The first historian he mentions is James E. Mace. According to a quote from Mace’s book, the famine was genocidal. Mace’s reason for this is that the famine was used to destroy the Ukrainians as a people, since Stalin wanted to subdue Ukrainian nationalism and to take away any political threat they might represent to his power. Mace also says that the area of the famine was only in Ukraine and nowhere else -- and that just cannot be a coincidence (Bilinsky 1). Bilinsky also cites Roman Serbyn’s and Bohdan Krawchenko’s thoughts on this. Neither historian believes the famine was genocidal. They say that the lack of and inaccessibility of records of the time make it hard to know the cause of the famine and whether Stalin intended it. They …show more content…
Vasyl Hryshko, though, believes that the famine was genocide. He claims that collectivization was forced with far more speed and cruelty upon the Ukrainian peasants than on their contemporaries in other parts of the USSR, mainly because Stalin wanted to destroy the peasantry of Ukraine and their nationalism (Bilinsky 2). Robert Conquest believes that the famine was genocide, too, claiming that it was also an attack on the Ukrainian peasantry and their nationality. He also points out that while the Ukrainians were starving, perfectly fed police were enforcing Stalin’s policies, and that the police even prevented people from going to other places to find food. The US commission on the famine determined in their report to Congress that the famine was intended to kill Ukrainians and to neutralize them politically (Bilinsky 2). Since he is one of my main sources is this repetitive to what I say later when I do his source? Or should I write: he also writes about Robert Conquest but I will go into more depth about him later on Andrei Sakharov says in his argument that the famine was genocide. He claims that Stalin believed there could be no Ukrainian national movement if he