This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Irpen (talk | contribs) at 07:38, 2 December 2006 (→Debate is over). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:38, 2 December 2006 by Irpen (talk | contribs) (→Debate is over)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | 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. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Holodomor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
Template:FAOL Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4
Cats
No genocide, no democide. Nothing. What happend? Another "plot of the Russians editors" or just inadvertence of administrators?--133.41.4.46 15:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Instead of suspecting an existence of a "plot" and being deluded that a makes or breaks Holodomor as such, consider getting a wikipedia account, then pick a section in the Holodomor article and contribute towards an wp:npov version. If you think that the Holodomor was genocide then make sure the arguments for it being so are reflected in the main article and cited with scholarly citations. As you can probably see from the reference section, currently this article heavily cites a work by the Davies et. al., in effect Davies et. al. pov is heavily reflected. --Riurik 19:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
no democide?--133.41.4.46 18:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Alex Kov, having to deal with you is very annoying. You continue to refuse to sign in. You do not engage in talk page discussions, you insist on unreferenced or poorly referenced changes. Such attitutde is widely considered trollish. --Irpen 18:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have returned democide. I think it is appropriate Alex Bakharev 00:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I am replacing the massive user:LuisMatosRibeiro's paste of the off-site material to this talk page with a link:
- Andrea Graziosi, The Soviet 1931-33 Famines and the Ukrainian Holodomor: Is A New Interpretation Possible, What Would Its Consequences Be?, Conference on Soviet Totalitarianism in Ukraine: History and Legacy", September 2 - 6, 2005, Kiev, Ukraine.
First of all this pasting violated the copyright as the message at the bottom stated "All rights reserved. Coyping only with the written permission from the publisher." But even if it were not copyrighted, pasting of massive texts to the talk pages is extremely unhelpful as it makes discussion impossible by obscuring what editors are trying to say. Please do not do it. --Irpen 22:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Spin-off: Was the Holodomor genocide?
POV fork or a very bad title for a subarticle.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Was just created today by some user... What would you advise, Piotrus? -- Grafikm 16:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I prodded the fork and restored the text back. This is an extremely important aspect and needs discussed in the main article. --Irpen 19:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Lemkin line
Again, you can coin a marketing slogan, but not "genocide"- putting it as simply as humanly possible. Truthseeker 85.5 22:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- We are not familiar with Lemkin's statements on whether H was Genocide. We know two things. Lemkin was first to define what a G is, the term belongs to him. He spoke at the meeting. The article says exactly this. --Irpen 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right Irpen, thanks for fixing. I retract my objections. Truthseeker 85.5 22:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Question regarding refs
Currently, there are two methods for references that are used in this article plus a separate section for notes, and this has no logical organization. Am I wrong? I'd like to get all the sources cited in one way to ease verification and standardize. --Riurik 15:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it's worse than that. The way the refs set up there are references with numbers like and linked to nowhere. The last sentence of Politicization of the famine section is redundant anyhow. Mhym 12:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Debate is over
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6193266.stm UKRAINE RULES IT IS GENOCIDE, DEBATE IS OVER! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewuoft (talk • contribs)
- Wow, what an art of persuasion, I'm impressed. You study Cicero, don't you? Or Demosthenes, maybe... Slightly more seriously, Turks still do not recognize Armenian genocide. So for you, it means it does not exists... Hmm... So next time, please refrain from such posts.
- Oh, and new posts go to the bottom of the page, not top. -- Grafikm 18:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
A partisan opinion like this is not anything valuable. It is a violation of NPOV policy to mention this in the article. The fact is that the international community does not take into serious consideration these fabricated fairy tales. As has been exhaustively debated on this discussion board, the opinion that this famine was man-made and exclusive to Ukraine has been thoroughly discredited. The Polonized Ukrainians don't even have their facts straight. They claim that "up to 10 million" died even though the archives show 1.5 million deaths. Jacob Peters
- Jacob Peters, you repeat the troll's mistakes by refusing to acknowledge what has been explained to you multiple times. 1.5 millions is as bogus as 10 millions. The real number is in between. It has been shown at the talk and in the article why the 1.5 mln number is impossible. Please be serious if you want your input to be respected. Don't approach the article with the political agenda to push like some here. --Irpen 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You are lying with the claim that it has been explained multiple times that the 1.5 million can be contested. The declassified Soviet archives vindicate the figure whereas the "7 to 10 million" figure is absolutely unsubstantiated.
- Accusation in lying is a personal attack. 7-10 million is unsubtsantiated indeed. 1.5 million is unrealistic either as Soviet archives are self-contradictory. Recorded excess deaths are indeed 1.5 million. However recorded death statistics does not add up to the census data. Demographs concider these two censuses to be accurate. As such, the data derived from the census is more reliable and gives 4.5 million. This has been explained at this very page to you and others (now in archives) as well as in the article. Sources are provided. --Irpen 02:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
If only you'd be familiar with the material you are addressing. The 1.5 million figure is in fact based on revised registration data. The earlier versions showed about 600 thousand fewer deaths in Ukraine.
Extraordinarily POV Intro
Most modern scholars agree that the famine was caused by the policies of the government of the Soviet Union under Stalin, rather than by natural reasons
- Bullshit above is manifest. Whereas we are told that "most modern scholars" agree the famine was caused by the government, yet half of the sources listed were published before the Soviet archives were declassified. The source by Davies and Wheatcroft is blatantly misrepresented as they do not agree that the famine was caused by the government. They as well as Mark Tauger extensively document natural factors that crashed the harvest. Jacob Peters
- False. Scholars agree or disagree on the idea Soviet gov's plotted to inflict hunger on Ukrainians, but there is no dispute that the grain was collected ny the gov to filfill quotas, the result was the Famine, the aid effort was delayed and botched. As such, the famine was preventable but was not prevented due to the Soviet policies. It is the gov policies that caused it and not weather. Tauger and Davies confirm that as they go lengths on discussing the aid effort and collection. --Irpen 02:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Title Change
This nonesense has to end. The major scholarly sources devoted specifically to this famine such as "Years of Hunger" by Davies and Wheatcroft and writings by Mark Tauger refer to this period simply as the Soviet famine rather than some propagandistic nationalist term like "Golodomor". The fact that famine was not limited to Ukraine and that the Soviet government tried to assist regions struck by famine totally discredits an intent or an insinuation of national exclusivity.
Major recent writings published on this famine include:
Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Soviet Famine of 1931-1933, Tauger
Stalin, Grain Stocks and the Famine of 1932-1933", Davies, Wheatcroft, and Tauger in Slavic Review
Notice the total absence of the term "Golodomor"
Bravo Jacob Peters, my stalinist genius! In your brilliant opinion, historians like James Mace, Hubert Laszkiewicz, Andrea Graziosi, Yuriy Shapoval, Gerhard Simon, Orest Subtelny, Mauro Martini, Nicolas Werth, Stephane Courtois, Roman Serbyn, Ferdinando Adornato, Federigo Argentieri, Ettore Cinnella, Massimo De Angelis, Gabriele De Rosa, Renzo Foa, Oxana Pachlovska, Vittorio Strada, Victor Zaslavski, Alain Besançon, Francesco Perfetti, Lucio Vilari, Rudolf Mark, Egbert Jahn, Wilfried Jilge, Dmytro Zlepko, Wolodomyr Kosyk, Daniel Beauvois, Jean-Lois Panné, Etienne Thevenin, they are ignorant!
BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LuisMatosRibeiro 00:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
James Mace headed a propaganda campaign for the US government. Falsely remarked that famine occurred from "crop seizure". Not an unbiased source. None of those authors you've named have been involved in any notable discourse about the famine in scholarly journals.
- I would like to strongly condemn the unproposed article moves that were made. Soviet famine would be a legit article as well and, besides, a broader article already exists. Famines in Russia and USSR. The article on the specifically Ukrainian famine has every right to exist. So, the move to Soviet Famine (1932-1933) is out of question. The move to the Ukrainian Famine may be discussed but first propsoed and dicussed and then decided, not the other way around. --Irpen 02:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Was the Holodomor genocide?
Today, the heads of state, governments or parliaments of 26 countries
- 26 countries meaning that this is the minority of the international community. It is particularly absent of credibility considering that most of these countries conduct a deliberately anti-Russian policy. 26 countries of 192 in the United Nations is insufficient to put through a resolution calling this "genocide". Jacob Peters
- First, the fact that other countries recognize the Famine as Genocide is notable and definetely belongs to the article. Tarasyuk, Minister for Foreign Affairs of UA, in a recent interview I read mentioned 10 countries though. This needs to be figured out but there is no debate that such information is notable for a Misplaced Pages without Jacob's editoriolizing that "those countries are members of NATO", etc. --Irpen 02:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Jacob Peters: Please provide the list of countries, which studied the issue of Holodomor, and following the study decided that it should not be recognized as genocide.
Robert Conquest, the author of one of the most important Western studies published prior to the declassifying of the the Soviet archives, concluded that the famine of 1932–33 was artificial—that is a deliberate mass murder, if not genocide committed as part of Joseph Stalin's collectivization program under the Soviet Union.
- Yet more ass-kissing of Conquest. Since he did not have access to the archives, it was impossible for him to conclude anything. He therefore did not conclude that the famine was artificial or deliberate. His work has been shreaded by Wheatcroft and Davies. Conquest falsely remarked that the 1932 harvest was no worse than the previous year's. Jacob Peters
- First, Conquest's work is not useless although, incomplete, as archives were not accessible to him. He indeed admitted lately in his correspondance to Davies that he agrees with the latter that Genocide strictly speaking does not apply. However, Conquest provides lots of factual data and is useful. He is particularly notable in covering the history of the Famine coverage as his book was the most comprehensive work for its time. --Irpen 02:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
These documents show that Moscow singled out Ukraine, while regions outside it were allowed to receive humanitarian aid.
- This is absolutely false as declassified Politburo and Sovnarkom decrees show that the state delivered famine relief to the Ukraine Jacob Peters
- It seems like you only write and never read responses. Yes, aid was given but there was a special directive to give aid only to those who are sent to the fields. Ref was given. --Irpen 02:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
According to the US Government Commission on the Ukrainian Famine () the seizure of the 1932 crop by the Soviet authorities was the main reason of the famine.
- These findings have been discredited. Plus, a propaganda campaign sponsored by the US government is not exactly a reliable, NPOV, scholarly source. Grain collections by the government in 1932 were only 80% of the total of previous years. Jacob Peters
- At the same time, the Soviets deliberately withheld the state reserve grain until the last moment and made it available for aid only when the devastating famine was raging. This is actually said by Tauger himself. --Irpen 02:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
A few questions
The important questions on genocide that needs to be addressed are:
- (1) Why were the borders of Ukrainian SSR sealed off by the Soviet authorities?
- (2) If it was a harvest failure, why was the burden of that failure not simply shared across the Soviet Union?
- (3) Why were all kinds of meal confiscated? What was the punishment for?
The questions are borrowed from — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPbIC (talk • contribs)
- Let me answer them:
- It was not only Ukrainian borders, there were checkpoints throughout the USSR
- Well the actual harvest failure in other parts of the Soviet Union was even worse, take the Kurgan Oblast where В огромной Курганской области (соизмеримой с тогдашней УССР) и в Центрально-Черноземной области (также житнице) в том же 33-м точно так же дошло до повсеместного каннибализма. На Урале за невыполнения плана хлебозаготовок изымалось тех же 100% запасов. А на Поволжье дело доходило до публичных порок. В этих областях голод был гораздо ощутимей, чем на Черниговщине. В Центрально-Черноземной области в 33-м погибло по разным оценкам от 200 до 850 тыс.человек. В Челябинской, Пермской, Свердловской обл. – свыше 87 тысяч. Поволжье и Сибирь – порядка 10% населения. ref
- Please reference the latter.--Kuban Cossack 18:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Let me answer them:
- (1) In response to the question "Why were the borders of Ukrainian SSR sealed off by the Soviet authorities?", you mentioned that not only the borders of Ukraine were sealed but the military checkpoints (загранотряды) were set throughout the USSR. It still does not answer why in particular the Ukrainian regions affected by famine were sealed. True that the genocide was not only limited to Ukrainians, but in particular, it was genocide of Ukrainians.
- (2) In response to "Why was the burden of that failure not simply shared across the Soviet Union" you provided some evidences that the other regions in the other time periods also unproportionally suffered. Still, going back to Ukraine in 1932/33 the facts are that at the end of the day, the Ukrainian population shrunk substantially (-15% between 1926 and 1937), while the other nationalities of USSR, such as Russians, Tatars, Uzbeks, Armenians substantially grew (all more than +20% over the same time). At the end of the day, peasants were dying, and proletariat was ruling. It was not just that one part of population benefited and the other part did not. It was up to the level when the other part was losing, and was losing up to the death. That was genocide.
- (3) You asked for evidence of confiscation of all kinds of food. Let me cite James E. Mace, PhD, Prof. of Political Science, , who refers to the documents published in "Holod 1932-1933 rokiv na Ukrayini: ochyma istorykiv, movoiu dokumentiv" (Kyiv, 1990)
- Consider the decree of November 18, 1932 (pp. 250-260). It calls for an immediate audit of all bread resources in the collective and individual farms to be followed by the seizure of all such resources except for a seed reserve (ordered seized on December 24 - p. 296), the seizure of all advances extended members of delinquent kolhosps, and - most interestingly to me - instituted a series of fines in kind for those "maliciously" undermining the grain seizures including a 150% supplement to one's annual meat quota (take the cow, pig, and/or chickens!) and authorizing the seizure of other foodstuffs. Subsequent reports on fulfillment of this monument of socialist legality make clear included such commercially priceless crops as potatoes and beans. Isn't it amazing that they would take from households without any bread whatever else edible they could find but not intend that somebody might miss a meal?
- On December 6, 1932, the Soviet Ukrainian press published a decree to put on the chorna doshka (black board to denounce those who had underfulfilled) six villages found to be maliciously undermining the grain procurements (seizures actually, since the regime didn't pay), to be extended within a week to 82 districts or about 20% of the republic. The local apparats of such dens of iniquity were to be thoroughly purged (i.e., arrested), the local stores closed with all goods removed from them, and the area itself blockaded so that people could not go to seek victuals elsewhere. But, of course, nobody, of course, actually INTENDED that they might occasionally miss a meal.
- One most interesting document could be published only in part in the abovementioned collection of Party documents. This is a December 14, 1932 decision of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (bolshevik) and Sovnarkom of the USSR of December 14, 1932 on the grain procurements in Ukraine, the North Caucasus, and the Western oblast, signed by I. Stalin and V. Molotov. This document is instructive in how UNINTENTIONALLY the then supreme self-consecrated leaders of the world proletariat, Stalin and Molotov, saw to the situation.
"5. The CC and SNK tells party and Soviet organizations of the Soviet Union that the malicious enemies of the party, working class, and collectivized peasantry are saboteurs of the grain procurements with party cards in their pockets... In relation to those turncoats and enemies of Soviet power and the collective farms the CC and SNK commits itself to severe repression, to sentencing them to 5-10 years in a concentration camp, and under known conditions execution." — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPbIC (talk • contribs)
- One most interesting document could be published only in part in the abovementioned collection of Party documents. This is a December 14, 1932 decision of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (bolshevik) and Sovnarkom of the USSR of December 14, 1932 on the grain procurements in Ukraine, the North Caucasus, and the Western oblast, signed by I. Stalin and V. Molotov. This document is instructive in how UNINTENTIONALLY the then supreme self-consecrated leaders of the world proletariat, Stalin and Molotov, saw to the situation.
Well I shall not challenge the validity of the sources, they are right, but in particular none that you claim True that the genocide was not only limited to Ukrainians, but in particular, it was genocide of Ukrainians. That IMO is an OR interpretation, because for absolutely all claims, none are specific that it was a deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Ukraine. Yes it was a genocide, even I share that viewpoint, but it was a social genocide NOT national. And here my refrences and your agree, because in any case all fingers point to peasants as targets, not their ethnicity, so its fair to assume that 1932-33 Soviet Famine can qualify for the genocide cat, but HGolodomor alone cannot, not in the way its presented in the article here. To be truly honest with you, I think the Ukrainian state is playing with fire on the bones of those died, with ridiculous bills being passed such as fines for public denial and so on. Instead, it should concentrate on approaching Russia and Kazakhstan to form an independent multi-national commission with full access to FSB archives that would neutrally analyze the records, and only after the enquiry concludes on weather the events of 1932-1933 were genocide based on whatever scale, then debates will end. However something tells me that the truth on what the commission produces will be quite different on what some Ukrainian politicians want people to believe, for them its very convinient to use the historical fact of a Ukrainian National Genocide in their programmes. Talking about population drops then I give you our favourite demoscope for the 1939 census look at the age statistics for say Stalinskaya Oblast and Saratovskaya Oblast. Both show the amount of people born at the age six and seven at about half of what they were prior and after, so I am not sure where the two precent population statistics came from... Again same conclusions, whilst there is evidence that only SUGGEST a social genocide, there are none that PROVE that it was a NATIONAL genocide. --Kuban Cossack 02:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Guys, both of you, it is nice that we now returned to the discussion about sources with no trolling. Here is some more points for you and comments. First, all the relevant archives by now are opened and all serious latest research is based on such archives. Among the Ukrainian scholars, the most serious work was done by Stanislav Kulchytsky. Among the Western ones, the most important study is that by Davies and Wheatcroft. When either of the authors cite the archives, they both come up with the exact same numbers, although they do not always interprete them the same way.
- In the most recent article by Kulchytsky in Zerkalo, the author mentions that the Famine should be viewed as a Genocide but not against the ethnic Ukrainians but of the population of "Ukraine as a state", citizens of Ukraine. This view differs from each of the ones you presented but is an interesting one. At the same article, Kulchytsky accepts that this is different from the narrow definition of Genocide given by the UN convention. The author makes good points that seeing it with such a narrow context is too restrictive and the Genocide in the meaning "of the People of Ukraine" indeed took place. The same author in earlier works also called for non-politicized and scientific approach as only with statements backed with serious scholarly research we may address the international community with calls for the recognision of the events as a Genocide. At the same time, I did not read the entire book by Davies, but I read some of it. It is certainly a thorough scholarly study as well; and in no way it is a Stalinist apologist bull although some editor here uses the book as to push his own appologist stuff into the article. Davies disagrees with applicability of Genocide while he does document the deaths of the millions.
- The term "national Genocide" in English is misleading as "nationality" means both "citizenship" and "ethnicity". We may discuss the applicability of each of this concepts and say which researcher supports each. Finally, IMO what KK calls "Social Genocide" and the definition suggested by Kulchytsky is not mutually exclusive. --Irpen 02:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I can only agree with you here, by national I meant Национальный, and I must say that if we talk about genocide in 1932-1933 then it has to include all areas affected, in particular the Kurgan Oblast, where, as my ref says, cannibalism was observed. Now that is genocide in all respects and purposes, but for that case is there a point to treat the events in Ukraine as different? --Kuban Cossack 03:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Here is where it gets tricky. The only definition of Genocide that no one really questions is the UN one. It does not mean that this is the only possible definition, but we start talking semantics here as if the term's definition is not universally agreed, its application may not be universally agreed either. I do believe the article should state all mainstream points of view and even mention the Stalinist POV which, despite being a fringe one, is notable for historic puproses. The article does that already. However, Category:Genocide is a different issue. As per WP:Category#Some_general_guidelines Misplaced Pages guidline (see #8) "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." I will be returning to the major work on this article. --Irpen 03:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
1. The reason why there was an internal passport system set up was because of massive migration to the towns that would have seriously strained available resources. This would mean that there would be an explosion of non-producing peasants meaning that grain collections would have to be stepped up with the decrease of labour. About 12 million people flocked to the towns in the early 1930s. This had to be reduced for obviously practical reasons.
2. The simple reason why the Ukrainian population grew slower than other regions was because of massive migration into the Russian Federated Socialist Republic. It is found that the predominantly ethnic Russian regions of the Volga endured a population stagnation between 1926-37 that was proportionally higher than that of Ukraine. There were 5.3m people in Lower Volga area in 1926 but only 4.7m in 1937. In contrast, UKR population remained unchanged at 28m in 1926-37.
3. James Mace is not a valid source. Propaganda employed by the US government is not any more helpful than similar material dessiminated by the official Soviet press of the 1930s. The fact is that grain collections in 1932 were 18 million tons compared to 22 million tons in 1931 and 1933. The decree that you cite had been substantially modified so as to be lenient. Peasants afterwards were liable to conviction only if they tried to engage in criminal activities against socialist property on a SYSTEMATIC scale e.g bandits. Only 6% of all those convicted for breaking this law received a death sentence. Please take the time to read the modifications of this misunderstood decree described extensively in this article.
Protect?
Maybe this page should be locked. It looks like a few editors are determined to keep moving and blanking the page. TheQuandry 00:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I will look into this after dinner, and will protect if it seems needed. While I am cooking and eating, you can speed up my job by providing diff's for the last few days of vandalism. HighInBC 02:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Here are a few of them TheQuandry 02:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Normalcy can be gradually restored in a much better was with less collatoral damage. user:Jacob Peters and user:LuisMatosRibeiro both deserve a block. The first one for edit warring, utter denial to listen to others and the blatant undiscudded move of an article. LuisMatosRibeiro for sterile revert warring (inluding from 82.155 IPs), personal attacks and refusal to discuss as well. Luis also violated 3RR by shifting his revertion spree between the account and the 82... IPs. Since both users do use IPs for editing, and both user's IPs are changing from time to time (see eg. 82... IPs in recent months history), additionally the article needs semiprotection. I don't think complete protection is necessary. I will try to start cleaning up the mess. Won't do everything today, but the most blatant stuff. --Irpen 02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is alot more indepth than I thought,you should go to WP:RFP. I have not done much in the area of protection yet. HighInBC 03:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Most Scholars Do Not Feel Exclusivity of Ukraine
Mark Tauger wrote the following in a review about the slanderous "Black Book of Communism:
''Most serious scholars now do not accept the view that this was exclusively a Ukrainian famine''
Case closed. The fact most scholars do not consider this to have occurred exclusively in Ukraine means that the version of this article has to be reverted to the improved "Soviet Famine" title.
Category: