The history of the Soviet Union is marked by numerous instances of state violence and repression, but few events have generated as much historical debate as the question of whether certain Soviet policies constituted genocide against specific populations. In particular, the Holodomor in Ukraine (1932-1933) and the mass deportations and repressions in the Baltic states (1940-1953) have been examined by historians through the lens of genocide studies. This essay explores the historical evidence and scholarly interpretations regarding these events, analysing how and why many historians have classified them as genocidal acts.
The concept of genocide, defined by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,” has been applied retrospectively to analyse Soviet policies. While the Soviet Union itself never acknowledged committing genocide, historical research conducted since the collapse of the USSR has provided substantial evidence that policies implemented under Stalin’s regime targeted specific national groups with destructive intent.
Historical Context: The Holodomor in Ukraine, Genocide by Famine
The Holodomor, derived from the Ukrainian words for “death by hunger” (holod mor), refers to the catastrophic famine that devastated Soviet Ukraine in 1932-1933. This famine occurred during a period of rapid industrialisation and forced collectivisation under Stalin’s First Five-Year Plan. While famine affected other parts of the Soviet Union, the evidence suggests that Ukraine experienced uniquely severe conditions and that Soviet policies deliberately exacerbated the crisis. The historical sequence of events began in 1929 with the launch of collectivisation, which aimed to transform traditional agriculture into collective farms. In Ukraine, this process met with particularly strong resistance from peasants who were reluctant to abandon their land and livestock. By 1930, the Soviet authorities had responded with brutal force, deporting thousands of Ukrainian families as “kulaks” (allegedly wealthy peasants) and closing independent markets. In 1932, as resistance to collectivisation continued, the Soviet government implemented increasingly harsh measures. In August 1932, the “Law of Five Ears of Grain” was passed, making theft of collective property punishable by death or ten years’ imprisonment. In November 1932, the Soviet government issued a secret directive that established blockades around Ukrainian villages, preventing peasants from fleeing to cities in search of food. Most devastatingly, in January 1933, Stalin and Molotov sent a secret telegram to Ukrainian authorities, accusing them of being “too lenient” and ordering them to confiscate all food supplies, including seed grain for the next planting season.
The consequences of these policies were catastrophic. According to demographic studies, Ukraine lost approximately 3.9 million people to starvation and disease in 1932-1933, representing about 13% of its population. Some regions were particularly hard hit; in Ukraine’s Kyiv region and Vinnytsia region, mortality rates reached 40% above normal levels. Villages throughout Ukraine reported scenes of unimaginable suffering, with survivors resorting to eating grass, tree bark, and in some cases, human flesh.
The Genocide Debate
The question of whether the Holodomor constitutes genocide has been the subject of intense historical debate. The central issue is whether the Soviet government deliberately inflicted these conditions with the intent to destroy the Ukrainian nation in whole or in part. Historians who argue that the Holodomor was genocide point to several key pieces of evidence. First, they note the disproportionate impact of the famine on Ukraine compared to other Soviet regions. While Russia and Kazakhstan also experienced famine, the death rates in Ukraine were significantly higher. Second, they highlight the specific measures taken against Ukraine that were not applied elsewhere, including on Ukraine’s borders to prevent peasants from fleeing and the harsher grain procurement quotas imposed on Ukrainian villages.
These historians emphasise the political context of the famine. Ukraine had experienced a national cultural revival in the 1920s, and Stalin viewed this with suspicion, particularly given Ukraine’s historical relationship with Poland and its position as a border region. The famine occurred simultaneously with a crackdown on Ukrainian intellectuals and cultural institutions, suggesting a coordinated effort to eliminate Ukrainian national identity. Norman Naimark, in “Stalin’s Genocides” (2010), argues that “Stalin’s attack on the Ukrainian peasantry was an attack on the Ukrainian nation.” Similarly, Timothy Snyder, in “Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin” (2010), describes the famine as “not just a tragedy but a crime” and notes that “the Ukrainian peasantry was the object of a specifically political assault.”
Other historians, however, caution against applying the genocide label. J. Arch Getty, in “Pragmatists and Puritans: The Rise and Fall of the Party Control Commission” (2017), argues that the famine resulted from a combination of factors, including economic mismanagement, environmental conditions, and ideological rigidity rather than a deliberate plan to destroy Ukrainians. Stephen Wheatcroft, in “The Scale and Nature of Stalinist Repression and Its Demographic Significance” (2017), acknowledges the catastrophic impact of the famine but questions whether there is sufficient evidence of genocidal intent. The Ukrainian government and sixteen national governments, including the United States, Canada, and Australia, have officially recognised the Holodomor as genocide. In 2006, Ukraine’s parliament passed a law recognising the Holodomor as genocide against the Ukrainian people. In 2023, the Vatican issued a statement referring to the Holodomor as genocide, marking a significant development in the international recognition of this tragedy.
Historical Context: Deportations and Cultural Destruction in the Baltic States
The Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—experienced systematic repression following their forced incorporation into the Soviet Union in 1940. While these countries had enjoyed brief periods of independence between 1918 and 1940, their fate was sealed by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, in which Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union secretly divided Eastern Europe into spheres of influence.
In June 1940, the Soviet Union presented ultimatums to the Baltic governments, demanding the establishment of pro-Soviet regimes and the admission of unlimited numbers of Soviet troops. Facing overwhelming military force, the Baltic governments complied. Within months, the Soviet authorities orchestrated rigged elections and formally annexed the Baltic states as Soviet republics. The Soviet occupation brought immediate repression. In June 1941, just days before the German invasion, the Soviet authorities conducted mass deportations, targeting political leaders, intellectuals, military officers, and their families. Approximately 60,000 people from the Baltic states were forcibly removed to Siberia and other remote regions of the Soviet Union. The deportations were conducted with brutal efficiency: families were given less than an hour to pack, separated by gender and age, and loaded into cattle cars for journeys that often lasted weeks.
Following the German occupation (1941-1944) and subsequent Soviet reconquest, the Baltic states experienced another wave of terror. In March 1949, the Soviet authorities conducted “Operation Priboi” (Operation Surf), the largest post-war deportation in the Baltic states. Over 90,000 people were deported to Siberia, including farmers who resisted collectivisation, family members of “forest brothers” (anti-Soviet partisans), and anyone suspected of disloyalty to the Soviet regime. Beyond physical deportations, the Soviet authorities implemented policies aimed at eliminating Baltic national identities. The Baltic languages were downgraded in favour of Russian, national cultural institutions were closed or russified, and historical narratives were rewritten to emphasise the “voluntary” incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union. The Soviet authorities also encouraged the settlement of ethnic Russians in the Baltic states, fundamentally altering their demographic composition.
Historical Continuity of Crimes Against Humanity against the Baltic States’ population
The question of whether Soviet policies in the Baltic states constitute genocide has been examined by numerous historians. Unlike the Holodomor, which primarily involved killing through starvation, the Baltic experience involved a combination of physical destruction, cultural erasure, and demographic manipulation. Historians who argue that Soviet policies in the Baltic states constituted genocide emphasise the systematic nature of the repression and the intent to destroy Baltic national identities. Valters Nollendorfs and Erwin Oberländer, in “The Hidden and Forbidden History of Latvia under Soviet and Nazi Occupations, 1940-1991” (2005), document how Soviet policies specifically targeted the foundations of Baltic statehood and national identity. The demographic evidence is particularly compelling. Between 1940 and 1953, the Baltic states lost approximately 20% of their population through deportations, executions, and conscription into military service. In Latvia, for example, the population decreased from 1.9 million in 1939 to 1.6 million in 1945, despite the return of some refugees after the war. The proportion of ethnic Latvians in the country decreased from 77% in 1935 to 62% in 1959, largely due to the settlement of Russians and the deportation of Latvians.
The cultural dimension of the repression is equally significant. The Soviet authorities specifically targeted institutions that preserved Baltic national identity: schools, universities, museums, and cultural organisations. As Toivo Raun notes in “Estonia and the Estonians” (2001), the Soviet authorities viewed Baltic national identity as inherently anti-Soviet and therefore systematically attempted to eliminate it. However, some historians caution against applying the genocide label to the Baltic experience. While acknowledging the brutality of Soviet policies, they argue that the primary goal was political control rather than physical destruction. Anatol Lieven, in “The Baltic Revolution: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Path to Independence” (1993), suggests that Soviet policies were better characterised as “ethnocide” or “cultural genocide” rather than genocide in the strict legal sense. The Baltic states themselves have been unequivocal in their characterisation of Soviet policies as genocide. All three countries have established museums documenting the Soviet occupation and have passed laws recognising the deportations as genocide. In 2009, the European Parliament passed a resolution designating August 23 as the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism, explicitly acknowledging the genocidal character of both totalitarian regimes.
Comparative Analysis of Soviet and Nazi Methods of Repression and Genocide
While their ultimate scopes differed, Nazism centred on racial imperialism and the creation of a racially “pure” Volkish state, and Stalinism on a class-based utopia enforced by a monolithic party state, both systems utilised identical tools of terror to achieve their objectives. The Baltic states, having suffered both regimes in rapid succession, are a prime example of this “double occupation” and the convergence of methods.
Soviet Union (Stalinism): The core driver was class ideology. The Stalinist worldview demanded the liquidation of entire classes deemed hostile to the proletarian revolution—the “kulaks” (wealthier peasants), the bourgeoisie, “counter-revolutionaries,” and “enemies of the people.” Destruction was a means to an end: the removal of any perceived obstacle to the building of a communist society and the absolute consolidation of party power.
Nazi Germany: The core driver was racial ideology. The Nazi worldview divided humanity into a racial hierarchy, with the “Aryan” Herrenvolk (master race) at the top and Jews, Roma, and Slavs deemed “life unworthy of life” (Lebensunwertes Leben) at the bottom. Destruction was an end in itself: the elimination of these “racial enemies” was paramount to creating the envisioned Reich.
The Baltic Experienced Convergence of Both Terrors
The Baltics experienced these methods back-to-back, making them a case study in totalitarian convergence: Soviet Re-Occupation (1944-1991): The return of Soviet power was followed again by repression: deportations of those accused of collaborating with the Nazis, forced collectivisation, and the suppression of national partisan resistance (“Forest Brothers”). Soviet Occupation (1940-1941): Began with mass deportations of “enemies of the people” (intelligentsia, politicians, military officers, wealthy farmers) to the Gulag in Siberia in June 1941. This was a classic Stalinist class-based purge. Nazi Occupation (1941-1944): Immediately switched to a racial purge. The same forests (like Ponary) used by the NKVD to bury their victims were now used by the Einsatzgruppen and collaborators to murder Jews. The method of mass shooting into pits was identical; only the target selection changed (from class to race).
Nazism and Stalinism had shared Totalitarian Genocidal Features
While their ideological justifications were different, the Nazi and Stalinist regimes operated from a shared totalitarian playbook. Both sought total control over the individual and society, and both viewed vast segments of their own and foreign populations as expendable obstacles to their utopian goals. The methods to achieve this—mass shooting, starvation, deportation, forced labour, and a pervasive system of police terror—were functionally identical. The historian Timothy Snyder’s concept of the “Bloodlands” (the region comprising Poland, the Baltics, Ukraine, and Belarus) effectively captures this reality. In this territory, between 1933 and 1945, 14 million civilians were killed by the deliberate policies of the Stalinist and Nazi regimes. These people were not just collateral damage of war; they were the victims of a convergence of totalitarian methods, where the techniques of state-sponsored mass murder were perfected and unleashed.
Nazist Germany War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity
When Nazi Germany invaded the Baltic states in June and July 1941 during Operation Barbarossa, the region was rapidly drawn into one of the most brutal phases of the Second World War. Between 1941 and 1944, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania experienced a wave of systematic atrocities that combined genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The Jewish populations of all three countries were singled out for extermination by the mobile killing units of Einsatzgruppe A, assisted by local collaborators such as the Arajs Kommando in Latvia and auxiliary police battalions in Lithuania and Estonia. In Lithuania, the destruction was almost total: by 1944, as many as 95 per cent of the country’s prewar Jewish community—around 220,000 men, women, and children—had been murdered in mass shootings, ghetto liquidations, and deportations. In Latvia, approximately 70,000 Jews perished, most infamously during the Rumbula massacre near Riga in late November and early December 1941, when some 25,000 people were shot over the course of just two days. Estonia’s Jewish population, much smaller in number, was also annihilated, and by 1942 the country had been declared “Judenfrei”—“free of Jews”—by the German occupation authorities, following the murder of about 1,000 local Jews and an additional 10,000 foreign Jews deported there to be killed. Roma communities across the Baltic states were also targeted, with many executed or deported under the Nazi policy of racial extermination.
Beyond the Holocaust, the German occupation inflicted enormous suffering on the wider civilian population. Suspected partisans, communists, and so-called “undesirable” elements were arrested and executed, while entire villages were subjected to collective reprisals, including burnings and deportations. Tens of thousands of Baltic civilians were forced into labour battalions or deported to Germany to work as slave labourers in factories and farms. The region also became dotted with concentration and labour camps, where prisoners faced starvation, disease, and mass executions. Among the most notorious were the Salaspils camp near Riga, which held thousands of Latvian civilians, political prisoners, and children; the Ninth Fort in Kaunas, Lithuania, a site of mass shootings and prisoner executions; and the Klooga camp in Estonia, where retreating German forces massacred nearly 2,000 prisoners in September 1944.
Nazi Crimes in the Baltic States (1941-1945): A Detailed Compilation
The Nazi occupation of the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia) during Operation Barbarossa (June 1941) led to a systematic campaign of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The scale and speed of the destruction, particularly of the Jewish population, were facilitated by local collaboration and were among the most devastating in Europe. The Nazist regime implemented its “Final Solution” with brutal efficiency in the Baltics, primarily through mass shootings.
Lithuania:
- Pre-war Population: Approximately 210,000 – 220,000 Jews.
- Mechanism of Destruction: Mass shootings by Einsatzgruppe A and Lithuanian auxiliary units. Major ghettos were established in Vilnius (Vilna Ghetto) and Kaunas (Kovno Ghetto) as holding pens before liquidation.
- Key Sites: Ninth Fort in Kaunas (a fortress used as a killing site and prison; over 50,000 people, mostly Jews, murdered there), Ponary Forest (Paneriai) near Vilnius (approx. 70,000 murdered, about 95% of them Jews).
- Death Toll: By the end of 1941, most Lithuanian Jews had already been murdered. An estimated 195,000–196,000 Lithuanian Jews were killed, representing about 90-95% of the pre-war population—one of the highest annihilation rates in Europe.
Latvia:
- Pre-war Population: Approximately 70,000 Latvian Jews and around 20,000 Jewish refugees from other countries.
- Mechanism of Destruction: Similar pattern of mass shootings. The Riga Ghetto was established in October 1941.
- Key Sites: Rumbula Forest (Near Riga; nearly 25,000 Latvian Jews from the Riga Ghetto were shot over two days in November and December 1941). Liepāja (mass shootings on the beach). Salaspils camp (primarily a concentration and transit camp with extremely high mortality due to starvation and disease).
- Collaboration: The Arajs Kommando (a Latvian auxiliary police unit under Viktor Arajs) was directly responsible for the murder of around 26,000 Jews and played a key role in the Rumbula massacre.
- Death Toll: Approximately 70,000 Latvian Jews were murdered. In 1943, the Riga Ghetto was liquidated, and its remaining occupants were sent to the Kaiserwald concentration camp.
Estonia:
- Pre-war Population: Approximately 4,500 Estonian Jews.
- Mechanism of Destruction: Estonia was declared “Judenfrei” (free of Jews) by the Nazis in January 1942. Almost the entire local Jewish community was killed by the end of 1941.
- Key Sites: Klooga and Vaivara concentration camps. Klooga became a site for forced labour and, in 1944, a mass execution site for prisoners evacuated from other camps as the Soviet army advanced.
- Death Toll: Nearly all ~1,000 local Estonian Jews were killed. Additionally, over 10,000 Jews deported from other European countries (e.g., Czechoslovakia, Germany) to camps in Estonia were murdered or died from the conditions.
Genocide of the Roma Population
- The Nazist ideology also targeted the Roma (Gypsies) for extermination as “asocials” and racially inferior.
- While less thoroughly documented than the Jewish Holocaust, thousands of Baltic Roma were murdered in mass shootings or perished in concentration camps. This constitutes a clear case of genocide under international law.
Local Collaboration
- The speed of the Holocaust was enabled by significant local collaboration.
- Lithuania: Lithuanian Activist Front (LAF) and auxiliary police battalions participated in pogroms and mass shootings from the first days of the occupation.
- Latvia: The Arajs Kommando was the most notorious collaborator unit, but other Latvian SS Legion and police units were also complicit.
- Estonia: Estonian auxiliary police and units within the German security structure participated in the Holocaust and anti-partisan operations.
- Motivations for collaboration varied and included antisemitism, anti-Bolshevism (following the recent Soviet occupation), opportunism, and coercion.
Repression of Civilians and Anti-Partisan Warfare
- The Nazi regime considered Slavs and Balts as “Untermenschen” (subhumans) and implemented a policy of brutal repression.
- Collective Punishment: Entire villages were burned to the ground in retaliation for real or suspected support of Soviet partisans.
- Executions: Tens of thousands of non-Jewish civilians—communists, intellectuals, Roma, the disabled, and anyone deemed a threat—were executed.
- Prisons and Camps: A network of prisons and concentration camps was established, including Salaspils (Latvia) and Klooga (Estonia), where prisoners died from starvation, disease, and maltreatment.
Forced Labour and Deportations
- Ostarbeiter (“Eastern Workers”): Tens of thousands of Balts were forcibly deported to Germany to work in factories and farms under brutal conditions to support the German war effort.
- Local Conscription: Civilians were conscripted into German labour battalions (Organisation Todt) for local construction projects, including building fortifications and military infrastructure.
International Legal Characterisation
- Nuremberg Trials (1945-1946): Crimes committed in the Baltic states were included in the indictments against the major Nazi war criminals for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. The activities of the Einsatzgruppen were a central focus of the subsequent Einsatzgruppen Trial (1947-1948).
- Genocide Convention (1948): The events in the Baltics are now universally recognised as a textbook example of genocide, as defined by the UN Convention. The systematic intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Jewish and Roma populations of the region is clearly documented.
- War Crimes: The targeting of civilians, execution of prisoners of war, and destruction of property without military justification are clear violations of the laws of war.
These crimes were not incidental but formed part of the broader Nazi strategy of racial and political annihilation in Eastern Europe, which sought to eradicate Jewish communities, suppress local resistance, and harness the region’s human and material resources for the German war effort. The scale and systematic nature of the killings placed the Baltic states at the very centre of the Holocaust, making them some of the deadliest landscapes of Nazi-occupied Europe. After the war, evidence of these atrocities was presented at the Nuremberg Trials, where Nazi leaders were indicted for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Today, the memory of these events underscores the catastrophic impact of Nazi rule on the Baltic peoples, not only in terms of demographic destruction but also in the long-lasting trauma inflicted on national societies that lost nearly all of their Jewish populations and endured years of terror, forced labour, and cultural repression under occupation.
Comparative Analysis: Common Patterns and Distinct Features
While the Holodomor and the Baltic deportations differed in their specific manifestations, they shared common features that many historians identify as genocidal. Both involved the deliberate targeting of specific national groups, the implementation of policies that resulted in mass death, and the systematic attempt to eliminate national identities. In both cases, the Soviet authorities demonstrated a clear understanding of the destructive impact of their policies. The archival evidence reveals that Soviet leaders were aware of the famine conditions in Ukraine, yet continued to implement policies that exacerbated starvation. Similarly, the detailed planning of the Baltic deportations, including the preparation of transport and the identification of specific targets, indicates a deliberate intent to destroy Baltic national communities. The implementation of these policies also followed similar patterns. In both Ukraine and the Baltic states, the Soviet authorities first targeted the intellectual and political elites who served as the foundation of national identity. This was followed by broader repression of the general population, particularly those in rural areas who maintained traditional ways of life. Finally, the Soviet authorities implemented policies aimed at long-term cultural assimilation, including the promotion of the Russian language and culture.
Historical Debates and Controversies
The historical debates surrounding these events reflect broader disagreements about how to define and identify genocide. The traditional definition, established by the UN Convention, emphasises physical destruction. However, many historians argue for a broader understanding that includes cultural destruction and demographic manipulation. Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term “genocide,” originally conceived it as encompassing both physical and cultural destruction. In his unpublished essay “Soviet Genocide in Ukraine” (1953), Lemkin argued that the Holodomor represented “a classic case of Soviet genocide, its longest, its broadest, its most revolting phase.” For Lemkin, the destruction of Ukrainian national identity was as significant as the physical destruction of the Ukrainian people. This broader understanding of genocide has been embraced by many historians studying Soviet policies. Norman Naimark, in “Stalin’s Genocides” (2010), argues that “genocide, in the classic sense of the term, is not just about killing people; it is about killing the culture, the language, the religion, and the historical memory of a people.” From this perspective, both the Holodomor and the Baltic deportations qualify as genocide because they involved systematic attempts to destroy national groups. However, other historians maintain a narrower definition of genocide. Robert Conquest, in “The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivisation and the Terror-Famine” (1986), while documenting the catastrophic impact of the Holodomor, hesitates to use the term genocide, preferring “terror-famine” instead. Similarly, Mark Kramer, in “The Soviet Famine of 1932-1933 and the Ukrainian Famine” (2020), acknowledges the disproportionate impact on Ukraine but questions whether there is sufficient evidence of genocidal intent.
Historical Memory and National Identity
The memory of these genocides has played a crucial role in the development of national identity in Ukraine and the Baltic states. In all four countries, the remembrance of Soviet repression has become a cornerstone of national identity, distinguishing these nations from Russia and emphasising their historical experience as victims of Soviet imperialism. In Ukraine, the Holodomor has been memorialised through museums, monuments, and annual commemorations. The Holodomor Memorial Museum in Kyiv, established in 2008, serves as both a research centre and a site of national memory. The fourth Saturday of November is observed as Holodomor Remembrance Day, with ceremonies held throughout Ukraine and in Ukrainian communities worldwide. Similarly, in the Baltic states, museums documenting the Soviet occupation have become important sites of national memory. The Museum of Occupations in Tallinn, the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia in Riga, and the Museum of Genocide Victims in Vilnius all preserve the memory of Soviet repression while educating younger generations about their national history. These memorial practices serve multiple purposes. They honour the victims of Soviet repression, educate the public about historical events, and reinforce national identity by emphasising the distinctiveness of Ukrainian and Baltic historical experiences. As Serhy Yekelchyk notes in “Ukraine: Birth of a Modern Nation” (2007), the memory of the Holodomor has become “a central element of Ukrainian national identity, distinguishing Ukraine from Russia and emphasising its unique historical path.”
International Recognition and Contemporary Politics
The international recognition of these genocides has become an important aspect of contemporary politics, particularly in the context of Russia’s relations with Ukraine and the Baltic states. The recognition of the Holodomor as genocide by national governments and international organisations has been seen as a way of acknowledging historical injustice while affirming the sovereignty of post-Soviet states. As of 2023, sixteen national governments, including the United States, Canada, and Australia, have recognised the Holodomor as genocide. The European Parliament has also passed resolutions recognising both the Holodomor and the Soviet deportations in the Baltic states as genocides. These recognitions have been welcomed by Ukrainian and Baltic authorities as validation of their historical experience. However, Russia continues to reject the genocide label for both the Holodomor and the Baltic deportations. The Russian government maintains that these events were tragedies resulting from economic difficulties and wartime conditions rather than deliberate acts of genocide. This position reflects Russia’s broader historical narrative that minimises the repressive aspects of Soviet history while emphasising its achievements.
The historical debates about these genocides have contemporary relevance, particularly in light of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Many historians and policymakers have drawn parallels between Stalin’s policies toward Ukraine and contemporary Russian actions, suggesting that historical patterns of repression continue to influence current events. As Timothy Snyder argues in “The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America” (2018), understanding these historical genocides is essential for comprehending current conflicts in the post-Soviet space. The question of whether Soviet policies in Ukraine and the Baltic states constituted genocide remains a subject of historical debate, but the evidence presented by numerous scholars suggests that these events meet the criteria for genocide under both traditional and expanded definitions. The Holodomor in Ukraine and the deportations in the Baltic states involved the deliberate targeting of specific national groups with the intent to destroy them, in whole or in part, through a combination of physical destruction, cultural erasure, and demographic manipulation. The historical significance of these events extends beyond academic debates. For Ukraine and the Baltic states, the memory of these genocides has become a cornerstone of national identity, distinguishing these nations from Russia and emphasising their historical experience as victims of Soviet imperialism. The international recognition of these genocides has affirmed the sovereignty of post-Soviet states while acknowledging historical injustice.
As new archival evidence continues to emerge and historical research advances, our understanding of these events will undoubtedly evolve. However, the fundamental question remains: how do we acknowledge and remember instances of state violence against specific populations while ensuring that such atrocities are never repeated? The answer to this question is essential not only for historical accuracy but also for the promotion of human rights and the prevention of future genocides.
READ MORE:
Soviet repression and deportations in the Baltic states
Baltic Tribunal Against the Soviet Union
The Ironies of History: The Ukraine Crisis through the Lens of Jewish History
Genocide in Stalinist Russia and Ukraine, 1930–1938
https://csce.gov/publications/baltic-tribunal-against-soviet-union
Applebaum, Anne. Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine. New York: Doubleday, 2017.
Conquest, Robert. The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivisation and the Terror-Famine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
- Link: Oxford University Press
Getty, J. Arch. “Pragmatists and Puritans: The Rise and Fall of the Party Control Commission.” In Stalinism: The Essential Readings, edited by David Hoffmann, 217-240. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2017.
Kramer, Mark. “The Soviet Famine of 1932-1933 and the Ukrainian Famine.” In *Cannibalism and Starvation in Ukraine, 1932-1933*, edited by Andrea Graziosi, et al., 1-48. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, 2020.
- Link: Harvard University Press
Lemkin, Raphael. “Soviet Genocide in Ukraine.” 1953. Unpublished essay, Raphael Lemkin Papers, New York Public Library.
Lieven, Anatol. The Baltic Revolution: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Path to Independence. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.
- Link: Yale University Press
Naimark, Norman. Stalin’s Genocides. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.
Nollendorfs, Valters, and Erwin Oberländer, eds. *The Hidden and Forbidden History of Latvia under Soviet and Nazi Occupations, 1940-1991*. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2005.
Raun, Toivo. Estonia and the Estonians. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 2001.
- Link: Hoover Institution Press
Snyder, Timothy. Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Basic Books, 2010.
Snyder, Timothy. The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. New York: Tim Duggan Books, 2018.
Wheatcroft, Stephen. “The Scale and Nature of Stalinist Repression and Its Demographic Significance.” In Stalinism: The Essential Readings, edited by David Hoffmann, 241-268. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2017.
Yekelchyk, Serhy. Ukraine: Birth of a Modern Nation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
- Link: Oxford University Press