Comparative Analysis of Materials on the 1932–1933 Holodomor in Ukraine Published in the Newspaper «Manchester Guardian»

Abstract

Abstract. Objective of the Study. The aim of the article is a comparative analysis of the publications of the Manchester
Guardian from September 1933 that covered the events of the Holodomor in Ukraine. Particular attention is given to texts that confirmed the fact of the Holodomor and those that denied it.
Scientific Novelty. Despite the growing research interest in the representation of the Holodomor of 1932–1933 in Ukraine
within the English-language information space, a number of aspects of this topic remain underexplored. One of them is the coexistence of opposing interpretations of the tragedy within a single publication. The Manchester Guardian materials from September 1933 make it possible to trace how two different approaches to covering the tragic events in Ukraine functioned simultaneously. Some publications were based on concrete facts, eyewitness testimonies, statistical data, and references to specific localities. Others presented general assessments without clarifying sources and often reproduced key theses of Soviet propaganda. Some of these texts also included uncritical praise of the Soviet political and economic model.
Conclusions. In September 1933, the Manchester Guardian became one of the key English-language sources that documented the reaction of the European information space to the Holodomor in Ukraine. The publications that confirmed the existence of the famine were characterized by a high degree of factual accuracy. They contained concrete testimonies, statistical data, references to specific localities, and contextual details that made it possible to reconstruct the situation on the ground.
These materials provided a foundation for understanding the tragedy as a systemic phenomenon rather than an accidental food crisis. At the same time, the publications that questioned or directly denied the famine were based on generalizations formed during brief visits to the Soviet Union. Some of these texts reproduced the official rhetoric of Soviet propaganda, including claims of high harvest yields, peasant satisfaction, and positive developments in the country. Certain authors not only denied the existence of the crisis but also openly praised the achievements of the USSR, disregarding the humanitarian consequences of the policies being implemented