Part one, “Party, Peasants and Nation,” discusses the relationship between the Communist Party, the peasantry, and the concept of nation and how these relationships shifted and transformed. Conquest beings this section by examining views held among Marxist-Leninist views of the peasantry and the role it would play in the development of socialism. The common view held by Russian communist was one of antipathy and contempt. Conquest is critical of this as he links it to Lenin’s ‘ill-supported ‘class’ analysis” and his inability clearly define middle and poor peasants. It is important that Conquest explain these notions that led to a poor understanding of the peasant class, as it explains why Soviet leadership later pursued such poorly planned and ineffective policies in the countryside, and he is very critical of this issue. Conquest also tackles the issue of Ukrainian national identity and the role of nationalism in Russia-Ukraine relations during the 1920s and the context it creates for the subsequent famine. This portion of part one exposes the audience to political situation between Russia and Ukraine that would later fuel Stalin’s perception of resistance in Ukraine. A strength of this section is the inclusion of detailed Party history to provide insight into how different factions within the Party viewed the issue of collectivization in the countryside. Part one demonstrates how a …show more content…
However, by explaining this history, Naimark believes that there has always been flexibility in the literature defined genocide and this, in his view, is why Stalinist violence can still be defined as genocide. In addition to a standard explanation of how Ralph Lemkin created the term, Naimark explains that even when he first defined the “barbarism,” he included social and political groups but he later dropped them. Naimark then goes on to explain how political motives shaped early post-war Lemkin’s efforts to have genocide acknowledged as a term and as a crime and how they shaped the Genocide convention. Unlike other monographic books that provide a general explanation of the term genocide, this chapter further examines the history of the term and how the post-war situation influenced the definition of genocide. This chapter also addresses how the United States, Soviet Union, and other states feared that the inclusion of political groups and culture in the definition as protected groups would lead to accusations of genocide against them and how that influenced the convention. The important take away from this chapter is that political groups had long been considered in defining and discussing genocide even if the UN did not formally include them in the