re: #81 Nyet

Unlike with the Holocaust, the question of whether the Holodomor falls under the UN definition of genocide is wide open among the historians specializing in the famine, due to the vagueness of evidence about the Soviet intent (and specific intent plays the key role in whether something is genocide or some other type of mass murder under the official definition). Numerous mainstream historians have rejected the idea, including Robert Conquest, who first popularized the topic in the West.

Parliaments playing historians is a bad idea.

German parliament labels 1930s Ukraine famine as genocide

The UN playing a moral gatekeeper to what is a genocide is also a bad idea.

The UN’s definition of genocide from the Genocide Convention, includes mass murder in an intent to destroy national, ethnic, religous, or ethnic groups, but does not include attempts to destroy a “class” group — i.e, Kulak’s, or a “political group”. That was done to get the Soviets on board.

Rafael Lemkin, who authored the UN definition of genocide, himselfn considered the Holodomor to be a genocide.

Of course, if you redefine an ethnic group as a class group, by the narrow definition, several groups of deliberate mass murders (for example the murder of 1 million ethnic-Chinese Indonesians (in the guise of “anti-Communism”) around Suharto’s rise to power, Cambodia’s purge of pretty much anyone who was theoretially an intellectual, the Holodomor against Ukrainians declaring them to be Kulak’s, don’t count as genocide.