To what extent can the trial and execution of Ruth Ellis 1955 be Outline

To what extent can the trial and execution of Ruth Ellis 1955 be considered a turning point in approaches to the punishment of criminals in Britain in the years 1830-1965 - Outline Example treadwheel) but also the use of crank machines, shot drills, and picking oakum1, 2. With the purpose of â€Å"grinding corn, pumping water, and other prison purposes†, the criminals had to work between 8 to 10 hours a day manually revolving the mill by stepping on the 16 feet wood cylinder3. In 1865, the number of days wherein the prisoners will have to use the treadmill or crank was limited to only 3 months of their entire sentences4. The penal transportation is referring to the process of transporting convicted criminals to a separate colony (i.e. Van Diemen’s Land in Australia)5. Since the 1820s, there was a false belief that the act of transporting convicted criminals to a separate colony could help decrease the crime rate in Britain. In 1837, the group of penal transportation committee was finally convinced that this particular penal punishment was not effective and has to be removed immediately. Eventually, the Penal Servitude Act 1853 became the substitute for penal transportation6. As a correctional facility, convicted male offenders were kept in Pentonville Prison since 1842 whereas the female offenders were kept in the Brixton Prison since 1852. In 1857, the British government officially abandoned the use of the â€Å"prison hulks† which are old sailing ships7. Between 1877 to 1878, all prisoners in Britain were being managed by the British government. Other form of punishment includes hanging in public which officially ended in 18688. Ellis used a .38 revolver to shoot David four times yet she remaind calm after committing the crime. During the trial, Ellis boldly stated that â€Å"it was obvious that when I shot him, I intended to kill him†9. Specifically the facts presented in the court gave the jury the false idea that Ellis was â€Å"a cold-blooded killer†10. Even though the use of hanging as a form of capital punishment has officially ended in 1868, Ellis became the

American Airlines Innovation Report Research Paper

American Airlines Innovation Report - Research Paper Example It does flights both internationally and domestically, including the Caribbean, North America, South America, Asia, Europe, and Africa (Forty 44 ). The developments of this airline range are adverse i.e. passenger services improvement, electronic ticketing, discounts, introduction of self service machines, AAdvanced bag machine check programs, in-flight connectivity programs, power ports introduction to the plane, â€Å"remember me† feature, on board purchase features, and some others as will be seen in details later . American airlines have revolutionized the airline industry when they initiated the passenger services over 50 years ago. Up to date, American Airlines has not relented on its commitment to investment in technology and innovation so as to achieve customer satisfaction. From an advanced AA web site to a Self Service Check In, it has evolved its technology to serve the changing demands of the airline industry and of its customers. The AA website offers more tools a nd more options to the passengers; it has become more convenient in general. Therefore, most customers will continue using American Airlines services. The airline boasts of being the leader in innovation, as it was ranked 11th in the Information Week 500, which is a rating of the most creative organizations in the US. In 1998, American Airlines became the foremost airline to present electronic ticketing across the 44 countries it operates in (Mallarino 170). The AA website receives about 1.7 million visits in a day and is considered the biggest distribution channel in America as well as the best platform of online business within the airline. The airline has the reward packages for passengers who book their flights online get a discount guarantee, and there is no booking free of charge. The American Airlines also has a Mobile platform. The platform is a useful tool to the modern connected passengers and is the main force behind the airlines technology being developed to ease travel for the passenger (Stacks 45). The Airline also has a travel package commonly known as the American Airlines Travel Application. This application has been created with focus on the distinct characteristics of a particular mobile device, which enables timelier and simpler updates as new tools are created and released. This makes the American Airline remain ahead of other companies in terms of application innovation. These applications are available on various platforms including iPad, iPod Touch, iPhone, Blackberry, Android, Windows Phone 7, Amazon Kindle Fire, Barnes, and Noble NOOK Color Readers Tablet (Geza 45). The Airline has a Mobile Boarding pass chance that applies to passengers using American Eagle and American Airlines flights in about 80 cities and 10 international airports. The passengers have the option of receiving their boarding passes on their mobile phones when they book flights in the AA website using either the mobile or desktop version. The passenger is sent an em ail with a link to a boarding pass with a 2-D barcode. This barcode can be used at select American Airlines gates and TSA security checkpoints by scanning the 2-D barcode. The Wi-Fi widget enables customers to find out if the flights they have booked will be Wi-Fi enabled. The in-flight connectivity is a very important tool for leisure and business passengers (Cearly 60). The AA website enables passengers to receive computerized information about their

The Attack on Black Tom Island (Known as Liberty State Park) June Research Paper

The Attack on Black Tom Island (Known as Liberty State Park) June 30th, 1916 - Research Paper Example Introduction The location of Black Tom Island was at the convergence of Upper New York Harbor and the Hudson River, on the New Jersey side of the bay, immediately offshore of Jersey City. Initially, it was actually little more than a forested mudflat. The name of the island accrues from one resident, who resided in the island referred to as Tom. Studies indicate that this dark-skinned inhabited the island for a long time. Around 1880, a there was erected a causeway to link the island to the Jersey shore and the builders also constructed a railroad on the causeway. Expansion also occurred in the island with landfills and there was construction of warehouses and piers. The Lehigh Valley Railroad Company owned and controlled the railway while the National Dock and Storage Company managed the warehouses. The use of these facilities was for shipping all-purpose consignment (Bryant, 2009). Black Tom was approximately 1,200 feet. It encompassed approximately 20 acres, magnitude of roughly 8 00 feet north and south and 1,200 feet east and west. German saboteurs destroyed the Black Tom warehouse before the United States went into World War I (Groundspeak, Inc, 2011). The attack of Black Tom Island and the resulting explosion of July 30, 1916 in New Jersey was an operation of sabotage on American armory supplies by German agents. The German agents did this as a way of preventing their Allies from using such powerful ammunitions in the First World War. The extension that occurred in the Island by use of landfill added up the boundaries of the Island to the limits of Jersey City. The ammunitions majorly stored in the Island came from the northeast (Unsolvedmysteries.com, 2011). The attack was successful since general rules favored the attackers in a great way although technically, America was a neutral nation during the explosion. Many people thought that the major aim of the attack was for the persuasion of the America to join the Allies and arbitrate in the war in Europe (Waronyou.com, 2011). The attack on Black Tom Island Before a 1915 obstruction of the Central Powers by the British Royal Navy, American companies were open to trade their materials to any buyer, but during the time of the attack, Germans were the solitary likely customers. Investigations indicated that during the night of the explosion, there were two million pounds of ammunition stored at the warehouse in cargo vehicles. This included one hundred thousand pounds of TNT on the Johnson Barge No.17, all pending for final delivery to France and Britain (Unsolvedmysteries.com, 2011). Investigations on the explosion also indicate that there was prior planning before the attack. In 1914, immediately after the beginning of war in Europe, the German administration posted a new ambassador in Washington. Count Johann Von Bernstorff came with a group staff not of envoys, but of trained German intelligence operators. In addition, the staff had an abnormally high budget of 150 million dollars. Although the staff carried out normal consular duties, they also guided a system of other agents in the Unites States. They selected targets for damage, and used their funds to purchase materials and bribe officials. In addition, German agents, for instance master spy Franz von Rintelen, endeavored to augment the injuries imposed by their attacks. Von Rintelen invented a volatile charge called a pencil bomb devised to explode when a ship was already out to sea

Woodrow Wilson and World War 1 Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Woodrow Wilson and World War 1 - Research Paper Example 2 He had no belief in the Presidential form of government in the earlier years of his political career. He considered that the checks and balances in the U.S. Constitution did not provide for accountability on any arm of the federal structure. He rather advocated Parliamentary form of government. However in the later years he gained confidence in the Presidential system and got elected twice as the President.3 World War 1 World War 1 started in the year 1914 among the European countries due to the deep rooted naval rivalry between the great powers especially Great Britain and Germany who had amicably settled their differences only temporarily. France had misgivings about its lost provinces of Alsace and Lorraine to Germany and the resultant enmity had been brewing between them. Austria-Hungary and Russia had been resisting war with the Balkan countries in the years 1912 and 1913. In fact Europe had been witnessing a series of crises since 1900 that had brought great powers almost clo se to war. By 1914, the differences among these countries became insoluble and they started engaging in war against one another. 4 The United States remained neutral for some years before it was forced into war due to Germany’s aggressive postures. Woodrow Wilson did not believe in wars and advised the citizens of America not to take sides in the war that was in progress in Europe among Germany and Great Britain and others. Wilson lost his wife in 1915 and he later married Edith Boling Galt as his second wife in the same year. In the same year, Germany’s sinking of ships of Britain gave an opportunity for Wilson to mediate between the warring countries of Europe. His visit to Europe for convening a peace conference was reciprocated by European powers. Although the United States was growing in power, it was finding it difficult to protect her trading rights in the midst wars that were fought for victory and survival.5 Declaration of Neutrality Woodrow Wilson, in his mes sage to Congress urged his countrymen to remain neutral. Since people of the United States had their origins of many nations at war in Europe, it was quite natural for them to take conflicting stands. But as the citizens of the United States they should be bound together without exciting passions. If the people are divided, then it would not be possible to maintain peace and mediate as an impartial country. 6 First Warning to Germany Since Germany had been indulging in destroying merchant vessels of the United Sates and killing its people , Wilson issued his first warning to Germany on 10 February 1915 to the then Imperial German Government against attacking merchant vessels on the high seas without entering and searching for any contraband. He informed the German Government that it would be held to a strict accountability in case of attack on the merchant vessels of the U.S. resulting in loss of lives and property.7 War message to congress In view of the continued belligerence of G ermany against the United States, Wilson announced severance of diplomatic relations with Germany from 3 February 1917. In his war message to the congress on 2 April 1917, Wilson informed that Germany was indiscriminately sinking ships of neutral and friendly nations which was a challenge to all mankind. When all the affected nations were to decide how to meet the situations, the United Sates would not take action in a spirit of revenge or assertion of the country’s physical might but as the vindication of human right which the nation championed. On 26th February it was informed to the Congress that the country would assert its neutral rights with arms, right to use the sea in retaliation of unlawful interference, right to safeguard its people against unlawful violence. But as things stood in April, it

Case Study Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words - 14

Case Study - Essay Example This group is limited in the sense that there is a lack of women specially who watch porn and develop the tastes for having the vaginal matches with their favorite porn stars. This will therefore require a wider understanding of the different social and ethical factors related with viewing porn and its overall acceptability in an individual’s life. What is significantly more important however is the fact that the overall market is probably at its developing stage and the demand is driven by the external factors i.e. porn market? The number of stakeholders in this market therefore is relatively large as well as diversified and therefore the overall market development may be slow as well as may not develop at all considering the ethical considerations. The main issue for the plastic surgeons to develop FCGS as a viable business therefore is to maintain a balance between the different stakeholders while at the same time ensure that all the ethical considerations are followed in their true spirit. This would therefore involve not only the perfection of the technologies which are being used during the surgery but also develop and lobby to the influential groups in order to help recognize this business as an ethical and viable business which can fulfill the particular needs of the customers. The above situation analysis points towards the different reasons and causes of the problems discussed in the case study regarding the female genital cutting. A cause and effect analysis of the problem will indicate that the roots of the major problem are in the overall acceptability of the FCGS. Various stakeholders groups seem to stamp their claim on the human rights and ethical consideration of this practice however, what is critical is the question of free choice of the customers who are willing to go through the overall process of FCGS. A limited PEST analysis of the situation would suggest that the political factors are stronger in

Analytical Examination Essay Example for Free

Analytical Examination Essay This paper will analyze about the RA 10354 also called Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012. This essay will present a short history of the law here in the Philippines until it become enacted and implemented. This will discuss the major provisions of the law together with its important contents ranging from health care to contraception. This will also discuss the issues that are connected to this law while it was a bill such as maternal death, early pregnancy, premarital sex, poverty and population and reproductive health education. Issues concerned with legislation of the bill such as the necessity and morality of the bill and its contents like contraception and reproductive health education will be especially presented. Other news which may have affected the support for the bill will be also presented and analyzed. This will also present the major groups that approve or oppose the said law together with their reasons why they want or are against the said law. This will also talk about the actions those groups have taken for or against the law which may have affected the support for the bill’s implementation. This is also concerned with the voices of certain world organizations such as UNESCO and WHO on reproductive health education and the stand of the Church on the matter about contraception, self-continence and marriage. This will be concerned about their statement about the matter and the doctrines and values they adhere with. Summary Since its first proposition on 1988, the Reproductive Health Bill experienced many debates if it was really needed here in the Philippines. The proposition was changed and improved by a number of proponents many times but was mostly neglected. Then, a similar bill was also introduced in the first regular session of the 14th Congress by Albay Rep. Edcel C. Lagman, Jannette L. Garin, Narciso D. Santiago III, Mark Llandro Mendoza, Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel and Elandro Jesus F. Madrona that was known as House Bill 5043. Like that of the former bills, it was also disposed but its proponents never stop to improve, change and remove some parts of the former bill to create a new one. Many times Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman and its principal authors would edit the bill until the Reproductive Bill of 2012 was formed. Senator Pia Cayetano was also a principal sponsor of such bill. Upon December 19, 2012, the Senate enacted the bill and on December 21, 2012, four days before Christmas His Presidency, Benigno Aquino III signed the bill and was to be implemented fifteen days after its official publication. The law was known as RA 10354 or Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012. Its major provisions are to promote and have access to reproductive health care and methods that are legal and safe, to promote family planning methods and responsible parenthood, to counsel women who committed abortion in a humane way, to mandate reproductive health education in age appropriateness to students, to supply and maintain reproductive health services to all, to protect reproductive health rights and to penalize those who restricts or prohibits the access to reproductive health care and methods stated in this law. The law mandates the hire of skilled health professionals for maternal health care and birth attendance, seen in Sec. 5. It also promotes the upgrade of health care facilities for obstetric and newborn care as stated in Sec. 6 and to access for family planning methods especially to the poor and marginalized couple and to sexually active minors as said in Sec. 7. The law also states that â€Å"hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies†(RA 10354, Sec. 9) should be treated in the Essential Drugs List after subjection to reputable medical associations. It also mandates the procurement and distributions of family-planning supplies and age appropriate reproductive health education, stated in Sec. 10 and 14 respectively. And lastly, to condemn any who shall prohibit the access to health care and family-planning supplies. Since its first introduction by Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, this law had reaped many opposition and approval before being enacted. The pro-woman groups fought for saving the lives of woman from maternal death on the other hand the Church and other pro-life groups fought for dignity of the unborn and the sanctity of marriage. The senate itself was divided for selecting to if they will oppose or approve the bill. The Former President and Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was known to opposed the bill and be backed upon by the Church meanwhile President Benigno Aquino III shown agreement towards the bill and expected its implementation. The pronouncement of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI to condoms also became news if the Church was open to contraception. This gave new hope for Edcel Lagman from acceptance of the Church but Paranaque Rep. Roilo Golez explained that the Pope talks about health, that preventing HIV from spreading is showing compassion but the Pope doesn’t said to use condoms to prevent pregnancy. Issues also attract the said bill. First, is about the legislation of the bill, if it was really relevant here in the country with regards to overpopulation, Availability/Provisions for RH information and healthcare for mothers and children. Another issue is if the RH Bill is moral, if the Church must interfere with the State and if the government is willing to give funds to the bill. Third, is about the consequence of a widespread of contraceptives with regards to health and sexual behavior. The last is concerned in the need of sex education in the country. The CBCP together with the national Church felt that it was time to educate again its faithful and made efforts on counteracting the bill. The Church turned offering masses, praying for the enlightenment of congressmen and women and explained that principles of the bill undermine the sanctity of life and marriage. They stated that overpopulation was not the problem but corruption and the unequal distribution of people. They seek to get online, and used CBCP for Life for addressing the matter and let the Simbang Gabi 2012 be used for educating the faithful. They also made catechisms with themes regarding the RH. Meanwhile, pro-woman and pro-RH group also organize plans for the bill. They have tied violet ribbons on their arm signifying their fight against HIV-AIDS. Informed people about gender inequality, maternal deaths, teenage pregnancy and HIV-AIDS and that the bill would help minimize or eliminate such problems. UNESCO and WHO also promotes the education of youths regarding reproductive health. They state that benefits such as a delay in sexual initiation; reduction of unwanted pregnancies, child abuse and abortion; and a slower spread of HIV could be obtained. It can also induce progress to gender equity, social participation and partnership. It prepares the youths for responsibility as adults, emphasizes health promotion and can improve relevance in education systems. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church holds its deposit of faith centered on Divine Love and Unity in Marriage. Its Catechism says that Marriage is by which a man and a woman establish intimate communion for life which is ordered for the good of the spouse and the procreation and education of children,(1660, Catechism of the Catholic Church). It also states that the total reciprocal self-giving is overlaid through contraception for it is a refusal for the total giving of self through taking away openness to life,( 2370,Catechism of the Catholic Church). It states that even intercourse with a legitimate wife but taking away the power to generate life is contrary to God’s will and leaves guilt of a grave sin,(55-56, Casti Connubii). The Church also teaches the virtue of chastity, that the couple must exercise conjugal love and fidelity and that of safeguarding life form the moment of conception, (51, Gaudium et Spes). She teaches that Marriage can never justify sexual intercourse which is contraceptive which oppose to its true meaning and that artificial methods could lead to marital infidelity and lowering moral standards, reduction of woman as mere object of satisfaction and intervening of public authorities to the most personal and intimate responsibilities of couples, (14,17; Humanae Vitae). It also addresses the value of self-discipline to repel inordinate self-interests and to control the passions of the body,(21, Humanae Vitae). References Software Ecumenical Council of Vatican II. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Retrieved from CATECH01. exe Websites and Webpages Anonymous. (2012, December 21). Republic Act 10354. Retrieved from http://pcw. gov. ph/sites/default/files/documents/laws/republic_act_10354. pdf Burgonio, T. (2010, November 21). Pope’s pronouncement on condoms strengthens RH Bill – Lagman. Retrieved from http://newsinfo. inquirer. net/breakingnews/nation/view/20101121-304495/Popes-pronouncement-on-condoms-strengthens-RH-billLagman Dionisio, E. R. (2012, August 8). A Guide to Arguments for and against the Reproductive Health Bill. Retrieved from http://www. adnu. edu. ph/images/A%20Guide%20to%20Arguments %20For%20and%20Against%20the%20Reproductive%20Health%20Bill. pdf Ecumenical Council of Vatican II. Gaudium et Spes. Retrieved from http://www. vatican. va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en. html Paul VI. Humanae Vitae. Retrieved from http://www. vatican. va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en. html Pius XI. Casti Connubii. Retrieved from http://www. vatican. va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en. html Sun. star. Church RH Bill. Retrieved from http://www. sunstar. com. ph/davao/weekend/church-rh-bill Saclag, D. E. D. Group asks SC to lift suspension of RH Law. Retrieved from http://www. bworldonline. com/content. php? section=Nationtitle=Group-asks-SC-to-lift-suspension-of-RH-Lawid=71130 Unknown. (2012, August 14). Reproductive Health Bill, Good or Bad. Retrieved from http://behealthconsciousblog. wordpress. com/2012/08/14/reproductive-health-bill-good-or-bad/ Unknown. (2012, December 29). Republic Act 10354, Reproductive Health Act of 2012. Retrieved from http://filipinoscribe. com/2012/12/29/republic-act-10354-reproductive-health-act-of-2012/ Unknown. House Bill no. 5043, Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008. Retrieved from http://jlp-law. com/blog/full-text-of-house-bill-no-5043-reproductive-health-and-population-development-act-of-2008/ Villegas, B. M. et al. (2012, September 12) Handbook of Truths on RH Bill. Retrieved from http://cbcpforlife. com/? p=8859 Villegas, S. B. (2012, December 15). Contraception is Corruption, A Pastoral Letter on the Latest decision on the Rh Bill. Retrieved from http://cbcponline. net/v2/? p=6241 World Health Organization. Family Life, Reproductive Health and Population Education: Key Elements of a Health-Promoting School. Retrieved from http://hivaidsclearinghouse. unesco. org/search/resources/HIV%20AIDS%20231. pdf

Review Of The Holodomor Event In Ukraine History Essay

Review Of The Holodomor Event In Ukraine History Essay The Holodomor was a catastrophic event that saw the deaths by starvation of millions of Ukrainian peasants in the early 1930s. Generally regarded as having been at least partially caused by Soviet agricultural policy, the major school of thought for years has been that crop harvests at the time were not abnormally low, and the famine was a direct result of policies implemented with the intent of causing mass starvation among the people. However, revisionist theory contends that 1932 saw a massive crop failure in many parts of Ukraine and the Soviet Union, the extent of which made widespread famine an inevitable event, instead of being purposefully engineered by the Soviet leadership. Clearly, there exists sufficient ambiguity with regards to the reasons for the deaths of the millions of peasants involved to warrant an investigation. As such, an important question to address would be To what extent was the Ukrainian famine of 1932 a deliberate act of genocide against the Ukrainian people? This essay shall argue in favor of a synthesis of the two arguments, accepting that there was indeed a catastrophic crop failure in Ukraine at the time, but also that the subsequent actions of the Stalin points to an unequivocal attempt to decimate the peasantry. This essay will attempt to do this by explaining the motivations that Stalin may have had to institute genocide against the Ukrainian people, and show how his policies and actions reflected the intent to use the crop failure to his own ends. This essay will also examine the origins, purposes, values, as well as limitations of various sources dealing with the Holodomor, in an attempt to assess their suitability for use as evidence. Introduction Despite continual denials on the part of the Soviet Union and its modern derivative, the Russian Federation, it is now generally accepted that in the years 1932 to 1933, several million peasants died as a result of Soviet agricultural policies, including collectivization and forced seizure of crops,  [1]  as well as extremely harsh laws. The famine was exacerbated by the forced deportation of millions of peasants that took place during the same time period.  [2]  This period of famine became known as the Holodomor, Ukrainian for death by starvation. The exact figures with regards to fatalities due to the famine are hard to pin down, due in no small part to the Soviet Unions suppression of census figures. 1991 saw the release of the 1937 census, which shed some light on the possible range of fatalities of the time. The figures seem to suggest that the number of victims of the famine in 1933 were in the region of 7.2-8.1 million;  [3]  this figure however, does not take int o account famine victims of 1932 and 1934. The generally held view in many historical texts is that the famine was avoidable, and it was instead the actions of the Soviet leadership that led to the widespread devastation.  [4]   The exact reasons for the famine are a subject of scholarly debate. The first major argument is that of the famine as having been deliberately engineered with the intention of committing genocide against the Ukrainian people from the very onset. This view was raised by esteemed Holodomor historian Robert Conquest in his 1987 work, Harvest of Sorrow; the primary evidence for such an argument includes the fact that official Soviet statistics suggest that the grain harvest of 1932 was not abnormally low, and would have readily fed the population if not for government intervention.  [5]  Proponents also point to the harsh laws enacted that suggested a deliberate attempt to cause widespread hunger, including the five ears law, which called for the execution or ten-year imprisonment at best, of any hungry person who stole more than a few ears of corn.  [6]   However, that view has been countered by historians who see the famine as a completely unforeseen side effect of the collectivization process, caused primarily by the drought of 1931 and poor harvest of 1932. The primary proponent of this view is Dr Mark B. Tauger, who suggests that the classification of the famine as a deliberate act of genocide is down to misinterpretations and factual inaccuracies with regards to the officially released soviet data. Tauger also cites inconsistencies in the official grain harvest statistics of the 1930s and evidence that points towards the unreliability of these statistics.  [7]   In light of the evidence raised by both camps, there remains the important question To what extent was the Ukrainian famine of 1932 a deliberate act of genocide against the Ukrainian people? It is clear that there exists room for a synthesis of the two arguments, combining the various pieces of evidence that corroborate with each other in order to piece together a picture of the true nature of events. It is thus argued that the famine was an unexpected as well as undesirable outcome of the industrialization and collectivization process.  [8]  However, while there was no conscious decision on the part of Stalin to have the Ukrainian populace intentionally starved, and the intention when enacting the collectivization policy was by no means to enact a policy of starvation, Stalin was still indeed guilty of failing to take appropriate action to stop the famine from occurring,  [9]  and sufficient evidence exists to suggest that Stalins later policy reflected his intention to use the already widespread starvation as a tool to further his own agendas.  [10]  Thus, unintentional as the famine might have been, the fact [does] not at all absolve Stalin from responsibility for the famine. His policies towards the peasants were ruthless and brutal.  [11]  This view has been proposed by historians R.W. Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft in The Years of Hunger, and supported in part by Michael Ellman,  [12]   The Accidental Famine Recent scholarship tends to disagree with the notion that Soviet policies were engineered specifically to deal a mortal blow to the Ukrainian peasantry. Ellman, as well as Davies and Wheatcroft, point to the fact that the famine was caused mainly by Stalins decision to rapidly industrialize the nation by means of tribute from the peasantry,  [13]  as well as two successive bad harvests of 1931 and 1932. They also point to the fact that foolish policy, for example, neglect of agricultural techniques such as crop rotation, as well as the decision to continue grain export and refuse the import of grain exacerbated the problem. However, it is difficult to conclude that these were intentionally designed to kill.  [14]   To begin with, it is important to remember that policy makes in the Soviet Union of the time had little knowledge of agricultural practice, and often over-optimistic about the effects of their own policies.  [15]  Furthermore, the refusal to import grain had deeply ideological roots. In a time of great anti-communist sentiment around the world, Stalin was keen to ensure that he and his nation continued to project strength and power. Stalin himself in 1934 said, The import of grain now, when abroad they are shouting about the shortage of grain in the USSR, might produce a political minus.  [16]   As such, it can be seen that both the grain procurement policies as well as refusal of foreign import are not necessarily evidence of an active plot to destroy the Ukrainian peasantry. There exists strong evidence to suggest that the starvation was not a planned event, and were instead due to the implementation of policies without proper consideration of their impact. It must be noted though, that Stalin viewed the starving as idlers and class enemies,  [17]  and in his speech delivered at the midst of the famine in 1933, Stalin quoted Lenin by saying He who does not work, neither shall he eat.  [18]  These reflect the fact that although he had not necessarily planned the famine, he did not view the dying as worthy of aid, and this lends support to the argument that the famine, although unintentional, still placed fault in the hands of Stalin due to his refusal to take action in preventing it. The Poor Harvests The view of the famine as an intentional act of genocide rests firmly on the belief that the agricultural yield of the time was not particularly bad. This view was regarded as true for many decades, but historian Dr. Mark B. Tauger, in his journal article published in the Spring 1991 issue of the Slavic Review, suggests that this argument overlooks inconsistencies between official grain harvest statistics for 1930 and the evidence of famine, as well as evidence that these sources are unreliable.  [19]   The strict control of peasant movement through the internal passport system was cited by Conquest and others as evidence of the Soviet policy-makers keeping the Ukrainian peasants attached to the land, in much the same way traditional serfdom did.  [20]  Introduced in 1932, the passport system excluded peasants, which meant that the rural agricultural population who were hit worst by the famine was unable to leave the countryside without official permission.  [21]   However, Tauger asserts that thousands of peasants fled not only from Ukraine, but also from Kuban, the Urals and the Volga basin, among others areas, and that the passport mechanism was put in place to control labor movement and prevent famine stricken areas from being further threatened by depletion of labour.  [22]   In response to Conquests assertion that the grain harvests of the early 1930s were not significantly low, Tauger cites new Soviet archival data which shows that the 1932 harvests were much smaller than assumed, and worsened the food shortages that were already widespread by 1931.  [23]  Tauger also references R.W. Davies review of Harvest of Sorrow, which questions Conquests uncritical use of evidence and bias.  [24]   This viewpoint was written with the intention of debunking the genocide myth as put forth by Conquest in Harvest of Sorrow. It does this by pointing out the questionable nature of Conquests statistical data as well as questioning the assumption that policies at the time were directed only at Ukraine in an effort to murder its people. The case for re-evaluation of the genocide theory was convincing enough that Conquest himself later wrote that he no longer held the view that Stalin deliberately engineered the famine of 1933.  [25]   However, Taugers work may not necessarily be expanded upon enough to be considered an argument on its own. Tauger himself states that the Soviet regime was responsible for the deprivation and suffering of the Soviet populace in the early 1930s. He also goes on to suggest that the data presented here should contribute to a reevaluation not only of the famine, but also of the Soviet economy,  [26]  and not necessarily as a view unto its own. The purpose of Taugers work was to serve as a counter to Conquests work. Thus, there are several points that Taugers work does not cover, which is a limitation to the source. Firstly, the comments of Stalin and various other officials are completely ignored, as is the evidence that Stalin sought to wage class war on the Kulaks. Also, the occurrence of mass deportations, as well as the planned deportation of millions of other peasants is not mentioned. Policies such as the five ears law are also ignored. These issues are important when establishing the causality of the famine, as they are vital indicators of intent on the part of the Soviet leadership to cause harm to the peasantry, whether Ukrainian or otherwise. Having been written some years after Conquests works, the source is valuable as it takes into account new information that often serves to counter Conquests arguments. Thus, it is necessary to gather evidence from both ends of the spectrum in order to establish an argument that takes into account all the various viewpoints. Stalins Motivations to Kill When addressing the motivations that Stalin may have had for inducing an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people, it is important to consider the social and political changes that were happening at the time. Early Bolshevik leaders broke down the shadow of the Tsar and Russian Imperialism by assisting the former subjects of the Russian Empire in rebuilding their own national identity and cultures.  [27]  This was by no means due to generosity of spirit or goodwill, and was instead necessitated by the political climate of the time, due to widespread dissatisfaction among the non-Russian peasants in wide areas of the Soviet Union.  [28]   This rebuilding of national identity had grown in strength especially in the Ukraine, due in no small part to the fact that the 30 million Ukrainians living there were the largest single non-Russian national group in the Soviet Union, several times larger than any other.  [29]  The policy of Ukrainisation, as it was called, thus went further in Ukraine than it had done in any other state of the Soviet Union. This outpouring of nationalism would not go unnoticed. Stalin, in a message to Kaganovich in 11th August 1932 said: If we dont make an effort now to improve the situation in Ukraine we may lose Ukraine, suggesting that he saw a danger that the growing nationalism would lead to a rise in counter-revolutionaries.  [30]   This rise in nationalism provides compelling evidence to suggest that Stalin did indeed have motivation to enact a policy of genocide against the Ukrainian populace. The policies of indigenization that had dominated the peasantry for the last few years largely went hand-in-hand with Lenins New Economic Policy, and together were designed to keep the peasantrys nationalist aspirations placated in order to satisfy Russias economic needs.  [31]  With Stalins emergence as the victor in the succession struggle however, came a radical reversal of policies. Stalin had in 1928 done away with the New Economic Policy, and thus it would not have been a great step for him to do away with the indigenization policies. One of the key objectives of this, as put forth by Mace, was economic and social transformation designed to destroy native society and substitute a social system susceptible of control by Moscow.  [32]  Further evidence comes from the fact that the time of the famine coincided with non-Russian national self-assertion being labeled as bourgeois nationalism, and suppressed.  [33]   As such, the motivation for Stalin to want to enact a policy of enforced starvation against the Ukrainian populace is clear to see. The threat that Nationalism presented was not lost on Stalin, and his need to gain control over all aspects of the peasantry certainly suggests that an act of genocide intended to enforce obedience and crush the intelligentsia would not be beyond Stalin. As Ellman puts it: There would be nothing surprising or out of character about Stalins use of starvation. Stalin explicitly stated that he was engaged in a war [with the peasantry]à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦and in a war one aims to kill or otherwise overcome ones enemies.  [34]   At the same time, Leninism, and by extension Stalinism, viewed the peasantry with distaste, seeing them as petty property owners.  [35]  Ukraine had for a long time been viewed as the breadbasket of Europe, a name earned due to its rich soil and largely peasant population.  [36]  These two factors combine to form a plausible explanation for why Stalin would instigate starvation in Ukraine. Policies Enacted Next this essay shall consider Stalins actions. Arguments for the case of genocide typically cite two key points. First, the decision to continue exporting and seizing grain even in the midst of widespread starvation, and second, preventing the movement of peasantry out of affected areas. Another major point to consider is the deportation of peasants, even during the period of famine. Many historians make the case that actual productivity during the period was not overly low. One figure cited was an overall production fall of 9%,  [37]  which although substantial, was not enough to directly cause the deaths of millions of people. So then, what was the cause? Many point to the aggressive procurement policies that were put into place at the time. In 1932, just when it was beginning to become clear that Ukraine was facing mass starvation, Stalin began to implement policies that greatly affected the Ukrainian people. Despite falling production, Stalins top assistants announced that Ukraines quotas for bread grain would remain unchanged from the previous year.  [38]  Naturally, the harvest was unable to meet the production quotas, but Ukrainian appeals for an end to the grain seizures were to no avail, and throughout the fall of 1932, bread was seized from farmers, and farms that met their quotas were given supplementary quotas to make up for shortfalls elsewhere.  [39]  Stalin even ordered the seizure of even the seed that had been put aside for spring planting.  [40]  President Mikhail Kalinin went so far as to claim that only degraded disintegrating classes can produce such cynical elements in reference to the Ukrainian Politburos pleas for contributions to the starving.  [41]   Another major piece of evidence pointing to the possible intent of the politburo to commit an act of genocide is that of the mass deportation plans. In 1933, plans were drafted for the deportation of 2 million Kulaks.  [42]  There is little doubt that such massive deportations would have severely impacted Ukraines ability to continue producing the substantial amounts of grain that were required of it. However, to suggest that the planned deportation of the Ukrainian peasantry was intended to induce widespread starvation would be a fallacy. Indeed, by 1933, the roots of famine had already taken hold.  [43]  Instead, it is likely that the deportations were instead a response to what Stalin saw as class enemies and idlers  [44]  who were attempting to sabotage the Soviet rule by inducing grain shortages.  [45]   The Complete Picture By looking at the evidence shown, and also taking into account the strengths as well as limitations of the various historical arguments concerning the nature of the Holodomor, we can argue that although the initial aim of the collectivization policy was not to starve the peasantry,  [46]  Stalin did make use of the famine in order to achieve his other objectives.  [47]   There exists significant scholarship that attests to the unforeseen and undesired  [48]  nature of the famines of 1931 and 1932. Graziosi argues that Stalin, at a certain moment decided to use hunger to break the peasants opposition to collectivisation, and that even when he did not initiate something willfully, was always very quick to take advantage, of spontaneous events, drawing parallels to the Kirov assassination.  [49]   So then, if the introduction of collectivized farming was not to blame for the deaths, what was? There are several key factors involved: Firstly, the two successive bad harvests of 1931 and 1932; secondly, the politburos general ignorance of agricultural practices, leading to the disastrous implementation of agricultural policy. Thirdly, Stalins desire to punish the peasants for what he perceived as their counter-revolutionary struggle, and finally, Stalins arguable intention to make use of the famine as a cost-effective means of decimating and exerting ultimate control over the peasantry. Thus it can be seen that this argument takes into account two stages, the first addressing the roots of the famine, and the second dealing with the reaction of the Soviet leadership to the situation. In contrast to the view that the harvests of 1931 and 1932 were more than sufficient to feed to population, it is arguable that the harvests were so poor that famine eventually became an inevitable outcome. In 1932, the Soviet leadership admitted that there had been crop failure in parts of the Volga Basin and Asiatic Russia,  [50]  and the harvest was sufficiently bad that there were insufficient stocks to cover urban and rural food supplies, seed and export.  [51]  The need for grain led to withdrawals from the state stockpiles Nepfond and Mobfond, which started out with 2 million tons in January 1932, and was left with only 0.641 million tons by July.  [52]   In order to fully understand the impact of the crop failures, the administrative policy of the time must be studied. First and foremost, one must remember that the Soviet leadership, to a substantial extent, knew very little of agricultural policy making.  [53]  This led to the implementation of practices that undoubtedly exacerbated the problem of the already poor harvests. One vital example is that of the methods by which the Soviet leadership arrived at their numerical data. The regimes calculation of grain harvests was based not on actual production values;  [54]  instead, a statistical method known as biological yield was used to calculate a pre-harvest estimate of yield, which was then taken as the actual production value.  [55]   The failure to use properly gathered statistics led to many gross miscalculations that placed enormous strain on the production process. For instance, the grain utilization plan for 1932/1933 at a time when Ukraine was already on the verge of mass starvation,  [56]  saw a planned reduction in grain export by 3 million tons. However, grain collection fell by 4 million tons, leaving a net fall in grain stocks of 1 million tons.  [57]   It can thus be seen that the extent to which the harvests of 1931-33 were in decline was arguably lost on the Soviet leadership. Efforts were made to adjust grain procurement quotas to match the fall in production, with the Politburo seen to have at least attempted to reduce quotas in response to the falling harvests.  [58]  However, the Politburo at the same time planned to in fact increase the total state stockpile of grain from 1.36 million tons in July 1932 to 2.867 million tons in July 1933,  [59]  a response to the alarming fall in the Nepfond and Mobfond stockpiles in July 1932. These counter-intuitive and contradictory policies seem to point towards the fact that the Politburo as an agricultural policy-making body was unable to properly grasp both the extent of the growing famine (caused by unfavourable weather), as well as the impact of their actions, which they implemented over-zealously and with over-optimism about the effects (which further strained the amount of harvest left for the rural populace). However, the end of 1932 began to see a shift in policy that can be deemed substantial enough to suggest that Stalin had begun to use the opportunity that the famine presented as a means to advance his own ulterior motives. There exists significant evidence to suggest that Stalin had begun to see the famine as a means by which he would exact revenge on the peasantry, as well as force their subservience through fear. Stalin, in a correspondence with Sholokhov, said: The esteemed grain growers of your region (and not only your region) carried out a sit- down strike (sabotage!) and would not have minded leaving the workers and the Red Army without bread. The fact that the sabotage was quiet and apparently harmless (bloodless) does not alter the fact that the esteemed grain growers were basically waging a quiet war against Soviet power. A war by starvation (voina na izmor), dear com. Sholokhov  [60]   Along the same lines, Stalin condemned members of the peasantry as class enemies and idlers, and felt that they were the engineers of the famine. As a primary source, it is extremely valuable as it shows how Stalin believed that the famines were the direct result of an active plot to undermine the Soviet way, which explains why he felt the need to finish off the Kulaks, who had been beaten but were still very much involved in the perceived class struggle.  [61]  However, as the correspondence was written with the purpose of pushing the blame of the starvation away from the Politburos agricultural policy and towards the peasants, it is limited as the situation described by Stalin may have been subject to exaggerations and thus, not fully representative of historical events. Still, this perceived need to take revenge on the peasants for their counter-revolutionary struggle went hand in hand with Stalins other motives, namely, the liquidation of the kulak as a class, and to render the peasantry ultimately subservient to the will of Stalin. At the beginning of 1933, plans were drawn up for the mass deportation of Ukrainian peasantry. At first 3 million, then reduced to 2 million people, with the destinations being Kazakhstan and West Siberia. However, the estimated cost of such a massive project was put at 1.4 billion roubles, a substantial sum that the Politburo was unwilling to fork out.  [62]  It was around this time that Stalin began to see the mass starvat