The Holocaust is one of the most
significant events of the last century, and arguably one of the most readily
identifiable genocides in modern history. Yet it is also one of many tragedies
that mark human history—and thus the question of uniqueness is raised. Is the
Holocaust unique—or at least more so than the other genocides and atrocities
that have marred history? To compare the Holocaust to every other human rights
tragedy would take volumes. However, it is possible and even profitable to
compare single cases on a limited scale to the Holocaust, such as the Great
Famine of the 1930s in Ukraine. This comparison will show that the Holocaust is
indeed unique in this case, but the comparison is important in order to broaden
the understanding that atrocities may take on many identities and forms but the
end result is often the same—the unjustified suffering and death of innocent
people. By this account, the Great Famine of the 1930s (the Holodomor) does bear some similarity to
the Holocaust; both took place in the same era, and both accounted for millions
of lives lost at the hand of a totalitarian regime. Both were also committed
following an ideology, “that an objectively better human world . . . could be
established”.[1] The
number of dead prompts comparison as some experts estimate the death toll in
Ukraine as high as 7 million, and others much lower at about 3 million.[2]
By the numbers both are similar, however there is much more to the nature of
genocide and atrocity than just numbers. By examining the intent of each we can
compare, contrast, and discover the unique aspects of the Holocaust in light of
similar yet different tragedies.
The Holocaust is unique from the
Great Famine or Holodomor primarily because
of the intent. The focus of the Holocaust was the “systematic, state-organized
persecution and murder of nearly six million Jews by Nazi Germany”.[3]
While past human rights catastrophes have been industrialized on some level,
the Holocaust itself was mechanized, streamlined, and made murderously efficient
to a point the world had not yet seen. The point of this efficiency, and
mechanization was because “the Nazis intended to destroy all Jews”.[4]
For example, the Wannsee Conference, the unique creation of the death camps and
the Einsatzgruppen are indicative
that the intent of the Holocaust was “the deliberate, systematic extermination
of all Jewish people”.[5]
Whatever alternatives the Nazi regime may have considered at the beginning of
their crusade (such as “resettling ‘millions of Jews,’ perhaps in Madagascar”)
were left by the wayside in favor of systematic, wholesale murder.[6]
The reasoning behind this was not political as much as it was ideological;
Hitler and the Nazi leadership had a racialist view of the future—a view of a
racially pure homogenous people group comprised of the best racial stock.[7]
While Hitler did consider the Jews to be a political threat it remains that he
viewed this threat as stemming from their racial heritage, that they were “a racial threat, and race
was his justification for their attempted extermination”.[8] Thus his
central argument against Jewish existence was not geographical, political, or
even economical—though he would denounce the Jews regarding each of these
issues—but it was rather a racial argument of blood and purity. The end goal
was not merely to get rid of the Jews, but “the end itself [was] a grand vision
of a better, and radically different, society . . . [as] modern genocide is an
element of social engineering”.[9] This is
why the Holocaust (which may have started with ideas of racism, deportation,
and marginalization) degenerated into a methodical extermination of the Jews.
For the Nazis, racial purity was equated with survival—and survival at any
cost. This is one major factor in the over all uniqueness of the Holocaust.
Years before this point, to the east, another atrocity unfolded under the leadership of Joseph Stalin in the Soviet controlled state of Ukraine—an intentional famine known as the Holodomor. Although the death tolls from this action are of some debate to this day, it is certain that millions died—perhaps claiming as many as the Holocaust itself. Yet the intent (and ultimately the methodology) were vastly different in Ukraine in comparison to the Holocaust. Whereas Hitler had a racially “pure” vision of the future and the Jews were a racial obstruction to this vision, Stalin had a view of a collectivist and communist future that was impeded by the Ukrainian peasantry. His intent was collectivization, industrialization, and implementation of his economic plan, which resulted in “the deaths of millions of Ukrainians and other Soviet peoples in the famine . . . the consequence of a ruthless economic policy”.[10] In the wake of an expanding civil populace and the need for Soviet exports the Soviet state, “commandeered the collective farmers’ output practically without any material recompense”.[11] The farmers naturally objected to what constituted state theft of their property, and “reacted to this policy with unorganized but mass sabotage of work on the collective farms”.[12] It was not just the resisting farmers that were demonized but also the upper class peasants known as “kulaks” that Stalin was obsessed with despite their minority status.[13] The process of collectivization was one based on economic pressure and the ideals of communism—a far cry from the driving racial motivations found in Germany. While the process took some time, it ultimately came to a head in 1931 when Stalin’s procurement quotas from the farmers resulted in grain (and thereby food) shortages in Ukraine because “as much as 60 percent of the harvest was taken”.[14] These measures proved fatal in the following two winters as Stalin kept exporting grain quite literally off the tables of the Ukrainian peasantry with the goal of being able to raise funds and simultaneously subdue the resisting peasant class. By the spring of 1933 “people in Ukrainian . . . villages were dying by the hundreds of thousands – and millions”.[15] This problem was further exacerbated by the Soviets move to “prevent mass departures”—that is to hinder those seeking to find food elsewhere, as Stalin believed such action to be an action of enmity against the state.[16] In short, the peasants were stripped of their food, and when they attempted to leave in order to avoid starvation the regime forced them back to their barren villages. The goal was to forcibly integrate the Ukrainian society, but also to punish them for their resistance, and so “an additional type of violence—the weapon of famine—was used”.[17] Yet Green argues this was “not because they were Ukrainians but because they were peasants”.[18] Their ethnic identity was incidental in their targeting and persecution, and not a motivational factor. Stalin’s paranoia regarding the slightest perception of enmity within the state, and his overwhelming commitment to his economic plans as well his methodology of “cracking the whip” played an enormous role in the famine.[19] Only when the procurement policies for the peasant’s grain changed did the severity of the famine relent, but by then the “peasants now no longer had the will to resist”.[20] [21] Stalin’s implementation could move forward with compliance from the peasants; it did not need their extermination in order to succeed.
Years before this point, to the east, another atrocity unfolded under the leadership of Joseph Stalin in the Soviet controlled state of Ukraine—an intentional famine known as the Holodomor. Although the death tolls from this action are of some debate to this day, it is certain that millions died—perhaps claiming as many as the Holocaust itself. Yet the intent (and ultimately the methodology) were vastly different in Ukraine in comparison to the Holocaust. Whereas Hitler had a racially “pure” vision of the future and the Jews were a racial obstruction to this vision, Stalin had a view of a collectivist and communist future that was impeded by the Ukrainian peasantry. His intent was collectivization, industrialization, and implementation of his economic plan, which resulted in “the deaths of millions of Ukrainians and other Soviet peoples in the famine . . . the consequence of a ruthless economic policy”.[10] In the wake of an expanding civil populace and the need for Soviet exports the Soviet state, “commandeered the collective farmers’ output practically without any material recompense”.[11] The farmers naturally objected to what constituted state theft of their property, and “reacted to this policy with unorganized but mass sabotage of work on the collective farms”.[12] It was not just the resisting farmers that were demonized but also the upper class peasants known as “kulaks” that Stalin was obsessed with despite their minority status.[13] The process of collectivization was one based on economic pressure and the ideals of communism—a far cry from the driving racial motivations found in Germany. While the process took some time, it ultimately came to a head in 1931 when Stalin’s procurement quotas from the farmers resulted in grain (and thereby food) shortages in Ukraine because “as much as 60 percent of the harvest was taken”.[14] These measures proved fatal in the following two winters as Stalin kept exporting grain quite literally off the tables of the Ukrainian peasantry with the goal of being able to raise funds and simultaneously subdue the resisting peasant class. By the spring of 1933 “people in Ukrainian . . . villages were dying by the hundreds of thousands – and millions”.[15] This problem was further exacerbated by the Soviets move to “prevent mass departures”—that is to hinder those seeking to find food elsewhere, as Stalin believed such action to be an action of enmity against the state.[16] In short, the peasants were stripped of their food, and when they attempted to leave in order to avoid starvation the regime forced them back to their barren villages. The goal was to forcibly integrate the Ukrainian society, but also to punish them for their resistance, and so “an additional type of violence—the weapon of famine—was used”.[17] Yet Green argues this was “not because they were Ukrainians but because they were peasants”.[18] Their ethnic identity was incidental in their targeting and persecution, and not a motivational factor. Stalin’s paranoia regarding the slightest perception of enmity within the state, and his overwhelming commitment to his economic plans as well his methodology of “cracking the whip” played an enormous role in the famine.[19] Only when the procurement policies for the peasant’s grain changed did the severity of the famine relent, but by then the “peasants now no longer had the will to resist”.[20] [21] Stalin’s implementation could move forward with compliance from the peasants; it did not need their extermination in order to succeed.
It
is by the intent of the perpetrators that each of these events can be compared
and contrasted. Hitler’s goal was a racially pure Germany and German empire,
whereas Stalin’s was a fully industrialized and collectivist state. Hitler
targeted the Jewish people across a broad geography but it was solely based on
their racial identity. Conversely, Stalin targeted peasant-class dissidents in
a more homogenous geographical zone—the Ukrainian state—solely based on the
perception of their interference with Soviet goals and the greater good—thus,
their ethnic identity was incidental to their geographic homogeneity. The
methodology of the Holocaust was to target the Jews, confine them, and then
systematically exterminate them via death camps and other intentionally created
murderous entities. However, Stalin’s methodology was to pressure the
farmer-peasants by seizing their grain, raising the quotas for grain, and thus
starving them—which he compounded by denying them the opportunity to leave the
impoverished zones within Ukraine. When the will of the Ukrainian peasant was
broken (by way of mass death and suffering) Stalin relaxed his oppressive
measures, however the Holocaust and the effort to kill Jews did not slow down
even after a large portion of the Jewish population had been eradicated. This
shows the difference in intent—Stalin’s intent was ultimately to solidify the
Soviet industrial machine and the collectivist nature of the state, and
Hitler’s to eliminate those that stood in the way of his vision for racial
purity in the Reich.
Yet
there are benefits from examining these two tragedies vis-à-vis each other.
The comparison proves that the outcome of atrocity and human rights abuse does not need a genocidal driving force—rather it proves the opposite. Racist, genocidal regimes are indeed murderous, but not all murderous regimes are genocidal. In this case, it is important to understand that the Holocaust is unique—not to establish a “moral hierarchy or algorithm of pain and suffering among peoples or groups” but to establish that the source of such pain and suffering can and does have many different faces.[22] The goal of the Holocaust was murder. The goal of the Holodomor was suppression and integration. Yet both resulted in the death of millions of people. Despite the differences of intent, the similarity of the results serves as a warning—that the conditions for mass atrocity are by no means limited to a short catalogue of prerequisites, but that these conditions are actually perhaps more broad and inclusive than exclusive. In short the lesson is that yes, the Holocaust is unique when compared to the Holodomor and its intent. Yet the similarity in lives lost reveals that this uniqueness is not a cause for relief, but rather for concern. In the future potential atrocities, genocides, and mass murder from human rights abuses should be seen not as improbabilities, but rather as real possibilities that might be kindled and realized in a wide variety of situations. Only be realizing how broad the conditions are for mass murder can we hope to realize that the repetition of history is never far off and redouble the effort to remain vigilant against such atrocities.
The comparison proves that the outcome of atrocity and human rights abuse does not need a genocidal driving force—rather it proves the opposite. Racist, genocidal regimes are indeed murderous, but not all murderous regimes are genocidal. In this case, it is important to understand that the Holocaust is unique—not to establish a “moral hierarchy or algorithm of pain and suffering among peoples or groups” but to establish that the source of such pain and suffering can and does have many different faces.[22] The goal of the Holocaust was murder. The goal of the Holodomor was suppression and integration. Yet both resulted in the death of millions of people. Despite the differences of intent, the similarity of the results serves as a warning—that the conditions for mass atrocity are by no means limited to a short catalogue of prerequisites, but that these conditions are actually perhaps more broad and inclusive than exclusive. In short the lesson is that yes, the Holocaust is unique when compared to the Holodomor and its intent. Yet the similarity in lives lost reveals that this uniqueness is not a cause for relief, but rather for concern. In the future potential atrocities, genocides, and mass murder from human rights abuses should be seen not as improbabilities, but rather as real possibilities that might be kindled and realized in a wide variety of situations. Only be realizing how broad the conditions are for mass murder can we hope to realize that the repetition of history is never far off and redouble the effort to remain vigilant against such atrocities.
Works Cited
Bauman, Zygmund. “The
Uniqueness and Normality of the Holocaust.” In Modernity and the
Holocaust.
83-116. Cambridge: Polity Press 1989. 83-116
Dadrian, Vahakn N. "The
Comparative Aspects of the Armenian and Jewish Cases of Genocide:
A
Sociohistorical Perspective." In Is
the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on
Comparative Genocide, edited by Alan Rosenbaum, 139-174. 3rd ed. Philadelphia:
Westview
Press, 2009.
Green, Barbara.
"Stalinist Terror and the Question of Genocide: The Great Famine."
In Is the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on
Comparative Genocide, edited by Alan
Rosenbaum,
169-193. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Westview Press, 2009.
Hancock, Ian.
"Responses to the Porrajmos: The Romani Holocaust."
In Is the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on
Comparative Genocide, edited by Alan
Rosenbaum,
75-101. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Westview Press, 2009.
Kiernan, Ben. "Hitler,
Pol Pot, and Hutu Power: Common Themes in Genocidal Ideologies."
In Is the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on
Comparative Genocide, edited by Alan
Rosenbaum,
223-229. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Westview Press, 2009.
Kul'chyts'ky, Stanislav, Marta
D. Olynyk and Andrij Wynnyckyj. "The Holodomor and Its
Consequences
in the Ukrainian Countryside." Harvard Ukrainian Studies Vol. 30
no. 1/4
(2008):
1-13. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 23611463
(accessed May 3, 2015).
Rosenbaum, Alan S.
“Introduction to the First Edition.” In Is
the Holocaust Unique?
Perspectives on Comparative Genocide, edited by Alan Rosenbaum, 1-9. 3rd ed.
Philadelphia:
Westview Press 2009.
Rosenbaum, Alan S.
“Introduction to the Second Edition.” In Is
the Holocaust Unique?
Perspectives on Comparative Genocide, edited by Alan Rosenbaum, 11-20. 3rd ed.
Philadelphia:
Westview Press 2009.
Rosenbaum, Alan S.
“Introduction to the Third Edition.” In Is
the Holocaust Unique?
Perspectives on Comparative Genocide, edited by Alan Rosenbaum, 21-26. 3rd ed.
Philadelphia:
Westview Press 2009.
Roth, John K. “Ethics of
Uniqueness.” In Is the Holocaust Unique?
Perspectives on Comparative Genocide, edited by Alan Rosenbaum, 27-38. 3rd ed.
Philadelphia:
Westview Press 2009.
[2] Barbara B. Green, “Stalinist Terror and the Question of Genocide: The
Great Famine”, in: Alan S. Rosenbaum (ed.), Is
the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on Comparative Genocide. Philadelphia:
Westview Press 2009, p. 178.
[3] John K. Roth, “Ethics of Uniqueness”,
in: Alan S, Rosenbaum (ed.) Is the
Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on Comparative Genocide. Philadelphia:
Westview Press 2009, p. 27
[4] John K. Roth, “Ethics of Uniqueness”,
in: Alan S, Rosenbaum (ed.) Is the Holocaust
Unique? Perspectives on Comparative Genocide. Philadelphia: Westview Press
2009, p. 28
[5] Alan S. Rosenbaum, “Introduction to
the First Edition”, in: Alan S, Rosenbaum (ed.) Is the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on Comparative Genocide.
Philadelphia: Westview Press 2009, p. 2
[6] Vahakn N. Dadrian, “The Comparative
Aspects of the Armenian and Jewish Cases of Genocide: A Sociohistorical
Perspective”, in: Alan S, Rosenbaum (ed.) Is
the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on Comparative Genocide. Philadelphia: Westview
Press 2009, p. 145
[7] Ben Kiernan, “Hitler, Pol Pot, and
Hutu Power: Common Themes in Genocidal Ideologies”, in: Alan S, Rosenbaum (ed.)
Is the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on
Comparative Genocide. Philadelphia: Westview Press 2009, p. 224
[8] Ian Hancock, “Responses to the
Porrajmos: The Romani Holocaust”, in: Alan S, Rosenbaum (ed.) Is the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on
Comparative Genocide. Philadelphia: Westview Press 2009, p. 83
[9] Zygmund Baumann, Modernity and the Holocaust. Cambridge: Polity Press 1989, p. 91ff.
[10] Barbara B. Green, “Stalinist Terror
and the Question of Genocide: The Great Famine”, in: Alan S. Rosenbaum (ed.), Is the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on
Comparative Genocide. Philadelphia: Westview Press 2009, p. 194.
[11] Stanislav Kul'chyts'kyi, Marta D.
Olynyk and Andrij Wynnyckyj, "The Holodomor and Its Consequences in the
Ukrainian Countryside," Harvard
Ukrainian Studies no. 1/4 (2008): p. 2, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23611463
(accessed May 3, 2015).
[12] Ibid.
[13] Barbara B. Green, “Stalinist Terror
and the Question of Genocide: The Great Famine”, in: Alan S. Rosenbaum (ed.), Is the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on
Comparative Genocide. Philadelphia: Westview Press 2009, p. 180.
[14] Green, “Stalinist Terror”, p. 188
[15] Stanislav Kul'chyts'kyi, Marta D.
Olynyk and Andrij Wynnyckyj, "The Holodomor and Its Consequences in the
Ukrainian Countryside," Harvard
Ukrainian Studies no. 1/4 (2008): p. 5, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23611463
(accessed May 3, 2015).
[16] Green, “Stalinist Terror”, p. 193
[17] Stanislav Kul'chyts'kyi, Marta D.
Olynyk and Andrij Wynnyckyj, "The Holodomor," p. 3.
[18] Green, “Stalinist Terror”, p. 177
[19] Stanislav Kul'chyts'kyi, Marta D.
Olynyk and Andrij Wynnyckyj, "The Holodomor and Its Consequences in the
Ukrainian Countryside," Harvard
Ukrainian Studies no. 1/4 (2008): p. 2, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23611463
(accessed May 3, 2015).
[20] Ibid.
[21] Barbara B. Green, “Stalinist Terror
and the Question of Genocide: The Great Famine”, in: Alan S. Rosenbaum (ed.), Is the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on
Comparative Genocide. Philadelphia: Westview Press 2009, p. 194.
[22] Alan S. Rosenbaum, “Introduction to
the Second Edition”, in: Alan S, Rosenbaum (ed.) Is the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on Comparative Genocide.
Philadelphia: Westview Press 2009, p. 14