Here is a video that does a decent job going over the mainstream scholarship on the Holodomor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kaaYvauNho
It appears that many of the scholars who study the Soviet Union and the Holodomor in particular believe that the Holodomor was not an intentional genocide of Ukrainians but was at most the result of brutal policies that did not have the intention of killing any specific ethnic group.
Those who hold to this view are Wheatcroft, Davies, Kotkin, Fitzpatrick, Tauger, and even Conquest. And these are not all "pro Soviet" historians. Kotkin is an anti-Communist. Conquest is an anti-communist and even originated the genocide thesis for the Holodomor which he later renounced. Tauger basically has his own theories about how famines happen that leads him to downplay the human elements in all famines, so he's not taking a "pro Soviet" line, as he also downplayed human involvement in the Bengel famine which Churchill is usually blamed for.
So there is enough intellectual freedom to allow historians to revise their positions that are more favorable to the Soviet Union, but we have still erected a taboo around the holocaust. As I showed, it would be absurd to call several of the people I listed as "pro Soviet". Yet anytime someone engages in revisionist research about the holocaust, it is decided that they all must have intentions to rehabilitate the Nazi regime. This is a blatant double standard. There should be the same intellectual freedom regarding the holocaust as there is for the Holodomor.
Mainstream Historians on the Holodomor vs the Holocaust
Moderator: Moderator
Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Re: Mainstream Historians on the Holodomor vs the Holocaust
Now imagine 'the Holodomor' would be portrayed as 'intentional genocide' in that case that would be 'competition' with 'the Holocaust'. And that is a no-no for academics that still want to have a stylish career in front of them.
And bear in mind the leftist domination in Academia. As far as Humanities are concerned. Many if not most Academics were Soviet Communist sympathizers. Now they didn't always show this openly of course. But one could quickly know, when they started talking about 'Capitalism' and the 'Soviet Union' as well as from rants against 'US-imperialism'. There was a selectivity basis there. Those favored groups were virtually always the Communist ones, while those that were non or anti-Communist were 'the bad guys'.
You only have to look at the funding, attention both affairs get to see who is calling the shots in case of Holocaust/Holodomor.
As far as 'selective Revisionism' is concerned. Yes, you can entertain virtually any position on any regime and any part of history as long as you can add some documents or dispute the lack of it.
That's except Hitler, Holocaust and National Socialism. there it seems to be poured into concrete blocks. And for those challenging this, it's the dungeons.
Now they may be fighting about benign details of the matter. Even whether "The Holocaust" was 'intentional' or 'spontaneous' (or just functional). But those really are pseudo-debates in which the paradigm never gets challenged.
It's kind of a debate among cardinals in the Vatican. They may debate certain theological or strategic questions. The core dogma of the Catholic Church will however never be challenged. And people may be surprised on what their hierarchy of dogmata actually is.
The thing a cardinal wants is keeping his position or expanding it. So, he acts accordingly.
And bear in mind the leftist domination in Academia. As far as Humanities are concerned. Many if not most Academics were Soviet Communist sympathizers. Now they didn't always show this openly of course. But one could quickly know, when they started talking about 'Capitalism' and the 'Soviet Union' as well as from rants against 'US-imperialism'. There was a selectivity basis there. Those favored groups were virtually always the Communist ones, while those that were non or anti-Communist were 'the bad guys'.
You only have to look at the funding, attention both affairs get to see who is calling the shots in case of Holocaust/Holodomor.
As far as 'selective Revisionism' is concerned. Yes, you can entertain virtually any position on any regime and any part of history as long as you can add some documents or dispute the lack of it.
That's except Hitler, Holocaust and National Socialism. there it seems to be poured into concrete blocks. And for those challenging this, it's the dungeons.
Now they may be fighting about benign details of the matter. Even whether "The Holocaust" was 'intentional' or 'spontaneous' (or just functional). But those really are pseudo-debates in which the paradigm never gets challenged.
It's kind of a debate among cardinals in the Vatican. They may debate certain theological or strategic questions. The core dogma of the Catholic Church will however never be challenged. And people may be surprised on what their hierarchy of dogmata actually is.
The thing a cardinal wants is keeping his position or expanding it. So, he acts accordingly.
Re: Mainstream Historians on the Holodomor vs the Holocaust
fireofice wrote:Here is a video that does a decent job going over the mainstream scholarship on the Holodomor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kaaYvauNho
It appears that many of the scholars who study the Soviet Union and the Holodomor in particular believe that the Holodomor was not an intentional genocide of Ukrainians but was at most the result of brutal policies that did not have the intention of killing any specific ethnic group.
....
Systematically downplaying here as well:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/D26ot2SeFPqf/
That may indicate why people of a certain ethnic background are so interested in Soviet History there. Make sure one can dominate the field and avoid that people look to close into the role of their ethnic group there.
Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”
