collectivization of agriculture against the will of the rural population of Ukraine. It was only in 1991, when Ukraine regained its independence, that it became possible for people there to discover the background to this tragic period of their history. All of us should be prompted by this day of remembrance to engrave the 'Holodomor' in our memories", Mr. Hans-Gert Poettering's statement reads.

http://news.ukrinform.com/eng/order/?id=113964&ulq=holodomor

85.240.64.74 (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

post-traumatic stress

What do you mean?Xx236 13:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy of russification?

I suggest to exclude "policy of russification" as a reason of Holodomor. That was hardly the reason.Biophys 04:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this section should be be better integrated into the article, but russification was a major effect of the Holodomor's rural depopulation, collectivization, and mass resettling into the cities. —Michael Z. 2007-07-21 05:18 Z

The section on russification provides the background for what is happening at the time, and ought to be kept. However, I am not opposed to clarifying the relationship between Holodomor and what caused it, especially if we're relying on reputable sources.--Riurik 21:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Article needs improvement

This article is so politicized that it lacks a descriptive part. One should simply describe first what had happened, and only then discuss who is responsible, was it a genocide or not, etc.Biophys 13:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight

Introduction of this article tells: "Most modern historians agree that the famine was caused by the policies of the government of the Soviet Union under Stalin, rather than by natural causes". Right. What is then a reason to discuss unimportant "natural causes" for so long in this article? This section should be shortened.Biophys 21:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous Famines

As a matter of curiosity, have there been other famines in Ukraine? surely there was a lot of disruption during the Civil War? Wasn't there a famine in the 1890's? If so then there is at least a case for the claim that there was a crop failure involved in the mass deaths in Ukraine and elsewhere? Keith-264 15:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)83.100.189.100 15:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Title for the genocide theory section

We have a discussion there some prominent author supports the genocide theory while others strongly reject it. I think it is entirely appropriate to have the section titled with a question. It is neutral and does not look awkward. Title like Holodomor as genocide are seen as supporting the genocide theory as a fact, while say Allegations of Genocide would be seen as disrespectful to the theory supporters. I think we are better off to keep the consensus title Alex Bakharev 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that a question is appropriate for a title. "as genocide" simply introduces the topic of the section: the different views on refering to "Holodomor as genocide". In my opinion the question title looks stupid and should be changed to something else. Ostap 05:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no genocide "theory" section. 26 countries, including the US and Canada, have accepted the fact that it was genocide. There will always be Holodomor deniers, but there are always apologists for everything. The Holomor was genocide, and unless you can provide evidence that it wasn't, please stop belittling the millions of deaths. Thanks, Horlo 06:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please learn to separate referenced facts from referenced judgments. That Famine took place is a fact. That millions died is a fact. That the term Genocide is applicable is a judgment, hence a POV, even if referenced one. Notable POV can be given in the article in an attributed form but not stated as an undeniable fact which it becomes if it is slapped into the title of the section. Academic scholars do not agree with the term's applicability. We present both views in the article and the readers are to make up their minds. --Irpen 19:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The question title is not encyclopedic. Why not "Holodomor as genocide"?

Are you saying that the term genocide is always a judgement, and that there is no criteria for determining what is or isn't genocide? if it is always POV, then why not protest the Armenian Genocide being labeled as such, because its POV? I am sure there are some scholars who object to it as a genocide. What makes a genocide a genocide? Ostap 19:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There are those that, frankly, contend the famine was of natural circumstances and point to Soviet records that when Stalin was informed, he dispatched grain to feed the starving. So, a great tragedy, but not intentional.

   Unfortunately I have not yet found a reputable source for the anecdotal statement that when the Ukrainians were not dying fast enough, Stalin sent Khrushchev in to machine-gun them. (That would be intentional and therefore genocide.)

   There are then also those who say others in Ukraine died besides Ukrainians, ergo was not against Ukrainians specifically ergo not genocide, hence coined term "democide." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ostap, how many people died is a fact. That grain was confiscated is a fact. Whether there was an intent of the Soviet leadership to exterminate the Ukrainian nation behind this is a judgment that historians and readers have to make based on the available data. Remember that the definition of the Genocide requires the Genocidal intent of the perpetrators of the crime against people. There are no known documents from declassified archives that the Soviet leadership's intent was to exterminate Ukrainians. So, the intent has to be derived from the actions by scholars who analyze all the facts. Some scholars consider the intent to be genocidal and some not. So do some governments. The elaboration is in the article. Obviously, the encyclopedia should rely more on the scholarship than on political declarations. So, what makes a Genocide a Genocide is a near-universal agreement within the mainstream historic thought confirmed by the usage of the term in the scholarly sources or the acceptance of the by the UN organ, such as an International Court of Justice. As far as I can remember, UN opined on the term's applicability only wrt to the Nazi Holocaust, Rwanda and Bosnian Genocide. Additionally, the near-universal agreement exists among the scholars on the applicability of the term to the case of Armenian Genocide. There is no such agreement in the case of Holodomor. As such, we should present the issue in a referenced form attributing the judgment to the scholars. --Irpen 20:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, political declarations are not made on a whim and shouldn't be discounted, they reflect scholarship.

But, what about the question title? That seems unencyclopedic. "Holodomor as genocide" is not biased, and not a question. I still think it should be changed to this. Ostap 20:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying the political declarations should be discounted. They should be presented in a referenced form but as political declarations exactly. As for the title, I think the current one is good. How about "Applicability of Genocide". --Irpen 20:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not 'Holodomor as Genocide"? It is considered genocide by a (very) large number of people, scholars, governments, ect. The title reflects that this view is held and gives an introduction to the paragraph which is about "the Holodomor as genocide", while at the same time not violating what you said earlier. Ostap 22:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Considerations more or less based on available data. Does someone remember about recent considerations: Invasion in Iraq – (very) large number of people, governments supports the excluding of threat of WMD etc. So, if they, will knew from the beginning, what the main reasons are not as stated ? I agree – there no obstacles to recognize Holodomor as genocide if your are read a "Harvest of Sorrow" published at "Empire of Evil era" but there lot of questions raised when compare it with declassified archives data and documents. Jo0doe 07:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, but this discussion isn't even about the event being called genocide, this is about the title of the section. As it stands, the question title is unencyclopedic. Ostap 03:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Holodomor in Soviet historiography

How was holodomor described in Soviet historiography? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There no "holodomor" in Soviet historiography - in 30-40s 1932-1933 events called "break in agriculture" inflicted by "trotskist, kulaks, spies of fascists" in order to undermine credibility to kolkhoz and Soviet regime in rural areas "which tried to move "course to the road of hunger and starvation" . Under Khruschev 50-60 - "difficulties with food supplement" "caused in some cases by Stalins-Beria guardians"… Jo0doe 06:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If you could provide references for this, we could add this to the article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

image From "20 Years of Soviet Ukraine" book (1937 edition) (passages agents, trotskist and kulaks" virtually the same at "20 Years of Soviet Ukraine" words about "route of hunger" from "Summary of 1-st 5-years plan "Pyatiletka" 1934 2-nd edition "break in agriculture" widely uses in 1933-35 speaches of Ukrainian Leaders (Kosior and rest) Jo0doe 06:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ommited data

There no info on famine in 1932 (winter 1931/32, March-June 1932) – e.g. before law "on the safekeeping of Socialist property", "Restrictions on the freedom of movement, assault on Ukrainian national culture" and other factor which mentioned as prove of deliberate famine/holodomor.

In other hand there no info on wide spread of famine till late December 1932 (even fist decade of January 1933). (Reason of stating in holodomor referring to 1932 is unclear)

There was a huge (>650 pages) publication of declassified archives in 1990 related to 1932 and 1933 with reports on hunger, death and cannibalism obtained from OGPU and Ministry of Health in 1932 and 1933. Reports on difficulties with food supplement in Ukrainian cities caused by shortage of planned collections from nearest rural areas (1932 and 1933). Information about food aid (not only grain) provided in 1932 and in 1933 (starting February, 18 1933). etc.

So, the question is: The reasons of providing food aid (local and "Mocsow" available funds)(February-June 1932 and February-June 1933) remains unclear, if the famine was engineered by the Soviets specifically targeting the Ukrainian people to destroy the Ukrainian nation as a political factor and social entity?

Interesting what most of mentioned before documents does not "unfolds" in recent "SBU declassified Holodomor archives (more than 5 thousand pages) " – huge chunk of declassified documents refer to 1930-31 and some of them to Crimea territory (hardly explains what SBU does not know what in 1932-33 Crimea belongs to Russian Federation and has only 12% of Ukrainian population (instead of 37,2% for Kuban Region (North Caucasus). But some recent citation from 1990 publication widely spreaded (especially about cannibalism cases).

Also there strange story with figures and data of export /import and seizure of the 1932 crop – actual data stated in documents are differ from stated. E.g. – there no "divided years" data (1930/31) which provided only till 1927/28. Actual data (cereals) : 1930- 4846024 1931-5182835 1932-1819114 1933-1771364 tons (wheat export shortened in 1932 to 550 917 ton from 2 498 958 in 1931 and 2 530 953 in 1930)

In other hand, seizure of the 1932 crop which "according to the US Government Commission on the Ukrainian Famine, was the main reason for the famine" - was significantly less then in 1930 and 1931 – (million puds (16kg): 1930/31/32: July -2.7/16.4/2.0 August - 66/114/47 September -80/94/59 October -123/75/23 Total :393/395/255 (as of February , 5 1933 – day declared as end of grain collection in Ukraine)

Accordingly to the declassified SBU data – (reference- Directive of January 22, 1933) there was a report on number of intercepted and escorted back or arrested and sentenced in Ukraine (23/I to 2/II 1933)

arrested – 340 + 1650 (at railways); returned from Russian Federation - 8257 Jo0doe 08:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sholokhov ref

Don't have the Davies book, but quoting from book review: "Unlike Sholokhov’s, many pleas for assistance, including those from Party Secretaries in Ukraine, were rejected." Stalin's personal interest was Sholokhov, not general interest in the starving populace. Adjusted article wording to reflect properly.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless first decision of TSK VKP(b)about providing food aid was issued 18.02.33 and unclear number (2-7) after. Can we trust in stupidity of Stalin which few weeks ago applied titanic effort to confiscate foods in order to provide it as aid few weeks later? Or there exists some other reasons in such treatment?Jo0doe 06:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Many things happened in the Soviet Union which defied logic. I am working on tracking down some other references on what amount of grain was, or wasn't, in storage even as grain was being confiscated. I believe my rewording of Stalin's interest in assisting was more correct that what stands in the article now (reverted to prior version). Stalin responded to an individual official about that official's "home", not to a general plea for wider aid. To say that even Soviet leadership expressed personal interest implies a far wider interest in ameliorating the impact/extent of the famine than was the case in particular incident (Sholokhov) being described. The current article text picks the "best of" the Davies reference while leaving out the general case specifically mentioned (explicit denial of aid). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Data on Ukraine

Article is about Ukrainian – what's about to use data about Ukraine in addition to the whole of Soviet? Collectivisation Number of tractors vs working horses harvest and ploughing

Also there should be noted (in terms of Elimination of Ukrainian cultural elite) about the percentage of Ukrainians amongst Managers and Specialist

Interesting to know how will be assessed - by apologists and deniers -the figures of pupils in Ukrainian school - especially by nationality Jo0doe 10:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Black List or Chorna Doshka

I've found a traces of Black List or Chorna Doshka much earlier - 1922-24 – so it`s not a "new invention". Also should be noted what Black List position from 2 to 4 were excluded from list 25 01/33 - 2 (Gavrylivka) and 3 Lyutenki; N 4 Kamyani Potoky - 17 oct 1933 - as they gain more success in plan of grain collection. Also it's only ban on supply on goods but not food (as mentioned,- since foods at that time does not supplied for trade proposes to rural areas) and not "the confiscation of all financial resources" but withdrawal of credits provided by government. Jo0doe 14:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo0doe (talk • contribs) 14:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Statistical data

I've add statistical data specialy on Ukraine for mentioned period, but unfortunately not so lucky to add a reference

O.M. Asatkin Ukrainian SRR in figures statistical compendium, Kyiv 1936 http://www.flickr.com/photos/27-35data/910159987/

O.M. Asatkin National Economy of Ukrainian SRR statistical compendium, Kyiv 1935

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27-35data/910160723/ Jo0doe 08:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Map of Ukrainian SRR in 1932-33 borders

I've add a map of Ukrainian SRR in 1932-33 borders http://www.flickr.com/photos/27-35data/911004656/ which differ from later (1935 one) http://www.flickr.com/photos/27-35data/911004508/

So we can discuss now how The Foreign Office http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Holodomor_Famine_map.jpg

explain "Soviets implied famine , which specifically targeting the Ukrainian people to destroy the Ukrainian nation as a political factor and social entity." on territory annexed by Romania (Bessarabia)and on some of the Russian Federation territories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo0doe (talk • contribs) 06:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OCt 26, 2007--fixed some awk. grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.67.28 (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Note from the Library of Congress on the Ukrainian famine:

Widespread wording: "Note from the Library of Congress on the Ukrainian famine: The policy of all-out collectivization instituted by Stalin in 1929 to finance industrialization had a disastrous effect on agricultural productivity. Nevertheless, in 1932 Stalin raised Ukraine's grain procurement quotas by forty-four percent (44%). This meant that there would not be enough grain to feed the peasants, since Soviet law required that no grain from a collective farm could be given to the members of the farm until the government's quota was met."

So, real initial data ( look at ) for grain collection (shortened later twice ) - 18.1% less then in 1931.

"44% statement" look like it has same source as "yellowcake uranium from Niger" in recent events..Jo0doe 09:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

Conference: The Holodomor of 1932-33: a 75th Anniversary Conference on the Ukrainian Famine-Genocide

http://www.inogs.com/

http://webapp.mcis.utoronto.ca/EventDetails.aspx?eventid=5049

82.155.56.168 22:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

UKRAINIAN HOLODOMOR & THE DENIAL OF GENOCIDES

International Conference: Organized by Guarini Institute for Public Affairs-John Cabot University With the cooperation of Comitati Pro Libertatibus and the Italian Association for the Study of Central and Eastern European History (AISSECO)

International Conference, Rome, Italy, Friday, November 9, 2007

http://action-ukraine-report.blogspot.com/#a20

http://www.aisseco.it/

82.155.212.45 11:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

rewrite needed

certain sections of the article read like they were (badly) translated from russian via babelfish. example:

Food assistance was not limited only to grain, also provided assistance in following food means: meat, potatoes, fats, flour and fish. Due the limited stocks also for food proposes was used Foxtail millet and other food surrogates specially recommended by Ukrainian Institutes of nutrition. Separate efforts applied to assist a starved children - for starved children also allocated sugar, oils, groats and canned goods and financial assistance.

if there are no objections, i'll do the editing myself.

Companera 01:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a reasonably well-refed section but someone inserted one garbage paragraph into it, the one you exactly noted. We all have missed that strange addition. Removed now. --Irpen 05:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Someone" it's me. Probably it can be assumed as garbage – it's a citation from Soviet Archives Document Compendium issued at 1990 and located at http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/Publicat/ - biggest till present time published Soviet official documents collection related to 1932-1933. If based on that documented source – the correct title should look like "Insufficient prompt assistance provided".

Also para should be updated with 13,5 million poods of grain (for rural areas only) in 1932 (till July) from Central sources.

Still, "findings of modern historians" cited here are in controversy with actual archival documents. So – history here will remain at "Note from the Library of Congress" positions. I also wonder what assistance for starved people and especially for starved children treated as garbage. Slava Ukraini! Jo0doe 07:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is that this paragraph was just bizarre. Your English is good enough to do better than that. Please add any important referenced info properly and supply your refs. Thanks, --Irpen 19:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Soviet leadership expressed personal interest?

I think this footnote gives the wrong impression to a reader. Given the information about the famine and the direct role played by Kremlin in instigating it, how can any respectable encyclopedia make such statements as:

On April 6, 1933, Sholokhov, who lived in Vesenskii district (Kuban, Russian Federation), wrote at length to Stalin describing the famine conditions and urging him to provide grain. Stalin received the letter on April 15, and on April 16 the Politburo granted 700 tons of grain to the district. Stalin sent a telegram to Sholokhov "We will do everything required. Inform size of necessary help. State a figure." Sholokhov replied on the same day, and on April 22, the day on which Stalin received the second letter, Stalin scolded him, "You should have sent answer not by letter but by telegram. Time was wasted" Davies and Wheatcroft, p. 217

Saying that Stalin scolded Sholokhov for not sending a telegram is like saying Hitler scolded Eichmann for not helping the Jews. We know that Stalin did not give a damn about helping Ukrainians that is why by mid-1930s the pile of dead was in the millions. I strongly oppose claiming that Soviet leadership expressed personal interest in aid distribution, especially NOT Stalin.--Riurik 22:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That Stalin would unlikely have cared about what he thought as "chips" (individual human beings) that get lost during "logging" (fulfilling his long term goals of industrialization and fundamentally changing the country towards his own "vision") is one thing. "Лес рубят, щепки летят" was one of his favorite sayings. So, we should not make it look like he was sincerely scolding Sholokhov for not requesting aid on time. Therefore, this episode, likely true though, was a propaganda show by the Soviet leader. On the other hand, some aid effort did take place. Ukrainian historian Kulchytsky makes a convincing argument that the purpose of the aid was purely sustaining the agricultural workforce, rather than help the millions of people starving. I included this info in the article properly attributing it as it is, while a respectable, a POV. Note, however, that the fact that the aid was given is notable and should be given in the article as well. That the aid was insufficient to stop the famine is also a fact. Whether more aid was indeed available and whether withholding the aid was deliberate to enfamish the region is again speculative. I think we can remove this episode but the facts that the aid effort, though insufficient, was undertaken should remain in the article. --Irpen 22:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Grafikm_fr saw fit to revert my edit which I thought put the "personal interest" into proper perspective, having gone back to read the source. . PētersV 23:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was worthwhile to put it in again. I support the specific incident remaining in the article, it is what it is. We should simply not read less, or more, into it than there is in representing the original source. PētersV 23:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Vecrumba, your own edit was unacceptable. I hope it is clear why from my edit summary. --Irpen 00:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, fine I will go dig out the full reference again. Davies made the specific point in the context of Sholokhov that the aid was for his personal district and that other requests from high level officials went unheeded. You are cherry-picking (to use your term) to take the part you like (Stalin cared...) and leave the part behind you do not like (...but not a whole lot). Your revert is unfounded, but I will leave for now until we can discuss that part of the source in full. PētersV 02:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Irpen's reply to my original post, I still think this is an unnecessarily peace of "fyi" in an article that is already length-excessive, but you provide a reference and as long as claim is neutrally phrased and provided with a context, which it seems to now, I won't make an issue of this.--Riurik 03:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Riurik, interestingly, I just checked Davies and he says that Stalin's exchange with Sholokhov was not mentioned in Soviet press until 1963 and were only published in full in 1994, so it was more complex than just pure propaganda effort. One would need to read the whole book section to make an informed opinion. --Irpen 05:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not what one would expect, but even so I would say (call me a cynic) that this is typical Stalin, cold and calculating, if anything he was making a record for posterity. I will agree that to make an informed opinion one would need to read the book (book section), but I will also point out that one does not need to assume good faith if previous experience shows otherwise, even on wikipedia.--Riurik 04:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Vecrumba, you owe me no favors to "go dig out the full reference again." You owe it to readers who you supply with misleading info falsely attributing it to the source. I am tired of your games and decided to devote some time to this in order to be over and done with it and discourage you from playing with sources in the future.

Here is your edit where you write:

While Stalin authorized distribution of aid in the case of a request by Sholokhov, whose own district was stricken, many requests even from senior party officials were rejected.(Davies, p. 217)

Let's do a simple decomposition of this short sentence. Its main message is that "many requests were rejected" and it says nothing about whether many or some requests were fulfilled. Moreover, singling out the Sholokhov case makes this look like fulfilling the request was exceptional. I don't have to agree or disagree with this information because, luckily, your edit claims that it is supported by the source, Davies, p. 217. If you have ever seen the book you claim is your source, you would know that the issue is not discussed at a single page but the book devotes an entire section to the subject.

After I pressed for confirmation, you, knowing full well that this info is not to be found on the particular page of the particular source, say that "you will dig out" the source again and, once you dig it out you would show that "Davies made the specific point in the context of Sholokhov that the aid was for his personal district and that other requests from high level officials went unheeded." You further accuse me of "cherry-picking to take the part like and leave the part behind do not like".

First, where do you get that "Stalin cared" is what "I like"? If you check the article's history carefully, you would find it was me who added the info refed to Kluchytsky about Stalin only caring for preservation of agricultural workforce. Your accusing me of Stalin-loving is just a new spite among those many I've heard from you in the past.

But that's not all. Your claim that Davies uses the Sholokhov example to make a point that it was exceptional is not supported by Davies himself. I went back to the book and reread the whole chapter "Grain in the Time of Famine, February-July 1933" were the whole issue is discussed, they make up pp. 204-230 of the 2004 edition ISBN 0333311078. In fact the book gives a great deal of info. Some calls for aid were fulfilled, some were rejected, both for seed and for food grain. It was a mixed bag rather than the picture you try to paint referring to Davies. I will expand the the article now and you, in turn, please do not try to misquote sources in the future. --Irpen 05:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation from Soviet declassified Archives Politburo Decision 16/ 03/32

"Politburo consider what the situation with seeds much more worst rather then stated in Kosior telegram…" Signed I.Stalin Politburo Decision 01/ 01/33

"For those members of kolhozes, and self-employed peasants, which of voluntarily returns hidden and stolen grain repressions will not be applied Signed I.Stalin

SNK and VKP(b) Decision 17/02/33 Allowed free commercial trade by bread in Vinnitsa, Kyiv oblasts (NOT KYIV) and Moldavian ASRR. Signed I.Stalin

18/02/33 VKP(b) Decree of food aid for Dneproperovska (1000000 poods), Odeska (800000) and Khsrkovska (300000) oblast (does not include aid for Donetska Oblast which provided by separate Decree in amount of at least 100000 tons of floor and grain) Signed I.Stalin

VKP(b) Decree 20/03/1933 "Improving of bread supply for workers and students in Ukraine" 1. reduce a peck tax for Ukraine… 2. Oblige Ukrainian TSK provide additional bread supply for increasing food supply for students and small towns and small enterprises in big cities. Signed I.Stalin

Reffering to the latest Riurik changes about this book - http://demoscope.ru/weekly/2003/0135/biblio01.php does it book was read before editing?

Does any conduct any similar by technique demografic analysis before?Jo0doe 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article refers not to this book by Vallin but to his paper published in a highly respected journal: "Population studies".

• Jacques Vallin, France Mesle, Serguei Adamets, Serhii Pyrozhkov, "A New Estimate of Ukrainian Population Losses during the Crises of the 1930s and 1940s", Population Studies, Vol. 56, No. 3. (Nov., 2002), pp. 249-264

An abstract to this paper is available here but a full version is copyrighted and cannot be posted. I have a full version and can email a copy to anyone interested but I cannot post it online of course. --Irpen 19:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I've this book (CD included) - Chapter "La crise des années 1930" referred to period from 1924 to 1938 has 22 pages. Interesting what they simply stick to estimated only by natural increase/decrease data (on which based officially published 1927, 1929, 1930 population data) and does not really take into account intensive migration process (Ordered by 5-year plan for Ukrainian SRR to handle "agrarian overpopulation") which exist at late 20 and earlier 30 – they simply subtract them from total . So now we've at least 3 version of birth/death data for 1933 (millions) – ZAGS - 0.564/2.103 , Kulchitski (Ukrainian Archive) – 0.471/1.85 and 1937 Census Data -0.359/1.309 ] Interesting, but last figures ommited by Shkolnikov Adamets etc.Jo0doe 07:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Add

Would be useful to add new para "Duration" and "Administrative changes" to article ? Based on Kulchitski ? proposed Text for "Duration" First stage Starvation started in late December 1931 and stopped in late June 1932. Initially there few villages and small towns were affected but till end of May "difficulties with food and cases of hunger" registered in 127 rayons (from 484 total) and whole Moldavian ASRR". Fist limited food aid was provided in mid of March. Centrally-provided aid started in late April. Total amount of aid provided from central sources for rural areas - 13,1 million poods (9,5 for seeds 3,6 for foods). Exodus of starved does not prevented and in some cases specially authorized. Second stage Starvation started in late December 1932 and stopped in late June 1933. Initially started in large (compared with 1931) extent at same as in 1931 areas. Later spread to most of Ukrainian administrative units (there very few rayons unaffected or affected with less effect (most in north part of Ukraine with less collectivization extent) including middle and large cities (Kyiv and Kharkiv) Fist limited food aid was provided at beginning of February, centrally – from mid of February. Total amount of aid provided from central sources for rural areas till July 1933 - 35,19 million poods ~ 0,576 million tons of grain for food, seeds and forage for Ukrainian SSR peasants, kolhozes and sovhozes.

Administrative changes In September 1930 center – district (okrug) – rayon administrative system was changed to center – rayon (503 total) governing system. Distribution of governing responsibilities take place till mid 1931 and does not finished till 2 February 1932 when new rayon administrative system was invented - center – region (oblast) – rayon, initially was created 5 oblast later (in July) restated to 6 and to 7 in October 1932. Such changes become additional chaotic factor in whole picture of almost out of control situation with hunger. Jo0doe 16:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian Poor Peasants Committee = Komnezam

What about to replace/add to "Twenty-Five Thousanders" - with Komnezams, which (accordingly to the claims of most pre 70 soviet-ukrainian studies) plays significant role in collectivization process - 1,6 millions of komnezam members as compared with ~6k of "Thosanders" allocated for Ukraine. Interesting what komnezams were dismissed at early January 1933 (?inline with Stalin significant changes in agriculture?).Jo0doe 12:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nansen photographs

Soviet famine. Many times photographs of the Soviet 1921-1923 Famine have been used to depict the Great Famine-Genocide in Ukraine in 1932-1933 as original photographs of the Ukraine Famine in 1932-1933 are few in number as the Soviets did not allow photographs to be taken and the region was closed to journalists and all the news media.

One photograph from a cemetary in Buzuluk, Russia shows a pile of 70-80 human corpses, mostly children who were found dead in the course of a 2 day period during December of 1921. This is an except of a telegram from Fridtjof Nansen to the Red Cross on December 9, 1921. "I have visited Samara region/Misery worse than darkest imagination/ Buzuluk district were Friends work has 915,000 inhabitants of whom 537,000 have no food left/30,405 died in September, October, November but deathrate rapidly increasing and before spring at least two thirds of population will perish if help not promptly forthcoming." Look at this one and compare with this one Jo0doe 14:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 14:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Total area of Ukrainian SRR

Total area of Ukrainian SRR in 1926 - 451, 584 thousand sq. km (Census 1926 data). as of 1930 – 451,8 As of 1934 – 443,08. As of 1939 – 443 (Census 1939 Data) Does anyone handle 8 thousand sq. km difference in population estimation? Jo0doe 15:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the population estimation. The additional territories which were added from Poland did not suffer the Holodomor. When considering the effect of the Holodomor one should consider: a) the percentage of the total population of Ukraine that it affected and b) specifically the percentage of the rural population which it affected and which it targeted. Including number of people that were not affected and city dwellers who also were not affected distorts the eefect of the Holodomor on the Ukrainian population Bandurist (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What kind of genocide?

I think that one of the problems with this articles is that it might creates an impression that Soviet leadership meant this as a way to kill Ukrainians. I think that everybody objective would agree that this is not true. Soviet leadership have been absolutely heartless on countless occasions, but at the same time they care little about nationality. It's a well known fact (and this page provides a number of links to the info) that areas that were affected by famine extended to more then just Ukraine. Famine has been spread through most of agriculturally important areas within borders of the Soviet Union. This of course fits very well with the intention of the Soviet leadership at the time: which was to punish farmers that refused to abandon private farming and switch to collective farms. I guess it can be described a genocide, but a genocide of farmers and their families. Simply saying that it's was genocide is not enough as it might be misunderstood as if it was directed against specific nationality or group of nationalities. Even if it generalized to a genoside of Slavs (to include Ukrainians and Russians) it would still technically incorrect as many other areas (populated by other nationalities) where affected. In addition it seems that too much emphasis has been put on findings by politically charged entities (such as US Congress findings during the Cold War) that had a clear reason to be biased.

So in short: I think that we need to change genocide to "genocide of farmers". The magnitude of this tragedy would still be obvious, but this would describe event more correctly. Any thoughts? Hifisoftware 23:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Genocide of farmers" with Mace map of Ukraine, Mace data and Mace vision - No objection.

But if compare it actual data - what we can see – most affected areas in Ukraine and the rest USSR – it's "grain production" areas, which accordingly to the Kontraktation system (1928-1932) must submit 1/4 of harvest instead of 1/8 in "grain consuming" areas (since they simply has better harvest). At same time it was areas of "total collectivization" – 85-100% of households and 95-100% of arable land was in collective usage. So – look like genocide against kolhozes and their members? What about the famine in towns, railway stations, and in institution in big cities which supplied through II and III class rationing system (well known fact but not fitted to "general canvas of right history"?)

What about the situation with prices on food in Ukraine at that time – why it was 5-15 times bigger then ever –at same time "cooperative" and "kolhozes" trade only available ( not "torgsins")?

Probably someone would like to forgot about Narkomzem, KolhozCenter, Tractorocenter, Narkomvnutorg and Gosplan and their officials – who actually were in charge and responsible for agriculture and food supply – better and easy to put all responsibility to one already guilty person. Your recent changes reflect this vision - but if such deserve to W-pedia?Jo0doe 07:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Jo0doe I am having trouble making sense of what you wrote... What's "Mace map of Ukraine?" What's "mace Data", and so on? I think that you are trying to say (correct me if I am wrong) that it was a famine, which I completely agree, but that's off topic to my initial statement. My point was that since people were affected in many different areas of the frmer USSR we need to make sure that we are not creating a wrong impression. Since Stalin was Georgian, it is my understanding that he spared his homeland from this famine, but most other areas were affected (particulary in Ukraine and Russia). Let me adress few of your statments one by one: "What about the famine in towns" - towns were mostly spared (compared to villages). It was a (barbaric and cruel) drive to force people to work in "kolhozes", not a genoside agains Russians or Ukranians. So naturally towns were far less affected (there were obviously no independent farmers: "kullacks", to starve). "why it was 5-15 times bigger then ever" - like I said, it was done to force people to work in collective farms instead of their own private farms. If you saw American movie: "Dr Shivago", there is a part when train drives though a burn-out village (somewhere close to Ural montains), and the only human being that seemed to survive were a woman with an infant. This was part of "red terror". So this famine is just another part (in my view) of this "red terror". Simmilarly brutal methods but different means. "Your recent changes reflect this vision" - which changes are you talking about? If you disagree with anything that I said, please let me know. I do want to hear.

Any other though? Anybody? Hifisoftware (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all I apology for last sentences – I mismatch “Hi…” with a different one “Hi…” I just would like to refer a “baseball cap history” were “one size fit for all” – e.g. Mace and company. 20-30 Soviet history it’s quite complicated thing – even for local researchers. There no much effort at that time to handle national movement (as someone would like to prove in resent time) – but fights between classes – poor and rich. Unfortunately Stalin does not “spared his homeland from this famine” – it (famine) simply has less effect there – you can find a letters (1932) from Beria (which was a head of this region at that time) with ask for food assistance for North Caucasus Region. I think it’s a “lost in time” issues when most of sovietologist join the 1932-1933 famine and collectivization in one cup. If such famine were exist in 1930 or even in 1931 – such vision probably will be have some sense (as your vision for "kolhozes"), but there was a winter-spring of 1933 - "kolhozes" already won – you can check the figures above. Also towns – especially small was affected in same or even worth extent (as ratio of rural/urban population). I never recommend to study (and base visions) on movies (especially H-wood:) – if it really “matter of trust” for you better to go to archives and try to work with real documents. About the “genocide apologists” – would be nice to compare their “logical findings”, statements and statistical data with true-one and with a full picture of story. You can do it even right now – when compare real 1933 map of Ukrainian SRR with a “foreign office” one – look at the date of books issue and simply rise a question – what are all of them are waiting for till “Empire of evil” time – why no such effort was applied before - at -20,-25-30-35-40 anniversary of Great Famine? Jo0doe (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"Murder by hunger"

"Murder by hunger" is an incorrect translation of Ukrainian Holodomor, or Russian Golodomor,as mor just means death, no necessarily by murder. On the other hand since the translation is referred to BBC, I am reluctant to simply remove it, so I put it to the end of the lead. I would not object in removing the incorrect translation all together Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Since term Holodomor invented in late 1980 (1988 or 1989) by one of Ukrainian ,already forgotten by most, novelist would be good to note what "mor" "мор" traditionally refer to extensive deaths ( mostly from epidemic of plague, smallpox etc) and never to the expression moryty holodom, ‘to inflict death by hunger’. So would be logical to conclude such terms as extensive deaths caused by hunger or in scholastic version "hunger epidemic". Jo0doe (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Images

Perhaps the images which were added and removed can be put in a separate sub-page. That way they can be included while leaving the article focused on the topic. They are what they are, it is not our role to edit according to our personal projection of readers' sensibilities. I do agree that as they were added before they made it difficult to focus on reading the article. PētersV (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Just happened to pass by and noticed, why exactly is the opening section of this article so complicated, misleading and completely misses the point? The only thing relevant to the thing was that during the 1930-34 there was crop failure in Ukraine but the Soviet government kept shipping the grain to the world markets instead of feeding the hungry at home. The collectivization policies and mass deportations had also something to do with the lower agricultural production in Ukraine but that was not the reason why people starved to death. The reason was that the little grain available during the "bad weather conditions" in Ukraine was sold off by the government to earn dollars. So I hope the editors to whom this article is important are going to fix it up according to the facts. In case any refs are needed, please let me know. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

To Irpen , did I get it right, you accused someone in your edit summary of POV-pushing? I would suggest not to question the good faith of other editors in your edit summaries and overly elsewhere. It's not going to help to improve the article and WP in general. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you do not edit without knowing what sources say. I also suggest that you read an article before editing the lead. I also suggest that you take a look at this talk page (and recent archives) about the exports. Happy edits. --Irpen (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. You latest edit is totally weird. Kulchytsky is the most authoritatively specialist on the Holodomor in Ukraine and he, actually, thinks that it was a genocide. In his articles cited he actually argues with other historians who disagree with the genocide's applicability when he reviews the state of the art within current mainstream scholarship. --Irpen (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me regards the cyrillic ref. The text in the article should say exactly who are these historians. the current statement is misleading and not clear and the ref can't be verified what exactly does it say. So please feel free to tighten up the "While historians continue...", where, what who etc.
I have to reject your suggestion reading the article first before the lead. The lead should be most clear and lay out the major points what the article is all about, not vice versa. And I did read this talk page about the exports. That's why I don't understand why the fact is not mentioned in the lead as the major factor. Because some editors don't think so? Well, it's pretty clear that not everybody shares these opinions and analyzes mostly advocated by Fkriuk. But you know, the whole "content dispute" thing is too boring and I'm not willing to get into debates here. So you guys have fun, I just offered a second opinion.--Termer (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Which one Kulchytsky? Today - probably yes, but Kulchytsky in 1990 not, even Kulchytsky in 2003 -- so which one Kulchytsky? Would be usefull to note recent Kulchytsky statement http://www.history.org.ua/Journal/2006/6/4.pdf 1932 - hunger 1933 (till summer) - Holodomor. Even situation with export is unclear - recently published data mentioned what export from Ukraine in late (November) 1932 was not so significant to change something in the world. Jo0doe (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this. why don't you listen to yourself. The people were starving to death but "the export was not so significant to change something in the world". So the last bits of grain were exported because if it staid in Ukraine it would have not saved anybody anyway? --Termer (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Still there no proof for significant export when "people were starving to death" - e. g. late December - late June. At same time we've 2 documental proof what till August from Ukrainian fields were exported 20Kof grain (out of 190 planned) and till 7 of December - 99K - e.g. "no million tons of food exported by bloody regime". About "last of bits" total collection in 1932 (till 5 of February) was even worth rather then in "unhappy 1927" - does rigime can trust to 22K of kolhozes with tractors what they work even less rather than peasants with horses? So in thier belief - grain was stolen (1990 Kulchitski version). And regime have a credible trace for that - when hundreds of centners were found at heads, acountants, brigadirs of Kolhozes - at same time ordinary members of Kolhozes starved to death as you mentioned. So - story should be investigated better. Jo0doe (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It is self explanatory that due to the crop failure and dearth in 1930-34 export was "not significant" and "declined considerably" from 5,832,000 tons in 1930/31 down to 1,441,000 tons in 1933/34. The only thing that matters here is the fact of export during the famine when people were starving to death. That fact speaks for itself but for some reason it's not mentioned as the fundamental matter in the head of the article. Nothing else matters really regards of the genocide. The fact that that the core of the genocide is not mentioned in the header bothers me personally. Am I the only one?--Termer (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Termer, please cease substituting sources with your personal opinions, inventing what they say and assuming what they should say. The scholars that support the applicability of genocide and those who find it inapplicable are listed in due order and in due section. If you care to read those sources, you would find what arguments they use. Your own opinion that "nothing else matters" belongs to your own blog, not the Misplaced Pages articles or, especially, their lead sections. And I never said that you should not read the lead before reading the article. I said that you should read the article before editing the lead. So, you should not only read sources rather than assume what they say but also read the talk page entries to which you choose respond. --Irpen (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Irpen: Please stop mocking me and please stop being a dick. I'm sorry but I'm getting fed up with your attitude. You should know by now that I have always backed up everything with sources and clearly said that right in the beginning here as well. Now, sure, I'm going to add the fact to the header + the refs, right from the Encyclopedia of Genocide . Thanks!--Termer (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again - still there no credible source for export during famine "when people were starving to death" which period has clearly identified (late December 1932 - late July 1933) even if such document ever exist it will be well decribed. In other hand Kulchitski mentioned the fact from spring 1932 when some amount of grain prepared to be exported was reverted for starved Ukrainian peasants. Even more exist a traces of grain import (non significant but exist) in spring 1933 to Ukrainian ports. I assume what figures with quarterly and even monthly export data available at archives and the reasons why they still not published only one - they does not met current targets. One more note - figures as 1930/1934 never used in Soviet statistics (still there no mirror customs statistic from importers) of mentioned time (1930-1935) - such practice ended since 1928/29 - later was only exact 1930 , 1931 , 1932, 1933 etc figures. So I really don't mind why such estimations were used (excluding "sole" aim to proof something).Jo0doe (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

well, it's my turn to be a dick, please take this concern to Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. In case this referenced fact is removed from the article again, you guys don't leave me any more choices but to report this as a removal of referenced facts for consideration at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism . thanks!--Termer (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This was about After recognition of the famine situation in Ukraine during the 1930-34 crop failure and dearth the soviet government in Moscow decided to export grain rather than retain its crop to feed the people. turned into Despite the crop failure, the grain exports continued,--Termer (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, Termer you don't even read the edits you revert. Your referenced info was not removed but moved from the lead where it does not belong to the section on the exports. --Irpen (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So Irpen you clearly missed my post right above yours that cited the thing you're claiming "I don't even read". that the core facts had been changed into meaningless phrase Despite the crop failure, the grain exports continued, and had been moved down away from the header where it belongs. Please do not do that again. manipulating the meaning of the sourced core facts that the whole genocide is based on and moving it away from the header would be really difficult to interpet as anything else than an attempt to undermine the genocide. Therefore, I have to restore the facts like these are listed in the source. Please feel free to counter cite any sources that might have any different perspective on the issue. What is not going to be tolerated though, anybody tampering with the cited facts and removing the meaning like was done with it twice by now. Thanks! --Termer (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it was moved down to the export section where it belongs. The header merely summarizes the state of the art of the scholarship that there is no agreement among mainstream academics on genocide applicability. The arguments themselves, belong to the main body. --Irpen (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Famine still needs explanation

When I look at this article, I still don't understand why so many people starved. It says there was drought, but not as bad as in previous years; export, but less than in previous years; and shortage of horses, unsatisfactorily replaced by cows. It's not clear to me whether 16 million horses instead of 19 million is enough to cause extraordinary famine, nor why there was a sudden shortage of horses. And how (specifically) did collectivization lead to all this trouble? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So would be better to mentioned were is whole USSR data, and were is Ukrainian SSR - so if look at Ukrainian data - horses more then twice less (with very limited number of working)? Also look at Ukrainian SRR fallow land and winter tillage put into service .Jo0doe (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason it's not clear is simply due to a lot of ballast and wishy-washy noise attached to the simple fact:collectivization+drought=famine; famine+government decided to export grain rather than retain its crop to feed the people=genocide. (according to the parliament of Ukraine and 26 other governments; and not under the "legal definition of genocide" according to "some historians") --Termer (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In brief (accordingly to archive documents): Regarding horses decline - 10 reason – mental – on initial stage of total collectivization (Dec 1929 – March 1930) many Ukrainian peasants prefer to slaughter their livestock rater then put them to collective (amongst village inhabitants) usage. Later in 1930 quite wide spread an idea what tractors will replays horses anyway and immediately (which happened some decade later), 3-rd – poor treatment as a collective property instead private ( not mine – why I should care for it) also inadequate remuneration for such works, small number of relevant stables . 4-th – shortened of forage due the converting of forage cultures sewing to grain and technical cultures. Regarding so many – almost all USSR agricultural failure– caused due the improper agriculture management conducted by professional propagandists at state authorities responsible for agriculture (Narkomzem), collectivization (Kolkhozcentre), mechanization (Tractorocentre) and state enterprises in agriculture – sovkhozes (Sovkhozcentre). Excellent speeches, paper plans and promises – “1930 Enron” in state size. “Revolution methods” in agriculture techniques caused a significant decline in production also affected by significant drought in 1931 – but in reports everything is accordingly to the plan, and on paper all was right. Nevertheless in 1931 in Ukraine at least 1\4 of harvest remains at fields uncollected. At same time local authority (for personal gain) overfulfill the collection plans – so in many cases seeds for sawing, forage and grain for food was collected for such proposes. So when comes spring 1932 – in many kolkhozes – no seeds for sawing, no working horses, tractors drivers moved o cities for foods. But on paper provided situation was not so catastrophic. At same cooperative trade network don’t want to loose their speculative profits - price on foods at Ukrainian cooperative shops (there no other shops at that time) was 3-5 time higher rather then in neighboring republics. So peasants instead of going to the fields for – going to neighboring republics for food, most of remaining uses provided from state seeds for food. So stockpiles at neighboring republics was significantly depleted and in same time any reasonable harvest in Ukraine can not be expected. But on paper situation was not so bad – so shortened plan for grain export is underway till November … Regarding "parliament of Ukraine and 26 other governments" they still No doubt what 1926 population of Ukraine was 31 +Millions and 28 +in Millions 1939 and plan of grain collection for 1932 was 44% higher, what starvation started in August 1932, ect. etc. etc. - But does it true? 213.159.244.43 (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a neutral party in this dispute - I came here out of mere curiosity on a Saturday morning, and I find the subject interesting in a scholastic sense. I am not a communist or a Stalin-apologist, nor am I an anti-Stalinist, though I am opposed to all forms of authoritarianism. I must say, however, that you, Termer, have been flirting with violations of the policy of Assuming Good Faith, as well as that of No Personal Attacks. I think if you want your position to look more credible to outside readers, you should tone down your polemic and aggressive style of discussion. The fact that someone disagrees with you does not inherently open them to assault, and that violates the very spirit of this encyclopedia, and any other form of intelligent discourse. If you hope to persuade with your commentary, you fail to do so. Tone it down, for the sake of your arguments if nothing else. Just Another Fat Guy (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"preponderance "

What "preponderance " are you talking about. What works on the subject have you read to judge? --Irpen (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Irpen. Regarding your question, "What "preponderance " are you talking about. What works on the subject have you read to judge?" -- I take it you refer to my recent edits on the Holodomor article. I was simply referring to the citations already in the text:

• U.S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine, "Findings of the Commission on the Ukraine Famine", Report to Congress, Washington, D.C., April 19, 1988
• US House of Representatives Authorizes Construction of Ukrainian Genocide Monument
• Statement by Pope John Paul II on the 70th anniversary of the Famine
• HR356 "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the man-made famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932-1933", United States House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., October 21, 2003

These statements and resolutions—together with the fact that "the parliament of Ukraine and the governments of 26 other countries recognized the famine to be such", mentioned later in the lead—sound like rather strong statements defining the Holodomor as genocide, certainly not something to be characterized as "sometimes", which seems rather dismissive in the context. Without going into a counting came (who said how many times what), I think "oftentimes" is more appropriate there. Any reason why not? Turgidson (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any grounds to judge that the use in the documents above amounts to "preponderance"? I asked you the question about the works you read on the subject for a reason. The scholarly state of the art is by no means one way or the other. And we should not make an article present this debate as the mainstream view vs a minority view. There is nothing of that sort. That said, I repeat my question. What works on the subject have you read? --Irpen (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is nothing in the WP rules that I know of that requires me to answer that kind of question, or that would predicate my making an editorial judgment in an article, based on an answer that you would deem satisfactory. How much I read, or how much I know on a given subject, is my own business; what counts here is what the sources say, and what's the best way to interpret them. And I think I made my case on that. Turgidson (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

All right, so I take it that you learn on the subject from this very article then. Anyway, you need a source that would say that such "preponderance" exists to make such judgment as your own conclusion that these citations constitute "preponderance" is not enough. That source would better be scholarly. I assure you that such source does not exist but you a free to show me wrong by finding one. Until then, please do not restore your own judgment into an article. Thank you. --Irpen (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to bring to this talk page the discussion regarding this article I've been having with Irpen on my own talk page. I think we kind of reached an impasse on this, maybe a wider discussion will help bring about a consensus. First, some background: I did some edits to the lead of this article, and one of them caught Irpen's eye. The argument is whether to say the Holodomor is characterized "sometimes" or "oftentimes" as a genocide. My take is that "sometimes" means this is a minority opinion, perhaps at best equal to the opposing views (which I take either deny this was a genocide, or minimize the role played by the Soviet government in perpetuating the famine). Based on the opinions cited in the lead (the parliament of Ukraine and the governments of 26 other countries, the US Congress, Pope John Paul II), this does not appear like a minority view to me, to say the least. And, of course, books such as "The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivisation and the Terror-Famine" by Robert Conquest, or The Black Book of Communism by Stéphane Courtois make the case in much detail. Am I missing something? Turgidson (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

All this "sometimes" and "oftentimes" is meaningless nonsense in my opinion. Why don't you just follow the WP:NPOV, meaning in case there are conflicting perspectives, each should be presented fairly. Meaning: "it is like this and that according to..." and "that and this according to...". thats all I want to know as a reader, the facts.--Termer (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me -- I used that "oftentimes" as a stop-gap, till something better than "sometimes" can be found. I'm also all for quoting specific sources, it's just the case that I'm new to this article, and I don't want to barge in and upset too much the balance, before seeing what the consensus is. To be more specific, should we just say here that, according to the US Congress, the Pope, etc, the Holodomor was a genocide, whereas, according to Yaroslav Bilinsky, it was not? Right now, these are the sources for the opposing views that I can see in the lead -- should there be more quoted? Turgidson (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

All the facts and opinions are presented in the Genocide section in an attributed form. The lead just needs to summarize the state of affairs and this state of affairs is presented in detail in the main body of the article and it is clear that neither view has any "preponderance" and mainstream scholars are divided. Turgidson, as any other editor, is not qualified to make his own judgment on how often is one or the other used and push it into a lead. I asked him whether he has any scholarly background to cut him some slack on that (perhaps he is the academic historian) but judging from his answer, even that is not the case. --Irpen (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, let me remind you that "Editors should be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements. Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." One more time, the issue is not my qualifications as "academic historian" -- rather, whether the lead presents a balanced view of the sources. Turgidson (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not invoke NPA where there is none. Baseless accusations in PA is a PA in itself. The balanced view of the sources, that you claim you want the lead to present, is that there is no agreement among the scholars, and no even a majority opinion. Both views are held among the respected and mainstream academics. If you would have been familiar with the subject you would have known that. Since the "oftenness" is not obvious you must find the reference to this "oftenness" in the outside source before inserting it into an article, and the source must be very serious to go one step further and push it into a lead. --Irpen (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

To Irpen: I'm most familiar with the subject. I've learned it when I was about 10 years old that there was a genocide in Ukraine due to the Soviet government selling grain overseas during famine. In case you are familiar with any opposing POV-s, that there is no agreement among the scholars etc., please feel free to add these facts to the article. Nothing is going to justify you manipulations with the POV that's common knowledge in the western world, the only one I personally am aware of. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I added references to Kulchytsky, himself the proponent of the view that there was a Genocide, where he summarizes the state of the art within the scholarship including the positions of such historians as Davies, Wheatcroft, Tauger and others that argue to the contrary. Kulchytsky disagrees with them but present their views. Again, if you cared to read the reference I added you would find that lately Conquest himself also changed his view and stated that the term genocide does not apply. --Irpen (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class Ukraine articles
• Top-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles
• Unassessed Russia articles
• Unknown-importance Russia articles
• Unknown-importance Unassessed Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages collaborations
• Misplaced Pages editorial validation
• Misplaced Pages release version work