AUR#890 Nov 23 Tragic Pages of History; Light A Candle; Harvest of Sorrow; Executed By Famine; Letters from Kharkiv; Politics of Genocide;

=========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR           
An International Newsletter, The Latest, Up-To-Date
In-Depth Ukrainian News, Analysis and Commentary


Ukrainian History, Culture, Arts, Business, Religion,
Sports, Government, and Politics, in Ukraine and Around the World       
 
Ukraine Remembers -The World Acknowledges
75th Commemoration Of The Holodomor 1932-1933
“Induced Starvation, Death for Millions, Genocide”
Light A Candle of Memory, Saturday, November 24, 2007
 
“With due respect, I call on all Ukrainians and all people of goodwill
regardless of their backgrounds to light on November 24 the candles of
memory of the Holodomor victims on all our planet.

Bring the flames of truth to every nation and every country. All your
candles will help form a single candle which we will light in November

2008.
This candle will become an eternal and ever burning symbol of our grief
for the millions of starved brother and sisters, of our unity and our faith
in the unconquerable strength of the Ukrainian people.

Our duty is to unite the efforts and make everything possible to ensure

that these tragic pages of history will be never forgotten.

Ukraine to Remember! The World to Recognize!”

Viktor Yushchenko, President of Ukraine [Article Two]
                        

ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR – Number 890
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Publisher and Editor, SigmaBleyzer
KYIV, UKRAINE, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2007
 
INDEX OF ARTICLES  ——
Clicking on the title of any article takes you directly to the article.               
Return to Index by clicking on Return to Index at the end of each article
 
2ADDRESS TO ALL UKRAINIANS ON 75TH COMMEMORATION
OF THE 1932-1933 HOLODOMOR BY PRESIDENT YUSHCHENKO
President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko
Presidential Administration, Kyiv, Ukraine, November 2007

3
UKRAINE: WE REMEMBER
Editorial: Kyiv Post, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, November 21, 2007
 
4CANADA: UKRAINE FAMINE REMEMBERED
By Julie Horbal, Sun Media
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, Thursday, November 22, 2007
 
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Thursday, November 22, 2007

6PRESIDENT INSISTS ON CREATING NATIONAL MUSEUM OF
MEMORY OF 1932-1933 HOLODOMOR VICTIMS ASAP
UKRINFORM, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, Nov 21, 2007

7LEADERS OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT EXPRESS SOLIDARITY

HOLODOMOR 1932-1933
Ukrinform, Kyiv, Ukraine, Thursday, November 22, 2007

8ROBERT CONQUEST’S BOOK “THE HARVEST OF SORROW”
REPUBLISHED IN THE UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE

U.S. Ambassador Taylor says U.S. Congress has still not approved

a resolution that would define the Holodomor as an act of genocide
against the Ukrainian people.
By Mykola SIRUK, The Day Weekly Digest
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, November 20, 2007

9DECLARATION: “UKRAINE TO REMEMBER – THE WORLD
TO RECOGNIZE!” 
Upcoming International Events to Commemorate 75th Anniversary
of 1932-1933 Holodomor Genocide of the Ukrainian Nation
World Ukrainian Congress (WUC) and the
International Holodomor Committee (IHC) (in Ukrainian)
Toronto, New York, Melbourne, Saturday, November 17, 2007
Action Ukraine Report #890, Article 9 (in English)
Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, November 23, 2007

10.  “EXECUTED BY FAMINE: THE UNKNOWN GENOCIDE OF

THE UKRAINIANS” EXHIBITION UNVEILED AT THE GENEVA,
SWITZERLAND MUNICIPAL LIBRARY
International Charitable Fund 3000, Kyiv, Ukraine, Fri, Nov 9, 2007

11LETTERS FROM KHARKIV
The truth about the Holodomor through the eyes of Italian diplomats
By Yurii Shapoval, Professor and Doctor of Sciences (History).
The Day Weekly Digest, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, November 20, 2007

12AN APPEAL TO THE RUSSIAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
By Halya Coynash, Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, “Maidan” Alliance
Kharkiv, Ukraine, Thursday, November 22, 2007

13.  THE POLITICS OF GENOCIDE
Will Moscow ever recognize the Stalin-led forced famine
in Ukraine 75 years ago as an act of genocide?
Analysis & Commentary: By Lisa Shymko
The American Spectator, Arlington, Virginia, Wed, Nov 14, 2007


14
UKRAINIAN MASS FAMINE OF 1932-1933: RUSSIA IGNORES
TRAGIC ANNIVERSARY
The overwhelming fact is that Moscow is anxious to divorce
itself from the 1932-33 tragedy for political reasons.
Nezavisimaya Gazeta, republished by RIA Novosti
Moscow, Russia, Wednesday, November 21, 2007

15TOO MUCH EMOTION OVER HOLODOMOR IN UKRAINE,
RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE SAYS
Interfax Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine, Thursday, November 22, 2007

16DECLARING FAMINE A GENOCIDE OF UKRAINIANS INSULTS
NON-UKRAINIAN VICTIMS SAYS RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY
Interfax, Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, November 20, 2007

17RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY SHOULD READ MORE BOOKS
ABOUT HISTORY SAYS UKRAINE’S FOREIGN MINISTRY
UNIAN News, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, November 20, 2007

18FORMER MIN OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS BORYS TARASIUK
CRITICIZED RUSSIAN AUTHORIES FOR OBSTRUCTION OF
HONORING MEMORY OF 1932-1933 FAMINE VICTIMS
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, November 20, 2007

19PRES YUSHCHENKO: UKRAINE’S POLICY ON DECLARATION
ON 1932-1933 FAMINE AS GENOCIDE OF UKRAINIAN PEOPLE

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tue, November 20, 2007

20THE UKRAINIAN FAMINE OF 1932-1933 AS GENOCIDE IN
LIGHT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION OF 1948
By Roman Serbyn, Professor of History, University of Quebec
The Ukrainian Quarterly, Volume LXII, Number 2, Taras Hunczak, Editor
A Journal of Ukrainian & International Affairs – Since 1944
Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA)
New York, New York, Summer 2006
Journal article re-published with permission by the
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #890, Article 20

Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, November 23, 2007

========================================================
1
 COMMEMORATION EVENTS FOR THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF
HOLODOMOR 1932-1933 TO BE HELD IN KYIV, UKRAINE, ON THE
OFFICIAL DAY OF MEMORY, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2007

Action Ukraine Report #890, Article 1
Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, November 23, 2007 

KYIV – The following commemoration events for the 75th anniversary
of the Holodomor 1932-1933 [induced starvation, death for millions,
genocide] will be held in Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday, November 24,
2007 led by the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko and the
First Lady Mrs. Kateryna Yushchenko.

9.00 – 9.35 a.m. Service at Saint Sophia Cathedral (Volodymyrska St.,
Saint Sophia Cathedral).

10.00 -10.30 a.m. Guelder-rose trees planting (Dniprovskyi uzviz).

15.15 – 16.10 p.m. Memorial events on Sofiyvska Square and
Mykhaylivska Square:

   Thousands will march in a mournful procession to The Monument

    “To Victims of Holodomor 1932-1933 ” from Sofiyvska Square to
    Mykhaylivska Square

   Lighting of thousands of candles near The Monument “To Victims
   of Holodomor 1932-1933″ in Mykhaylivska Square

   Address of The President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko

   National and International Moment of Silence

   All Ukrainian and International Act: “Light A Candle”

18.00 – 19.05 p.m. Requiem-Concert “Black Tillage Is Ploughed Up”
(Shevchenko National Opera Theater)
————————————————————————————————-

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
2.  ADDRESS TO ALL UKRAINIANS ON 75TH COMMEMORATION
OF THE 1932-1933 HOLODOMOR BY PRESIDENT YUSHCHENKO

President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko
Presidential Administration, Kyiv, Ukraine, November 2007

Dear Ukrainians!
Brothers and sisters!

These days Ukraine begins to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the
1932-1933 Holodomor.

The Holodomor is one of the most horrendous humanitarian catastrophes in
human history. Millions of Ukrainians were destroyed as a result of a
well-planned and deliberate policy of the totalitarian communist regime.

The appalling death rate of the Holodomor even exceeded the casualties the
Ukrainians suffered in WWII. We are still exposed to the consequences of
this merciless terror targeted to destroy the Ukrainian nation.

The crimes of the totalitarian regime demand condemnation by the world.
Ukrainian diplomats and diaspora Ukrainians have taken great efforts to
convince the world community and international institutions to recognize the
Holodomor as a genocide of the Ukrainian people. Such work must be

continued steadfastly and unwaveringly in order to bring the truth about the
past tragedy to the world.

In all lands where Ukrainians live the memory of Holodomor must be properly
preserved and its innocent victims commemorated. I call on you to actively
cooperate in the creation of information centers, educational programs and
exhibitions about the tragic events of 1932-1933.

My special call goes to young Ukrainians worldwide. I ask you to actively
respond to my appeal and back the efforts, sincerely and ardently, to open
the truth about the Holodomor to the world community.

With due respect, I call on all Ukrainians and all people of goodwill
regardless of their backgrounds to light on November 24 the candles of
memory of the Holodomor victims on all our planet.

Bring the flames of truth to every nation and every country. All your
candles will help form a single candle which we will light in November 2008.

This candle will become an eternal and ever burning symbol of our grief for
the millions of starved brother and sisters, of our unity and our faith in
the unconquerable strength of the Ukrainian people.

Our duty is to unite the efforts and make everything possible to ensure that
these tragic pages of history will be never forgotten.

Ukraine to Remember! The World to Recognize!

Viktor Yushchenko
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
3. UKRAINE: WE REMEMBER

EDITORIAL: Kyiv Post, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, November 21, 2007

At 4 p.m. this Saturday, Ukrainians will honor the memories of millions of
victims of three Soviet-engineered terror-famines, the most devastating of
which began 75 years ago with the Great Famine of 1932-33.

The government is urging Ukrainians to light a candle in honor of the
victims of Soviet repressions and place it on their windowsills as a sign of
solidarity. Memorial services will be held nationwide and around the world.

Ukraine’s political and religious elites have largely recognized the
Holodomor as genocide. Even the head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church –
Moscow Patriarchate, Volodymyr Sabodan, did not mince words when he
wrote in an encyclical last year that “this genocide was an attempt to
destroy the very soul of the people, to spiritually enslave the people.”

He used words like “hell, diabolic, anti-Christ” to describe Soviet rule.
Thus, all four major Ukrainian Christian prelates agree that the Holodomor
was genocide – a rare instance of ecumenical consensus among church leaders.

All three of Ukraine’s presidents since independence agree that the
Holodomor was genocide. President Leonid Kravchuk drove the final nail into
the coffin of the Kremlin-sponsored “bad weather and harvest” disinformation
campaign regarding the Holodomor in his autobiography. Kravchuk, who as a
Communist ideologue was responsible for denying the Holodomor in the 1980s,
proved that rainfall levels were normal in 1932-33.

President Leonid Kuchma was the first to ask the world to recognize the
Holodomor as genocide in 2003. The declassification of State Security
Service archives began in the last years of Kuchma’s rule, a process that is
continuing by leaps and bounds under President Viktor Yushchenko today.

Since 2003, Ukraine’s parliament has twice voted on condemning the
Holodomor as genocide. Both times the votes passed with slim majorities
with the support of the Socialist Party, which was hesitant, but whose ties
to the countryside made it impossible to deny the truth.

The Communists aside, the only hold-out on the genocide issue is the Party
of Regions, led by Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych. If Ukraine’s efforts to
secure international recognition are to be successful, then this political
force must add its voice to the condemnation. We hope to see this party’s
leaders standing with the president and other national leaders on St.
Michael’s Square Saturday to honor the victims.

As for Moscow’s recognition of the genocide, while Ukraine has made
significant progress in dealing with its Soviet past, Russian leaders are
still in a state of denial, or defensive paranoia. No one is blaming
Russia’s current leadership or the Russian people for the Holodomor.

Rather, it is the Kremlin’s former rapacious leaders who are to blame. Yet,
the Kremlin’s current leadership has stubbornly opposed recognizing the
genocide, labeling it as fear-mongering with Kyiv roots.

Last week’s attack on a Holodomor exhibit in Moscow and the Russian
Foreign Ministry’s subsequent accusations that political forces are
“speculating” on the famine, are signs that the Kremlin still prefers to
look at its record through rose-colored glasses. In fact, the Kremlin’s
record is blood-colored, and the sooner Russian society recognizes that

fact, the better.

The Kremlin’s claim that Ukraine is somehow trying to monopolize the Soviet
terror-famine is essentially recognizing that Ukraine has done a far better
job in shedding light on the darkest episodes of Soviet rule.

Instead of criticizing Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin should open
up Russian Federation archives on the terror years.

There is no denying that the Soviets forced famines in other regions of
Eurasia in the 1930s, including areas of modern-day Russia and Kazakhstan.
But the campaign within the closed borders of Ukraine was ruthless in its
efficiency and organization and targeted the rural population that was
primarily Ukrainian.

The histories of all Soviet forced famines need to be addressed the same
way the Holodomor has been handled in Ukraine. From Russia, Kuban to
Kazakhstan, the bitter truth deserves to be known.

Ultimately, promoting awareness of the crimes of Communism is in the
national interests of Ukraine and Russia. Given Russia’s current denial,
Yushchenko has rightfully appealed to other countries to recognize the
famine as genocide, one that Kremlin spin doctors and powerbrokers can’t
deny.

We call upon the world’s leaders to recognize the genocidal nature of the
famine and, in doing so, help break the information blockade isolating the
Russian people.
———————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/editorial/27842/
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]

========================================================
4.  CANADA: UKRAINE FAMINE REMEMBERED

By Julie Horbal, Sun Media
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, Thursday, November 22, 2007

Anna Shewel was four years old when her family was pushed out of its home
in Ukraine onto impoverished streets and into social exile as a result of
government-forced famine.

When the Holodomor famine ended, having killed an estimated eight million
people, she was seven. But the atrocity of Stalin’s politically driven
starvation plan will live forever in her mind.

“I still remember how it was punishment for the people,” Shewel, now 81,
said yesterday. “We were looking for whatever was possible to eat. Whatever
we could swallow.”

Today through Sunday, Shewel’s memories will be showcased as part of the
75th anniversary of the 1932-33 Holodomor tragedy.

DOCUMENTARY ABOUT SURVIVORS
Winnipeg’s events include information sessions and church services at
various locations across the city, and also the premiere of Vichny Iy
Pamyat — a Canad Inns-produced documentary about the 40-or-so survivors
living in the city.

Organizer Eugene Hyworon of St. Mary the Protectress Church said the
survivor experiences epitomize why people should care about the often
forgotten genocide. “The agony and the sorrow, when you watch that, it

really brings tears to your eyes,” he said.
RAISE AWARENESS
Shewel said she hopes telling her heart-wrenching story to filmmakers will
help raise awareness.

“We don’t want this to happen to no other people, to no other nations, to no
other countries,” she said. “There’s not anybody who should go through what
we went through.”

Growing up, Shewel and her family ate whatever they could scrape together,
including pancakes made from tree bark, leaves and handfuls of borrowed
flour.  The “most delicious thing,” she said, was Scotch pine.

“The needles were very soft and the shoots were very sweet,” she said. “It’s
hard to believe that was our dessert.”

Shewel said one of her most horrific memories is when her grandmother
severely burned her chest trying to hide a loaf of bread for the children to
eat.

Her sister Nadia Dowhayko, 79, said she’ll never forget having to beg for
food. “I asked my grandma all the time about something to eat,” said Dowhayko,
who was too young at the time to recall much else. “She told me we don’t
have nothing. Then I asked my mom, she said ‘We don’t have nothing.'”
———————————————————————————————-
LINK: http://winnipegsun.com/News/Winnipeg/2007/11/22/4675964-sun.html
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC): http://www.usubc.com
========================================================
5.  YUSHCHENKO BELIEVES POWER STRUCTURE PAYING

INSUFFICIENT ATTENTION TO 1932-1933 GREAT FAMINE 
 
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Thursday, November 22, 2007

KYIV – President Viktor Yuschenko considers that the power does not pay
enough attention to Great Famine of 1932-1933.

He disclosed this in a statement opening documental-art exhibition entitled
“Ukraine Remembers 1932-1933 Famine, Genocide of Ukrainian People”
in Kyiv.

“1932-1933 events are forgotten in Ukraine… The nation has not yet got
enough skills to be adequate to 1932-1933 tragedy. That is the reproach for
the power and the reproach for itself,” Yuschenko said.  He marked that the
Holocaust of 1932-1933 is the problem of nowadays.

The Great Famine is not the problem of 1932-1933, that is the problem of
nowadays. It touches upon our morality, spirituality and patriotism,”
Yuschenko said. Besides, the President said that the Holocaust is the
tragedy of the humankind and the crime against humanity.

“The Holocaust is for sure the tragedy of my nation. That is the tragedy of
the mankind and crime against humanity,” Yuschenko said.  Yuschenko said
Ukraine had yet to build a monument appropriate for the scale of the tragedy
of the Holodomor famine.

“Why is this country not having a worthy monument to the victims of the
Holodomor? Why is there no worthy film? Why are we not having a national
museum? Why are we having the Institute of National Memory, which is
financed by 50%? Is it a question of money? No! This is somebody’s policy

to get us to live without memory,” Yuschenko said.

The President called on every Ukrainian citizen to study the history of
Ukraine.

————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================      
6.  PRESIDENT INSISTS ON CREATING NATIONAL MUSEUM
OF MEMORY OF 1932-1933 HOLODOMOR VICTIMS ASAP

UKRINFORM, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, Nov 21, 2007

KYIV – President Viktor Yushchenko, who took part in “Ukraine remembers!
Holodomor 1932-1933 – Genocide of the Ukrainian nation” exhibition opening,
urged on Ukrainians to visit such expositions which opened around Ukraine
and honor the memory of Holodomor and repression victims.

President is reassured that today’s Ukraine, its authorities and people are
obliged to make everything possible to bring up to light tragedy’s scale.

However V. Yushchenko is distressed by a fact that researchers speak often
of the victims’ numbers rather than of the importance of the tragedy itself.
“For me it is a tragedy regardless of the deceased numbers whether it is one
million, hundred thousands or ten million”, he added.

V. Yushchenko thinks it is very important that present generation gives
deserving honor to those who died during the Great Famine. “Why don’t we
have a worthy monument dedicated to victims of Holodomor or worthy film

in this country? Why there’s no national museum?”, he said.

V. Yushchenko thanked the exhibition’s [four main] organizers – the Ukrainian
Institute of National Heritage [Memory], Security Service of Ukraine,
International Charitable Foundation “Ukraine 3000”, [the Holodomor: Through
the Eyes of Ukrainian Artists Collection] and other governmental and public
organizations as well as researchers of Holodomor and activists, who were
helping to arrange the exhibition.

According to Director of the Institute of National Memory Ihor Yukhnovsky,
the main task of the exhibition is to show the consecution of deliberate
action by the Bolshevist regime, which had been stepping up since 1928 and
resulted in the tragedy of Holodomor of 1932-1933.

The exhibition consists of several expositions presenting documents of GPU,
NKVD and archives of the Security Service of Ukraine dubbed “Declassified
Memory”, paintings and posters from the “Holodomor: Through The Eyes of
Ukrainian Artists Collection,” Morgan Williams, Trustee.

————————————————————————————————–
FOOTNOTE:  The Holodomor exhibition that opened in Kyiv, Ukraine
this week at the Ukrainian House is the largest and more historically
comprehensive Holodomor exhibition ever held.  There are over 300
panels/posters (with documents, testimonies, information, historical data,
maps, photographs, etc.) and Holodomor artworks by Ukrainian artists
on display.  The exhibition will be open through Thursday, December 6th.
 
Most of the items on display in Kyiv will soon be available on disks that can 
be used to provide information and to print out materials for Holodomor
exhibitions worldwide. Some displays will be available in multiple languages
in early 2008.
 
If you would like information about such items as they become available
please write to Morgan Williams, Chairman, Exhibition Subcommittee,
International Holodomor Committee (IHC); morganw@patriot.net.
———————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
7.  LEADERS OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT EXPRESS SOLIDARITY
WITH UKRAINIANS ON OCCASION OF 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF
HOLODOMOR 1932-1933

Ukrinform, Kyiv, Ukraine, Thursday, November 22, 2007

KYIV – 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.

Speaking during a ceremony in Brussels to commemorate the Holodomor victims,
Vice President of the European Parliament Marek Siwiec said that people 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.
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
NOTE: Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
8.  ROBERT CONQUEST’S BOOK “THE HARVEST OF
SORROW” REPUBLISHED IN THE UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE
U.S. Ambassador Taylor says U.S. Congress has still not approved
a resolution that would define the Holodomor as an act of genocide
against the Ukrainian people.

By Mykola SIRUK, The Day Weekly Digest
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, November 20, 2007

The book by the well-known Western historian Robert Conquest, “The Harvest
of Sorrow,” was recently republished in the Ukrainian language. This key
book on the Holodomor was published in English in 1986 but was translated
into Ukrainian only in 1993.

The launch of the second Ukrainian edition took place at the US ambassador’s
residence in Kyiv, a move explained by the fact that with the assistance of
the Department of Press, Education and Culture of the US Embassy to Ukraine.

“The Harvest of Sorrow” was published by the Volyn-based Teren Art Agency
within the framework of the program “Lessons of History: the Holodomor of
1932-33,” which is part of the Ukraine 3000 International Charitable Fund.

“Thanks to this book many people throughout the world became aware of the
Holodomor. The author showed and described the horror of the Holodomor.
Some people who visited Ukraine in 1932-33 could not even write about the
things they had seen.

“As Robert Conquest admits in the foreword to his book, Boris Pasternak
visited Ukraine during that period and said afterwards: ‘It is impossible to
recount what I saw there.

“There was such inhumane, incredible distress and sorrow that everything
began to look unreal and my mind could not grasp all the horror. I became
ill. I could not write for a year,'” US Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor
quoted the writer as saying.

Ambassador Taylor also noted that unlike Pasternak, Conquest succeeded in
describing all this horror and did this in such a way – through painstaking
effort – that both the personal sufferings of a single person and the
suffering of the entire society were shown.

According to the ambassador, the historian reached the conclusion that the
ascertained facts and Stalin’s motives prove his involvement in this
catastrophe. Thus, there can only be one verdict of history: this was a
crime for which responsibility must be taken.

On her part, Kateryna Yushchenko, the head of the Supervisory Board of
the Ukraine 3000 International Charitable Fund, stressed that 75 years after
these tragic events Ukrainians have a great responsibility to let the world
know about the Holodomor.

According to the Ukrainian president’s wife, people both in Ukraine and
abroad are now coming to the real understanding of the scale of this crime:
how many people were dying and how the regime did this in a systemic,
cynical, and massive way.

According to Ukraine’s First Lady, the main program of the Ukraine 3000
International Charitable Fund is to elucidate the question of the Holodomor.
“We are gathering evidence, making films, and helping to organize the Light
a Candle Action.

(This action was the brainchild of the late James Mace, who first broached
this subject in his column “A candle in the window” in The Day on Feb. 18,
2003. Together with Conquest, he also spoke at the US Congressional
Hearings on the Holodomor – Author).

This action has to be expanded throughout Ukraine, so that everyone in every
house will remember their ancestors, their grandfathers and grandmothers,
who perished during the Holodomor. Many countries have recognized the
Holodomor. UNESCO did so two weeks ago, and the United Nations
recognizes the Holodomor. They will not immediately say that this was
genocide.

“But we must prove this to them. Everyone used to say that there was no
famine. Today it has been acknowledged that there was a Holodomor, but not
genocide. But with the help of facts, research, orders, and decrees we will
prove that the Holodomor was an act of genocide,” she stressed.

The initiator of the second edition of the book, the writer and former
dissident Yevhen Sverstiuk considers “The Harvest of Sorrow” the best
book on the history of 20th-century Ukraine.

“This book was written by a person of great talent and intelligence, whom I
would place alongside Orwell. Our history books did not take into account
inaccessible materials. Information written abroad about life in Ukraine and
the USSR was broader, more objective, and more analytical.

This is a book that was written by a free man, who thinks in a free way and
has a huge amount of material to work with. Yesterday’s slaves cannot
contemplate the facts about their life deeply,” he noted.

In Sverstiuk’s opinion, the genocide in Ukraine and the Nazi genocide are
linked. “If one could engineer the Holodomor genocide in a large country in
peacetime and conceal this from the world, why can one not secretly execute
a numerically small nation in wartime? It is known that the Fuhrer learned
from the Leader,” Sverstiuk emphasized.

“After directing attention to the importance of the nature of the assessment
given to this historical phenomenon, he noted that we often err in the
everyday assessment, whereas the sense of this phenomenon is defined by
the word “genocide.”
INTERVIEW WITH U.S. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR
William TAYLOR: “A judiciary analysis is crucial to recognizing that the
Holodomor was an act of genocide” What is being done in the US in order to
recognize the Holodomor of 1932-33, and does the United States recognize
that the Holodomor was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian nation?

These and other questions are raised in The Day’s blitz interview with US
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Ukraine William TAYLOR.

The American Senate and the House of Representatives have approved a law
that has been signed by the president. This law provides for the
construction of a memorial dedicated to the Holodomor in Washington, the
US capital. The Ukrainian government is financing its construction.

[The Day] When will this memorial be built?

[Ambassador Taylor] I don’t know. I hope very soon. There is a large and
well-known monument to Taras Shevchenko in Washington. A monument to
enslaved nations was built in the US in the 1950s. And this new memorial
will be another great Ukrainian monument.

[The Day] What about the resolution on recognizing the Holodomor as an act
of genocide against the Ukrainian people? Will such a decision be made by
the two chambers of the American Congress?

[Ambassador Taylor] The resolution in this form was not approved by the two
chambers. What was actually approved was the decision to build a memorial.

We have to carry out a judiciary analysis in order to recognize the
Holodomor as genocide. But the American government has not done this yet.

[The Day] But there is a book by Robert Conquest, about which you spoken
today and whose author addressed Congress at one time and gave evidence.

[Ambassador Taylor] True, there is much evidence. And Conquest’s books
are an indisputable part of it. Congress also considered this issue, but it
has still not approved a resolution that would define the Holodomor as an
act of genocide against the Ukrainian people.

[The Day] But this is a contradiction. The House Committee on Foreign
Affairs had recommended the resolution on recognizing the Armenian
genocide.

[Ambassador Taylor] And you see what kind of problem it has caused.

[The Day] But in the Ukrainian case there should not be any problems because
the totalitarian regime that existed at that time is blamed for the genocide
against the Ukrainian people, not another nation.

[Ambassador Taylor] Yes, that’s true. I don’t think that there will be any
problem with Ukraine. But a problem linked to other tragedies can arise.
Again, a judiciary analysis must be completed in order to approve such a
resolution, and this has not been done yet. If this is done for Ukraine, a
similar analysis will have to be conducted with respect to other tragedies,
and this will be quite complicated.

[The Day] Does this mean that in approving the draft resolution on
recognizing the Armenian genocide the Democrats in the House Committee
on Foreign Affairs did not think it through?

[Ambassador Taylor] Yes. It’s true. But the draft law approved by the
committee has not been submitted to the House of Representatives.

[The Day] I’d like to return to the topic of the judiciary analysis. Is the
American government afraid of conducting this analysis and recognizing that
the Holodomor was genocide? After all, many countries, including those
located on the American continent, have recognized that the Holodomor
was an act of genocide that was perpetrated by a totalitarian regime?

[Ambassador Taylor] Yes, that’s true. One can say the same thing about
Turkey in 1915. The current government did not exist at that time, and there
was no current Constitution of Turkey; the Ottoman Empire existed then.
Thus, it was a completely different regime.

In general, the issue is quite complicated. We are very glad that the US has
approved a law that has come into force and according to which a monument
to the Holodomor will be constructed in Washington.
————————————————————————————————-
LINK: http://www.day.kiev.ua/191766/
————————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]

========================================================
9.  DECLARATION: “UKRAINE TO REMEMBER – THE
WORLD TO RECOGNIZE” 
Upcoming International Events to Commemorate 75th Anniversary
of 1932-1933 Holodomor Genocide of the Ukrainian Nation

World Ukrainian Congress (WUC)
International Holodomor Committee (IHC) (in Ukrainian)
Toronto, New York, Melbourne, Saturday, November 17, 2007
Action Ukraine Report #890, Article 9 (in English)
Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, November 23, 2007

The International Holodomor Committee (IHC) at the World Ukrainian Congress
(WUC) in close cooperation with the Secretariat of the President of Ukraine
and the Ukrainian Institute of the National Memory has scheduled major
events for 75th Commemoration of the Ukrainian Genocide 1932-1933 to be held
under the dynamic slogan “Ukraine To Remember – The World To Recognize!”

Ahead of commemorative events in Ukraine and the countries where Ukrainians
live we would like to offer several proposals for consideration.

The 1932-1933 Holodomor is one of those horrendous acts which Moscow
perpetrated in a bid to conquer the Ukrainians, notably, the linguocide
(attempts to wipe out the Ukrainian language); distortion of the historical
truth about the Kievan Rus’; the denial of the distinctive status of the
Ukrainian nation that in fact brought European culture and science to the
early Russian state; and, finally, the terrible crime of a deliberate famine
that was a true genocide of the unsubdued Ukrainian nation.

Ukraine’s tragic experience is a unique episode in the world’s history. The
world must be informed about it to ward off similar perils ever emerging
from totalitarian and imperial regimes.

A lot of new light must be thrown on the Holodomor by studying the archives
of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and other sources, notably, the
archives of NKVD (the forerunner of the KGB) in Moscow.

It is not too late to record eye-witness accounts of the Holodomor. We must
establish the true motives for the Holodomor and name those who unleashed
the genocide against the Ukrainian nation.

It would be good to borrow an Irish tradition (The Irish people also
suffered from a catastrophic famine and had to scatter all over the world):
the Irish carve on the monuments the names of all their dead with the dates
of their deaths and location of their graves. In so doing, they preserve the
memory about their ancestors.

All information about the 1932-1933 Holodomor in various forms – brochures,
exhibitions of photographs, fiction books and documents, requiem masses and
remembrance services for the innocent victims – must serve two ends.

[1] On the one hand, the slogan calls to establish the truth about and
remember millions of Ukrainians deliberately starved to death.

[2] On the other, we must get the governments of all countries and reputable
international organizations to denounce the Holodomor as a genocide directed
against the Ukrainian nation that stood up against brutal domination of
Ukraine by Moscow bolsheviks.

Versatile events have been planned, information, artistic and political, to
help recognize the Holodomor as a genocide of the Ukrainian people by the
world governments as well as such influential international organizations as
PACE, EU Parliament, and UN General Assembly. Information booklets,

research reports and other printed matter will be published.

We realize that the recognition of the Holodomor as a genocide of Ukrainians
has met with strong resistance and that it will take many years of joint
information and diplomatic efforts of Ukrainians living in Ukraine and in
the diaspora as well as our numerous friends worldwide.

The key role in this campaign should be played by Ukraine statesmen. After
75 years, we can no longer tolerate simplification or distortion of history,
or any compromises hatched by those who acted against Ukraine and its
national and state interests.

The President and Government of Ukraine must accept historical and political
responsibility for informing the Ukrainian people and the world about this
tragic page of our history.

The first part of the slogan is “Ukraine to Remember.” Therefore, how much
Ukraine and its people will remember about the Holodomor will serve as a
yardstick of Ukraine’s leaders dedication and commitment to spreading the
truth about the Famine.

Simultaneously, Ukrainian diplomats abroad bear responsibility,
predominantly as spokespersons for the state, for the second part of the
slogan “The World To Recognize!”

The Ukrainian diaspora as a civil and lobbying factor has long proved its
complete readiness and commitment to cooperate with the state for the sake
of the common Homeland.

The role of ambassadors and other members of the Ukrainian diplomatic
service in the Ukrainian diaspora countries is rather to initiate public
campaigns and not merely to join them.

Ukrainian diplomats should not only be the link between public organizations
and world parliaments – they should head the campaign, initiate actions and
lobby them most effectively.

Such are the instructions given by the President of Ukraine in his decrees.
The enforcement of these instructions should be checked by the public: are
they enforced at all and at which level?

The 1932-1933 Holodomor is a crime against the Ukrainian people, engineered
and perpetrated by representatives of the Stalin communist regime that
continued Moscow’s imperialistic policy in a different form.

Although the goal of the White and Red Moscow was the same, the means of
attaining it were different, much more horrendous and murderous this time.
No one can hide from the truth or deny it or hush it up.

The truth is confirmed by the documents found in recently declassified SBU
archives and published in the “Declassified Memory” collection.

We are aware of our responsibility to tell the world the truth on behalf of
millions of children, women and men killed by the famine that struck a
deadly blow to the genetic and spiritual foundations of Ukrainians. Only by
exposing and denouncing the crime can we ensure that it will never be
repeated.

It is now important that the Ukrainian youth realize its role in spreading
the truth and prepare itself for the roles of the “ambassadors of truth”!

The first stage of our campaign has started. However, we must realize that
the campaign for the recognition of the Holodomor as a genocide cannot be
limited to the annual event.

It must be our steady and consistent effort until the world recognizes the
great truth about this grave crime, until every person in Ukraine knows
about this tragic page in the history of Ukraine.

The International Committee at the World Ukrainian Congress wishes the
Ukrainian state leaders, public organizations in Ukraine and the Diaspora a
lot of endurance, commitment and success in their efforts.

Eternal memory to the victims of the dreadful Holodomor!

Let the memory about them pass from generation to generation!

Toronto – New York – Melbourne, November 17, 2007

For the World Ukrainian Congress
Askold Lozynsky, President
Stephan Romaniw, Head, IHC WUC
Viktor Pedenko, General Secretary
Irena Mytsak, Secretary,  IHC WUC
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
10.  “EXECUTED BY FAMINE: THE UNKNOWN GENOCIDE

OF THE UKRAINIANS” EXHIBITION UNVEILED AT THE
GENEVA, SWITZERLAND MUNICIPAL LIBRARY

International Charitable Fund 3000, Kyiv, Ukraine, Fri, Nov 9, 2007

KYIV – On November 7, 2007, the “Executed by Famine: Unknown
Genocide of the Ukrainians” exhibition was unveiled at the Geneva
Municipal Library [in Switzerland].

The exhibition was prepared by the Ukraine 3000 International Charitable
Fund as part of its History Lessons: Manmade Famine of 1932-1933 program.

The co-organizers of the exhibition are the Ukraine 3000 Fund, Geneva City
Council, and Ukraine’s Permanent Representation at the UN and other
international organizations in Geneva.

Among the participants of the unveiling ceremony were Head of the
Supervisory Board of the Ukraine 3000 International Charitable Fund Kateryna
Yushchenko, Mayor of Geneva Mr. Patrice Mugny, Permanent Representative of
Ukraine at the UN and other international organizations in Geneva Mr. Yevhen
Bersheda, members of the Government of Geneva, members of public
organizations and the media.

Addressing the audience, Mrs. Yushchenko tendered her thanks to all the
exhibition organizers. “By creating this exhibition we wanted to familiarize
the European audience with this tragic page of Ukraine’s history,” she said.
“Today, the issue of the Manmade Famine has evoked a wide response from
the global community.”

Mrs. Yushchenko mentioned that the US, Canada, Australia, Estonia, Italy,
Lithuania, Georgia, Poland, Hungary, Argentina, Spain, Peru, and Ecuador had
recognized the Manmade Famine in Ukraine as genocide on the state level.

 A few days before, a resolution on recognizing the manmade famine in
Ukraine was passed by the UNESCO General Assembly. “We hope that the
next step will be recognition of the Ukrainian national tragedy by other
countries and most influential international bodies, like the United Nations
Organization,” Mrs. Yushchenko said.

“I am certain that if the global community had displayed an adequate
reaction to the Holodomor famine 75 years back, the humanity would have
been able to prevent later genocides and massacres taking a heavy toll of
many a million human lives in all continents,” Mrs. Kateryna said.

This event is continuing a series of educational exhibitions at the capitals
of the leading countries, carried out as part of a joint program by the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine and Ukraine 3000 Fund.

The program’s goal is revealing the truth about Holodomor to the global
community, seeking its recognition as genocide against the Ukrainian
people on the international level.

The Executed by Famine: Unknown Genocide of the Ukrainians exhibition
is based upon documentary archive sources corroborated by eyewitness
accounts of the famine survivors.

The exhibition has already been displayed in Brussels and Berlin and
demonstrated to the diplomatic corps in Kyiv. In the near future it will
travel to New York, Vienna, Copenhagen, Strasbourg, Paris, Bratislava,
Budapest, etc.

During one year, electronic versions of the display will be given to all
Ukraine’s diplomatic representations abroad and also to the Ukrainian
Diaspora organizations and Ukrainian communities.

The exhibition will stay in Geneva till November 21, 2007. A public
discussion on the Manmade Famine of 1932-1933 will be held November
22, 2007, at the Geneva Ethnographic Museum.
———————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://ukraine3000.org.ua/eng/yesterday/yesnews/6154.html

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
11. LETTERS FROM KHARKIV
The truth about the Holodomor through the eyes of Italian diplomats

By Yurii Shapoval, Professor and Doctor of Sciences (History).
The Day Weekly Digest, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, November 20, 2007

In a few days, the Kharkiv-based Folio Publishers is expected to issue an
extremely interesting and important book called “Letters from Kharkiv.”
These letters are in fact reports from Italian diplomats who were posted in
the USSR in 1930-34, in which they describe the famine situation.

The book is being published through the efforts of the Institute of Italian
Culture in Kyiv. This academic institution invited me to take part in this
interesting project as a scholarly editor and the author of a brief
afterword.

I agreed with pleasure, not in the least because it was Prof. Andrea
Graziosi, a colleague and a good friend of mine, who discovered the Italian
diplomats’ letters, which he found in 1987 at Italy’s Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.

“These documents lead one to reckon with one of the 20th-century’s biggest
European tragedies,” Prof. Graziosi writes in the foreword to the book.
“They radically changed my idea of Soviet history and my overall vision of
the last century. This is why their publication in Ukraine fills me with
joy.”

What is also important is that these documents were found even earlier by
Basilian monks, who handed them over to the US Commission that researched
the famine in the mid-1980s. The Italian diplomats’ accounts were attached
to the commission’s Report to Congress.

So this evidence is of paramount importance for understanding the causes and
consequences of the Holodomor. Published in Italy, France, and the US, these
documents are finally appearing in print in the very place where these
tragic events took place, fortunately long ago.

As Prof. Nicola Franco Balloni, director of the Institute of Italian Culture
in Kyiv, rightly states in his foreword to Letters from Kharkiv, the
Ukrainian-language edition is the most complete documentary evidence of the
1930s famine in the USSR, gathered by members of Italy’s diplomatic mission.

“The evidence of Italian diplomats,” Prof. Balloni emphasizes, “who were
forced to work in the difficult conditions of the Stalin and Mussolini
regimes, but were able to remain impartial witnesses of these infernal
events, was in fact of no use to Il Duce. For certain reasons, he wanted to
maintain good relations with the USSR.

However, the times of dictators are ending, but documents remain and, aimed
at the descendants of the victims of tyranny, they teach them to remember
the tragic past for the sake of the future.”

In the early 1930s, Italy had an embassy in Moscow, as well as a
well-ramified network of consular agencies, including consulates in
Leningrad, Odesa, and Tbilisi, and vice-consulates in Kharkiv, Batumi, and
Novorossiisk.

It is the reports from the three latter consular offices and the Moscow-
based embassy that were included in Letters from Kharkiv. The people who
headed the consular agencies in Kharkiv, Batumi, and Novorossiisk were not
professional diplomats but former army officers, who had served well during
World War One.

Most of the documents cited in the book were prepared by Sergio Gradenigo
(1886- 1966), who had worked in Ukraine in 1931-34. He headed the Kharkiv
vice-consulate (later elevated to a Royal Consulate) and, at the end of his
mission, the newly-formed Consulate General in Kyiv, where the capital of
Soviet Ukraine moved in 1934, and, later, a consular representation in
Italy.

After finishing his term in Ukraine, he served as a volunteer in the Tevere
Division in the Italian-Ethiopian War of 1935-36. In 1948 Gradenigo
immigrated to Argentina, where he taught and wrote until his death.

What were these reports by the Italian diplomats? They contain very specific
information as well as reflections – sometimes merciless, sometimes
sympathetic – of foreigners, which were by and large correct assessments
and analyses of governmental actions and human behavior.

But let me make a general remark before going into greater detail. Ukraine
and the Northern Caucasus had been supplying more than half of all the grain
produced in the USSR.

Speaking of Ukraine, Stalin noted in 1931that “a number of granaries are in
a state of devastation and famine.” Yet the Kremlin believed that Ukraine
had enormous reserves of grain that the collective farms and independent
farmers were allegedly hiding.

This is why the government resorted to brutal measures to procure grain.
More than 150,000 people died in 1931 alone. In March and April 1932 there
were large numbers of starving people in Ukrainian villages, and cities were
full of children who had been abandoned by their parents.

This was a distress signal that did not, however, stop the authorities. On
July 7, 1932, the Central Committee of the All- Union Communist Party
(Bolsheviks) passed a resolution on the state grain deliveries. The main
idea of the resolution was to fulfill the plan at any cost.

The Stalinist leadership clearly saw two genuine enemies:
[1] firstly, the peasants, who were unwilling to work on collective farms
and die in the name of industrialization (seeking to avoid the famine caused
by meeting the compulsory grain procurement targets, peasants began
withdrawing en masse from collective farms); and
[2] secondly, the not-so-reliable political-state leadership of Ukraine,
which to a certain degree was pursuing a “flexible” line in its dealings
with the Kremlin’s demands and tragic local realities.

This is why Stalin sent his trusted lieutenants to Ukraine and applied tough
sanctions against the peasants, which turned into genocide.

In late October 1932, in pursuance of the CC AUCP(b) Politburo resolution
of Oct. 22, 1932, an extraordinary commission headed by Viacheslav
Molotov, Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR,
began to work in Ukraine.

As early as Oct. 29 Molotov cabled to Stalin, “We had to severely criticize
the Ukrainian organization, especially the party’s Central Committee, for
failure to launch full- scale requisitioning.” Sharing Stalin’s mistrust of
the local authorities, Molotov also demanded that Moscow officials be sent
to the Ukrainian SSR to achieve the desirable effect.

Molotov gave a powerful impetus to the repressions. The Politburo of the CC
AUCP(b) resolved on Nov. 5, 1932, to increase coercion in the state grain
delivery campaign, in particular to boost the role of law-enforcement
bodies.

A number of measures were drafted, such as immediate trials of cases
connected to the state grain deliveries, the organization of circuit court
proceedings and the creation of additional courts in every region, and
meting out severe punishments. All cases were to be spotlighted in the
national and local press.

“The famine continues to take a heavy toll of human lives on such an
enormous scale that it is absolutely unclear how the world can remain
indifferent to this catastrophe. Through merciless requisitions (which I
have repeatedly reported), the Moscow government allowed not just a famine,
for this is not quite the precise word, but the complete absence of any
means of existence,” a stunned Gradenigo pointed out in his communication
dated May 31, 1933.

A little earlier, in February 1932, Gradenigo sent a piece of bread, the
kind that was being consumed in Kharkiv at the time, to Italy’s ambassador
Bernardo Attolico in Moscow.

In one of his messages to Rome the ambassador wrote about the shortage
of bread: “It is difficult to imagine that the quality of the food item, so
important to the dietary regime in the USSR, should be so bad, as this
little piece of bread shows. The truth…is hidden in the real conditions of
the decline into which collectivization has thrown Russian agriculture,
which is too patriarchal to endure without disastrous consequences an
injection of modernization in the shape of collectivization.”

Peasants were fleeing Ukraine to save themselves from the famine. The
authorities blocked their departure, captured them, and sent them back.

The report of the Italian consulate in Batumi, dated Jan. 20, 1933, provides
a detailed description of the way the authorities pushed out the Ukrainian
peasants who were fleeing from the famine to Transcaucasia: “The expellees
are herded into customs warehouses, where they wait for a steamship.
Those who can pay for the passage are separated from those who cannot.

The latter are gathered a few hours before departure and escorted by police
to a free market, where they can sell what they have with them in order to
raise money for a ticket. The police keep curious onlookers away from them
and only let in those who are really going to buy something – a coat, a pair
of boots, etc.

Clearly, lack of time robs these wretched people of the opportunity to
bargain, which is advantageous to buyers. All this occurs in complete
orderliness and silence, which does not diminish the sad impression of this
scene, which turns a marketplace into something like a slave market for a
few hours.”

The organs of repression and punishment vested with the exclusive right to
record deaths, block information on the famine, and carry out punitive
actions were a mighty force. The diplomats’ letters cite some influential
secret police officers describing the tragic situation in quite a realistic
way.

For example, Gradenigo writes in May 1933, “Comrade Frenkel, a member
of the OGPU Collegium, admitted to an acquaintance of ours that about 250
corpses of those who starved to death are picked up on the streets of
Kharkiv every night. On my part, I can confirm that I saw trucks carrying

10- 15 corpses past the consulate at midnight.

“Since there are three large neighborhoods under construction next to the
consulate, one of the trucks halted by the fence, and two operatives
wielding pitchforks got off to search for corpses. I saw 7 people, i.e., two
men, one woman, and four children, being picked up with these pitchforks.
Other people woke up and vanished as if they were shadows. One of the
operatives doing this job said to me, ‘You don’t have this in your country,
do you?'”

Incidentally, when I was writing the commentaries, I kept in mind the
aforesaid “Comrade Frenkel,” about whom I will write more in detail some
other time.

This Mikhail Frenkel (1888-1938) held top administrative positions in the
GPU of the Ukrainian SSR and was later the chief billeting official at the
Administrative and Economic Directorate of the NKVD of the Ukrainian SSR.
In 1924 he had been prosecuted for smuggling, but the case was dismissed.

In February 1938 he was arrested and accused of spying for Poland and
“wrecking” (creating “poor” living conditions for the highest-ranking NKVD
officers). He died on March 8, 1938, as a result of savage beatings that
were administered to him in the inner prison of the Directorate of State
Security of the NKVD of the Ukrainian SSR.

On March 20, 1933, Italy’s Ambassador Attolico, wrote to Rome: “The
impression is that the only strong link, the real backbone of the entire
Soviet system, is the GPU, which is usually able to achieve, through its
typically fast and violent methods, what even the best propaganda cannot.”

Meanwhile, we find in these diplomatic documents evidence of what communist
propaganda was doing. Leone Sircana, the vice- consul in Novorossiisk,
reported the following to the Italian Embassy in Moscow on April 8, 1933:
“It is like mocking the beastly condition to which millions of people have
been reduced to claim that the Soviets have launched the world’s most
powerful radio transmitter, which is supposed to overwhelm perhaps all the
other voices on the airways and beam to the oppressed peoples of Europe
and Asia Moscow’s revelations about ‘the incredible achievements of the
Bolshevik miracle’.

“Or we read that the workers of Novorossiisk are donating one percent of
their starvation wages (in paper rubles) to the cause of combating fascist
terror, and so on. This typical revolutionary fervor catches your eye in
banner slogans, newspaper headlines, the hidebound and mindless phrases
of articles and speeches, but it never finds any response.

“Countering these purely bureaucratic onslaughts on capitalism, fascism, and
kulaks and the no less bureaucratic glorification of Bolshevik successes is
the huge, patient, callous, and indifferent mass (or herd?) of these hapless
people, who listen without hearing and look without seeing and whose mind,
now even more stupefied than ever, has only one vision: a small piece of
brown bread, underbaked and mixed with the most incredible and most varied
ingredients, to which they are still entitled and which they must share with
their large family, old and infirm relatives, not to mention those who do
not have even this right, or the painful and bitter despair from the fact
that Moscow requisitions everything that the earth offers and, as the
peasant deceives himself, is supposed to belong to him.”

The famine in Ukraine turned into an instrument not only of terror but also
of the “nationalities policy.” This radically distinguished the situation in
Ukraine from that in, say, Russia or Kazakhstan, where famine-related losses
were also very high.

On Dec. 14, 1932, Stalin and Molotov signed a resolution of the CC AUCP(b)
and the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR, which demanded
“correct Ukrainization” in Ukraine and other regions densely populated by
ethnic Ukrainians. The document also demanded a struggle against Petliurites

and other ‘counterrevolutionary” elements, who this time were accused of
organizing the famine.

This not only meant the end of the policy of “Ukrainization.” This was the
decisive phase of the liquidation of the “Ukraine-centered” potential that
was never supposed to revive, and the brutally and carefully organized
punishment turned into genocide.

“Since famine always begets a revolution (in this case, it would be a
counterrevolution),” one of the documents says, “the greatest burden of the
famine was placed on the Ukrainian peasants, who were politically the most
dangerous and resisted the issue of collectivization as much as they could.
No matter what kind of famine he is suffering from, the peasant cannot
launch an offensive on the city and become dangerous to the regime, above
all, for purely organizational reasons.”

The Stalinist regime used the Holodomor and false stories about those who
were responsible for it as a concrete pretext for mass-scale repressive
campaigns, purges, and the like.

On May 22, 1933, Gradenigo wrote in his regular message to the Italian
Embassy in Moscow, “The current disaster will lead to the colonization of
Ukraine, mostly by the Russian population. This will change its ethnographic
nature.

In all probability, we will not have to speak about Ukraine and the
Ukrainian people in the very near future and, consequently, there will be no
Ukrainian problem because Ukraine will in fact become part of Russia.”

Contrary to this sad forecast, Letters from Kharkiv is being published in
independent Ukraine, which remembers its history and – I do believe! – is
ready to learn its lessons.
———————————————————————————————-
NOTE: Yurii Shapoval is a professor and Doctor of Sciences (History).

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
If you are receiving more than one copy of the AUR please contact us.
========================================================
12.  AN APPEAL TO THE RUSSIAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

By Halya Coynash, Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, “Maidan” Alliance
Kharkiv, Ukraine, Thursday, November 22, 2007

KHARKIV – On 24 November, people throughout the world will be joining
Ukrainians in lighting candles. They are candles in memory of the millions
who died in an artificially caused famine – Holodomor 1932-1933.   The
Holodomor was not caused by blundering incompetence.

A murderous regime took the grain away, surrounded villages with armed units
and closed the borders.   Given the lies and denial for decades, the figures
range, however most believe at least 5 to 7 million people died.

There have been arguments for decades now over whether this constitutes
genocide as understood in the 1948 Convention.   There is no opportunity
here to discuss this, nor would I wish to.

There was food, but it was taken away by force and people were prevented
from saving themselves and their children from starvation.

While there were famines throughout the USSR, it was in Ukraine and in an
area predominantly populated by Ukrainians that starvation was used as a
deliberate weapon.

If this does not constitute genocide as defined in the UN Convention, I
would respectfully suggest that perhaps the latter is not fulfilling its
role as a human rights document aimed at acknowledging human rights crimes
and ensuring they never happen again.

We have begun collecting signatures for an appeal to the Russian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. We are asking for their cooperation in opening up all the
documents which they presently hold but which pertain to our common fate
under the old totalitarian regime.

We ask also for Russia to implement the recommendations in the recent

UNESCO Resolution which Russia signed.

We also call in our appeal for Russia to join Ukraine and many other
countries in recognizing the actions of the totalitarian regime of that time
to have been genocide.

We wish to wrench this subject from the area of geopolitical considerations
which make us cogs in some abstract machine on which we can have no impact.
We are adamant that the subject of Holodomor must be viewed in the context
of ethics and law.

Most of all we wish to separate this vital question of justice, memory and
of safeguards for the future from all extraneous issues and grievances.

In the last four days, our petition has been signed by many people in
Ukraine, Russia and other counties of the world.   It is intended as a
uniting force, aimed at removing artificially created obstacles and
geopolitical arguments.

We are remembering the victims of a crime against the Ukrainian nation and
against all humanity both with our candles and with our petition.   We would
ask you to join us.

You can read (and sign!) our covering letter and appeal (in three languages)
at: http://maidanua.org/static/viol/1195265429.html.
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
13.  THE POLITICS OF GENOCIDE
Will Moscow ever recognize the Stalin-led forced famine
in Ukraine 75 years ago as an act of genocide?

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Lisa Shymko
The American Spectator, Arlington, Virginia, Wed, Nov 14, 2007

TORONTO – This week, Ukraine’s President, Viktor Yushchenko, will travel
to Israel – a nation for whom the term “genocide” has become an indelible
part
of its collective memory – where he is expected to ask Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert to endorse a UN resolution put forth by Ukraine recognizing the
Soviet-era forced famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine as an act of genocide.

For Prime Minister Olmert and members of the Knesset, it will not be an easy
decision to make, since Jewish leaders have long maintained that the
Holocaust was unique and should not be equated with other genocides.

Complicating the matter is the new political reality in the Middle East.
Israelis have hesitated to endorse the Ukrainian position, for fear of
straining Israel’s delicate relations with Russia.

Olmert is hoping to convince Russia to use its geopolitical influence in the
Caspian basin to stave off a military confrontation with Tehran over its
nuclear program. Yet so far, as Moscow undertakes a series of cozy deals
with Iran and Syria, Vladimir Putin has done little to appease Israeli
concerns.

Will Prime Minister Olmert hold off on backing Ukraine’s UN resolution in an
attempt to woo the Kremlin? Only time will tell. One thing is clear, the
Russians do not want to see improved relations between Israel and Ukraine.

Historically, Moscow has benefited from the painful rifts of the past, and
the Kremlin is not happy to see Ukraine’s President Viktor Yushchenko
proposing a more dynamic Ukraine-Israel relationship.

Recently, Ukraine’s President announced the return of 1,000 Torah scrolls
previously confiscated from Ukraine’s Jewish communities during the
communist regime.

Historic synagogues in Ukraine have been returned to Jewish communities and
President Yushchenko has ordered Ukraine’s Security Service to establish a
special department to combat hate crimes. Yushchenko has also proposed
legislation to criminalize the denial of the Holocaust.

So why is the Kremlin irritated over Ukraine’s pursuit of the genocide
issue? Because the current government in Moscow is still unwilling to deal
with the ugly side of its Stalinist past.

THIS YEAR THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY will begin
commemorating the 75th anniversary of the 1932-33 state-sponsored famine
in Ukraine, masterminded by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. The premeditated
policy of forced grain seizures targeted Ukraine’s anti-Soviet rural
population and resulted in mass murder by starvation.

The artificially induced famine, known as the Holodomor, claimed the lives
of millions of victims. The genocide was the precursor to the bloody Red
Terror that later swept the entire USSR.

Having resisted Stalin’s forced collectivization, Ukraine’s
independent-minded rural population faced sweeping food confiscations
enforced by the notorious OGPU-NKVD secret police.

Starving Ukrainian peasants initially tried surviving on hay, weeds, and
leaves, even stripping trees of their bark. As conditions worsened, some, on
the verge of insanity, resorted to cannibalism, feeding on the remains of
the recently deceased.

But few in the West were aware of the genocide. While Ukrainians starved to
death, Moscow dumped millions of tons of cheap grain on Western markets.

When Western journalists like the Welsh reporter Gareth Jones, stationed in
the USSR in the 1930s, secretly traveled to Ukraine, uncovering information
about the decimation of entire rural towns and villages, pro-Soviet
apologists like Walter Duranty of the New York Times published fabricated
stories of well-fed peasants in an attempt to suppress the truth.

Those in Ukraine’s Communist Party who dared to speak out, were meticulously
purged by Stalin. Ukraine’s aspirations for independence were to be squashed
at all costs. Mass executions of Ukraine’s intellectual elite followed.

The result was a campaign of ethnic cleansing on a vast scale. By 1933, as a
result of Stalin’s State Decree, all territories previously populated by
Ukrainians, now de-populated by the forced famine, were systematically
settled by ethnic Russians.

In 2006, after decades of denials and cover-ups, the Parliament of Ukraine
shed its Soviet legacy and passed legislation recognizing the 1932-33
Ukrainian Forced Famine as an act of genocide.

In recent years, an ever-growing number of countries, including the USA,
Australia, Italy, Poland, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, to name just a few, have
officially acknowledged this heinous crime to be genocide.

This year, Canada’s Parliament is expected to adopt a similar resolution in
the House of Commons, mirroring a unanimous motion passed in the Senate in
2003.

Ironically, as the international community prepares to vote on a UN General
Assembly resolution introduced by Ukraine that would condemn Stalin’s
actions in Ukraine as nothing less than genocide, Russia — the
self-appointed successor state of the Soviet Union — has vowed to oppose
the passage of such a resolution.

THE KREMLIN HAS YET TO COME to terms with its genocidal past. In a
recent article published by Russia’s Novosti news service, the Russian
author, Andrei Marchukov, referred to the Famine-Genocide in Ukraine as

“propaganda” and called recent efforts to uncover previously censored
information on the tragedy “sensation whipped up over bygones.”
Bygones indeed!

It is estimated that at least 7 million perished as a result of Stalin’s
induced famine in Ukraine. According to research presented at a 2001
Population Conference in Brazil, historian Mark Tolts, of the Hebrew
University in Jerusalem, stated that, up until recently, it had been
difficult for historians to reach an exact figure on the number of victims,
since Stalin personally falsified the Soviet Union’s demographic data after
the 1932-33 famine.

In fact, according to Tolts, three successive heads of the Soviet Central
Statistical Administration were executed by Stalin, while others were
arrested, in a deliberate attempt to cover-up the shocking human losses.

Recently, Ukraine declassified over 100 documents pertaining to the 1932-33
Ukrainian Famine and repressions of the 1930s from its Security Service
Archives.

The documents are eye-opening because they show that international
humanitarian aid was systematically denied to Ukraine’s starving population.
But countless more Soviet-era documents remain locked in Russian archives,
inaccessible to Western historians.

The Kremlin’s image is in need of a major makeover. Allegations of
state-complicity in the assassinations of Alexander Litvinenko in Great
Britain and investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya in Moscow have done
little to enhance Russia’s international image as a democratic, peace-loving
nation.

More recently, the Kremlin has failed to crack down on home-grown racist
youth gangs, responsible for a series of cross-border attacks on Jews and
visible minorities in Russia and Ukraine.

Last week, Russian politician Grigory Yavlinsky called on the Russian
government to undertake “a de-Stalinization program” to remember the
millions of victims of Soviet repression.

Russia’s Memorial Human Rights Society issued a statement asking the
Russian government “to acknowledge past crimes and offer apologies to
the victims,” including the former Soviet Union’s repressed ethnic groups.

It’s time for Russia to make peace with its past, by showing a willingness
to make peace with its neighbors. Acknowledging Stalin’s genocidal
complicity in the 1932-33 state-sponsored Famine in Ukraine would be an
important first step.
———————————————————————————————-
Lisa Shymko is a Canadian political scientist and director of the
Canada-Ukraine Parliamentary Center in Kyiv (Kiev), Ukraine. The center
was established in 2000 by Canadian Friends of Ukraine and the Government
of Canada to enhance legislative reform and open access to information.
————————————————————————————————
LINK: http://www.Spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12306

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
14.  UKRAINIAN MASS FAMINE OF 1932-1933: RUSSIA
IGNORES TRAGIC ANNIVERSARY
The overwhelming fact is that Moscow is anxious to divorce
itself from the 1932-33 tragedy for political reasons.

Nezavisimaya Gazeta, republished by RIA Novosti
Moscow, Russia, Wednesday, November 21, 2007

On Saturday, November 24, all Ukraine will observe the 75th anniversary of
the Ukrainian famine or Holodomor of 1932-33. The scale of mourning was
made public both to Ukrainians and the world.

Nothing, however, is known about the famine, which also affected Russia,
and how the date will be marked in Russia. There is no information available
about any official events on either the Internet or from news agencies.

This oversight in the official response to the tragic date in Russia and
Ukraine is unlikely to be due to the difference in the number of victims:
between 3.5-4 million Ukrainians perished in the famine, while Russia lost
hundreds of thousands.

Kiev believes that the extent of the losses from the famine surpasses even
World War II.

But even if the number of Russian victims does not run into the millions
this does not mean that Russia is incapable of honoring the memory of those
hundreds of thousands on a nationwide scale.

The overwhelming fact is that Moscow is anxious to divorce itself from the
1932-33 tragedy for political reasons.

The Russian authorities fear losing the information war against Ukraine,
which is demanding that other countries recognize the Holodomor as
genocide of Ukrainians.

Although the regime guilty of the crime no longer exists, Moscow is
concerned that if there was an admission it would have to bear the moral
and maybe material responsibility for the millions of deaths 75 years ago.

Moscow is making every effort to block Kiev’s plans to turn the Holodomor
into an international issue like the Jewish Holocaust of World War II.

The authorities are also trying to wipe out all memory of the event that is
now extremely unsafe politically. There are, however, no documents
testifying that the famine was deliberately engineered for ethnic reasons.

Moscow had to repay German industrial loans, and was forced to clear
out barns in grain-producing areas.

At the same time, the geographical range of the famine shows that it hit
mostly the Soviet Union’s outlying ethnic regions. Aside from Ukraine the
famine raged in the Kuban, Stavropol, Don, and the lower and middle
Volga areas, which were part of the Russian Federation.

A year earlier, in Kazakhstan, which was also part of the Russian Federation
at that time, one in three Kazakhs died from starvation. In the Volga area
the worst hit was the German autonomy, which was wiped out in 1941.
————————————————————————————————
LINK: http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071121/89001893.html
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================

Ukraine Monthly Macroeconomic Report From SigmaBleyzer:
http://www.sigmableyzer.com/index.php?action=publications 
========================================================
15.  TOO MUCH EMOTION OVER HOLODOMOR IN UKRAINE,
RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE SAYS

Interfax Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine, Thursday, November 22, 2007

KYIV – Russian Ambassador to Ukraine Viktor Chernomyrdin believes that the
topic of the Holodomor famine of 1932-1933 is being treated too emotionally.

“There was Soviet Union, there was famine, a great famine. It is true that
Ukrainians suffered, as did Russians and other nationalities, including all
who lived in Ukraine,” Chernomyrdin told the press in Kyiv on Wednesday.

He said the famine had no mercy on anybody and regret could be expressed on
that occasion. “But here we see so much sentiment. We don’t understand it,”
he said. “I don’t see any benefit from this storm of emotions,” he added.

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
16.  DECLARING FAMINE A GENOCIDE OF UKRAINIANS INSULTS
NON-UKRAINIAN VICTIMS SAYS RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY

Interfax, Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, November 20, 2007

MOSCOW – The subject of 1930s famine is increasingly becoming a field for
political speculation in Ukraine, the Russian Foreign Ministry reports.

“We would like to say that the famine in the Soviet Union in the 1930s to
which members of numerous ethnic groups, including Ukrainians, Russians,
Kazakhs and others fell victim is increasingly becoming a subject of various
speculations on the part of certain political circles in Ukraine,” a Foreign
Ministry commentary says.

“The declaration of the tragic developments of those years as an act of
genocide with specific regard to the Ukrainian people is a biased distortion
of history for the benefit of present-day political and ideological
concepts.

Not only that, it is an insult to the memory of victims of the famine of
1932-1933 in the Soviet Union who belonged to other ethnic groups,” the
commentary says.

At the same time the Foreign Ministry condemned the vandalism at the
Ukrainian cultural center in Moscow during the November 17 opening of an
exhibition on the famine in Ukraine.

“The Russian Foreign Ministry denounces such hooliganism. We would like to
draw your attention to the fact that the individuals were immediately
detained and handed over to law enforcers for investigation which cannot be
said about the attitude of Ukrainian law enforcement in regard numerous
provocations against the Russian cultural center in Lviv,” the commentary
says.
———————————————————————————————–

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
17.  RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY SHOULD READ MORE BOOKS
ABOUT HISTORY SAYS UKRAINE’S FOREIGN MINISTRY

UNIAN News, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, November 20, 2007

KYIV – The statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Department for
Information and Press about Holodomor is contrary to historical facts.
According to an UNIAN correspondent, top deputy Foreign Minister of
Ukraine Volodymyr Ohryzko said this to journalists today.

He turned attention to the fact that the “statements, made today by the RF
Information Department, are not true, and are contrary to the elementary
historical knowledge”.

V.Ohryzko pointed out that he has intent to summon the councilor at the
Russian Embassy to Ukraine in order to give him a clear view of the
situation concerning smashing up the exhibition, devoted to the Ukrainian
Holodomor of 1932-33, in Moscow on 17 November.

In his turn, Ukrainian Foreign Ministry’s spokesman Andriy Deshchytsia
emphasized that “to exchange statements about that-time events is absolutely
tactless, because we humiliate ourselves by doing so”.

He stressed that Ukraine has determined its position concerning the
recognition of Holodomor of 1932-33 as an act of genocide against the
Ukrainian nation. “Solely within the frameworks of a friendly and partner
advice, I would like to advise our Russian colleagues, including that of the
RF Foreign Ministry’s Information Department, to read books about history”,
he added.

As UNIAN reported earlier, on November 17, 7 representatives of the Eurasian
Union of Youth (EUY) smashed up the exhibition in memory of Holodomor
[Ukrainian Great Famine of 1932-33] exhibition in the Ukrainian cultural
center in Moscow. EUY believes that the exhibition stirred up hatred between
Russia and Ukraine.

The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry assessed these actions as illegal,
provocative, and anti-Ukrainian.

On 19 November the Department for Information and Press of the Russian
Foreign Ministry disseminated a commentary, reading that the announcement
of the famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine as an act of genocide “is a one-sided
distortion of history in favor of modern market’s political-ideological
guidelines”.

The Russian Foreign Ministry emphasized that “the theme of hunger of 30ies
in the Soviet Union, the victims of which were people of many nationalities,
in particular, Ukrainians, Russians, Kazakhs, and other nations, more and
more becomes a topic of different speculations by certain political circles
in Ukraine”.

The Russian MFA is confident that should the Ukrainian great famine be
recognized as an act of genocide, it “will insult the memory of victims of
other nationalities, who died because of hunger in the former USSR”, reads
the commentary of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Information Department.

By different estimates, from 7 to 10 millions of Ukrainians died during the
Great Famine of 1932-33, which was a result of Stalin’s policy against those
who resisted his plans (Ukrainian farmers).

Stalin decided to sacrifice a considerable part of this group in order to
eliminate the opposition to his projects and to frighten the rest of the
Ukrainian nation into accepting the role of cogs (as he liked to call them)
of the great socialist mechanism.
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
You are welcome to send us names for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
18.  FORMER MIN OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS BORYS TARASIUK
CRITICIZED RUSSIAN AUTHORITIES FOR OBSTRUCTION OF
HONORING MEMORY OF 1932-1933 FAMINE VICTIMS

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, November 20, 2007

KYIV – The chairman of the Narodnyi Rukh party and parliamentary deputy
of the Our Ukraine-People’s Self-Defense bloc, former Minister of Foreign
Affairs Borys Tarasiuk is criticizing the Russian authorities for
obstruction of honoring the memory of the 1932-1933 Great Famine victims
in Ukraine.

This follows from the bloc’s press service, a copy of which was made
available to Ukrainian News.

According to the message, Tarasiuk views as unfriendly the statement by the
Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the 1932-1933 Great Famine issue
has become a subject of speculations by certain political circles in
Ukraine.

‘Russian mass media whip up hysteria within their own country every time
when another anniversary of the Famine is approaching. The Foreign Ministry
of Russia is not falling behind,’ the press service cited Tarasiuk as
saying.

The bloc representative also believes that the Russian officials,
particularly the Foreign Ministry, workers of foreign establishments, are
attempting to obstruct honoring the memory of the Famine victims in Ukraine.

‘…attempting to obstruct honoring the memory of the Famine victims in
Ukraine by refusing to support the corresponding resolutions of the UN
General Assembly, UNESCO,’ Tarasiuk said.

The ex-foreign minister is viewing these actions as an outbreak of
anti-Ukrainian campaign from Russia due to the forthcoming elections to the
State Duma (parliament).

‘Unfortunately, Russian politicians are trying to play the Ukrainian card.
These are dirty methods. It’s manifestation of a dangerous tendency, as well
as the recent attack of young people from the Eurasian movement on the
Ukrainian exhibition in Moscow,’ Tarasiuk said.

At the same time, the bloc representative believes that the attempts to deny
the famine are ungrounded, saying Russia may also raise the issue of
starvation of Russian people.

‘One should respect not only his own history, but also the history of his
neighbors. If the Russian side wants to build relations with Ukraine based
on equality and law, it should behave correspondingly,’ Tarasiuk noted.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs believes it is not correct to dispute with the Russian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs on the Great Famine of 1932-33.

On November 19, Ukraine demanded that Russia bring to justice the members
of the Eurasian Youth Union that destroyed an exhibition honoring the
memories of the victims of the Holodomor of 1932-33 in Ukraine at the

Ukrainian Cultural Center in Moscow.

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in its turn called declaration of
the Holodomor of 1932-33 in Ukraine as an act of genocide against the
Ukrainians as one-sided garbling of history.
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
19.  PRES YUSHCHENKO: UKRAINE’S POLICY ON DECLARATION
ON 1932-1933 FAMINE AS GENOCIDE OF UKRAINIAN PEOPLE

NOT DIRECTED AGAINST OTHER NATIONS 
 
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine Tue, November 20, 2007

KYIV – President Viktor Yuschenko marks that Ukraine’s policy on declaration
of 1932-1933 Famine as genocide of the Ukrainian people is not directed
against other nations. Presidential press service disclosed this in a
statement.

‘Retuning of our memory is not the work against anyone. We do not want to
humiliate any nation or state, for we know well that evil, which took place
in Ukraine in 1932-1933, was not the idea of any strange nation, but the
idea of Stalin totalitarian regime,’ Yuschenko said.  The president also
said that studying of the Famine has to consolidate the nation.

‘The nation is eliminated via humiliation, especially spiritual one. The
nation is destroyed this way. In this, when we are made forget 1932-1933,

we are deprived of our history and future,’ Yuschenko said.

Besides, he reminded about efforts, which are undertaken by Ukraine to
inform local and international community about the Famine as a national
tragedy.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry is
calling the declaration of the 1932-1933 Famine in Ukraine the act of
genocide of the Ukrainian nation as one-sided garbling of history.

The Russian foreign ministry says such initiatives by Ukraine abuse the
memory of other nationality victims of the 1932 – 1933 famine in the Soviet
Union.

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
20.  THE UKRAINIAN FAMINE OF 1932-1933 AS GENOCIDE
IN LIGHT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION OF 1948

By Roman Serbyn, Professor of History, University of Quebec
The Ukrainian Quarterly, Volume LXII, Number 2, Taras Hunczak, Editor
A Journal of Ukrainian & International Affairs – Since 1944
Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA)
New York, New York, Summer 2006
Journal article re-published with permission by the
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #890, Article 20
Washington, D.C., Friday, November 23, 2007

THE STATE OF THE QUESTION
Serious scholars and respectable politicians no longer challenge the
historicity of the Ukrainian famine of 1932-1933. What is still disputed is
the cause of death and the number of victims. Some influential Western
historians blame climatic conditions, administrative mismanagement and
peasant attitudes for bringing about the famine, and deny or minimize the
moral responsibility of Stalin and his régime for voluntarily starving
millions of innocent people – or at least knowingly pursuing policies which
they knew would result in such human losses. [1]

Proponents of the view that the cause of the monstrous loss of life was the
criminal activity of the Soviet régime continue to disagree on the nature of
the crime and the identity of the victims. In other words, there is no
agreement on whether the famine in Ukraine should be classified as genocide,
and if so, if its victims were targeted as peasants or as Ukrainians. The
issue has both a theoretical and a political dimension. It still elicits the
most partisan feelings among both politicians and academics.

The Ukrainian famine is not recognized as genocide by the United Nations. In
November 2003, the UN General Assembly commemorated the 70th anniversary
of the event with a declaration signed by some 60 countries. The document
declared that “the Great Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine” took seven to 10
million of innocent lives, and explained that they were victims of “the
cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime.”

What had happened was called “a national tragedy for the Ukrainian people,”
but there was no allusion to genocide. The declaration erroneously
attributed the cause of the famine to “civil war and forced
 collectivization” and misleadingly merged the Ukrainian catastrophe with
the “millions of Russians, Kazaks and representatives of other nationalities
who died of starvation in the Volga river region, North Caucasus, Kazakhstan
and in other parts of the former Soviet Union.”

The Ukrainian delegation agreed to this watered-down version out of fear
that the Russians would block a more strongly worded declaration. [2]
Ambassador Valeriy Kuchinsky of the Ukrainian Mission to the UN later stated
that it was, nevertheless, “an official document of the General Assembly,”
whose importance resided in the fact that “for the first time in the history
of the UN, Holodomor was officially recognized as a national tragedy of the
Ukrainian people, caused by the cruel actions and policies of a totalitarian
regime.” [3]

The precedent allowed the Ukrainian Ambassador to return to the famine two
years later, during the General Assembly discussion of the resolution on the
International Holocaust day. Kuchynsky reiterated: “We believe that it is
high time that the international community recognized that crime as an act
of genocide against the Ukrainian nation.” [4]

There is no unanimity on the famine among Ukrainian historians. Some, like
Valeriy Soldatenko of the Institute of Political and Ethnic Studies,
continue to reject the notion of a man-made famine in Ukraine. Others, like
Yuri Shapoval of the same institution, blame the communists for the crime
and consider it genocide in accordance with the 1948 UN Convention.

Stanislav Kulchytsky of the Institute of History of the National Academy of
Sciences of Ukraine maintains that the famine was genocide and that
Ukrainians must ensure that the international community officially
recognizes it as “an act that falls under the UN Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” At the same time, he
claims that, “in reality, this famine cannot be classified as genocide as
defined in the Convention.” [5]

Kulchytsky draws a sharp distinction between the Ukrainian famine, on the
one hand, and the Jewish Holocaust and Armenian massacres, on the other.
“We will never prove to the grandchildren of those Ukrainian citizens who
starved to death, let alone to the international community, that people died
in 1933 in the USSR as a result of their national affiliation, i.e., in the
same way that Armenians died in the Ottoman Empire in 1915, or Jews in the
European countries that were occupied by Hitler’s Reich.”

Convinced that the Ukrainian famine cannot satisfy the criteria set by the
UN Genocide Convention, he comes to a rather surprising conclusion: “And
there is no need to prove this, because the mechanism of the Soviet genocide
was different. The terror by famine that Stalin unleashed on Ukraine and the
Kuban was an act of genocide against Ukrainian citizens, not Ukrainians.”
[6]

Further on, I shall return to Kulchytsky’s “terror by famine”
interpretation; for now, I wish to point out that his approach cannot be
used in arguing the Ukrainian case before the UN, nor is it of much help
when debating the issue with scholars who base their rejection of the
Ukrainian genocide on the UN Convention.

Kulchytsky quotes the UN Convention and then dismisses it without bothering
to analyze it, point by point, to see if it really covers the Ukrainian
famine or not. Absence of such analysis is a common characteristic of
Ukrainian scholarship, which often contents itself with simple assertions
that the Ukrainian famine falls within the UN criteria for genocide.

Deniers of the Ukrainian genocide often rely on the UN Convention for their
main argument against the recognition of the Ukrainian famine as genocide.
This approach can be illustrated by the discussion that took place at the
VII World Congress of the International Committee for Central and East
European Studies held in Berlin in the summer of 2005. A special session was
organized under the title “Was the Famine in Ukraine in 1932-1933 Genocide?”

Otto Luchterhadt, Professor of Law at the University of Hamburg in Germany
entitled his presentation “Famine in Ukraine and the Provisions of
International Law on Genocide.” Luchterhand’s own summary of his argument,
printed in the Congress Abstracts, reads as follows:

          “The question whether the Ukrainian Golodomor [sic!] was a
genocide, can only be answered along with the Anti-Genocide Convention
(9.12.1948), because it exclusively offers the relevant criteria, i.e. the
definition of genocide as a crime under international law. While the
objective elements of the offense were completed without any doubt by state
terrorist measures against a substantial part of the Ukrainian population
during the so-called Dekulakization, the subjective element was not
fulfilled, because killings, deportations, and mistreatments were not
committed with the required specific ‘intent’ to destroy, in whole or in
part, the Ukrainians as a national group as such. The victims of the
Dekulakization policy were defined by a social approach, not by a national
one. So, the Golodomor-case touches on a crucial problem of genocide
definition: due to the Soviet UN-policy it doesn’t protect social and
political groups.” [7]

Let us disregard, for the moment, the author’s erroneous reading of history
(“dekulakization” was mostly over when the great famine began, and people
died from induced famine, which was not a function of “dekulakization”) and
his misdirection in subject identification (victims of “dekulakization”
instead of the famine). What is important is that Luchterhandt’s denial of
the Ukrainian genocide is based on the UN document, as is the case with most
of the other scholars who reject the notion of a Ukrainian famine-genocide.

Andrea Graziosi, a recognized expert on the Ukrainian famine, has come to
the conclusion that the Ukrainian famine will be recognized as genocide
because recently revealed documentation points to such a crime. [8] What the
Italian historian does not say is whether he believes that this claim can be
made on the basis of the UN Convention. I think it can. In this paper I
shall argue the following three points:

         1. The Ukrainian famine was genocide.
         2. It was a genocide directed against Ukrainians.
         3. The evidence meets the criteria set by the 1948 United Nations
             Convention on Genocide.

THE UN CONVENTION ON GENOCIDE OF 9 DECEMBER 1948
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was
adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948 and came into force on
12 January 1951. Soviet Ukraine became a signatory of the Convention on 16
June 1949 and ratified it on 15 November 1954. Independent Ukraine continues
to respect the international Convention and has inscribed “Article 442.
Genocide” into its own Code of Criminal Law.

The term “genocide” was coined in 1943 by Raphael Lemkin (1900-1959) “from
the ancient Greek word ‘genos’ (race, tribe) and the Latin ‘cide’ (killing),
thus corresponding in its formation to such words as tyrannycide, homicide,
infanticide, etc.” [9] A Polish Jew, born in what today is Lithuania, Lemkin
studied law at the University of Lviv, where he became interested in crimes
against groups and, in particular, the Armenian massacres during the First
World War.

In October 1933, as lecturer on comparative law at the Institute of
Criminology of the Free University of Poland and Deputy Prosecutor of the
District Court of Warsaw, he was invited to give a special report at the 5th
Conference for the Unification of Penal Law in Madrid. [10] In his report,
Lemkin proposed the creation of a multilateral convention making the
extermination of human groups, which he called “acts of barbarity,” an
international crime.

Ten years later, Lemkin wrote a seminal book on the notion of genocide. A
short excerpt will show that the author’s approach was much broader than the
one later adopted by the UN:

          “Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the
immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings
of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated
plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations
of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups
themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the
political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings,
religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction
of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of
the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the
national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against
individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the
national group.” [11]

Lemkin’s book became a guiding light for the framers of the UN Convention
on Genocide.

The Convention voted by the UN General Assembly contains 19 articles,
dealing mainly with the problems of the prevention and punishment of
genocidal activity. Most relevant to our discussion is the preamble and the
first two articles. The preamble acknowledges that “at all periods of
history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity,” while the first
article declares that genocide is a crime under international law “whether
committed in time of peace or in time of war.” The all-important definition
of genocide is contained in Article II:

          “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following
acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in ‘part’ a ‘national,’
‘ethnical,’ racial or religious ‘group, as such.'” [12]

This definition was a compromise after much discussion by the delegates of
various countries who sat on the drafting committees. It satisfied few
people and continues to be criticized by legal experts, politicians and
academics. However, it remains the only legal definition sanctioned by the
UN and operative international courts.

A major objection to the definition is the restricted number of recognized
genocide target groups. Coming in the wake of the Second World War and
informed by Lemkin’s work and the evidence of the Nazi concentration camps,
the definition would necessarily be tailored to the Jewish Holocaust. Jews
could fall into any one of the four categories: national, ethnic, racial and
religious. They did not form a political or a social group, but this was not
the reason for the exclusion of the two categories, which, after all, were
part of Lemkin’s concern.

The exclusion of social and political groups from the Convention, to which
Luchterhandt alluded, was the result of the Soviet delegation’s
intervention. The implication of the definition’s limitation to the four
categories of victims is that one cannot argue for the recognition of a
Ukrainian genocide if its victims are identified only as peasants. Of the
four human groups listed by the Convention, it is quite clear that
Ukrainians did not become victims of the famine because of their religious
or racial traits. This leaves two categories: “national” and “ethnic(al).”

There has always been a certain ambiguity about the distinction between the
two groups labeled as “nation” and “ethnic(al)” by the Convention. William
Schabas, internationally recognized legal expert on genocide, believes that
all four categories overlap, since originally they were meant to protect
minorities. He argues that “national minorities” is the more common
expression in Central and Eastern Europe, while “ethnic minorities” prevails
in the West. [13] But if both terms designate the same group then there is
redundancy, which Schabas fails to note.

A more meaningful interpretation of “national group” was given in a recent
case cited by the author. “According to the International Criminal Tribunal
for Rwanda, the term ‘national group’ refers to ‘a collection of people who
are perceived to share a legal bond based on common citizenship, coupled
with reciprocity of rights and duties’.”[14]

What we have here is a “civic nation” formed by all the citizens of a given
state, regardless of their ethnic, racial or other differentiation, as
opposed to “ethnic nation,” or members of an ethnic community often divided
by state borders. Such a clarification of the terms “national” and
 “ethnical” in reference to “groups” used would remove any ambiguity or
redundancy in the Convention. It would also help the understanding of the
Ukrainian famine-genocide.

Relevant to this discussion is a statement made in 1992 by a Commission of
Experts, applying the Genocide Convention to Yugoslavia: “a given group can
be defined on the basis of its regional existence … all Bosnians in
Sarajevo, irrespective of ethnicity or religion, could constitute a
protected group.” [15] The “regional” group is thus analogous to the civic
national group.

The decisive element in the crime of genocide is the perpetrator’s intent to
destroy a human group identified by one of the four traits mentioned above.

When applying this notion to the Ukrainian case, certain aspects of the
question of intent as used by the Convention should be taken into
consideration. First, it is not an easy task to document intent, for as Leo
Kuper pointedly remarked, “governments hardly declare and document genocidal
plans in the manner of the Nazis.” [16] However, documents which directly
reveal Stalin’s intent do exist, and there is also circumstantial evidence
which can be used. [17]

Secondly, contrary to frequently erroneous claims, the Convention does not
limit the notion of genocide to an intention to destroy the whole group; it
is sufficient that the desire to eliminate concern only a part of the group.
This implies that there is the possibility of selection on the part of the
perpetrator from among the victims within the targeted group, and this
aspect must not be neglected when analyzing the Ukrainian genocide.

Thirdly, the Convention (Article II) lists five ways in which the crime is
executed:

           1. Killing members of the group;
           2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members of the
               group;
           3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
               calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole
               or in part;
          4.  Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
          5.  Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

All of these acts, to a greater or lesser extent, can be documented in the
Ukrainian experience.

Fourthly, the Convention places no obligation on establishing the motive
behind the crime, even though the reason behind a criminal’s activity can
help to establish his intent. Two Canadian scholars with long experience in
genocidal studies have classified genocides in four groups according to
their motives.[18] It should be clear from examining the list that the
Ukrainian genocide fits all four categories:

          1. To eliminate a real or potential threat;
          2. To spread terror among real or potential enemies;
          3. To acquire economic wealth; or
          4. To implement a belief, a theory or an ideology.

Schabas approaches the problem somewhat differently: “There is no explicit
reference to motive in article II of the Genocide Convention, and the casual
reader will be excused for failing to guess that the words ‘as such’ are
meant to express the concept.” [19]

Yes, to a certain extent. With the help of a criminal ideology, perpetrators
of genocide can transform a targeted group into an object of blind hate,
which then in itself becomes a motive for the destruction of members of that
group. In other words, members of a group “X” are singled out for
destruction because they are members of that group. But the underlying
motives which brought about the hatred do not disappear – they are only
pushed into the background.
STALIN’S DIRECTIVE OF 22 JANUARY 1933:
‘HABENT SUA FATA DOCUMENTI’
All serious scholars, not only in Ukraine, [20] but also in Russia [21] and
the West, [22] now generally accept the fact that Stalin and his cronies
willfully starved millions of peasants to death in 1932-1933. Ellman, who
rejects the idea of a specifically Ukrainian famine and a Ukrainian
genocide, admits that “Stalin also used starvation in his war against the
peasants” and that “an unknown fraction of mortality in the 1931-34 Soviet
famine resulted from a conscious policy of starvation.” [23]

One can only speculate as to why the Amsterdam historian disregarded in his
tightly reasoned and well-argued discussion of intent in the Soviet famine a
document which of all the known testimonies best illustrates this intent.

For almost two decades now, historians have known about Stalin’s secret
directive of 22 January 1933. Danilov and Zelenin, whose knowledge of Soviet
archives was second to none, considered it one of the few documents “to bear
witness to Stalin’s direct personal participation in the organization of
mass famine of 1932-1933.”[24]

The document is of particular significance for the study of the Ukrainian
genocide, and we cannot exclude the possibility that its checkered fate in
the hands of Soviet, post-Soviet and Western historians had something to do
with this connection.

The document was made known to the academic world at a conference on
collectivization, held in Moscow, on 24 October 1988. Iu. A. Moshkov of
Moscow State University informed the meeting that Stalin had complained of a
massive flight of peasants from Kuban and Ukraine in search of food in
various regions of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR)
and Belarus.

The General Secretary called the peasants SR agitators and Polish agents who
were going to RSFSR with the intention of stirring up the peasants against
the Soviet power. “Instead of ordering aid for the fugitives,” commented
Moshkov, “the telegram demanded that these people be apprehended at the
railway stations and sent back.”[25]

To my knowledge, this was the first public presentation of the important
document. A participant at the conference, E. N. Oskolkov from the Rostov
University, later used the document in his study of famine in the Northern
Caucasus, in which the Ukrainian Kozak “stanytsyi” figured prominently.[26]
There were no scholars from Ukraine at the Moscow conference, but they must
have read about it in “Istoriya SSSR.”[27]

In 1990, the Institute of Party History of Ukraine published documents of
the famine held in its own Archive. The Stalin document was probably not
found, for it was not published. However, the collection contained a
follow-up directive from Kharkiv, the then-capital of Soviet Ukraine,
relaying the Kremlin directive to the Ukrainian oblasts.[28]

In 1993, Ukrainians organized an international conference on the occasion of
the 60th anniversary of the tragedy. Ukrainian scholars made no reference to
the 22 January 1933 document, but N. Ivnitsky from the Institute of Russian
History, Russian Academy of Sciences, gave a detailed analysis of it.

This historian stated that as a result of the directive 219,460 individuals
were arrested; 186,588 of them were sent back to their starving villages,
and the others were punished in other ways.[29] Oskolkov spoke about a real
“people hunt” in the Northern Caucasus and, in particular, the Kuban region,
as a result of Stalin’s directive.[30]. Significantly, no Ukrainian
participant referred to the document.

The Russian participants were unhappy with the conference and, once in
Moscow, wrote a scathing report.[31] They objected to Ukrainian historians’
“groundless insistence” on Ukraine’s exclusiveness during the famine, on
imagining “a separate character and content of the events in that republic,
distinct from other republics and regions.”

They liked Kulchytsky’s linking the famine with grain procurement and
collectivization; they ignored James Mace’s comments on the national motives
in Stalin’s starvation policy; and they condemned Ivan Drach for his demand
that Russia recognize its liability for the famine. The statement discussed
at length the famine in the Kuban and Northern Caucasus, but only as proof
of Russian famine and without a single reference to its ethnic Ukrainian
population.

In 1994, N. A. Ivnitsky published a seminal study on collectivization from a
post-Soviet perspective, explaining in some detail Stalin’s secret directive
on closing the borders around Ukraine and the Northern Caucasus. This
measure was to prevent a peasant exodus from Ukraine and Kuban to the
Russian regions of Central-Black Earth, the Volga, Moscow and Western
oblasts, as well as to Belarus. The scholar reiterated the fact that, as a
result of that order, the OGPU arrested 219,460 persons in the first six
weeks of the order. [32]

On the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the Bolshevik overthrow of the
Provisional Government, a group of French historians, many of them former
Marxists, published a book of communist crimes around the world. [33] The
book hit the French public like a bombshell, was translated into a dozen of
languages and had a great impact on intellectuals of leftist leanings.
Nicolas Werth, a known expert on Soviet history, authored the part on the
Soviet Union.

In the chapter on “the Great Famine,” he presents Ivnitsky’s findings on
Stalin’s directive but changes the direction of the peasants’ migration. The
peasants from Ukraine and Kuban no longer go to the four Russian regions,
but to unspecified “towns” – towns that were not even mentioned in Stalin’s
decree or Ivnitsky’s rendering of it. [34]

Werth made Stalin’s directive a follow-up to the new law on passports,
decreed on 27 December 1932. Peasants were not entitled to the passports,
and this was one way of preventing them from leaving the village. The two
measures were quite different. The passport law concerned the whole Soviet
Union, and it was of a social nature – to prevent peasants from moving
freely into urban centers. Stalin’s directive on the border concerned only
Ukraine and the heavily Ukrainian Northern Caucasus (especially the
predominantly Ukrainian Kuban), and was thus of a national character.

The immediate consequence of this misrepresentation of the important
document in Werth’s work was to allow the author to preclude its use as
evidence of Ukrainian genocide. Tackling a problem that was then hotly
debated in the academic world, Werth asks: “Should one see this famine as ‘a
genocide of the Ukrainian people’, as a number of Ukrainian historians and
researchers do today?” To which he gives a somewhat evasive answer, which
is worth a direct quotation:

          “It is undeniable that the Ukrainian peasantry were the principal
victims in the famine of 1932-33, and that this ‘assault’ was preceded in
1929 by several offensives against the Ukrainian intelligentsia, who were
accused of ‘nationalist deviations’, and then against some of the Ukrainian
Communists after 1932. It is equally undeniable that, as Andrei Sakharov
noted, Stalin suffered from ‘Ukrainophobia’. But proportionally the famine
was just as severe in the Cossack territories of the Kuban and the Don and
in Kazakhstan.” [35]

The national character of the document is thus lost on two counts: the
flight from Ukraine to Russia was replaced by migration from village to
town, and the Ukrainian ethnicity of the Kuban Kozak population was ignored.
In fairness to Werth, it should be noted that in a later publication he has
corrected the first, although not the second, point in his presentation of
Stalin’s infamous directive. [36] There is also merit in Werth’s situating
the famine in a broader national context.

But the fact that there was a famine in Kuban, the Don and Kazakhstan in no
way affects the genocidal nature of the famine in Ukraine, as the author
seems to imply. Werth’s unfortunate mistaken interpretation of the Stalin
border directive was reproduced in all the translated versions of the “Black
Book” and, paradoxically, Ivnistky’s correct comments on Stalin’s directive
returned to his homeland in a twisted and deceptive form. [37]

Stéphane Courtois, the editor of the “Black Book,” gave the famine another
spin. In his “Introduction” to the publication, he begins by quoting the
whole Article II of the UN Convention on Genocide but then reminds the
reader of the addition to the definition of genocide made by the French
criminal code: “or a ‘group that has been determined on the basis of any
other arbitrary criterion’ ” [emphasis added by Courtois].

This allows Courtois to add “social group” to the list of targeted
populations. Inspired by Vasily Grossman’s “magnificent novel” Forever
Flowing, Courtois compares “the great famine in Ukraine in 1932-33, which
resulted from the rural population’s resistance to forced collectivization”
and in which “6 million died” to the Jewish Holocaust.

“Here, the genocide of a ‘class’ may well be tantamount to the genocide of a
‘race’ – the deliberate starvation of a child of a Ukrainian kulak as a
result of the famine caused by Stalin’s regime ‘is equal to’ the starvation
of a Jewish child in the Warsaw ghetto as a result of the famine caused by
the Nazi regime.” [38] Courtois’s analysis of the 1932-1933 famine as “class
genocide” is shared today by many scholars in the West, Ukraine and Russia.

Terry Martin was the first Western scholar to draw particular attention to
Stalin’s border decree of 1933, which he also published in “toto.” [39] The
American historian examined the Ukrainian famine in connection with the
national aspect, not only in Ukraine but also in the Northern Caucasus.
Stalin’s correspondence with Kaganovich and Molotov reveals his distrust of
the Ukrainian party leaders, such as Chubar and Petrovsky, and the whole
Communist party in Ukraine, which he accused of being infiltrated by
Petlyurites and agents of Pilsudski.

The general opposition in Ukraine to grain procurement was seen as directly
connected to the national question, as was the similar sabotage mentality in
the Northern Caucasus. This part of the RSFSR had a high proportion of
ethnic Ukrainians, especially the Kuban region, with its clear Ukrainian
majority. It is in this context that the historian introduces Stalin’s
directive of 22 January 1933.

However, in spite of the revealing evidence about the national factor in the
1932-1933 events, and even though he called the chapter dealing with the
famine “The National Interpretation of the 1933 Famine,” the author remains
far from recognizing the famine as a Ukrainian genocide.

In a lecture delivered at the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute in
February 2001, Martin stated his interpretation is “derived primarily from a
close analysis of Soviet nationalities policy,” but that this did not mean
that he thought it “the decisive factor in explaining the famine.”

“On the contrary,” declared the speaker, “I fully accept the standard
peasantist interpretation of the famine.” The historian was convinced by the
“forceful restatement of that argument” by his colleague, D’Ann Penner, who
argued “that the famine was the culminating act in a five-year assault on
the peasantry.”[40]

Martin’s reliance on Penner’s work is surprising, because the latter
analyzed the famine in the Don and North Caucasus regions, and in her
otherwise excellent essay shows a curious understanding of the Ukrainian
population of the RSFSR. Penner writes: “The Kuban Cossacks who spoke
Ukrainian did not consider themselves Ukrainians nor did they exhibit a
desire to join a Ukrainian national movement.

They treated the ‘khokhly,’ one of the less derisive terms used by Cossacks
when referring to Ukrainian-speaking peasants, with as much disdain as did
the Russian-speaking Cossacks of Veshensk. [Penner’s emphasis]” [41] As the
title of her essay indicates, Penner sees the famine primarily as a result
of the struggle between the peasants and the Soviet state. Comparing the
Chinese and “the Soviet” (her words) famines, the American author writes:

          “In both cases, the famines were immediately preceded by decisions
to change and, the decision-makers believed, to rapidly upgrade agricultural
production on a grand scale irrespective of the farming people’s expressed
will. At the most basic level, each famine was caused by the government’s
handling of a serious grain crisis, which itself was the result of a
predominantly unnatural disaster caused by failed innovations, short-sighted
policies and effective peasant resistance.” [42]

Penner mentions the Stalin border decree, not in connection with the
national question, but as a follow-up to the law on passports and a way to
control popular mobility, unproductive to the state.[43] For Martin, there
was also no Ukrainian famine as such, and his perception of the event was
reflected in the title of his Harvard paper: “The 1932-33 Ukrainian Terror.”
The evidentiary potential of the Stalin directive was not exploited to its
fullest.

Stalin’s directive to close the border has been slow in attracting interest
among Ukrainian scholars, even those who uphold the thesis of Ukrainian
genocide and need evidential material to support their claim. On the 65th
anniversary of the famine, Ivnitsky once more spoke of the Moscow document
of 22 January 1933, and Volodymyr Serhiychuk quoted from the follow-up
Kharkiv directive to the Ukrainian regions.

Regrettably, neither historian approached the blockade of the Ukrainian
peasants from the perspective of the UN Convention on genocide. Nor was it
the approach adopted by Levko Lukyanenko and Olena Zdiochuk, who were
supposed to provide the conference with a legal analysis of the famine. [44]

When, at the end of the millennium, Vasyl Marochko wrote a long essay titled
“Genocide of the Ukrainian People,” he quoted the definition in Article II
of the Convention without analyzing it, made no reference to the Stalin
directive and waffled between a national and a “peasantist” interpretation
of the tragedy. Marochko begins his section on “Terror by famine” with this:
“The most pronounced indication of genocide in Ukraine is the conscious
creation of life conditions, calculated for the physical destruction of
‘peasants.'” [45]

Only in the beginning of our century did Stalin’s directive receive adequate
attention in Valeriy Vasilev’s thorough analysis of the Soviet authorities’
starvation policies. Surprisingly, the author took at face value Stalin’s
demagogic claim that the reason for the closing of borders was to “prevent
the spreading of information about the famine.” [46]

The 70th anniversary of the famine was marked by scholarly conferences, a
special hearing at the Ukrainian Parliament, and a representation to the UN
General Assembly. A central aim of these events was to ascertain the
genocidal character of the famine.

By then, Stalin’s directive should have been well known in academic circle
and among interested politicians, for in 2001 the Russian Academy of
Sciences published the whole text of Stalin directive. [47] That same year,
Stalin’s correspondence with Kaganovich came out, which helped put the
document in a more meaningful historical context. [48]

Assistant Prime-Minister Dmytro Tabachnyk presented the main report at the
Parliamentary hearing in February 2003. The historian- turned-politician
argued in the spirit of the UN Convention on genocide, showing how the
conditions in Ukraine in 1932-1933 corresponded to the criteria of the UN
Convention on Genocide. As one of the repressive measures, Tabachnyk
mentioned the introduction of the passport system, which tied the peasants
to the starving villages.

However, with one exception, no politician or academic at the hearing evoked
Stalin’s border decree. Only one Member of Parliament, the head of the
Poltava “Prosvita” organization, Mykola Kulchytsky, quoted Stalin’s
directive and recounted an incident from the period to illustrate its
effect.[49] I was not able to obtain the dossier presented by the Ukrainian
delegation to the 5th Committee of the General Assembly of the United
Nations, but I suspect that there was no particular attention drawn to the
border-closing decree.

Of the numerous conferences held that fall in Europe and North America, let
us look at just two, one held in May at the Lviv Polytechnic University, and
the other in November at Kyiv University. Not one paper at the Lviv
conference mentions Stalin’s border decree. Rudolf Myrsky’s paper, however,
is relevant to our discussion for another reason. The author draws a
parallel between two genocides executed on Ukrainian soil: Stalin’s “class
genocide” against Ukrainian peasants and Hitler’s “race genocide” against
the Jews of Ukraine.

Echoing Courtois’s quotation from Grossman’s “Forever Flowing” Myrsky
asserts: “We can say that in Holodomor and Holocaust a class genocide joins
up with a racial genocide in a fatal calculation: the death from hunger of a
Ukrainian child has the same value as death from hunger in a Warsaw ghetto.”
[50] Courtois’s Ukrainian child thus lost its “kulak” label, but was
subjected to the same “peasantist” interpretation, which enjoys much

support among Ukrainian scholars.

Only Shapoval discussed Stalin’s borders directive at the Kyiv conference.
He made it clear that the decree was to counter the flight of peasants
“beyond the limits of Ukraine.” Shapoval also quoted a Ukrainian translation
of the whole follow-up order sent the next day from Kharkiv to the oblasts.
But the Ukrainian specificity of the two documents are diminished by the
historian’s discussion of the matter in a section, which he aptly calls “the
second serfdom,” namely the tying down of all Soviet peasants to the land,
which began with the passport decree. [51]

To complete this brief overview of the fate of Stalin’s border decree, three
more publications should be mentioned. For the 70th anniversary of the 1933
famine, the Institute of History of the National Academy of Sciences of
Ukraine published a voluminous collective study under the title “Famine of
1932-1933 in Ukraine: Causes and Consequences.”

Significantly, neither “Holodomor” nor “Genocide” appear in the book’s
title, and of the 68 titles of sections and subsections in the book, the
term “genocide” is used only once in a subtitle, and in reference to
peasants, not Ukrainians: “The policy of total grain confiscation in the
Ukrainian village: genocide against the peasants.” [52]

Neither in that section, nor anywhere else in the almost 900-page opus, is
there any mention of the UN Convention on Genocide or an analysis of the
concept of genocide. As for Stalin’s border decree, there is only discussion
of its application and its effect in the sections on how peasants tried to
save themselves from the famine and in connection with the passport system.
[53] The more popular terms used in the book are “holodomor” and “terror by
famine.”

Mention should be made of the 80 documents on the famine, recently published
by Lubomyr Luciuk (Royal Military College in Kingston, Canada) and Shapoval
(Political and Ethnic Studies Institute, Kyiv). As the collection is
intended primarily for the academic public outside Ukraine, Shapoval
included a succinct introduction, in English, showing the most important
stages in the realization of Stalin’s famine-genocide.

The author briefly explains the border closing document and adds:
“appropriate instructions were issued to the transport departments of the
OGPU USSR” (the precursor of the better-known NKVD).[54] Notwithstanding
the sloppy appearance of the book, it is a worthwhile addition to the
material on the Ukrainian genocide.

Since many of the documents have already appeared in the original language
(Russian), it would have been more useful to give an English translation of
these documents. What is also baffling is the editor’s failure to include
the crucial Stalin-Molotov directive of 22 January 1933. Instead, the
editors published the follow-up directive, sent the next day by Kharkiv to
the Ukrainian regions, which does not have the same evidentiary value in
proving Stalin’s genocidal intent. [55]

Ukraine’s most prolific academic writer on the famine is Stanislav
Kulchytsky. His last major essay on the subject was first serialized in the
Ukrainian, Russian and English versions of the newspaper “Den,” under the
title “Why was Stalin Destroying Us.”[56] Then the Ukrainian and Russian
versions were adapted for a bilingual book published by the Institute of
History of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine under the title
“Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine as Genocide.” [57]

Kulchytsky’s conceptual paradigm is the notion of “terror by famine,”
borrowed from Robert Conquest [58] and also popular with many Western
and Ukrainian historians. Yet, as Egbert Jahn so cogently argued, a terror
policy seeks to alarm and intimidate people, and to be effective makes
available as much information as possible. This was not characteristic of
the famine and so “one cannot characterize the core of the Holodomor as
the use of hunger terror.” [59] “Terror by famine” is a misnomer.

Terror was employed to force the peasants into collective farms and to
confiscate their harvest. It was effective and achieved its goal. It also
caused some loss of life but did not result in mass extermination. Famine
came after most of the collectivization was already accomplished and the
peasants’ foodstuffs confiscated. Terror was employed throughout the whole
period towards party and state cadres to intimidate them into carrying out
Stalin’s genocidal policies toward the Ukrainian peasants, but these
functionaries did not die from the terror.

Terry Martin provides a good analysis of the measures taken to terrorize the
local communists in the Kuban.[60] Ukrainian peasants succumbed to
starvation when there was no need to scare them into the collective farms,
for most of them already were there, and when there was no need to scare
them into giving up their produce, because it had already been confiscated.
The peasants died from induced hunger, not fear. The “terror by famine”
cannot be used as a synonym for genocide, as Kulchytsky seems to imply by
his usage of the terms.

Kulchytsky set for himself the task of discovering Stalin’s motives for
destroying Ukrainians. Establishing the motive for a criminal act helps to
understand the criminal’s intention to commit it, but it is not a factor in
determining proof of genocide, according to the UN Convention. What the
Convention demands is proof of the intent itself.

Contrary to Kulchytsky’s claim, I believe that the Ukrainian famine of
1932-1933 does fit the UN definition of genocide. The two main concerns
of Article II – that the victim population fit one of the four identified
groups and that proof be given of the perpetrator’s genocidal intent – can
be satisfied with the available documents, the most revealing of which is
Stalin’s border decree.
THE 1932-1933 FAMINE AS GENOCIDE AGAINST UKRAINIANS
Stalin’s decree is directed against two groups of peasants, those living in
the Ukrainian SSR and those in the Northern Caucasus, especially the Kuban
region. Let us first examine the targeted population in the Ukrainian
republic.

Stalin complains of a massive flight of peasants from Ukraine to the near-by
regions of Russia and Belarus. These people pretend to search for food but
in fact, he claims, are social-revolutionaries and agents of Poland who
agitate in the northern parts of the USSR against the “kolkhoz” system. The
same thing happened the year before, but the party, state and police
authorities of Ukraine did nothing to stop it. It must not be allowed to
happen this year.

Stalin then orders the party, state and police authorities of Ukraine to
prevent peasants from crossing the border between Ukraine and the rest of
the USSR. Corresponding authorities in Belarus and the adjoining Russian
regions must prevent peasants from Ukraine to enter their territories.
Peasants guilty of disobeying the order must be arrested,
counter-revolutionary elements segregated for punishment, and the others
returned to their villages.

Stalin’s decree concerned all peasants of Ukraine. But since the UN
Convention only recognizes national and ethnic groups, the crucial question
is whether they were targeted as peasants or Ukrainians?

We have seen that the “national group” in the UN Convention’s has been
interpreted in the sense of “civic nation” and even a well-defined region.
In this regard, all the peasants within the borders of the Ukrainian SSR,
whatever their ethnic origin, were part of the Ukrainian nation. According
to the 1926 census, ethnically Ukrainian peasants made up 88.5 % of the
Republic’s peasant population; the ethnic and civic character of Ukrainian
peasantry overlapped.

Ethnically, Ukrainian peasants also made up 89.0 % of the Republic’s
ethnically Ukrainian population and 71.8 % of the Republic’s overall
population, and thus constituted the overwhelming portion of the Republic’s
population. It was this group that Stalin’s border decree singled out for
partial destruction, but did he see his enemies as peasants or Ukrainians?

Two months earlier, Kaganovich boasted in Rostov-on-Don that the Party had
definitively settled the question of who would defeat whom in the struggle
between the régime and its opponents. [61] Kaganovich was right regarding
the peasants: by then their opposition to collectivization was broken, as
was their “sabotage” of state procurement.

Ukrainian peasants – as peasants – were no more an obstacle to the Party’s
policies or a danger to its domination than were the Russian peasants. There
was no more need to exterminate them, than to eliminate the Russian
peasants. However, Ukrainian peasants presented a more formidable threat to
Stalin’s regime as Ukrainians.

In 1925, Stalin lectured the Yugoslav comrades on the national question. He
told them that the peasant question was “the basis, the quintessence of the
national question.” “That explains the fact,” he affirmed, “that the
peasantry constitutes the main army of the national movement, that there is
no powerful national movement without the peasant army.”

The social role of the peasantry is inexorably connected with its national
needs, and because of the peasants’ predominance in agrarian societies, the
national question becomes in essence a peasant question. And to be perfectly
clear, Stalin adds that the national question is “not an agrarian but a
peasant question, for these are two different things.” [62]

Stalin’s separation of the peasant’s economic and social functions is
noteworthy. Stalin criticized the Yugoslavs for underestimating “the
inherent strength of the national movement,” and warned them that the lack
of understanding and underestimation of the national question constituted a
grave danger.

Stalin’s convictions did not change in later years; he continued to be
vigilant lest the national movements endanger the integrity of his
multinational empire, and he had no intention of underestimating the
“profoundly popular and profoundly revolutionary character of the national
movement” in Soviet Ukraine, engendered by the Ukrainian national revival in
the 1920s and fanned by the Party-approved Ukrainianization. By the end of
1932, Ukrainian peasants had been vanquished as peasants; Stalin now
intended to eliminate a part of them – as Ukrainians.

Revealing evidence of Stalin’s concern for the national question is provided
by Stalin’s correspondence with Kaganovich in August 1932. The two agreed
that the Ukrainian party was dragging its feet on grain procurement and that
Petlyurites and agents of Pilsudski infiltrated the party.

Stalin raised the threat that unless proper measures were taken, “we can
lose Ukraine”; Kaganovich agreed, adding: “The theory that we, Ukrainians,
have unjustly suffered, fosters a solidarity and a rotten mutual guarantee
not only among the middle level cadres, but also at the top.”[63]

Of course, both knew that there was little threat from imaginary
“Petlyurites” or “Pilsudski agents,” who supposedly infiltrated the Party
(this was a directive for the Party on how to interpret these matters), but
there was an eventual threat from the Ukrainian national revival, whose
mainstay was the peasantry. Kremlin’s 14 December 1932 analysis of the
procurement difficulties in Ukraine and the North Caucasus was blamed on
the Ukrainianization policy, and both were attacked with a vengeance.

Moscow ordered Party and State authorities in Ukraine “to pay serious
attention to the proper conduct of Ukrainianization, eliminate its
application in a mechanical way, remove Petlyurite and other
bourgeois-nationalist elements from Party and Soviet organizations.”

They were also ordered to “carefully pick and train Ukrainian bolshevik
cadres, secure systematic party leadership and control over the process of
Ukrainianization.”[64] This was a blueprint for ethnocide; it effectively
put an end to Ukrainianization in Ukraine, and even more so in the RSFSR.
This document was more of a precursor for the genocidal Stalin border
directive than the passport decree.

The other region closed by Stalin’s 22 January 1933 directive was the North
Caucasus Territory, but the main target was its Kuban region. The directive
even begins with the notification about peasant exodus from “Kuban and
Ukraine.” What did the two targeted areas – Ukraine, a union republic, and
Kuban, a neighboring region of the RSFSR – have in common? They were
important grain-producing regions.

That is true, but so was the Central-Black Earth region, which was not
singled out. There was a more important consideration at that time for
Stalin and Kaganovich: the Ukrainianization program was transforming in a
dangerous way the overwhelmingly Ukrainian peasant population of Ukraine
and Kuban into Ukrainians, conscious of their national identity.

At that time, there were some eight million ethnic Ukrainians living outside
the Ukrainian SSR, mostly in the regions of the RSFSR, contiguous with
Ukraine. The North Caucasus had about three million Ukrainians, and almost
half of them lived in the Kuban region, where it constituted about two
thirds of the population.

Also significant was the fact that about one-half million of the Kuban
Ukrainians were not of traditional peasants stock but descendants of
Ukrainian Zaporozhian Kozaks, people with a military history and democratic
traditions. It was in these regions that most of the starvation outside
Ukraine took place. (Kazakhstan is a separate case.)

The Ukrainianization of the Ukrainian “colonies” in the RSFSR, and
especially of the Kuban, had already added fuel to what Martin calls the
Piedmontist principle of border disputes between the Ukrainian SSR and
Moscow. The peasant/Kozak population could prove to be a disruptive force
in the future.

In its 14 December 1932 decision, Moscow took to task the party and state
authorities of the North Caucasus Territory: “… the flippancy in carrying
out unbolshevik ‘Ukrainianization’ of almost half of the districts of North
Caucasus, which did not come from the cultural interests of the population,
and which was carried out with a complete absence of controls on the part of
regional organs over the Ukrainianization of the schools and the press, gave
the enemies of the Soviet power legal cover for organizing opposition by
kulaks, [former] officers, returning Cossack emigrants, members of the Kuban
Rada [analogous to the Ukrainian Central Rada of 1917-1918], etc.” [65]

The prescribed punishment was harsh: “Immediately change the clerical work
of the Soviet and cooperative organs and all the newspapers and journals in
the ‘Ukrainianized’ districts of North Caucasus from the Ukrainian language
to the Russian language, as the more understandable to the Kuban population,
and also prepare the transfer of teaching in schools into the Russian
language.” The local authorities were further warned to immediately verify
and improve the composition of school personnel in the “Ukrainianized”
districts. [66]

The foregoing examination of Stalin’s twin targets should be sufficient to
show that their common characteristic was their national or ethnic identity.
The nexus joining the Ukrainian national group in the Ukrainian SSR (whether
taken in its civic or ethnic sense) and the Ukrainian ethnic group in Kuban
was their Ukrainianness.

The requirement of the UN Convention on Genocide is thus satisfied:
Ukrainian peasants in Ukraine and in the RSFSR were being destroyed in their
capacity as Ukrainians; their agrarian role was secondary. Peasants were the
most numerous part of the Ukrainian national/ethnic group, consisting also
of intellectuals, state and party functionaries, and workers; and it was
this group that Stalin’s régime decided, in the language of the UN
Convention, “to destroy in part.”

The non-peasant Ukrainians did not die from starvation, but they were
definitely victims of the same genocidal intent. The intent was not to
destroy the whole Ukrainian nation (nor is total destruction of a specified
group a condition for the recognition of genocide by the UN Convention).

The intention was to destroy the élites and a sufficiently large portion of
the most dynamic element of the Ukrainian national group so as to cripple
the Ukrainian nation and reduce Ukrainians to what Stalin liked to call
“cogs” in the great state mechanism.

Stalin’s genocidal intent should be sufficiently clear from the various
documents originated by him or signed by others on his orders or in
anticipation of such. Schabas insists that the “genocidaire” must have
knowledge of the consequences of his act. [67]

Stalin was privy to all the important documentation of the Soviet state,
cognizant of, and personally responsible for, all the policies, which
resulted in the death of millions of innocent people. The régime’s public
denial of the famine and its rejection of foreign aid cannot be interpreted
in any other way than as a flaunting admission of its intent to starve the
population to death.

The most heinous crime of Stalin and his Communist régime is now quite
well known, especially to the academic community, but various aspects of
the catastrophe still need further research, systematization and
conceptualization. This question of the Ukrainian genocide is a case in
point. We need a breakdown by nationality of the population that died from
the famine in the RSFSR to see how many of the victims were ethnic
Russians, Ukrainians, Germans, Tatars and other nationalities.

There is no systematic study to shows the forms and the degree of
discriminatory practices of the Stalinist régime in its policies towards
different localities and nationalities in the ethnically mixed regions with
regards to the procurement quotas, the implementation of Moscow orders.

The national composition of command structure and the cadres that carried
out food confiscation and distribution must also be examined in a more
systematic way. There was some internal aid to some of the hungry
population, but the economic and other reasons behind the régime’s help
need a more thorough study.

While the very existence of the famine was vehemently denied and foreign
efforts to organize famine relief were rejected, some foreign aid did get
through to the German and Jewish communities, but this aspect of the Soviet
policies is generally ignored in the literature on the famine, possibly
because it has not been sufficiently explored and documented. This
additional research will give us a more complete knowledge and a better
understanding of the Ukrainian famine and help establish its genocidal
character.                                              -30-
————————————————————————————————
NOTE:  Roman Serbyn is Professor of History at University of
Quebec and the author of numerous articles on Ukrainian history and
nationalities problems in Ukraine in the 19th and 20th centuries.  He is
also the editor or co-editor of a number of books, inclusing “Federalisme
et Nations” (1969) and “Famine in Ukraine, 1932-1933” (1986).  His
most recent book was “Za yaku spadshchynu?” (1986)
———————————————————————————————–
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See, for example, R. W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcraft, “The Years
of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933″ (New York : Palgrave Macmillan,
2004).
[2] Ukrainian Weekly, 16 November 2003.
[3] Kuchynsky at the UN discussion of Holocaust Day, 1 November 2005.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Stanislav V. Kulchytsky, “Holod 1932-1933 rr. v Ukrayini yak henotsyd”
(Kyiv, 2005), pp. 3, 21.
[6] This is the “Den” version (24 November 2005). In the book version (p.
85), “not Ukrainians” was dropped.
[7] ICCEES VII World Congress Abstracts, “Europe – Our Common Home?”
(Berlin, 25-30 July 2005), pp. 247-248. The importance of the intent as
defined by the convention is shown in Michael Ellman, “The Role of
Leadership Perceptions and of Intent in the Soviet Famine of 1931-1934,”
“Europa-Asia Studies,” vol. 57, no. 6 (September 2005), pp. 823-841.
(Emphasis added by author.)
[8] “Den,” 8 November 2005.
[9] Raphael Lemkin, “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation –
Analysis of Government – Proposals for Redress” (Washington, D.C.:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1944), p. 80.
[10] “Les actes constituant un danger général (interétatique) considérés
comme delites du droit des gens,” “Librarie de la cour d’appel et de l’order
des advocates” (Paris, 1933).
[11] Lemkin, p. 80.; [12] Emphasis added by author.
[13] William A. Schabas, “Genocide in International Law. The Crime of
Crimes” (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), Chapter 3.
Groups protected by the Convention.
[14] Ibid., p. 115.; [15] Ibid., p. 237.
[16] Leo Kuper, “Genocide. Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century”
(Penguin, 1981), p. 35.
[17] On circumstantial evidence, see Ellman, pp. 829-830.
[18] Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn, “The History and Sociology of
Genocide. Analyses and Case Studies” (New Haven and London : Yale
University Press, 1990), p. 29.
[19] Schabas, p. 245.
[20] Most active in the field have been Ukrainian historians: Stanislav
Kulchytsky, Yuri Shapoval, Valeriy Vasilev, Volodymyr Serhiychuk and a few
others. See also “Holod 1932-1933 rokiv v Ukraini: prychyny ta naslidky”
(Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 2003).
[21] V. P. Danilov and I. E. Zelenin, “Orhanizovannyi golod: k 70-letiiu
obshchkrestianskoi trahedii,” “Otechestvennaya istoriya,” no. 5 (2004).
[22] Among the most recent publications: Vernichtung durch Hunger: “Der
Holodomor in der Ukraine und der UdSSR.” (A special issue of Osteuropa).
December 2004; “La morte della terra: La grande “carestia” in Ucraina nel
1932-1933. Atti del Convegno Vicenza, 16-188 ottobre 2003″ (Roma : Viella,
2004); Robert Conquest, “Raccolto di dolore” (Italian edition of Harvest of
Sorrow) (Roma : Liberal edizioni, 2004).
[23] Ellman, p. 835.; [24] Danilov and Zelenin, p. 107.
[25] “Dyskusiyi i obsuzhdeniya. Kollektivizatsiya: uroki, sushchnost,
posledsviya,” “Istoriya SSSR,” no. 3 (1989), p. 46.  The telegram is wrongly
dated here as 23 January instead of of 22 January.
[26] E. H. Oskolkov, “Golod 1932/1933,” in “Khlebozagotovki i golod
1932-1933 goda v Severno-Kavkazkom krae (Rostov-na-Donu, 1991),”
pp. 75-76.
[27] “Kollektivizatsiia: istoky, sushchnosst, posledstviia. Beseda za
‘kruglym stolom’,”  “Istoriya SSSR,” pp. 46-52.
[28] “Dyrektyvnyi lyst TsK KP(b0U ta Radnarkomu USRR vsim obkomam
partii ta oblvykonkomam pro neprypustymist’ masovykh vyizdiv kolhospnykiv
ta odnoosibnykiv za mezhi Ukrainy,” in “Holod 1932-1933 rokiv na Ukraini:
ochyma istorykiv, movoiu dokumentiv” (Kyiv, 1990), pp. 341-342.
[29] “Holodomor 1932-1933 rr. v Ukraini: prychyny i naslidky. Mizhnarodna
naukova konferentsiia.” Kyiv, 9-10 veresnia 1993. Materialy. (Kyiv, 1995),
p. 43.
[30] Ibid., p. 121.
[31] “O golode 1932-1933 godov i eho otsenka na Ukraine,” “Otechestvennaya
istoriya,” no. 6. (1994), pp. 256-262. (Signed: I. E. Zelenin, N. A.
Ivnitskiy, V. V. Kondrashin, E. N. Oskolkov.)
[32] N. A. Ivnitskiy, “Kollektivizatsiia i raskulachyvanie (nachala 30-kh
godov)” (Moskva, 1994), p. 204. (Reedited in 1996.)
[33] Nicolas Werth, “Un État contre son peuple. Violence, répression,
terreurs en Union soviétique,” in Stéphane Courtois et al. (eds.), Le livre
noir du communisme. “Crimes, terreur, repression” (Paris: 1997), p. 183. For
convenience, all references here are to the English edition: “The Black Book
of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression” (Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1999).
[34] Ibid., p. 164.; [35] Ibid., p. 168.
[36] “Le pouvoir soviétique et la paysannerie dans les rapports de la police
politique (1930-1934),” “Bulletin de l’IHTP,” nos. 81-82 (December 2003).
[37] Nikolia Vert, “Gosudarstvo protiv svoego naroda. Nasilie, repressii i
terror v Sovetskom Soiuze,” in Stefan Kurtua et al., “Chernaia kniga
komunizma. Prestupleniia terror i repressi.” (Moskva: Tri Veka Istoriyi,
1999), p. 170.
[38] Courtois, “Introduction. The Crimes of Communism” in “The Black
Book,” p. 9.
[39] Terry Martin, “The Affirmative Action Empire. Nations and Nationalism
in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939″ (Ithaca and London, 2001). See Chapter 7:
“The National Interpretation of the 1933 Famine”; the translation is on pp.
306-307.
[40] Terry Martin, “The 1932-1933 Ukrainian Terror: New Documentation on
Surveillance and the Thought Process of Stalin,” in “Famine-Genocide in
Ukraine 1932-1933″ (Toronto, 2003), p. 98. The Ukrainian version, Teri
Martyn, “Pro kozhnoho z nas dumaye Stalin … ,” “Krytyka” (December
2003), contains a Ukrainian translation of the document (pp. 17-18).
[41] D’Ann Penner, “The Agrarian Strike of 1932-1933” (Kennan Institute for
Advanced Russian Studies, Occasional Papers #269) (March 1998), p. 23.
[42] Ibid., p. 32.; [43] Ibid. p. 28.
[44] M. P. Kots (ed.), “Holod-henotsyd 1933 roku v Ukrayini:
istoryko-politychnyi analiz sotsialno-demohrafichnyky ta
moralno-psykholohichnykh naslidkiv. Mizhnarodna naukovo-teoretychna
konferentsiya. Kyiv, 28 lystopada 1998″ (Kyiv, 2000) ; see Ivnitskiy, p.
113; Serhiychuk, p. 125; Lukyanenko, pp. 240-247; Zdioruk, pp. 248-252.
[45] “Holodomory v Ukrayini 1921-1923, 1932-1933, 1946-1947: Zlochyny
protry narodu” (Kyiv, 2000), p. 104. [Emphasis added by author.]
[46] Valeriy Vasilev, “Tsina holodnoho khliba: polityka kerivnytstva SRSR i
USRR v 1932-1933 rr.,” in “Komandyry velykoho holodu: Poyizdky V.
Molotova i L. Kahanovycha v Ukrayinu ta na Pivnichnyi Kavkaz” (Kyiv:
Heneza, 2001), p. 67.
[47] “Tragediya sovetskoi derevni. Collectivizatsia i raskulachivanie.
Dokumenty i material,” vol. 3 (Moskva: ROSSPEN, 2001), pp. 634-635.
[48] “Stalin i Kaganovich Perepiska. 1931-1936” (Moskva: ROSSPEN, 2001).
[49] “Ukrayina. Parlametski slukhannya shchodo vshanuvannya pamyati zhertv
holodomoru 1932-1933 rokiv. 12 lyutoho 2003 roku” (Kyiv, 2003); see
Tabachnyk, pp. 12-24; Kulchytsky, pp. 68-70.
[50] Rudolf Ia. Myrsky, “Holodomor i Kholokost v Ukrayini yak
vseukrayinska trahediya (filosofsko-politolohichni rozdumy,” “Visnyk
natsionalnoho universytetu ‘Lvivska politekhnika'”, no. 493 (2003), p. 299.
[51] Yuri Shapoval, “Holod 1932-1933 rokiv: Kreml i politychne kerivnytstvo
USRR,” in “Try holodomory v Ukrayini v XXst.: pohlyad iz sohodennya.
Materialy mizhnarodnoyi naukovoyi konferentsiyi” (Kyiv, 2003), pp. 43-45,
36.
[52] “Polityka totalnoho vyluchennya khliba v ukrayinskomu seli: henotsyd
proty selyan,” in II NANU. Holod 1932-1933 rokiv v Ukrayini: prychyny ta
naslidky (Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 2003), p. 440.
[53] Ibid., pp. 551, 632-633.
[54] Shapoval (ed.), “The Famine-Genocide of 1932-1933 in Ukraine.”
(Kashtan Press, 2005), p. 9.
[55] Ibid., pp. 282-283.
[56] “Chomu Stalin nas nyshchyv,” “Den” (25 October, 8 November and 22
November 2005) ; rendered into English as “Why Did Stalin Exterminate
Ukrainians.”
[57] Stanislav V. Kulchytsky, “Holod 1932-1933 rr. v Ukrayini yak henotsyd”
(Kyiv: II NANU, 2005). The book’s relation to the Den articles is not
mentioned, nor is the reader informed that changes (some of them quite
important) had been made in the book version.
[58] Conquest, “Harvest of Sorrow. Soviet Collectivization and the Terror
Famine” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).
[59] Egbert Jahn, “On the Phenomonology of Mass Extermination in Europe.
A Comparative Perspective on the Holodomor,” in “Osteuropa. Sketches of
Europe: Old Lands, New Worlds” (Bonn, 2005), p. 212.
[60] Martin, “The Affirmative Action Empire,”  pp. 300-301.
[61] “Komandyry velykoho holodu,” p. 49.
[62] J. V. Stalin, “Concerning the National Question in Yugoslavia,” in
“Works,” vol. 7 (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1954),
pp. 71-72.
[63] “Stalin i Kaganovich Perepiska”; see Stalin, p. 274; Kaganovich, p.
283. [64] “Tragedia Sovetskoi Derevni,: T. 3., p. 577.
[65] “Tragediya sovetskoi derevni,” pp. 576-577.
[66] Ibid., p. 577.; [67] Schabas, p. 207.

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
“ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR”
A Free, Private, Not-For-Profit, Independent, Public Service Newsletter
With major support from The Bleyzer Foundation
Articles are Distributed For Information, Research, Education, Academic,
Discussion and Personal Purposes Only. Additional Readers are Welcome.
========================================================
TO BE ON OR OFF THE FREE AUR DISTRIBUTION LIST
If you would like to read the ACTION UKRAINE REPORT- AUR,
around three times a week, please send your name, country of residence,
and e-mail contact information to morganw@patriot.net. Information about
your occupation and your interest in Ukraine is also appreciated.
 
If you do not wish to read the ACTION UKRAINE REPORT please
contact us immediately by e-mail to morganw@patriot.net.  If you are
receiving more than one copy please let us know so this can be corrected. 
========================================================
PUBLISHER AND EDITOR – AUR
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Director, Government Affairs
Washington Office, SigmaBleyzer, The Bleyzer Foundation
Emerging Markets Private Equity Investment Group;
President, U.S.-Ukraine Business Council, Washington;
1701 K Street, NW, Suite 903, Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel: 202 437 4707; Fax 202 223 1224
mwilliams@SigmaBleyzer.com; www.SigmaBleyzer.com
========================================================
Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
========================================================
return to index [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s