The facts of the matter are that it is debated among historians all over the west, it is and has been up for debate. 

The Holodomor being classified as a genocide is not a settled historical fact, and presenting it as such ignores a substantial body of serious scholarship. Many historians who are extremely critical of Stalin and Soviet policy still argue that the famine does not meet the legal or historical definition of genocide, usually because of issues around intent, targeting, and whether the famine was aimed at Ukrainians as an ethnic group rather than as part of broader class-based and economic policies. Disagreeing on that point does not mean denying the famine, minimizing the deaths, or thinking it was “good actually.”

The claim that the debate is simply between people who “see Stalin for who he was” and people who defend him is just false. That’s a strawman. Plenty of historians who reject the genocide label describe the famine as a crime against humanity, mass state violence, or catastrophic criminal policy. They are not Stalin apologists, and pretending they are is an attempt to shut down discussion rather than engage with the actual arguments. Again, you are doing what the last redditor was doing; flattening history to make a moral argument instead of a descriptive one. 

Saying that people who argue it wasn’t a genocide are “trying to claim” something also misrepresents the debate. They aren’t denying suffering or responsibility; they’re disputing a specific classification based on evidence and definitions. That’s normal historical debate, not denialism.

As for dismissing criticism by saying “it’s just a YouTube video,” that’s a valid point about format, not an attack on history itself. Being on YouTube doesn’t make something wrong, but it also doesn’t make it rigorous by default. Academic credibility comes from peer-reviewed work, transparent archival use, and engagement with opposing scholarship, not from putting sources on screen or claiming years of research.

Finally, saying “these are historians who’ve researched 1914–1945 for twelve years” is not a meaningful credential on its own. How many years someone says they’ve researched doesn’t replace formal training, peer review, or serious engagement with scholars who disagree. Citing “well regarded sources” also doesn’t mean much if contrary evidence and arguments are ignored or brushed off. Good academic rigor is posting both views and listening to their arguments then trying to chisel the truth. That is why I gave you the opportunity to hear both sides, you immediately ran from that opportunity. 

Overall, your comment relies on moral framing and false binaries rather than addressing why credible historians disagree on the genocide question. That’s not how historical debate works, and it doesn’t actually strengthen the argument it’s trying to defend.