BROADCASTS.com

Absolutely no one doubts that Stalin murdered millions of people in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. His ruthless campaign of \u201cdekulakization,\u201d his pitiless deportation of \u201cunreliable\u201d ethnic groups, his senseless starvation of Ukrainian peasants, his cruel attempt to \u201ccleanse\u201d the Communist Party of supposed \u201cenemies of the people\u201d\u2013all of these actions resulted in mass death. In total, Stalin is responsible for the murder of roughly 10 million Soviet citizens. Again, this is well established.\n\nWhat is not well established is what to call Stalin\u2019s crimes. As Norman Naimark points out in his thought-provoking Stalin\u2019s Genocides (Princeton UP, 2010), historians and others have been peculiarly conflicted about this issue. Everyone agrees it\u2019s mass murder. But is it \u201cgenocide,\u201d with all that term entails? Etymologically, it doesn\u2019t seem so: gens is Latin for \u201cpeople who claim common descent,\u201d that is, a clan, tribe, or even nation. The Kulaks were not a gens. Historically, genocide doesn\u2019t fit well either: after World War II, the UN decided that it would mean \u201cacts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial religious group, as such.\u201d Again, the Kulaks are none of these things.\n\nNaimark, however, argues Stalin\u2019s crimes should be considered genocide on three grounds. First, he demonstrates that some of Stalin\u2019s attacks were genocide under the UN definition, for example his exile and starvation of minority ethnic groups. Second, he shows that some of those who sought to define genocide during and after World War II did not intend to restrict it to gens: they included political groups, that is, entities like the Kulaks. The Soviets and others demanded these groups be removed from the definition, and they were. Third, he demonstrates that international law has evolved, and with it the legal meaning of genocide: recent proceedings in the Baltic states, for example, have broadened the definition.\n\nSome might ask \u201cWhat does it matter what we call it?\u201d I think it matters a lot. Words are not only an interpretation of the world, but they are also a reflection of who we are. The words the Nazis used to describe their crimes\u2013\u201cfinal solution,\u201d \u201ctransport to the East,\u201d \u201cspecial handling\u201d\u2013tell us much about them. The words the Stalinists used to describe their crimes\u2013\u201cpurge,\u201d \u201cevacuation,\u201d \u201cre-education\u201d\u2013tell us much about them as well. And so we have to ask: What does our persistent failure to call Stalin\u2019s crimes \u201cgenocide\u201d say about us? Nothing very good, I think.\n\nPlease become a fan of \u201cNew Books in History\u201d on Facebook if you haven\u2019t already.\nLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices\nSupport our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/genocide-studies