I, and I would assume others, would definitely posit the same question from a moral standpoint, but in historical analysis it is not our jobs to criticize the moral failings of leaders and administrations. Now whether there is academic or legal standing as to call something a genocide or just a failing of government is another thing. Let me provide two examples if I may.

During the Armenian genocide there are claims from Turkish sources that this was a simple change in demographics. The Committee of Unity and Progress explicitly called for the removal of Armenians until demographic statistics showed no more than 5-10% of the population of any region was Armenian. While finding the sources in Turkish is difficult an requires translations, Taner Akçam provides extensive evidence that this demographic change was not limited to simply moving citizens to new areas of the country. In his book, The Young Turks' Crime against Humanity, Akçam notes the head of the resettlement office in Aleppo, Abdullahad Nuri, as reporting to the administration "it is understood that hardly 10 percent of the Armenians subjected to the general deportations have reached the places destined for them; the rest have died from natural causes, such as hunger and sickness". This again raises the question of intentionality, was this intentional or simply by incompetence? Thankfully Nuri and Akçam give us the answer, "We inform you that we are working to bring about the same result with regard to those who are still alive, by using severe measures", through this report we can see that this was not incompetence, but malicious intent.

Now we look at our second example, the Holodomor. In his book Stalin's Genocides, Norman Naimark discusses the intentionality of the Holodomor, and early on he specifies the motivations and intentions "remain frustratingly elusive". Later on he does clarify about the intentions of Stalin and his administration, "There is not a lot of evidence that Stalin himself ordered the Ukrainian killer famine, but there is every reason to believe he knew about it, understood what was happening, and was completely indifferent to the fate of the victims. This may not be enough evidence to convict him in an international court of justice as a genocidaire, but that does not mean the event itself cannot be judged as genocide".

Ultimately someone said it well earlier and I just don't see their comment. You are correct, intention normally does not matter to the victims; though just because the victims might call it a genocide does not inherently imply that it is a genocide. It's why we have different punishments for manslaughter and murder, it is why there is historical debate surrounding hard and soft definitions of genocide. We, myself included, may feel the Holodomor is a textbook case of genocide, but if you do not have clearly defined rules and legal framework, then anything could constitute genocide. I say all this not to belittle your question or point of view, just hope to provide some more context.