TOTALITARISM, IMPERIALISM AND NATIONAL IDENTITY: A NEW OPTICS OF FAMINE STUDIES

Abstract

The article proposes a rethink of the approaches to Holodomor studies, using the latest publications of S. Wheatcroft, F. Slaveski and V. Kondrashіn as a point of comparison. The author employs the methodological tools of these specialists, which essentially result in the reproduction of Soviet narratives. Recent articles by Ukrainian historians of Holodomor and Soviet totalitarianism of the 1920s–1930s (L. Hrynevych, S. Kulchytsky and L. Yakubova) have been used for analysis and comparison. These authors have been selected for their expertise in researching totalitarianism, imperialism, colonialism and national politics.
The author demonstrates the imperial perspective of S. Wheatcroft and F. Slaveski. In 2025, these authors used the term «loss» to describe Ukraine and other regions, reflecting the situation in the Russian Empire in 1917. Furthermore, the dissolution of the empire has been attributed to the rise of «nationalism». They overlook the initial famine of 1921–1923, which resulted in greater fatalities than the post-war famine they referenced. They claim that the use of political factors to explain the famine has the potential to hold the opposition accountable, and caution should be exercised when employing this approach. According to their logic, Ukrainian historians who discuss the famine are labelled «future nationalists». It appears that there is a lack of distinction between the all-Union and Ukrainian famines. Also, there seems to be a lack of awareness of the fact that the countryside was the target, with data on low mortality in Kyiv being used to counter the argument on blackboarding. The second article is by V. Kondrashin, and it looks like an instruction for future historians on how to write about collectivisation and industrialisation. He states that collectivisation resulted in the formation of the «military-industrial complex» and ultimately led to victory in World War II. He asserts that the experience of collectivization is beneficial for Russia in the present day.
Utilising examples from the research of the aforementioned scholars, the author demonstrates that Ukrainian historians have adopted approaches to Holodomor research that propose a broader context, as well as explanations of the prerequisites and reasons for the famine. This methodological framework extends beyond the investigation of the economy and demography associated with the famine. The author concludes that such an approach should be adopted by the researchers in the field of Holodomor studies. Foreign researchers’ approaches that had been investigated in the article fail to consider the totalitarian state with its unique dual-level construction, ideology, terror, control and other peculiarities, as well as the individuals targeted by the famine-genocide.