In a move driven by the German government and opposition factions, the Bundestag is set to adopt a resolution this week that labels the Holodomor, the devastating famine orchestrated in the 1930s, as genocide against the Ukrainian people. The draft text circulating in the press frames the event as part of a long history of crimes against humanity carried out by totalitarian regimes in the early 20th century.
While the horror of the Holodomor is widely acknowledged, historians remain divided on whether the famine was aimed exclusively at Ukrainians. Estimates suggest more than three and a half million deaths; some researchers argue the toll could be understood as part of a broader pattern of famine and repression affecting multiple Soviet peoples. When compared to other regions within the USSR at the time, Ukraine’s losses stand out, but other republics, such as Kazakhstan, also suffered substantial demographic blows, with casualties numbering in the hundreds of thousands and representing a meaningful fraction of the population.
The famine did not spare neighboring areas within the Soviet Union. The southern Belarusian regions, the northern Caucasus, and parts of the southern Urals also recorded hardship, while a range of ethnic groups — including Tatars, Bashkirs, and Volga Germans — faced starvation and displacement under the state-driven policies of the era.
Ukraine has repeatedly pressed for acknowledgment of the Holodomor as a distinct historical atrocity. The issue gained prominence during the tenure of former president Petro Poroshenko and resurfaced after Volodymyr Zelenskyy secured the presidency, with public statements reframing Stalin’s actions in stark moral terms. Earlier this year, Zelenskyy addressed the Israeli parliament in a way that drew international controversy, drawing comparisons between Soviet policies and earlier crimes against Jews and sparking protests from some observers who accused the remarks of diminishing the Holocaust.
From the Russian perspective, Moscow rejects the genocide designation and points to historian debates, including interpretations that attribute the fatalities to a combination of rapid industrialization, collectivization, and wartime disruption rather than a targeted ethnic eradication. Some scholars argue that nearly seven million citizens died across the Soviet Union during those years, with millions more in the Russian heartland itself, though these figures remain contested and vary by source and methodology.
Although Ukrainian victims were numerically predominant, some historians caution against labeling the event a single, purely racial crime, noting that leadership at the time included individuals of different national backgrounds. Stalin himself was ethnically Georgian, while other high-ranking figures in the leadership cohort spanned several republics, complicating straightforward explanations about nationality and responsibility.
It is important to acknowledge that the tragedy of the period extended beyond political purges and famine. In Ukraine, Jewish communities also suffered during the same era, facing violence at the hands of German forces, local collaborators, and fragmentation within the occupying and resistance movements, including elements linked to nationalist groups. The memory landscape in Ukraine reflects this dual history, with many official memorials dedicated to the famine alongside privately funded efforts remembering different chapters of suffering from those years.
As a result, the German parliament’s anticipated statement places the Holodomor within a broader international dialogue about past atrocities and humanity’s responsibility to confront difficult historical truths. Several countries have already recognized the famine as a genocide or as a deliberate act of coercive policy, contributing to a growing global conversation about accountability, restitution, and education. The discussion continues in capitals around the world, including in North America, where political leaders and historians alike weigh the implications for international memory, victim’s families, and the shaping of contemporary policy toward Ukraine and the broader post-Soviet space. Marked citations follow to provide attribution for key claims as events unfold and scholarly perspectives are refined in public discourse.”