Genocide and Memory: A Comparative Analysis of the Holodomor and the Holocaust

Introduction : Understanding Genocide and Cultural Trauma 

Genocide stands as a profound testament to humanity's capacity for immoral and unethical deeds, representing a profound violation of human rights. Coined by Raphael Lemkin in response to the Holocaust, genocide encompasses the deliberate destruction of entire national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups. Lemkin's seminal work not only broadened the conceptualization of genocide to include systematic cultural, social, and economic destruction but also laid the groundwork for international legal frameworks, culminating in the Genocide Convention of 1948. However, the recognition and acknowledgment of genocidal atrocities vary significantly, as evidenced by the differing levels of recognition afforded to events like the Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor) and the Holocaust (Shoah). This essay employs cultural trauma theory to delve into the socio-political and cultural factors that shape the acknowledgment of these atrocities. By analyzing the dynamics of collective memory, memorialization practices, and advocacy efforts, it seeks to unravel the complexities underlying the recognition and remembrance of genocides on both national and international levels. Through a comparative analysis, this study aims to elucidate why some genocides receive widespread recognition while others remain obscured by history, shedding light on the intricate interplay of political power, advocacy in the acknowledgment of genocidal events and cultural trauma, which is a related concept and occurs when members of a group feel they have been subjected to a horrendous event that leaves indelible marks on their group consciousness, forever marking their memories and changing their future identity in fundamental and irrevocable ways.

“By "Genocide" we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word, coined by the Lemkinto denote an old practice in its modern development, is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words as tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.” 

I. Comparative Analysis of Genocidal Atrocities: Exploring the Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor) and the Shoah (Holocaust) 

I.a. The Ukrainian Great Famine ( Holodomor ) 

For centuries, the geography of Ukraine shaped the destiny of Ukraine. The term Holodomor (death by hunger, in Ukrainian) refers to the starvation of millions of Ukrainians in 1932–33 as a result of Soviet’s policies of agricultural collectivisation, which forcibly consolidated private farms into state-run collectives. This policy, part of Stalin’s broader Five-Year Plan, disproportionately affected Ukraine, a region rich in agricultural resources but resistant to collectivization. The Holodomor can be seen as the culmination of an assault by the Communist Party and Soviet State on the Ukrainian peasantry, who resisted the Soviet policies. This assault occurred in the context of a campaign of intimidation and arrests of Ukrainian intellectuals, writers, artists, religious leaders, and political elites, who were seen as a threat to Soviet ideological and state-building aspirations, and it represents one of the darkest chapters in Soviet history. Stalin's government enforced strict quotas on Ukrainian grain production, confiscating nearly all foodstuffs to meet state demands. This confiscation, alongside punitive measures like food blockades and travel restrictions, left Ukrainians without access to food  and devastated rural communities. Resistance to collectivization, which was strong among Ukrainians, triggered even harsher responses from Stalin, who saw Ukrainian nationalism as a threat to Soviet control. To quash dissent, the regime cracked down on Ukrainian culture and identity, implementing policies aimed at suppressing the Ukrainian language, traditions, and intellectual life. Thousands of Ukrainian intellectuals, political leaders, and clergy were executed or imprisoned, systematically eroding the social and cultural fabric of the region. The targeting of wealthier peasants, or "kulaks," as enemies of the state led to widespread dispossession, arrest, and deportation, with kulaks accused of hoarding grain and sabotaging Soviet policies.

Conditions in Ukraine rapidly deteriorated as food supplies dwindled, prompting desperate measures among the starving population. Reports of cannibalism, theft, and lawlessness illustrate the scale of the crisis. Soviet propaganda continued to label Ukrainians who resisted collectivization as traitors, enforcing compliance through violence and psychological coercion. During the harsh winters of the early 1930s, the rural population faced unimaginable hardships, as even basic survival measures became criminalized under the "Law of Spikelets," which punished those who attempted to glean leftover grain from fields. The Holodomor claimed the lives of millions, with rural populations suffering the greatest losses due to their dependence on agriculture. As many as 3.9 million Ukrainians died from starvation, with the highest mortality occurring in 1933. Rural areas like Kyiv and Kharkiv oblasts were hit hardest, with excess deaths comprising up to 20% of the population. Urban areas, although also affected, saw comparatively lower mortality rates. In addition to the catastrophic loss of life, the Holodomor left a significant demographic void, with high mortality rates compounded by a severe drop in birth rates. Stalin’s regime further restricted movement through internal passport systems, preventing peasants from fleeing affected areas. As famine deepened, the Soviet government prioritized grain exports for state profit, disregarding the suffering within Ukraine. In the aftermath of the famine , mass purges continued, targeting remaining dissenters, reshaping the social and ethnic landscape, and ensuring Soviet control over Ukraine.

The Holodomor's impact extended beyond immediate mortality, leaving a lasting trauma on Ukrainian society. The Soviet government’s refusal to acknowledge the famine at the time, along with continued repression, perpetuated silence and minimized international awareness of the catastrophe. The Holodomor remains a stark example of how political power can be wielded to suppress a population and reshape a nation, with its legacy still profoundly felt in Ukraine today.

I.b.The Shoah (Holocaust): 

Antisemitism in medieval Europe, rooted largely in Christian beliefs that blamed Jews collectively for Jesus's death, fueled centuries of violent persecution. The Crusades in the 11th and 12th centuries marked significant early episodes of violence against Jewish communities in central Europe, especially in Germany, where both religious fanaticism and economic motives led to widespread attacks and plunder. Jewish communities faced continuous accusations of ritual murder and were economically ostracized, leading to the destruction of communities such as the Prague Ghetto in 1389. Repeated persecution forced many Jews to migrate eastward to Poland, where they initially found refuge but eventually faced escalating hostility, culminating in devastating pogroms in the 17th century. In Russia, increasing restrictions on Jewish life, trade, and residence, especially following Poland’s partition, isolated Jewish communities further within the Pale of Settlement. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, antisemitic sentiment also grew in Germany, where Jews were blamed for various social and economic issues despite gaining civil rights. 

The Holocaust marked the culmination of these centuries of antisemitism, with Nazi Germany enacting discriminatory laws, such as the Nuremberg Race Laws, to strip Jews of civil rights. When World War II began, Nazi control extended throughout Europe, enabling the systematic genocide known as the "Final Solution." High-ranking Nazi officials, including Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and Adolf Eichmann, oversaw this massive operation with the support of local collaborators and governmental institutions across occupied Europe. The Holocaust unfolded in phases: legal discrimination, social exclusion, organized violence such as Kristallnacht, mass shootings by Einsatzgruppen, forced relocations, and the establishment of ghettos and killing centers. The Holocaust intensified antisemitism into a state-orchestrated genocide that led to the systematic murder of six million Jews. Beginning in 1941, the Nazi regime  exterminated camps like Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Sobibor established specifically for mass murder, often using gas chambers. These death camps functioned alongside forced-labor concentration camps, where millions endured brutal exploitation and high mortality rates.

The Holocaust unfolded in distinct phases: discriminatory laws and segregation, followed by mass deportations, ghettoization, and mass killings. Nazi officials, supported by local collaborators, implemented antisemitic policies through measures such as the Nuremberg Laws, ghettos, and Einsatzgruppen-led massacres, particularly in Eastern Europe. Extermination camps primarily in occupied Poland, including Chelmno and Majdanek, facilitated efficient, large-scale genocide, with Auschwitz alone accounting for around one million deaths. Italy’s fascist regime, allied with Nazi Germany, also persecuted Jews after the Racial Laws of 1938, which segregated Italian Jews, banned them from schools, and stripped them of rights. Italian camps like Risiera di San Sabba functioned as detention and execution sites, with Italian police and militias often complicit in deporting Jews and political prisoners to death camps.

The Shoah’s consequences were vast, with the deaths of six million Jews and millions of others targeted on the basis of their  race, ethnicity, and political or ideological beliefs. It ended when Allied forces liberated concentration camps, they uncovered the extent of the atrocities, shedding light on the systemic, industrialized nature of the genocide, revealing the horrific extent of Nazi atrocities. This genocide decimated Jewish populations and devastated countless other marginalized groups, leaving a profound and lasting impact on global awareness of human rights and the dangers of racial and ethnic hatred.

II. Shaping Collective Memory: Comparative Analysis of International Responses and Political Factors in Holocaust and Holodomor Recognition 

II.a. International Response and Recognition

The Holocaust and the Holodomor, two of the 20th century's darkest events, exemplify how political agendas and historical narratives can shape public memory and recognition. Legally classified as genocide, the Holocaust's intent to destroy a specific group is well-documented through Nazi speeches, orders, and mass killings. The Holodomor, a man-made famine in Ukraine from 1932–1933, similarly caused mass suffering and death, but lacked the explicit evidence of genocidal intent. This distinction has led entities like the European Parliament to view the Holodomor as a consequence of Soviet economic policy rather than a deliberate act of extermination. Some argue that this reluctance is influenced by differing condemnations of communism and Nazism, despite both ideologies' violent means to achieve goals, targeting groups like the Ukrainian peasantry and the Jewish population. Ukrainian historian Yaroslav Hrytsak notes that Raphael Lemkin, the polish-jewish lawyer, who first coined the term  "genocide" in his seminal work, "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe” might have been the first to draw parallels between the Holocaust and the Holodomor, albeit indirectly, in an unpublished piece from 1953. The outbreak of World War II in 1939 further catalyzed Lemkin's journey with Germany's invasion of Poland and subsequent occupation, Lemkin found himself confronted with the realities of totalitarianism and persecution. However, it wasn't until the 1970s and 1980s that these parallels resurfaced prominently, coinciding with the heightened cultural memory of the Holocaust in the United States. However, influenced by the success of Holocaust remembrance initiatives in the US, particularly the establishment of the president’s commission on the Holocaust, Ukrainian diaspora communities began to adopt similar patterns of representation and political promotion, framing the Famine as a genocide of Ukrainians. This shift was marked by the appropriation of Holocaust terminology, such as the term "Ukrainian Holocaust," initially employed by author Wasyl Hryshko in 1978. 

During President Viktor Yushchenko's tenure, Ukraine saw renewed efforts to secure international recognition of the Holodomor as genocide. Yushchenko's presidency saw a concerted effort to garner international recognition of the Holodomor as a genocide of the Ukrainian people, with campaigns framed around slogans like "Ukraine remembers – the world recognizes." However, this push for recognition was not without controversy, as it involved inflating casualty figures and engaging in victimhood competition, notably with diaspora organizations advocating for figures as high as 7–10 million deaths. Furthermore, the politicization of the Holodomor extended to legislative efforts, such as the introduction of laws criminalizing Holodomor denial, which mirrored Western practices regarding Holocaust denial. 

II.b Recognizing Genocide: the role of narratives and memory in constructing Cultural Trauma 

According to demographic reconstructions of the Holodomor, the number of victims ranged from four or five to seven million or even higher, which in 1933 was between a fifth and a quarter of the entire rural population, or roughly the combined population of Sweden, Norway and Denmark, we can hardly imagine that the world would not be aware of this fact. In Ukraine, a nation in the very process of establishing its identity, the recognition of the Holodomor as a genocide was strongly resisted by considerable segments of the population that still identified with the soviet past. This recognition was also obstructed by the soviet propaganda and disinformation campaigns, and even after the World War II and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia maintained the refusal to recognize the Holodomor as a genocide against the Ukranian people, resisting both investigation and acknowledgment. This denial was motivated by Russia’s determination to uphold the Soviet legacy as a symbol of great power and victory, particularly in the context of  World War II, excluding any association with genocide that would implicate Soviet actions in a negative moral and historical shadow. Soviet disinformation and propaganda, later maintained by Russia, along with the support of communist sympathizers outside the Soviet Union, also played a key role in sustaining denial of the Holodomor for many years. This orchestrated narrative effectively obscured the genocide, preventing widespread acknowledgment of the atrocity within international discourse. As a result the Ukrainian great Famine was for a long time surrounded not only by the inertia of ignorance, but also by a denial of its very existence and has become an integral part of genocide. For example, In 1987, countering  the efforts of the Ukranian diaspora appeared in the publishing house of the communist of Canada : Fraud, famine and fascism : the Ukranian Genocide Myth from Hilter to Harvard . On the other hand, in Auschwitz the imagination is moved by the death camp itself and by its museum with horrific stories of countless victims. In Yad Vashem there is a monument of grief where one can see hundreds of photographs, thousands of personal items, and some two million pages of testimony. In Ukraine, up  until very recently, there was nothing of the kind, no museum, no exhibits nor a generally known narrative of the events in the collective national memory of the country. 

Cultural trauma is a phenomenon wherein a collective group perceives itself to have undergone a distressing event that fundamentally alters its group consciousness and future identity. It goes beyond mere empirical observation; it suggests novel connections between previously unrelated events, perceptions, structures, and actions. Furthermore, it extends into realms of social responsibility and political action. Social groups and even entire civilizations construct cultural traumas, not only recognizing the source of human suffering but sometimes accepting responsibility for it. By identifying the cause of trauma and assuming moral responsibility, collectivities forge solidary relationships that allow them, in principle, to empathize with the suffering of others. Trauma emerges when social crises transform into cultural crises, causing the acute discomfort to challenge the group's sense of identity, history, and future. Trauma construction begins with claims of fundamental injury, a narrative of devastating social processes, and a demand for emotional and symbolic reparation. These claims are initiated by "carrier groups," which are collective agents possessing specific interests, positions in the social structure, and discursive skills to articulate their claims in the public sphere. This process is linked to a performative speech act, involving carriers (speakers), a public audience, and a historical, cultural and institutional situation. Traumas redefine the past and reconstruct collective memory, leading to a phase of "calming down." The intense emotions associated with trauma eventually fade, and the lessons learned are institutionalized through monuments, museums, and rituals, becoming part of the collective identity and providing a foundation for dealing with future social issues. Western nations have highlighted traumatic episodes in their histories, some of the most devastating traumas have occurred in non-Western regions. Despite these tragedies, the broader populations in these areas often fail to fully recognize or integrate these traumas into their collective identities due to complex social and cultural reasons. The failure to acknowledge and process trauma are not inherent in the suffering itself but rather in the inability to undergo a comprehensive trauma process involving memorialization, dissemination of narratives, moral responsibility, and changes in collective identity. The trauma process, when effectively navigated by collectivities, can lead to the recognition of moral responsibility, political action, and changes in social identities. This failure to address and incorporate trauma arises not from the nature of suffering but from the lack of a comprehensive trauma process. Trauma, therefore, transcends geographical and cultural boundaries and holds the potential to reshape moral responsibilities and societal actions through public commemorations, media portrayals, and survivor testimonies.

The Holocaust’s narrative evolved into a powerful moral and cultural reference point. Institutions, memorials, and educational initiatives helped shape this memory, emphasizing personal identification with victims and survivors. This deep personalization fostered a lasting connection, making the Holocaust a universal metaphor for suffering and moral lessons. However, this memorialization raised concerns about the potential for commodification and whether it diluted the unique tragedy of the Holocaust. In shaping the collective memory, Western societies emphasize the Holocaust’s moral legacy as a means to confront and prevent future injustices. This transformation demonstrates how cultural trauma becomes institutionalized and embedded in moral and legal discourse, influencing societal actions and attitudes toward human rights and historical memory. The Shoah  was perceived as just one of many wartime atrocities, even when the concentration camps were discovered in 1945, they were initially labeled as "atrocities" akin to other brutalities of war. The trauma experienced by the Jewish victims was not immediately recognized as universally significant. Despite the recognition of gross injustice, there was a failure among the audience, especially non-Jewish individuals, to personally identify or sympathize with the Jewish survivors. The process of trauma construction was achieved by the relevant role of symbolic representation, power dynamics in controlling symbolic production, and the cultural coding, weighting, and narrating of events. 

Conclusion 

The divergent recognition of genocidal events such as the Holodomor and the Holocaust underscores the complex interplay of political power, cultural trauma, and advocacy in shaping collective memory. The case of the Holodomor illustrates how geopolitical dynamics, such as the Soviet Union's post-World War II influence and widespread sympathy for communism, hindered the acknowledgment of the famine-genocide. Systematic suppression of information, targeted eradication of Ukrainian intellectuals and elites, and the sealing of borders further impeded narrative construction and international awareness. Unlike the Holocaust, which benefited from the advocacy of a well-connected Jewish diaspora and institutionalization through media and memorials, the predominantly peasant Ukrainian population lacked similar representation and resources. Consequently, the Soviet Union's geopolitical power and strategic alliances shielded it from being depicted as malevolent, complicating the recognition of the Holodomor. This analysis highlights the critical role of socio-political contexts, power structures, and cultural narratives in the acknowledgment and remembrance of genocidal atrocities. Understanding these dynamics is essential for ensuring that all acts of genocide receive the recognition they deserve, fostering a more comprehensive and a just historical memory.