One thing I've read a lot recently is that while the inaction and incompetence of the British in Ireland contributed, it is wrong to say that the Irish Famine was used as an intentional tool of genocide. This made me wonder how this can be compared and contrasted with the Holomodor of Ukraine. From what I understand many agree the Holomodor was a genocide, yet in both cases we seem to have mass starvation exacerbated by the state's refusal to accept foreign aid and incompetent handling of the situation.
What are the nitty-gritty details that separate these two famines, and how should they be viewed?
Challenging and inherently political discussion.
In my historical interpretation, neither were 100% on purpose genocides akin to the Nazi genocide of Jews and undesirables. BUT both were gross failures of the state at least partly, if not significantly, influenced by ethnic antipathy.
The Irish Famine is tricky because for hundreds of years Englishmen argued that the English should kill all of the Irish and replace them with English people while the Crown literally tried to create English plantations in Ireland and forcible kick the Irish off the land. BUT, these overt efforts ended by the mid-18thC and especially after the Act of Union. Irish people continued to be grossly exploited but the English did not want to kill them: they wanted to exploit their labor. They needed Irish farmers. Still, they sure as hell were not going to help the Irish if anything went wrong. Disaster hit and the potato blight killed over a million people because over a million people in Ireland were so damn poor that they literally lived off of potatoes. Britain had by then adopted "free market capitalism" and believed that the market would fix things. Though apologists love to point out that the British gave some aid to the Irish, it was a minuscule amount of aid and came along with moralizing and workhouses.
I am less well versed in the Holodomor, but I have some understanding. First: I am a staunch believer that the number of deaths is inflated for political reasons. Anti-Soviet propaganda. Nonetheless, clearly Soviet collectivization engendered a disaster. Undoubtedly, ethnic prejudice among an increasingly Russified Bolshevism (curiously led by a Georgian man) against Ukrainians. Again, ideology comes into play as, of course, collectivism was a feature of Stalin's (so-called) communist program.
In my personal interpretation, both events included ethnic tensions and prejudice and ideological commitments. I find that the Irish case seems to be more reflective of ethnic prejudice and the Holodomor more a result of Stalin's ideological commitments and out-spoken war against Kulaks [rich peasants who horded food during these famines] than a Bolshevik anti-Ukranian sentiment though that clearly was involved [important here to note that the Bolsheviks were, at least in their origins, EXTREMELY anti-racism and anti-imperialism and thus gave immediate independence to countries like Finland].