• essteeyou@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not doubting you, but when you say “most historians” what do you mean? I have basically no knowledge of this subject, but I’d like to know more and I know better than to take some random comment at face value.

    • randomname01@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s been a while since I read about this, so I don’t have any sources on hand I can point to right now. The core point is that there isn’t really any proof that the Soviets’ goal was to eliminate Ukrainians as a group, which is the main requirement to classify something as a genocide.

      Of course, that doesn’t mean the Holodomor didn’t happen or that the USSR isn’t to blame, only that the intent wasn’t to eradicate a people.

      I hope that’s a decent starting point for you to read up on this, in case you’re interested.

      • gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        That feels like a really pedantic difference.

        Example:

        I kill 100% of a population AND my intent was to do that = genocide

        I kill 100% of a population BUT my intent was only to kill a lot of people = not genocide???

        If that’s really what you’re saying is the discrepancy then I have to disagree with this recognition being purely political. This seems like a common sense thing. The holodomor happened, it was mass purposeful death. We can argue if it was targeted against a people or a location, but the effect was clearly bound to some group or region and it was effective within those boundaries to the extent that it could be considered a genocide.

        Without doing any reading on the matter for this topic as well, that’s what I’d say.

        • randomname01@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s also a difference between murder with premeditation, murder without premeditation and manslaughter - all three are the death of someone at someone else’s hands, all three are crimes, but that doesn’t make them the same thing. Intentionality matters in law.

          The intent is a crucial aspect of the definition of genocide, which was internationally ratified in the Genocide Convention. Suddenly ignoring that when it’s politically expedient is hugely problematic.

          I also want to emphasise that something not being a genocide doesn’t mean it can’t be horrible, a crime against humanity or anything else. It’s not a defence in any way, but a matter of using the correct (legally accepted) name.