(Forgive me if this isn't the right community for this.)
So, yeah, my gf and I are presently having strained conversations with each other because we have differences of opinion over the Holodomor. I'm not denying the Ukrainian famine happened nor the number of deaths involved. We can set aside the historiography and the Kulak memes, but at the end of the day, I'm a monster because I'm somehow denying justice to the survivors because they call their experience a genocide and I'm more hesitant to do so. It's less about "who's right" or "what really happened" but more about the larger implications that come from genocide denial: she says if survivors say they experienced a genocide, it's important to acknowledge that. She's very uncomfortable that my sympathy to their suffering isn't enough. I'm somehow suggesting the survivors are bad faith actors or dupes (I don't think that's what I'm doing), and because the waters are so muddy on this issue (her words), I ought to consider the other side of the debate instead of reading the preface to Davies and Wheatcroft's The Years of Hunger (which she doesn't want to read).
I feel like even if I were to say "I admit there's a possibility the Holodomor was a genocide," I'd still find myself in the doghouse. This is an impasse we're going to have to navigate before our relationship can return to normal. While we're not big on labels, I'd say I lean more toward ML and she's more anarchist. Maybe that's part of our disagreement? No idea. I'm completely vexed and don't know how to move forward.
I can't imagine anyone's been in this exact position before, but maybe something similar? I wish I could compartmentalize it and move on, but I don't think she can. Any advice, comrades? How can I do justice to the famine survivors while not calling said famine a genocide?
I suspect I'll take the L on this one, which is fine if it means brokering peace. You're right, I'm not looking take a bullet for Stalin's honor. I'm just not thrilled by the idea that if a survivor says X, that gets accepted without question. She and I joke about Gusanos all the time but this hits different for her because the survivors invoke the term genocide.
deleted by creator
Relationships tend to require at least a little give and take, sometimes you need to let things go in situations like this or you'd just be fighting forever over unimportant shit that you slightly disagree on despite agreeing on the majority of stuff, just like leftist orgs.
The thing with gusanos is that the "horror" they describe is losing their property (as in they only had one place to live and/or workers gained control of businesses they worked at).
Sorry I'm not really familiar with the Holodomer. Was it the consensus among the majority of survivors that it was a genocide?
Also from your post:
This seems like a pretty reasonable line to draw, is not "suggesting the survivors are bad faith actors or dupes", and I think demonstrates that you're willing to "consider the other side of the debate". Why not just try it?