http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Holodomor
I'm familiar with the Holocaust Denial movement but not so much with this one. I'm reading that it's mostly concentrated in Eastern Europe (due to the numerous references in the Cyrillic languages) and was, unsuccessfuly, promoted by a few Western individuals and the American Communist Party.
In comparison, and after a quick search on Amazon.com, the Holocaust "Revisionists" have more literature than their Holodomor Denier relatives. Heck, there's barely any books that focuses on the Holodomor Holocaust to begin with.
Are there any skeptic sites that deal with this subject or is it too small to be dealt with?
The scale and extent of Stalinist crimes have been the subject of academic debate dating back to the 1980s, i.e. before the end of the Cold War and the opening up of Soviet archives, a debate which persisted after 1991
You can find a lot of relevant articles by people like Robert Conquest and Stephen Wheatcroft here
http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/
There are no 'skeptic sites' dealing with the issue but there is quite a lot of polemical material on a site called Art Ukraine, including reprints of articles and pieces by critics of the famine-genocide argument, such as Mark Tauger
http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/tauger.htm
Note: there is a genuine
academic debate around the 1932-33 famine, that has to be distinguished from simple politicised famine denial, although both sides have instrumentalised, used and abused academic scholarship. Robert Conquest is attacked incessantly by those who might be called Holodomor deniers, but he is also criticised by historians such as Stephen Wheatcroft, in a more reasoned tone, although the polemics have got quite heated on occasion.
In Russia today, there is a fairly substantial movement of publicists and writers, including a few academics, who deny or soft-pedal Stalinist crimes. These include writers who deny that Katyn was carried out by the NKVD and still blame the Germans.
There is a quite interesting discussion of some of the recent pamphlet literature produced by Holodomor deniers in the former Soviet Union - including works by Ukrainian and Belorussian authors - in an article surveying recent literature on the Holodomor as a whole.
http://www.ukrainianstudies.uottawa.ca/pdf/UKL445.pdf
(this reproduces an article from the recently established journal of Holodomor Studies.) The key passages are on pp.21-22 of the PDF
The Library of Congress has now created a separate bibliographic category for Holodomor denial, which so far has six titles including Tottle's book, the others are all from 2006-2009 and written in Russian, even if some have been published in Ukraine.
A good example would be this work, which the aforementioned article describes as follows
Sigizmund Mironin’s “Golodomor” na Rusi [28] (The Holodomor in Rus) appears to be a sequel to his earlier volume Stalinskii poriadok (Stalin’s order). While both books declare the Holodomor a nationalist project, “Golodomor” na Rusi attributes the cause of the famine across the entire Soviet Union to the chaotic period of the New Economic Policy of the 1920s rather than to Stalin’s intent on killing anyone. His earlier volume seeks to whitewash the entire Stalin era by dispelling several of the “myths.” Chapter titles include: The myth of the “Holodomor" of 1932-1933 – The myth of “The Great Terror” 1937-1938 – The myth of “genocide” of the deported
peoples – The myth of the Leningrad Affair – The myth of Stalin’s anti-Semitism (The Doctor’s Affair and the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee) – The myth of “Stalin’s paranoia” in the latter years of his life. Cleary, the Holodomor is but another issue to be dealt with in the process of historical revisionism.
The last point is crucial: Russian historical revisionists do exist, and in much larger numbers than the six titles classified as 'Holodomor denial' might suggest. The main form of historical revisionism is really to produce hagiographies of Stalin, extolling his positive achievements while ignoring or denying that he might have done anything wrong. They engage in multiple denials or minimisations, so the distinctiveness of Holodomor denial is not as clear cut as with Holocaust denial, because the Russian revisionists have not decided that only one Stalinist crime matters, whereas Nazi apologists long ago decided to ignore all other Nazi crimes and concentrate solely on the Holocaust.
Russian historical revisionists also overlap with the CT milieu in Russia. Someone like
Yuri Mukhin churns out dozens of books (often only pamphlets) on a variety of related topics, peddling multiple denials and CTs. Indeed, Mukhin and some other Russian historical revisionists are also Holocaust deniers.
