Talk:Holodomor

Misleading Introduction: “Man-Made” Famine

• Point

The introduction of this article is inherently misleading. The 1st paragraph is the following (as of 24/01/26):
"The Holodomor, also known as the Ukrainian famine, was a massive man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians. The Holodomor was part of the wider Soviet famine of 1930–1933 which affected the major grain-producing areas of the Soviet Union."
To explicitly state that this famine was “made-made”, and then proceed to state afterward that it is generally unknown (and still is in dispute) on whether it was in fact man-made or not is nothing more than buffoonery.

• Argument

This is the second paragraph of the article:
"While scholars agree the famine was primarily man-made, it remains in dispute whether the Holodomor was intentional, whether it was directed at Ukrainians, and whether it constitutes a genocide, the point of contention being the absence of attested documents explicitly ordering the starvation of any area in the Soviet Union."
This quite literally does not make sense. In other words (this is what it states):
"We do not know if the Holodomor was made-made, as there is a lack of historical proof, and official documentation. However, a lot of intellectuals state that it so, therefore it must be."
As stated by I: this nothing more than buffoonery. We are unaware if the famine was artificial, but because so-called “scholars” agree on it, that now designates it as a fact? No.

• Analysis

I am certain all know very well that the Ukrainian famine (or so-called “Holodomor”) is a highly politicalized historical event. The reality that this famine has far more attention (on a major scale) compared to Kazakhstan famine should itself raise suspicion. The political push of this historical famine ties with modern politics today as well as various such events that are occurring right now (of which I merely mention for further points but will not focus on). Note: the Holodomor was used in national-socialist propaganda throughout Europe during the German invasion of the Soviet Union and during the establishment of Reichskommissariat Ukraine. Today: the Holodomor is still used throughout both moderate and extreme Ukrainian (and European) nationalist or Russophobic ideological alignments and movements (of which there is no reason why the imperial-core shouldn't and wouldn't use this as yet another piece of propaganda for anti-Russian sentiment).

• Conclusion

I do not deny this famine; it was very much real. However: to proclaim (as a fact) of it being “man-made” when we do not possess the knowledge nor valid proof that it was is itself unfactual. Therefore: the hyphenated compound word “man-made” in the introduction should be removed for misinformation. Correct me if I am mistaken.
Vzomegahe (talk) 3:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, it is man-made because it was caused by soviet policies. Even if unintentionally (Though we know, thanks to the Soviet Archives, that Stalin knew about the famine yet imposed harsher grain quotas) hope this helps ~2026-11229-98 (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The Soviets exacerbated the famine into an even worse one through incompetence and mismanagement, but this does not mean that they created the famine in totality. There were undeniable environmental factors that caused the famine in the first place. I'd even settle for "partially man-made". TrenchWanderer (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

We already say "While scholars agree the famine was primarily man-made", which seems fine and accurate enough. Weakening it to "partially" would deviate from what the consensus/majority view seems to be. Gawaon (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Genocide

Why arent we calling a man made famine genocide? ~2026-12784-59 (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph answers this. — Czello ^(music) 07:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2026

There is no dispute that the starvation was caused by policies under Stalin. ~2026-38048-36 (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The current ‘causes’ list contrasts contemporary mainstream historian views

Causes listed on this page are as follows: Industrialization policy, Dekulakization, collectivization, intentional starvation. Yet in The Years of Hunger published in 2004, historians Davies and Wheatcroft argue that the famine was caused by the combination of natural disasters and the Soviet policies. Please see: Preface to the revised addition page XV, as well as Chapter 3, subsection C, page 69.

There was a severe drought and scorching dry winds (sukhovei) affecting grain producing regions like the Volga, the Urals, and Kazakhstan in 1931. The weather in 1932 was also unfavorable with a cold spring delaying sowing, as well as a hot July hitting crops during their vulnerable flowering stage. Furthermore, the 1932 harvest was severely impacted by a rust (fungal disease) epidemic as well as ergot and smut reducing yields. (Please see Chapter 5, Subsection C, page 131).

Most importantly, Davies and Wheatcroft state the following: “Russian historians sometimes call the famine ‘rukotvornyi' - man-made - on the grounds that it was ultimately a result of the forcible collectivisation of agriculture, and that is more defensible. But in our opinion they and Conquest underestimate the role of climate and other natural causes in producing the bad harvests of 1931 and 1932, and are mistaken in believing that the 1932 harvest was an average harvest rather than a poor one.”

For context, Conquest writings took place prior to the opening of the Soviet archives.

Consequently, I believe the exclusion of natural causes from the list and inclusion of the highly debated intentional starvation is a failure on the part of Wikipedia and reflects ideological bias and intellectual dishonesty. I am requesting we include natural causes in that list. Ghost-of-Kantorovich (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

We already cover these authors in the article. To cite just the first mention: 'The term "man-made" is, however, questioned by historians such as R. W. Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft, according to whom those who use this term "underestimate the role of ... natural causes", though they agree that the Holodomor was largely a result of Stalin's economic policies.' (emphasis added) So the two still agree that natural causes were but a minor factor. Our list of causes cannot cover every cause, only the major ones. Plus their view is of course not the only possible one – they seem to sit near one end of the spectrum of serious academic debate, while others, such as Olga Andriewsky, are closer to the other end. Our article should represent the debate as it is, without blindly following any single position – and I think it does so quite well. Gawaon (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The authors used or not used in the article is not what is being contested, nor am I questioning the use of the term man-made to describe the famine.

There is a substantial sect of revisionist historians who believe the famine was both: 1. The direct result of Soviet policies and collectivization. 2. Would not have happened without the aforementioned adverse environmental/agricultural conditions. I mentioned Davies and Wheatcroft only because of the breadth of their research and its usage as a source by other historians commonly cited (e.g Applebaum). I could have mentioned Dr. Mark Tauger, who made his views well known in his exchange with Dr. Applebaum. I could also mention Dr. Michael Ellman who stated in Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 Revisited:

“I do not think that Stalin's starvation policy was the only, or even the main, cause of the famine. I completely accept that, if there had been two good harvests in 1931 and 1932, there would not have been a famine…”

These historians are not fringe nobodies. Their research has served as the foundation for many academic works on the topic.

I have read The Years of Hunger in it’s entirety. The authors call the natural factors a central feature in the famine, concluding they view it as “but a minor factor” seems a stretch.

Excluding adverse environmental/agricultural conditions from the list in the name of “We can’t cover every cause” while including intentional starvation of Ukrainians is clearly taking a stand. Ghost-of-Kantorovich (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The latter is marked as "disputed", which you seem to have overlooked. Also note that a factor, as such, is not a cause. A bad harvest can lead to hunger in pre-industrial societies, but usually not in industrial societies, which have storage and transregional supply chains to deal with such issues. So why did hunger nevertheless develop in this case, and on such a huge scale? That's what the causes are meant to address. Gawaon (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn’t overlook it. The fact that we’re listing causes that are disputed raises further questions why natural causes is excluded. Is it somehow beneath even being called a disputed cause? Who decided that? D. and W. use the specific term “cause” to describe the aforementioned natural phenomenon multiple times, not sure I understand the point you’re making there. Regardless, whether or not you or I think there’s validity to the views of Wheatcroft and Davies and Tauger and Ellman is entirely irrelevant. Their general position is that if these particular things (The aforementioned natural causes) had not taken place, there wouldn’t have been a famine. Say I am running down my driveway too quickly, to the point of being reckless. Suddenly I slip on a branch on the ground. All the witnesses agree if I had not been running recklessly, I certainly would not have fallen. Me running recklessly was indeed the primary driver in my fall. But some witnesses say if the branch had not been in that particular spot in that particular moment, my fall would not have been triggered. Our job is to document what the credible witnesses say. Not to pick sides. These are value judgements that are, with all due respect to you and your many many contributions, not yours to make. Ghost-of-Kantorovich (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Note that an infobox needs to be short and to the point, hence giving (in this case) the main causes rather than aiming for completeness. No way around that. If you want the full details, read "Causes of the Holodomor", which already exists. If you want even more details, read all the original literature. Gawaon (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Then intentional starvation should be removed. People can learn that debate from the original literature as you suggest. ~2026-43937-37 (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)