A while ago she showed my our family tree. Half of it was suddenly wiped out by the Holodomor. And over the next ten years it was pruned away to almost nothing as most relatives where enslaved and then murdered in The Gulag (which most people also don't know anything about). It's not something you can really argue about with her.
Exactly. Some behaviour lasts generations.
Here's the one without:
> On November 28, 2020, light a candle in your window, as a memory of every bright soul tortured during the Holodomor of 1932-1933 – the genocide of the Ukrainian nation.
> We want everyone to be remembered – starved, unborn, numbered, and UNCOUNTED
Der Spiegel tries to pin him down as a reactionary Putinist and anti-semite. I think the attempt fails but judge for yourself. I don't think we have a category for people like Solzhenitsyn anymore but "jew-hater, authoritarian, reactionary" doesn't seem accurate to me.
Also, after the Holocaust it is extremely inappropriate for any non-Jew to suggest that the Jews as a people have done anything bad or negative. The sole appropriate thing Solzhenitsyn could have done with regard to the Jews is either say something nice or not say anything at all.
This only follows if we accept the axiom "Jews aren't Russian". I'm not convinced that he thinks that (and I certainly don't).
> Also, after the Holocaust it is extremely inappropriate for any non-Jew to suggest that the Jews as a people have done anything bad or negative. The sole appropriate thing Solzhenitsyn could have done with regard to the Jews is either say something nice or not say anything at all.
To me, this is intellectual cowardice.
As far as I know, Solzhenitsyn's controversial view about Jews in the USSR is that they were viewed as less likely to be counterrevolutionary, and therefore quickly climbed the party hierarchy...at least initially. Stalin eventually adopted various anti-semitic measures (and Solzhenitsyn mentions this in The First Circle).
Rich villagers were declared as enemies of the Soviets. They were killed and deported even before 1930.
Nowadays Russia still denies it was a man-made famine. With all the evidence. Think twice before giving this country any credits for its "achievements". It's all on blood and terror.
I would rather say it shows how The New York Times and its star reporter Walter Duranty produced tons of lies to cover the Holodomor.
The Pulitzer Prize Board still won't revoke his prize he was awarded for this propaganda, claiming he was just an unwitting dupe. The movie counters that excuse pretty well.
If it weren't for Hotel Rwanda, the Rwandan genocide might go unnoticed. The Khmer Rouge are barely known. And everyone might joke that "Haha the North Koreans have no food" on the edgier parts of the Internet but ultimately, 3.5 million could have died there and we would barely have noticed.
That's not even because of some evil ignorance - it's just that people always see things from their reference point (and not even big vs small). American Independence was a big deal to America but not a big deal to the UK. Brexit is a big deal to the UK but no one outside really gives that much of a damn. And think about the Vietnam War - it's this massive moment in American history but to the Vietnamese it is one massive moment sandwiched between their wars with two other superpowers.
Of course, now the tail might wag the dog, and the film might introduce the conflict to a younger generation that missed the reportage at the time.
Much of it was dysfunctional economics, but much was also deliberate genocides of disposable populations.
Nonsense. The Bengal famine was caused by factors beyond British control, including the Japanese invasion of Burma and multiple natural disasters in Bengal which had a devastating effect on rice imports and grain production. The British failed to completely alleviate the famine, yes, but they did alleviate it partially by sending over 100,000 tons of grain to aid the region, and they would have sent more if shipping had been available (there was the small matter of a gigantic global war going on).
And of course if it wasn't for the British then Bengal would have eventually been conquered by the Japanese, who had far worse plans for the area than anything the British managed.
Comparing Britain's failures in Bengal to Stalin's genocide is offensive, revisionist garbage.
In the summer of 1930, the government instituted a program of food requisitioning, ostensibly to increase grain exports. Subsequently, in 1932, food theft was made punishable by death or 10 years imprisonment.
At every [train] station there was a crowd of peasants in rags, offering ikons and linen in exchange against a loaf of bread. The women were lifting up their infants to the compartment windows—infants pitiful and terrifying with limbs like sticks, puffed bellies, big cadaverous heads lolling on thin necks.
Why is it that the hammer and sickle and other communist symbols are still proudly worn by so many people? Why hasn't there been a severe and rightful reckoning, like with nazi symbols?
I'm not sure if it's appropriate to wipe out the comments about Holodomor on the Holodomor rememberence day.
When I've (accurately and politely) pushed back on ahistorical anticommunist narratives in the past, I've been rate-limited and warned by HN mods. While commenting on the economics of the USSR in a post about... the economics of the USSR versus other countries, for example. And this is as someone highly critical of the USSR.
Note that there are already various ahistorical anticommunist comments above. Unfortunately, due to the way in which this tragedy entered the public consciousness in different countries, it is a very political topic.