>>11671857>and not include urban Ukrainians? Because Ukrainians hardly lived in cities. And those who lived were loyal communists (most of whom were also shot by 1937, google Skripnik, Khvylovy, Semenko etc).
>Why would the Soviet state continue to allow the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic to function? Because there was no longer any risk of splintering, and besides, later the Ukrainian SSR became a separate member of NATO - an additional voice for Stalin.
>Why wouldn't it close down the Ukrainian-language press and universities?What for? There was no longer any danger from Ukrainians. In addition, the policy of Ukrainization by that time was nevertheless curtailed and the Russian language returned to Ukraine.
>until everyone was dead? No one wants an empty land, they got land with intimidated and obedient people.
>on the Ukrainians to rise up in defense against the nazis? Did they have a choice, kek?
>Where was the demonization of Ukrainians as subhuman or otherwise worthy of extermination? It doesn't exist. It would not fit into communist discourse and there was no need for it. 95% of Ukrainians were villagers, it is enough to urge to kill kulaks.
>Why would the famine also occur in areas outside Ukraine including Southern Russia and Kazakhstan? As for the south of Russia, there were also many Ukrainians living there, but in general there were also many well-to-do peasants in those places. Still, in those places the famine was not as intense as in Ukraine afaik. I do not deny that drought and so on really could have been, but it was just a drop in the ocean.
But if you like it more, then you can call it not genocide, but sociocide.
>to minimize the Nazi Holocaust One does not interfere with the other. Both happened and both are afwul. Stalinism and Nazism are both anti-human. Stalin's victory in the party struggle of the 1920s is the greatest tragedy in the history of Marxism.
