But not so in the 30s when Ukrainian nationalism was decried as 'bourgeois nationalism', subverting an over-arching Soviet identity.
I thought it was a general trend regarding diversity. Fwiw USSR carried on with this policy until '89. A sensible path considering that utin/RF has continued with this idea for the RF.
You could be right about the change of direction in the 30s. Need to check my source at some point. It obviously went wrong as far as Ukr is concerned considering the massacres in the 40s of Poles and Jews in Western Ukr (which was added by Stalin later on).
Many see the Holodomor famine of the early 30s as a deliberately engineered genocide against the Ukrainian people.
Stalin saw the failure to meet grain quotas as part of a resistance to 'forced collectivisation' by a recalcitrant peasantry. But, it is more likely to be the result of unrealistic demands.
Holodomor, from my readings, is a construct from the Cold War narrative by the west. Fiction.
It could be true that the forced collectivisation was not paced with the push for industrialisation USSR had in mind at the time. Not that collectivisation was a bad idea imo. It worked eventually. Not just in USSR.
The suffering of the peasantry was an unfortunate side-effect.
Agree. It wasn't a pleasant outcome, but then we are looking through so many years that have passed since then and synthetizing our knowledge from reading the books that have been written during and after those years. An interesting task.
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »