It could have been done without wiping out the people, language, and culture. Ukranians were targeted because they were a large minority and had valuable land.
Every year since 1929 has seen the publication of more books in the Ukrainian language than were published in the whole 118 years before the Revolution.
What a novel way to attempt to wipe out a language, publishing books in it.
The USSR started out with a policy of indigenization. This allowed the Soviet Union to establish control over outlying and rebellious regions after the Civil War. However, according to the Soviets, this policy also gave the outlying regions the ability to organize against yhe state. This policy would unofficially end in 1932 and officially swapped for Russification in 1938.
If the USSR was trying to kill their culture, they weren’t very good at it, because Ukrainians are still speaking Ukrainian to this day.
Taking this argument in isolation, it’s the same argument used today to say Israel isn’t conducting a genocide. “If Israel wanted to genocide Palestinians, they aren’t very good at it, cause only 70K killed.”
Taken in isolation, THIS argument could be used to cast the Allied invasion of Italy in WW2 as a project of genocide. They did kill a number of Italians, after all.
What evidence do you have to justify your assertion that Ukrainian culture, language, and identity were targets of destruction?
In this case, yes??? If we’re setting out to prove intent to commit genocide, both the actions and rhetoric of the accused are pretty important evidence. You don’t really get one without the other, the rhetoric is necessary to justify the actions to the people who will ultimately have to commit them.
Recognizing statehood is a pretty base level of recognizing the humanity and sovereignty of those that occupy it, which the USSR would not have done for Ukraine if their intent was to wipe out the Ukrainian culture and national identity and replace it with Russian identity. As evidenced by Israel, genocidaires prefer their victims as defenseless and disorganized as possible. Colonizers don’t recognize borders on land they seek to colonize. Israel has denied and undermined Palestinian statehood at every stop, literally rewriting history to support their narrative, because allowing Palestinians to have a state with any level of recognized sovereignty would be wholly counter-productive to Israel’s colonial project.
So how do you explain Ukraine being granted statehood within the Soviet Union? If, by your account, the USSR went to all this trouble to brutally cleanse the land of Ukrainians and their culture by means of starvation, why did they then just leave the land to be looked after by a Ukrainian state? Why did they give up on this ambition for Russia to occupy Ukraine? Where else have you ever seen a colonizer just up and leave a colony, still mostly occupied by natives, and grant those natives full statehood in their union??? What you’re claiming just makes no sense when put into greater context.
It matters what Israel does. Here is a state actually doing something you baselessly claim the USSR did, and surprise surprise, they’re acting completely opposite to how the USSR acted.
The Soviets attempted to, unlike the Allies, and still killed millions in the process.
The genocides and surrounding circumstances are different. Israel’s genocide is more violent, guns, tanks, etc. and is more public, with all the journalists they’re murdering and everyone having a camera in their pocket. The Holodomor was forced starvation of a people, much less flashy, and information moved slower and could be controlled easier.
If the USSR was trying to kill their culture, they weren’t very good at it, because Ukrainians are still speaking Ukrainian to this day.
No shit. That’s the point of socialism: to expropriate bourgeois private property and redistribute it to the masses.
It could have been done without wiping out the people, language, and culture. Ukranians were targeted because they were a large minority and had valuable land.
What a novel way to attempt to wipe out a language, publishing books in it.
It wasn’t successful. The Soviets relented, and the famine lifted.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2496868
The USSR started out with a policy of indigenization. This allowed the Soviet Union to establish control over outlying and rebellious regions after the Civil War. However, according to the Soviets, this policy also gave the outlying regions the ability to organize against yhe state. This policy would unofficially end in 1932 and officially swapped for Russification in 1938.
https://www.history.com/articles/ukrainian-famine-stalin
Suprise suprise, it ended the same year millions of Ukranians would die in a man-made famine.
So, the Soviet decided to Russify ukraine, what actions did they take?
Heh, novel way
Taking this argument in isolation, it’s the same argument used today to say Israel isn’t conducting a genocide. “If Israel wanted to genocide Palestinians, they aren’t very good at it, cause only 70K killed.”
Taken in isolation, THIS argument could be used to cast the Allied invasion of Italy in WW2 as a project of genocide. They did kill a number of Italians, after all.
Does Israel recognize the state of Palestine?
But did the allies attempt to destroy Italian culture, language, and identity, along with systematically killing Italian civilians?
Does it matter what Israel thinks?
What evidence do you have to justify your assertion that Ukrainian culture, language, and identity were targets of destruction?
In this case, yes??? If we’re setting out to prove intent to commit genocide, both the actions and rhetoric of the accused are pretty important evidence. You don’t really get one without the other, the rhetoric is necessary to justify the actions to the people who will ultimately have to commit them.
Recognizing statehood is a pretty base level of recognizing the humanity and sovereignty of those that occupy it, which the USSR would not have done for Ukraine if their intent was to wipe out the Ukrainian culture and national identity and replace it with Russian identity. As evidenced by Israel, genocidaires prefer their victims as defenseless and disorganized as possible. Colonizers don’t recognize borders on land they seek to colonize. Israel has denied and undermined Palestinian statehood at every stop, literally rewriting history to support their narrative, because allowing Palestinians to have a state with any level of recognized sovereignty would be wholly counter-productive to Israel’s colonial project.
So how do you explain Ukraine being granted statehood within the Soviet Union? If, by your account, the USSR went to all this trouble to brutally cleanse the land of Ukrainians and their culture by means of starvation, why did they then just leave the land to be looked after by a Ukrainian state? Why did they give up on this ambition for Russia to occupy Ukraine? Where else have you ever seen a colonizer just up and leave a colony, still mostly occupied by natives, and grant those natives full statehood in their union??? What you’re claiming just makes no sense when put into greater context.
They did not, just like the Soviets didn’t.
It matters what Israel does. Here is a state actually doing something you baselessly claim the USSR did, and surprise surprise, they’re acting completely opposite to how the USSR acted.
The Soviets attempted to, unlike the Allies, and still killed millions in the process.
The genocides and surrounding circumstances are different. Israel’s genocide is more violent, guns, tanks, etc. and is more public, with all the journalists they’re murdering and everyone having a camera in their pocket. The Holodomor was forced starvation of a people, much less flashy, and information moved slower and could be controlled easier.