I'm going through "Revolutionary Russia 1891-1991" by Orlando Figes and he says:
"The worst-affected areas were in Ukraine, where peasants resistance to collectivization was particularly strong and the grain levies were excessively high. This has prompted some historians to argue that the "terror-famine" was a calculated policy of genocide against Ukrainians" (pg 155) and later "But no hard evidence has so far come to light of the regime's intention to kill millions through famine, let alone of a genocide campaign against the Ukrainians. Many parts of Ukraine were ethnically mixed. There is no data to suggest that there was a policy of taking more grain from Ukrainian villages than from the Russians or other ethnic groups in the famine area. And Ukraine was not the only region to suffer terribly from the famine, which was almost as bad in Kazakhstan."
How is this view seen by other historians? I know of Robert Conquest's "Harvest of Sorrows" but I do not remember much of the book.
I have discussed some of the historiography around whether to treat the Holodomor as a genocide or not here. There is debate among historians (most notably Stephen Wheatcroft and Michael Ellman) as to just how much intentionality was involved in the famine, but in general, Figes is in the historic mainstream when he states that the Ukrainian famine wasn't a genocide. It's worth noting that these historians are all looking at the strict legal definition of genocide, as opposed to a broader understanding of the term.