The Ukranian Holocaust

[chegitz guevara]

What part of famines are man-made don't you understand? The USSR had access to enough food to feed those people. Instead of curtailing the grain confiscations and importing food into the region, they continued pulling food out of the region. That's why millions died. Not because of a bad harvest.

[PRC-UTE]

What part of famines are man-made don't you understand? The USSR had access to enough food to feed those people. Instead of curtailing the grain confiscations and importing food into the region, they continued pulling food out of the region. That's why millions died. Not because of a bad harvest.

Your post on the last page was very good, but I would add that there was tremendous class struggle going on. Defeating the peasants was seen as essential by many many communists. Which was understandable given that the peasants were accused of hoarding grain while urban workers starved during the civil war.

[Kayser_Soso]

What part of famines are man-made don't you understand? The USSR had access to enough food to feed those people. Instead of curtailing the grain confiscations and importing food into the region, they continued pulling food out of the region. That's why millions died. Not because of a bad harvest.

What part of "all the evidence shows that the primary causes were natural" don't you understand? Grain procurements continued because collectives initially overreported their harvest data(which has since been uncovered thanks to the opening of the archives by Dr. Mark Tauger), and general confusion as to whether enough grain was being produced or whether people were hoarding it. Indeed, this is partially the fault of the government, but at the same time when it became clear that there was a serious problem in 1932, the procurement was suddenly lowered to its lowest of the decade, grain was returned to many collectives, and exports were reduced. Granted, perhaps they could have done more, such as cut all exports temporarily, but they did far more than the British and French colonial regimes did in response to contemporary famines in their African colonies. Of course that's not saying much because incidentally they did- nothing.

[chegitz guevara]

What part of "all the evidence shows that the primary causes were natural" don't you understand?

Primary causes are always natural. The difference between a bad harvest and a famine, however, is man-made decisions. The famine from 1932-34 happened for political reasons, not because there was a bad harvest. The USSR and Russia have had bad harvests in that region every decade since, and millions did not die (though in WWII, it would be hard to notice if they had). In other decades, the Soviets send food to the affected region. That's how a bad harvest does not become a famine.

When you combine bad-harvests with bad decisions, that's when millions died. Moscow had information that there was a problem, and for whatever reason, they did not respond for over a year. Instead of buying food on the world market, or simply shipping food from other regions, they kept confiscating grain. So millions died.

[Kayser_Soso]

Primary causes are always natural. The difference between a bad harvest and a famine, however, is man-made decisions. The famine from 1932-34 happened for political reasons, not because there was a bad harvest. The USSR and Russia have had bad harvests in that region every decade since, and millions did not die (though in WWII, it would be hard to notice if they had). In other decades, the Soviets send food to the affected region. That's how a bad harvest does not become a famine.

When you combine bad-harvests with bad decisions, that's when millions died. Moscow had information that there was a problem, and for whatever reason, they did not respond for over a year. Instead of buying food on the world market, or simply shipping food from other regions, they kept confiscating grain. So millions died.

Sorry Robert Conquest, but actually about the same amount died of famine in 1921-22, and that was caused by the Civil War. The excess deaths for the whole USSR in that period were 2.2 million, with 1.5 million in Ukraine. Obviously not all of those were due to famine either.

[narcomprom]

The name holodomor consists of the ukrainian words "holod", "famine" and "moryti" "to exhaust someone to death". The word means "exhausting to death with hunger" and an elderly Ukrainian woman I spoke to affirmed that the word was quite right. They actually went around, collecting forcibly the grain. They were starved deliberately, she claimes, it was a holodomor.

At the same time, like many people who survived fascist occupation, the woman was a staunch Stalinist. What she claimed in his defense was that he wasn't informed, and once he got the clue, he immediately punished the responsible local bureaucrats.

To me it's not that relevant wether the mistake was done in central or local authority. Back in 1934 it was nescessary to defend the first one as infallible but how is it relevant now?

[Kayser_Soso]

The name holodomor consists of the ukrainian words "holod", "famine" and "moryti" "to exhaust someone to death". The word means "exhausting to death with hunger" and an elderly Ukrainian woman I spoke to affirmed that the word was quite right. They actually went around, collecting forcibly the grain. They were starved deliberately, she claimes, it was a holodomor.

Nonsense. Of course the state procured grain, this was part of the system. The problem is that there was a market in agriculture and many peasants were attempting to speculate on grain. In other words, they were willing to starve the urban population because they wanted more money.

At the same time, like many people who survived fascist occupation, the woman was a staunch Stalinist. What she claimed in his defense was that he wasn't informed, and once he got the clue, he immediately punished the responsible local bureaucrats.

To me it's not that relevant wether the mistake was done in central or local authority. Back in 1934 it was nescessary to defend the first one as infallible but how is it relevant now?

Agreed.

[narcomprom]

Nonsense. Of course the state procured grain, this was part of the system. The problem is that there was a market in agriculture and many peasants were attempting to speculate on grain. In other words, they were willing to starve the urban population because they wanted more money.

That is another sombre part of soviet history, the liquidation of the kulaks as a class. I see now you believe it was the right thing to do, after all they were "willing to starve the urban population because they wanted more money".

Not even the Stalinist lady i knew would subscribe to that myth. They were a scapegoat and unlike with the peasants nobody would claim the liquidation was a natural reason.

You could claim it was a nescessesity but bluntly reiterating the witchhunter propaganda spouted through Pravda now is creepy, to say the least. Nobody was supposed to believe it even back then. It was there to intimidate.

[Woland]

That is another sombre part of soviet history, the liquidation of the kulaks as a class. I see now you believe it was the right thing to do, after all they were "willing to starve the urban population because they wanted more money".

Not even the Stalinist lady i knew would subscribe to that myth. They were a scapegoat and unlike with the peasants nobody would claim the liquidation was a natural reason.

You could claim it was a nescessesity but bluntly reiterating the witchhunter propaganda spouted through Pravda now is creepy, to say the least. Nobody was supposed to believe it even back then. It was there to intimidate.

We, kolkhoz workers, liquidate the kulak as a class.

[narcomprom]

We, kolkhoz workers, liquidate the kulak as a class.

There's something about Stalin in the middle you left out.

Other than that, creepy.

[Woland]

There's something about Stalin in the middle you left out.

Other than that, creepy.

Nothing about Stalin. It says ''on the basis of complete collectivization''.

Class struggle during the collectivization period was extremely vicious; hundreds of people, such as kolkhoz chairmen, were murdered by kulaks.

[Bright Banana Beard]

It doesn't look like Stalin to me. He too young to be Stalin.

[narcomprom]

Nothing about Stalin. It says ''on the basis of complete collectivization''.

i don't know that s-oy word. what does it say?

Class struggle during the collectivization period was extremely vicious; hundreds of people, such as kolkhoz chairmen, were murdered by kulaks.

there was a famous boy viciously killed by a gang of ruthless kulaks. what was his name again?

[Woland]

i don't know that s-oy word. what does it say?

Sploshnoy (сплошной). It means ''complete'', ''total'', or ''solid''.

there was a famous boy viciously killed by a gang of ruthless kulaks. what was his name again?

Pavlik Morozov.

[KC]

Pavlik Morozov.

God damn that is a freaky looking head.

[ComradeOm]

The USSR had access to enough food to feed those people

Source?

Instead of curtailing the grain confiscations and importing food into the region, they continued pulling food out of the region

You are surprised? The Ukraine was a designated Producer Region and was traditionally a net exporter of grain. If the grain collections in that region ceased then how would the Consumer Regions (net importers of grain) be fed?

It should be kept in mind that in the modern world, famines are the result of human agency, not nature

If by the "modern world" you mean industrial societies. Or at least peasant societies that are no longer reliant on subsistence farming. Neither of which accurately describes the Ukraine, or indeed wider Russia, during the early decades of the 20th C. Which is exactly why the famine was so devastating

[The Author]

The famine was due mainly to drought and hoarding by the kulak class. Also, at about the same time, the Dust Bowl was taking place in the United States. There was a global pattern of dry weather and poor growth seasons at the time.

[Ismail]

One of the main reasons the famine occurred was due to the lack of info the Soviets had on the actual conditions in the area. For example, Stalin's letters show him basically saying "What's the matter? Why aren't X regions producing grain?" Molotov's memoirs note that he did not hear about famines while in the Ukraine.

The Political Bureau believes that shortage of seed grain in Ukraine is many times worse than what was described in comrade Kosior’s telegram; therefore, the Political Bureau recommends the Central Committee of the Communist party of Ukraine to take all measures within its reach to prevent the threat of failing to sow [field crops] in Ukraine.

Signed: Secretary of the Central Committee – J. STALIN

There are also isolated cases of starvation, and even whole villages [starving]; however, this is only the result of bungling on the local level, deviations [from the party line], especially in regard of kolkhozes. All rumours about “famine” in Ukraine must be unconditionally rejected. The crucial help that was provided for Ukraine will give us the opportunity to eradicate all such outbreaks [of starvation].

Comrade Kosior!

You must read attached summaries. Judging by this information, it looks like the Soviet authority has ceased to exist in some areas of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Can this be true? Is the situation invillages in Ukraine this bad? Where are the operatives of the OGPU [Joint Main Political Directorate], what are they doing?

Could you verify this information and inform the Central Committee of
the All-Union Communist party about taken measures.

Sincerely, J. Stalin

[…] in his conversations with collective farmers, comrade Budyenny said: “Your predicament is that the authorities do not know that you have no bread, your “Ukrainian” and local leaders are to blame, they over-promised [to the Central authorities] all these ‘self-imposed extensions’ of quotas for grain procurement, and took your grain, and left you without bread”.

Etc. There's plenty more. The source is "Famine in the USSR: 1929-1934: New Documentary Evidence" (http://www.russianembassy.org.za/special/famine.html) Basically, its point is to note that the famine was unintentional and due to both natural and "man-made" (pressures, etc.) reasons. The latter being done due to lack of sufficient knowledge of the region.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Famine had 4 reasons:

1) The civil war that was going on on the countryside, following the collectivisation of agriculture, and especially after the counteroffensive of the kulaks. The kulaks burned their crops and fields, razed farms to the ground and slaughtered cattle.
According to Frederick Schuman, a tourist who travelled through Ukraine at the time, the amount of horses went down from 30 million in 1928 to less than 15 million in 1933, from 31 million cows to 20 million cows in 1933, from 147 goats and sheep to 50 million and from 20 million pigs to 12 million in 1933.

2) A massive drought that hit the Ukraine in 1930, 1931 and 1932. Michael Hroesjevski, one of the most important right-wing, nationalist Ukrainian writers, admitted that "a new year of drought hit just at the time when there was chaos on the countryside"

3) A typhus epidemic, this epidemic striked so hard that the man who came up wth the absurd number of 13 million Holodomor deaths, Horsley Gantt, even admitted that he wasn't sure what costed the most lifes: the hunger or typhus.

4) The fourth reason was the chaos on the contryside, caused by roerganisation of agriculture, mistakes that were made by lower cadres, extreme measures taken by fanatics, and violent reaction from the kulaks

The famine lasted about a year, no more. It costed about 1-2 million lifes.
And by the way, to claim it was aimed to destroy the Ukrainian people is absurd, as there was also famine in the Caucasus ad other parts of Russia itself.
And not to forget there was a massive and far greater famine everywhere in the capitalist world!

[Nolan]

Why was grain confiscated from the peasants and when was that stopped?