Asklemmy

Interesting, didn't know about that. Didn't say anything about the USSR forcing it on him, though, nor did it seem to outweigh the west's spread of the Nazis take on the famine.

Circling back, my stance is

1. In the early 1930s, the USSR tried to collectivize agriculture from the bourgeois Kulaks, who were not at all an ethnic group

2. At the same time, there was drought, flooding, and pests which lowered harvest yields

3. The Kulaks resisted collectivization, burning their crops and killing their livestock rather than handing it over to the Communists

4. The Red Army retailiated violently against these Kulaks

5. The Nazi Press spread stories about it being an intentional famine amounting to targeted genocide, rather than a humanitarian tragedy

6. The West tended to favor the Nazi's story

7. Outside of WWII, this was the last major famine in the USSR, as collectivization ultimately allowed for industrialized farming. Even if the collectivization process was botched and should have happened after industrialized private farming was mastered, it ultimately ended famines after the tragic famine.

Which of these 7 points do you disagree with? All are supported by the Holodomor Wikipedia Article, so if you do disagree you can help edit the article on Wikipedia if you have evidence.